Advanced search

Oh, this is a juicy one - council subsidising fee-payers

(16 Posts)
UnquietDad Thu 20-Aug-09 14:56:02

here it be

"A Tory council has plans to subsidise private school places for parents who have lost their jobs. Bromley is considering diverting money from its education budget to fund the places, which cost an average of £12,000 a year, for families struggling to pay fees."

My heart bleeds.

mimsum Thu 20-Aug-09 15:00:04

presumably because it's easier that way than finding them state school places ... certainly way cheaper than building new schools which is what they'd have to do if all the kids in independent schools suddenly landed on the state system

RustyBear Thu 20-Aug-09 15:04:25

Not going to happen, apparently

AMumInScotland Thu 20-Aug-09 15:06:25

I saw the BBC version - I think they only said they would "consider it", then decided not to.

UnquietDad Thu 20-Aug-09 15:28:54

That'll teach me to post a story that happened while I was on holiday!

UnquietDad Thu 20-Aug-09 16:19:00

mimsum's interpretation is an amusingly altruistic one. Of course they wanted to do it to avoid the state schools being "swamped". It's nothing to do with a Tory council "looking after their own" at all...

OtterInaSkoda Thu 20-Aug-09 16:21:23

Drat! I was ready to rant! grin

mrz Thu 20-Aug-09 16:31:29

We had a child on our waiting list last year and the LA said if they couldn't find her a place they would be forced to pay for private education so it isn't unheard of (Labour controlled council)

mimsum Thu 20-Aug-09 17:04:11

oh fgs UQD as mrz says it isn't unheard of, is a practical short-term solution and I bet you anything the vast majority of Tory councillors send their kids to state school like 93% of the population hmm

UnquietDad Thu 20-Aug-09 17:08:18

I've never heard of it happening. But then, in most parts of the country, mine included, it doesn't need to, as there's always a school somewhere in the authority with spare spaces. And you can usually see why that is.

iceagethree Thu 20-Aug-09 17:11:12

don't nhs patients get private care paid for if they need it and it can't be supplied?

iceagethree Thu 20-Aug-09 17:11:50

i mean, if state care can't supply their needs

duh..excuse please

GrimmaTheNome Thu 20-Aug-09 17:18:48

If the idea was that by spending an amount similar to what would have to be spent anyway if the child had to move to a state school, then I'm not sure why it should be objectionable. The choice of school wasn't up to the child; if there's a way to avoid disruption of its education which costs the taxpayer the same then it seems rather inhumane not to consider it.

mrz Thu 20-Aug-09 17:54:09

If the child had been given a place in my class another teacher would have had to be employed which would cost a great deal more than the £12000 mentioned. If she had to be transported to the nearest school with a place it would also have cost far more - taxi plus wage of a chaperone. As it was the family moved to an area with surplus places (nearly 30 miles away)

GrimmaTheNome Thu 20-Aug-09 17:59:07

Just to note the proposed subsidy wasn't 12 K anyway, it was 4.7 which is (I think) much nearer the normal capitation.

trickerg Thu 20-Aug-09 19:12:11

Our council prefers to pay taxi fares. A lot of children who get through to grammar on appeal are shipped miles from home to attend grammar schools out of area. With going on for 1000 appeals per year, which take place after local grammar places have been allocated, this adds up to a tidy sum.

Many children switch from private to state at secondary level. There are very, very few private secondaries around here.

They also pay taxis for EBD children attending special schools (sometimes to neighbouring counties).

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: