Private school fees (merged)

Soubrette

loreleicat wrote:

What really annoys me is that I am funding state education which failed to educate my children. I think that each child should have the state education funding attached to them as an amount you can port to whatever registered institution you want. Feel very ripped off.

I actually think of some of my taxes as going towards paying off the cost of my state education - not that they are paying for today's children.

As an aside, I wish the government could set something up so that everytime we used state funded things such as NHS, streetlamps etc we were billed and every time we payed taxes (all taxes including VAT) we were credited and at the end of every year we were all sent a statement for information :cool:

Impossible I know but it would be good for some people to see how expensive they are actually are

Sou

devils_advocate

backtomum wrote: »

So you want the state to subsidise private education! That's a classic!

The OP is not asking for the state to subsidise private education.

The most important factor in a child's educatuion is the choice of school, be it state or private. You have to choose a school which is best for your child, as there is really no one size fits all. I know of one mother with 4 kids, all of whom go to different schools, for a variety of reasons. It's a logistical nightmare for her, but she does it cheerfully as she feels its best for her kids.

In saying this I also do not believe that private is better than state. There are some priavate schools I know of where I would not like to send my kids, even if they were free.

So if I send my kids to state school, the state pays. If I send them to Bog Pond Grammar, or to Snob Hill Comprehensive, the state still pays. What's so wrong in sending them to St. Cuthbbert's College, and me paying the extra (if any) over what the state would have paid to fund the Comprehensive or the grammar schools?

Whats so wrong with the state subsidising education?

bestpud

devils_advocate wrote: »

The OP is not asking for the state to subsidise private education.

The most important factor in a child's educatuion is the choice of school, be it state or private. You have to choose a school which is best for your child, as there is really no one size fits all. I know of one mother with 4 kids, all of whom go to different schools, for a variety of reasons. It's a logistical nightmare for her, but she does it cheerfully as she feels its best for her kids.

In saying this I also do not believe that private is better than state. There are some priavate schools I know of where I would not like to send my kids, even if they were free.

So if I send my kids to state school, the state pays. If I send them to Bog Pond Grammar, or to Snob Hill Comprehensive, the state still pays. What's so wrong in sending them to St. Cuthbbert's College, and me paying the extra (if any) over what the state would have paid to fund the Comprehensive or the grammar schools?

Whats so wrong with the state subsidising education?

Nobody suggested the OP did say private education should be subsidised. It was an other poster bemoaning the cost of private education and saying they felt hard done by because they pay taxes and the state system had failed their child.

Fwiw, there are many people who do not have a choice, for various reasons, but mostly it comes down to financial circumstances. It is wrong for the state to subsidise private education because private education is a choice, not a necessity. Next, people will be suggesting the NHS funds private healthcare for those that choose it.

The poster said they have gone without mp3 players and holidays to fund their child's education. Good for them - no problems with that at all.

But they want the govt to take money out of the state system to fund their choice and presumably allow them to go on holiday while those who could not afford private fees at all are left with a less funded state system than they have now.

This poster pointed out that the state system had failed their child. Well, it has failed many others too, but some have to stick with it.

How can it be right to say those left in the state system should face further funding cuts so the ones that choose to leave it can afford more luxuries?

HappySad

State or private does not matter as long as the school is good for your child. A good school can make the difference to how your child's future [pans out so you want to do your upmost to get them into the best that you can. My son goes to a private nursery and we choose it because it meet our requirements more than the other private/state nurseries.

cheepskate_2

bestpud wrote: »

. It is wrong for the state to subsidise private education because private education is a choice, not a necessity.

THey would fund it exactly like they do nursery, They fund private nursery, which is not a necessity, Is any nursery a necessity?

State or private does not matter as long as the school is good for your child (quote). This is all that matters. Unfortunatly is not open to everyone to get the choice of school, for their child. Not everyone can move house to get the best catchment area or pay the school fees to send to independant school.

THIS is the unfair bit where because of your parents income/education this can then dictate how well an education your child gets. This cycle is replicated generation after generation.

alm721

What really annoys me is that I am funding state education which failed to educate my children. I think that each child should have the state education funding attached to them as an amount you can port to whatever registered institution you want. Feel very ripped off.[/quote]

From another point of view. If each child had the funding attached to them rather then the school then wouldn't more parents have a choice about whether to stay in state or go private? This may be a good thing? TBH my daughter is at private school. She gets no subsidy as the school doesn't give them anymore, only bursaries if you say loose your job and then only for a limited time. I send her there as I want her to have every oppotunity to achieve what she is capable of. Is this fair, of course not. The whole system is wrong. Does it make me a hypocrit-yes it does, but I can live with that if it means I'm doing the best for her.

I find it is expensive but not much more than many 'poorer' familys will spend on cigarettes, alcohol, nights out etc. I know lots of people who look astounded if they know my daughter goes to private school and then happily say how much their latest car / holiday / new dress cost.

That said there are many private schools that I would not spend the money sending her too, and her class aldo has 24 kids in so not always smaller class sizes. The difference is those 24 kids generally sit down, behave and work hard, whereas the class of 24 in state schools may be very different.

As an aside I genuinely do not believe that she gets better teaching or facilities (in general) what she does get is a chance to learn without a riot going on as private schools usually do not have the same number of 'difficult kids' and the vast majority of the parents want their kids to do well and so are supportive. This sadly in not the case in many state schools.

devils_advocate

bestpud wrote: »

Nobody suggested the OP did say private education should be subsidised. It was an other poster bemoaning the cost of private education and saying they felt hard done by because they pay taxes and the state system had failed their child.

Fwiw, there are many people who do not have a choice, for various reasons, but mostly it comes down to financial circumstances. It is wrong for the state to subsidise private education because private education is a choice, not a necessity. Next, people will be suggesting the NHS funds private healthcare for those that choose it.

The poster said they have gone without mp3 players and holidays to fund their child's education. Good for them - no problems with that at all.

But they want the govt to take money out of the state system to fund their choice and presumably allow them to go on holiday while those who could not afford private fees at all are left with a less funded state system than they have now.

This poster pointed out that the state system had failed their child. Well, it has failed many others too, but some have to stick with it.

How can it be right to say those left in the state system should face further funding cuts so the ones that choose to leave it can afford more luxuries?

The basis of your argument seems to be that there is a fixed pot of money that the government can or will spend on education. Therefore if a privately educated pupil gets some of this money to pay for their education, this will take money away from the others in state funded education.

This isn’t true, because the government has to fund education for all who are eligible for it, and if all the pupils who are privately educated transferred into the state sector, the additional cost to the government would be horrendous.

If the per head cash that the government would pay to educate the child from private sector schools were available to contribute towards the costs of private schools, and the same sum could be used by any parent of any child to use at any school, we would have a far less divisive educational system.

You are correct to say that the state system has failed many people. But you say that they have to stick with it. Presumably this is because those parents can’t afford the private school fees. However, if there was some form of voucher system, this is putting the private sector within reach of so many more parents, if they wish to use it.

From what the OP has said (and yes it is the OP this time – sorry!) she would potentially benefit from a voucher system.

I can’t agree with your statement that “It is wrong for the state to subsidise private education because private education is a choice, not a necessity.” Are there any other reasons, apart from your assertion that if the state does fund private education, it will take money away from state education? If what you say is correct, and there is only a fixed pot of money, why should it be right that if my kids are educated at private school, the money that the government should be spending on their education is actually going to benefit other children?

alm721

devils_advocate wrote: »

The basis of your argument seems to be that there is a fixed pot of money that the government can or will spend on education. Therefore if a privately educated pupil gets some of this money to pay for their education, this will take money away from the others in state funded education.

This isn’t true, because the government has to fund education for all who are eligible for it, and if all the pupils who are privately educated transferred into the state sector, the additional cost to the government would be horrendous.

If the per head cash that the government would pay to educate the child from private sector schools were available to contribute towards the costs of private schools, and the same sum could be used by any parent of any child to use at any school, we would have a far less divisive educational system.

This is what I was trying to get at but you put it much more eloquently!;)

bestpud

It would be unfair for the government to subsidise private education because it will only benefit those who can afford to send their children to a private school anyway and a few more slightly lower down the socio-economic ladder.

It won't make education less divisive at all. It will simply increase the number of middle class pupils being privately educated.

Now, if the amounts given were linked with ability to pay, that would be a fairer system. Because what you are proposing is not going to help the majority of working class families ie those who tend to end up in the worst state schools already but have little choice in the matter.

Re the govt having to fund those eligible: we are not talking about the privately educated moving to state education - that ain't going to happen - we all know that. If it is not the case that there is a set figure for each eligible child, then how are they going to give this money to the families? Where is it going to come from then? I can't see them leaving the education funding intact and getting it from the road fund pot, can you?

Everybody wants to do the best for their child, even us fag smoking, booze swigging poor parents!!! :mad: I do neither, I might add and never have! I can assure you that parental love is just as strong 'down here'!

You can afford to send you children to private school and good on you for doing so if you feel it is better for your child. I have no issue with that at all - that's the way it is. But it is a bit cheeky to expect the state to fund that choice.

devils_advocate

bestpud wrote: »

Now, if the amounts given were linked with ability to pay, that would be a fairer system. Because what you are proposing is not going to help the majority of working class families ie those who tend to end up in the worst state schools already but have little choice in the matter.

So now we see where you’re really coming from, Bestpud. You say that it’s far fairer that education should be linked with ability to pay. So anyone who can pay for it has no choice but to pay for it! There I am, paying tax at the same rates as you, whilst you expect me to pay for the education of my own kids, and contribute through my tax bill for the education of yours as well!

I don’t know where you get your information from that privately educated kids aren’t going to move to state education. I would respectfully suggest that you get yourself involved with the education system and see the number of drop outs per year – at my kids private primary, about 30% of the leavers on average go to state schools. This is not an unusual percentage amongst other schools in the area either. The playground gossip is that the primary reason is cash.

So of course these parents are going to try to get their kids in to the better state schools. They’re going to pay for the educational consultants to give them reasons to put on application forms, when they live in the wrong catchment area. And they’re going to get the kids privately tutored to get them through any grammar school exams. So this one size fits all system which you advocate is actually going to disadvantage the working class children, whose parents don’t know how to manipulate the system. These poorer kids are being excluded from the better schools, because the middle class parents can’t afford to pay the full fees for private schooling.

A voucher system levels the playing field for all. As has already been pointed out, we already have vouchers for nursery education. I can’t recall having seen any press comment that this is limited in its benefits to those higher up the socio economic ladder! In fact, it enables a better choice for all parents. Because the majority or all the cost of nursery education is covered by the voucher, if they are unhappy with the nursery itself, they can move their child. As nurseries have to compete for parents, they’re encouraged to do well for the kids and satisfy the parents, as if too many parents leave, there’s no money to stay in business, or they’re closed by the LEA because of small pupil numbers.

Finally, bestpud, I don’t think that it’s cheeky for the state to fund where I send my children to be educated. I’m not looking for any special privileges for my kids, that the kids next door can’t get. That would be discrimination, and abhorrent. What is bad is where my kids are treated differently by the state. The feelings of elitism (and the rest!) against private schools are actually cultivated by the government’s refusal to have a level playing field.


p.s. If you think that my arguments in favour of vouchers are too far to the right to be palatable, can I suggest you read the attached on “Bloggers4Labour”
http://www.bloggers4labour.org/2007/05/education-vouchers.jsp