Independent shcools and tax relief

As I said previously, reports are coming out that the prestigious private schools are saying it is increasingly overseas financiers and business magnates who are buying places for their children in their schools. There are significantly fewer parents in this country would can afford the higher fees that the good quality schools can now attract.

£700 million of tax relief is a pretty large sum of money that could be used within the state system rather than to subsidise oligarchs.

Is not are ! (just shows I went to a bog standard primary).

gillbob referring to your previous comment - maybe they wouldn't all choose it, but I did several times. DBH kept changing jobs, and as far as possible we did keep the children in the schools he taught at. However if I, or the children, didn't like those schools, and if the local primaries were good, then they went to those.

The smaller schools were the ones who seemed to be suffering in many ways. They didn't bring in enough funds to bring in good teachers and often looked shabby. Many were very old-fashioned and seemed rather inflexible. No-one wants to send their child to a school that makes you come away feeling depressed. However those were few and far between, and were not the ones DBH was teaching at - they were the ones appropriate to the age group of the children at the time. Whenever DD aged 16 was out of line, all I had to do was threaten to send her away from her lovely mixed state grammar school to the prison college for naice young ladies instead!

Most people do not have any choice which school their children attend though janerowena they either go to the local school if there is a place or they go to the next nearest, if the local school happens to be oversubscribed.

I would send my DGC to private school if I had the money as their local school, although improving of recent, is really not very good and they are very bright children.

As I said earlier I think independant schools should be looked at in exactly the same way as any other service you pay for in order to get better/priviledged treatment. After all isn't that mainly why people choose to use them?

I agree with you, and I know I have been very lucky. I also agree re the taxes. What I tried to say, very badly, is that some smaller schools make so little money that I doubt it will affect their tax bills, but then maybe that depends on their accountants. Profits made by private schools don't go to nameless investors, they are all ploughed back into the schools. If they went the way of say, football clubs, then we would have reason to worry. I can just imagine a Russian oligarch setting his eye on Eton.

I don't mind people buying in to a service that they think is superior; I just don't think that the organisations should be treated favourably for tax purposes by being classified as a charity. A large proportion on their pupils are from rich overseas families now - what is charitable about that?

DBH's school justifies that because of all the free places it gives out, and bursaries it awards to families where the parent dies while the children are still at school.

Local schools are told to a certain amount of places to children willing to sit the same entrance exam as the children already at the school. If they pass, they get a place. Lots of schools don't agree with the scheme so don't even tell the parents that it is available.

Like gillybob I would favour my grandson going to a private school. He is lucky to go to a very good primary school but what happens after that is all too much of a lottery these days. I don't think having wonderful facilities, shared or not, amounts to a hill of beans. We had a local comprehensive which was failing. They rebuilt it with state of the art facilities - computer and science labs, workshops, sports facilities and a gym - it is still failing. Taking charismatic teachers from private schools and 'lending' them state schools will only work if pupils are responsive to education and so many of them these days don't seem to be. It would probably be better to do it the other way round where they would benefit from the ethos that exists in many private schools. There are community schemes where this happens I understand and they seem have some success.

I deeply resent the statements about private (public) schools lending their superior teachers to the sate sector. In this area, we have a mix of state comp, state grammar, and independent schools and with few exceptions it is generally accepted that the independent schools ( at 11+ age) are generally full of 'rich but dim', children whose parents cannot bear the thought of their children attending the local comprehensives. The standards of teaching are often poor and some of the teachers are frankly atrocious. Agreed that some of the independent sector have lovely playing fields and such, but it is the standard of teaching that is paramount. Sorry to sound as if I am judging children by their intelligence, but I get really riled when friends tell me proudly that their child has just passed an entrance exam to a fee paying school, the only entrance exam as far as I can see is the parental bank balance. Charitable status is a nonsense. Rant over for now.

I agree GillT57 - there are many good teachers in the state sector and my only experience of a private school teacher was that she was totally uninspiring.

The entrance exam to the private school in our area is very rigorous. Those that get through aren't necessarily more intelligent but they have often come from "feeder" prep schools or have had private tuition.

If you have experience of only one private school teacher Eloethan then perhaps she was not typical. They can't all be like her as the private/public schools would not consistently get better results than most state schools.
I thought private and state schools did share facilities, teachers etc and that many have good relationships with each other. I would have thought that encouragement not state legislation and threats would be the best way forward to further this cause.

it is generally accepted that the independent schools ( at 11+ age) are generally full of 'rich but dim', children whose parents cannot bear the thought of their children attending the local comprehensives
Don't the pupils have to pass an entrance examination to be able to go to an independent school? Can't be that dim then, surely, but it could go some way to explaining why their results are better.
If the local comprehensive is dire and they can afford to pay for something better then who can blame them?

The parents of independent school children will also be paying tax (unless a few are tax dodgers!) which helps fund the state education system from which they derive no benefit.
Were these children to suddenly start attending state schools then the system would collapse.

Like gillybob and greyduster I would love my DGDs to go to our local independent school when they are old enough, but none of us will be able to afford it anyway.

As others have said, with pupils being selected through entrance examinations, better facilities and smaller classes, it isn't surprising that private schools yield better results. It takes a gifted teacher to keep the attention of a largish class of pupils of varying abilities and backgrounds, and I think there are probably more of these in the state system than we are aware of.

Some private and state schools do share resources but there is criticism that many do nothing or the absolute minimum , such as allowing limited use of their sports fields or swimming pools.

Children don't necessarily have to be that clever to pass an entrance exam. They just need to be properly prepared to pass it, through attending "feeder" prep schools that know what will be required in the entrance examination and "teach to test", and/or through private tuition. I think it is different for children who are applying for scholarships - their marks have to be well above average.

Other countries that have excellent educational standards, such as Sweden and Finland, have only a few fee-paying schools. Germany, which reputedly has a very good education system, only had 4.8% of private schools. Since austerity, this has risen to 7.7% as cost-cutting measures have negatively affected state schools. It will be interesting to see whether these changes benefit the country as a whole or whether it reduces the educational attainment of the majority of young people.

I think people should care about what happens to all children - not just their own - and a system that reinforces class division and perpetuates a system where privilege often takes precedence over true potential is ultimately no good for anyone.

I agree that we should be doing as much as we can for all children, but we should not expect them all to reach the same ultimate goals as they will vary so widely in ability, aptitude and talent - all of which we, as a society, will need.

I think that as parents, all we can ever do is the best we can.

Totally agree rosequartz and janerowena but I do find it sad when children are not able to reach their full potential due to poor teaching and bad schools. I have slated my DGC's school in the past. It is not a good school and had a very bad 2013 Ofsted report. But it seemed to be improving of late although the problem with teachers absences remains an issue. Eldest DGD (8) is right in the middle of her Titanic project (which she is thoroughly enjoying) and her class teacher has been (typically) off for two weeks now. 4 different supply teachers in that time. It's really not fair.

Rosequartz I agree that all children should have the same opportunities and chances, but it is unrealistic to expect all to achieve the same, we are all different. I realise that I have what amounts to a prejudice against fee paying schools, and I also appreciate that it is very easy for me to stick to my principles when I live in an area with excellent state schools, school which often have superior academic results to the fee paying ones. I also know that if more and more middle class parents opt out of the state system then we are going to end up with a distinctly two tier system if achievement which will perpetuate the split in society. However, I understand that there are some poor and uninspiring teachers and have come across them at my childrens' schools. But, getting back to the original point, I dont think that fee paying schools ( many of the London ones are full of the children of Russian oligarchs) should not have tax relief.

Now I'm confused...

No Russian oligarchs at DBH's school. In fact only one Russian girl in his whole year, and they certainly aren't oligarchs. They sent her over to have a quieter lifestyle away from the pressures of being a girl in Russia at the moment (very sexist, despite years of making women do heavy and equal work) and really struggle to keep her over here. She speaks of it very openly.

I was referring to schools in London really, like the property there it has been distorted by Russian money, and I fail to see why schools which charge such huge amounts of money should receive tax relief from my pocket. My pocket is already stretched by trying to keep my teenagers fed at university while trying to save a little money for our retirement!

'I dont think that fee paying schools ( many of the London ones are full of the children of Russian oligarchs) should not have tax relief.'

That was what confused me! No, I entirely agree with you. I think each should be judged separately, somehow.

GillT57 Rosequartz I agree that all children should have the same opportunities and chances, but it is unrealistic to expect all to achieve the same, we are all different

I thought that was exactly what I said:

I agree that we should be doing as much as we can for all children, but we should not expect them all to reach the same ultimate goals as they will vary so widely in ability, aptitude and talent - all of which we, as a society, will need.

Glad we agree!

It really annoys me when people like Tristram Hunt are criticised for complaining about tax breaks for private schools as they went to such schools themselves. Mr Hunt's parents were responsible for deciding where he should be educated. I too went to a fee-paying school as that was what my parents decided, but our DC went to the local schools and all got good Highers and got into the university course they wanted. The DGC are also all at state schools and seem to be happy and doing well. Why can't state schools get tax relief too?

Good post wheniwasyourage!

I have a number of friends who went to private day or boarding schools. No doubt their education helped them to achieve, as they all have. None of them continued the family tradition, all their children went to local schools. Those children achieved well academically, and feel fortunate not to have experienced the difficult time their parents had, especially those who went to boarding schools.

The bottom line as far as I am concerned is that we are all entitled to do what we think is best for our children, and shouldn't necessarily be criticised for our school choices, but neither should we receive a subsidy from others. To put it simply: if I didn't like my local school and opted for a independent school, you the tax payer would help to pay for that through tax subsidies due to charitable status. Now, if I chose to improve my childrens' education by moving into the catchment area for a better school would you, the tax payer, be prepared to help me financially, maybe pay my stamp duty? Seems ridiculous when put like that, but I dont think people who perhaps cannot afford to pay for their childrens' education, even if they did want to, should then have to pay for the education of others who can afford it.

That still doesn't compensate for the fact that the tax payer isn't having to pay out for the education of, let's say 7%, of children.

Or all the tax payers who don't have children, yet who still have to pay for schools through their taxes. Including the vast majority of parents who won't receive those benefits for themselves.