ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
If you can afford private education do you have a moral obligation to privately educate?(31 Posts)
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
of course it is not a moral obligation. You simply have a choice - which most people do not have. Same with NHS and private health insurance.
You can always try a private school and if you think it isn't worth it, move into the state sector; or v.v. try a state school with the comforting knowledge that if it doesn't prove satisfactory, you do have the option of paying for a private school education.
Of COURSE not!
Plenty of people can afford to privately educate but choose not to because they do not like the system. Of course, as tax payers, they are entitled to use their local state school if they wish to.
It is totally your choice whether you send your child to state or private.
If you can afford private, you are therefore paying your taxes to fund state schools.
Personally if I could afford private I would send my children to a private school.
I can (just) afford to educate privately, I was educated privately but my children are state educated. I prefer state education but I think as long as private education exists there is no incentive at the 'top' of society to do anything to provide a decent state education to all. I don't see why my children should be herded into a ghetto just because we earn enough to pay for it.
'afford' is subjective anyway. What about people who could afford it if they dropped the holiday and the car and the extra curricular activities. What about the people who could afford it if they do 10 hours of overtime every week or took an evening job in addition to their 9-5. Should we all be obliged to work ourselves into the ground and pour the money into private schools so we aren't taking a state place?
Of course not! It's just another ridiculous excuse used by some parents to justify their decision to use private schools.
Of course there is no moral obligation. That is daft.
Erm, no, how bizarre. If you've already paid in once, why should you be obliged to pay in again unless you want to . My dc go to private school, but if I wanted to use the failing state school in my catchment then I would. If there was a better school I'd use it and save my cash.
Parents interested in education contribute to good state schools. If they want to make a financial contribution then a few donations to the library/PTA/building fund go a long way.
'an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong; "he did it out of a feeling of moral obligation".'
That would be a severe indictment of the state system, attended by 93% of children in the country!
There are very very few people who can afford to educate their dcs privately without it having some effect on their way of life. The question of affordability is subjective. There is a lot of other expenditure that I forego in order to have the money to pay school fees. Some of the things that I don't have others view as a necessity (eg I am the only person I know who doesn't have Sky or cable tv - not that not having it is any kind of loss imvho).
It's a funny idea. It would mean that in very affluent areas no children would go to the local state school.
I am exercising my moral duty not to use up private school places even though I could potentially afford it, by sending mine to state school.
bisjo - you must have a rather limited circle of friends if you are the only person you know who doesn't have Sky or cable TV!
As already pointed out, one person's moral obligation to pay private school fees is another person's moral outrage that such behaviour encourages the state and the taxpayer to think they are spending enough on state education when there aren't even enough state school places to go round.
rabbit you may be right but they cover a broad spectrum of income, jobs and social class. I just have no wish to have a satellite dish on my house and our road cannot have cable and I don't watch enough tv to justify the cost (seems expensive to me).
Rather than it being an excuse to justify a decision to go private, I assumed the poster on the other thread was saying it in a 'well bugger off private and let the rest of us have the place' way.
As I said on the other thread to the OP, if you pay your taxes, you are entitled to a place in a state school and no way should you feel bad even if you can afford to go private!
No, of course not.
And sadly, the odds are that the place at teh outstanding school will not go to a disadvantaged four year old from a low income family, but some other middle class child marginally outside the current effective catchment. That's what property prices tend to do.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
See, now, I see it totally differently. Round my way there are either unbelievably good grammars, or shit secondary moderns. No in between in the state sector. And I think it absolutely appalling that parents spend a fortune at the primary level on either independent schools or on tutors to grab the places at the grammar. We have a private school here where the ONLY selling point for the school is a 92-95% success rate in getting the kids to grammar. It is quite clearly morally abhorrent that some children are tutored to within an inch of their lives so that they can nick the spaces of more clever children who don't have the same advantage.
So, the moral obligation is whether or not you should be depriving a more able child of their educational opportunities by dint of being able to buy an unfair advantage. Of course not. Therefore by definition you do have a moral obligation to let the more able child take the place. The difficulty is that of dont know which child is more able. and unless your child is extraordinarily bright, you can only assume that you've bought yourself an unfair advantage and that's morally crap.
And I say all of that as a mum with kids in the private sector.
I think there's a moral obligation not to!
I could possibly afford to send Dd private if I thought it was a worthwhile use of our money but I don't. I strongly believe that she should go to our local school. I have made no effort at all to live near an especially good one either. I just live where I've lived for 10 years before dc were even in prospect.
I think a school should be for everyone in the local community and then everyone will buy into making it a good place. I am a governor at our school and I hope in that way I'm giving some of my time and expertise to improve it. Other people do PTA or listen to reading or help out in other ways and there's a lovely friendly atmosphere and a very diverse school community.
I would imagine that some other folk at our school could afford to go private if they really wanted to (I don't know any millionaires but there are others with solid middle class jobs) but I would be sad if they did as it would weaken the school.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Don't be ridiculous. That's snobbery talking not sense. Don't mix with the oiks if u don't need to. Can do wealthy kids good to see mix of people. It's a very much horses for courses decision but please, send kids because u want to and it's best for ur specific kids. No other reasons!
Anyone who can afford private school (or has a child bright enough to get a cheap place) has a moral obligation to try to put them thru state school to keep the general standard of state schools up which benefits everyone in society. To keep more of us, especially the relatively more privileged, more invested in the quality of the state education sector. And the better state education, the better for all of society.
So the case is strongly in opposition to OP's hypothesis.
I sent DS to private school for a while, btw, it was what he needed (higher pastoral support than state). I am not one to go around living my life as a moral example to others. But if I did...
Obviously you pay your taxes so have an entitlement to state education
NO YOU DO NOT.
No one should pay taxes so that they can get something back personally for them and only them. That is not the purpose of taxation.
The point of taxation is to have a general environment that benefits us all. ALL. I shudder to think what quality of life I would have if few people around me had access to a decent education & decent medical care, good policing, etc.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.