Independent shcools and tax relief

There's such an atmosphere of it not being cool to work hard and do well at so many state schools, though. By taking children out of that environment they just get on with it, because they got told off far more by their parents if they don't do well. All that wasted money. There's also far less going off sick and virtually no truancy.

We nearly bankrupted ourselves to keep DS (short-term memory loss but brilliant) at his schools. If his fees had been any higher at any point I suspect we would have had to give up. We had to borrow money quite a few times. We were by no means the only ones. State schools are just too big and ungainly now, DS would have fallen by the wayside and been dismissed as lazy - at one state school they refused to believe he had a memory problem and accused him of lying. They hadn't bothered to read his assessment sheet and he kept ending up in detention, being punished for having a bad memory. That's the sort of thing that forces people like us on only a teacher's salary to do their best in any way possible. Yes, we were lucky in that we were able to borrow on our mortgage and from family, but we still have to pay it back.

jane I think perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. The school that you attended was, as you say, set up for children who had experienced the death of a parent. In the past, schools set up by certain trade associations were, I believe, quite common, as were housing "villages" for retired people.

I don't believe mega-rich people are sending their children to the sort of school to which you refer. They are going to the very expensive schools which have fantastic facilities and where the vast majority of pupils come from very privileged backgrounds.

Despite the fact that these schools are in effect very successful businesses, they are still treated as charities. Many of them do not fulfil their obligation to form meaningful relationships with state schools. My view is that it is impossible to properly monitor this and it would make more sense to just abolish charitable status.

As another poster said, some small private schools are actually substantially inferior to state schools. These ineffective schools benefit neither their pupils nor the country. In such cases, the only people to benefit from the tax relief is the owners.

I went to a secondary modern school in Romford, a fairly "working class" area. Even though the general feeling at that time was that nothing much could be expected of 11+ failures, it was a happy, well managed school and we too were taught to show consideration to other people and to contribute to our own community as well as support overseas charities. I can't see why targets in state schools should prevent such values being promoted - though I agree the excessive concentration on targets is depressing.

Since there seems to be general agreement that there are just as many good teachers to be found in state schools as in private schools, I think it might be more constructive to campaign for facilities in state schools to be improved to the standard of the best private ones.
Perhaps if so many of the state school playing fields hadn't been sold off, the comparison wouldn't be being made.

I consider myself very fortunate to have had a place at a school which was founded as a charity for the orphaned children of Warehousemen and Clerks in Manchester. When I was there in the sixties, it was a direct grant school and 60% of the places were funded by local authorities. Most of the pupils. like me. were from very ordinary backgrounds, but the ethos of the school was such that no one cared what your background was. There was a liberal atmosphere, we were expected to aspire to the values of the Manchester Guardian and one of the highlights of my sixth form years was Brian Redhead coming to speak to us.
Direct grant schools and the later assisted places scheme were abolished and the school now provides bursaries, but most pupils are fee-paying.
Recently I went to the annual dinner for old pupils, and the headteacher in her after dinner speech said that the aim of the school was to provide a values-based education.
I would like to think that state schools do the same, but wonder whether this is possible given the target-based culture which seems to prevail now.

janerowena If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, then those who have private health insurance should not pay as much tax because they're not using the NHS, or compensation should be available to people who don't commute by train, who don't have children, etc., etc. There are things that I would prefer not to pay for through my taxes - the monarchy, defence spending, etc., but we can't just pick out the bits we want to pay for.

Private education reinforces the divisions in society and makes it less cohesive. For that reason I believe, it should not be encouraged by the state by being given charitable status.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Glad we agree!

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.

'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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.