Nearly £9000 more spent on private secondary pupils than state pupils

[SluggyMuggy]

Research from University College London that found £12,200 a year is the average spending on a privately educated primary pupil, compared with £4,800 on a state pupil. For secondary, it’s £15,000 compared with £6,200.

This entrenches inequality as private pupils are given far more resources towards their education.

I mean exactly what I said, I hope my school doesn't adopt a support dog because my kid is highly allergic and asthmatic. That's not something you needed to respond to with that condescending tone of 'There's always one'. I presume that this isn't something you've had to deal with in your life. Hanging on for an ambulance while your kid can't breathe?

So yeah, if a kid arrives with a guide dog we'd need to adopt some extreme measures to avoid it because an hour in a room with it would be too much. But to bring it in as like a school dog, hanging around like an animal stress ball, would be a fucking nightmare.

So you were referring to children who may benefit from time with a therapy dog (children with mental health issues, anxiety, trauma etc) as 'a kid with hurt feelings'. I rather hoped that you weren't which is why I asked for clarification.

As I said, schools have to balance the needs of all students.

SluggyMuggy · Today 17:12
@Barbadossunset There are many ways to reduce inequality. Increasing funding to state schools, ending vat for private schools, taxing other sources of income at the same rate that salaried earnings are, building social housing, charging higher inheritance tax, having rent controls, etc etc.

Sure, but I thought you were talking specifically about private schools causing inequality. Do you think they should all be closed down and the buildings and facilities confiscated?

Yeah, balance the need of a kid who can't breathe. How clueless.

It affects neurodivergent and disabled kids, but everyone else I don't think it makes a difference to. A neurotypical abled kid will be equally as good at any school they go to.

The only reason to go private is Oxbridge feeder schools.

You seem to be one of those people who dismisses mental health issues as of lesser importance than physical issues.
Sadly I have taught several suicidal students and very many who self harm and have huge trauma in their lives. If they can benefit from a therapy dog then that is a huge positive.

Of course the needs of an asthmatic child must be taken in to consideration and provision made but such a child's needs should not take priority over a blind child''s needs for example. That is what I mean by balancing needs - everyone should be considered.

Nonsense.

Yeah, I'll go as far as to say that I think breathing trumps all needs, it right up there with your heart beating.

Actually, I'm not replying to you from here in so don't waste your time.

I am sorry that you are unable to consider the needs of any other child but your own. Sad, but you do you I guess.

Do not worry OP middle class is fast disappearing and it is getting harder to send the kids to private school. The rich can leave the country or send their kids abroad if press on for taxes. Your dream of equality would soon come true. All equally poorer that is.

I bet the people calling for more taxes does not work or are not net contributors.

Because it is easy to spend other people's money.

That’s been my experience of grammar Vs private too. BUT for the grammar the child obviously needs to be able to keep up.

Yes but the point is there's no motivation from the people who run the country to do that, because they can just opt their children out. educating the masses is seen as a cost rather than an investment in society's future, which many see as a moral issue.

OP thanks for posting. I'm also a bit shocked that state primary funding is so much less than secondary, when all the research shows that throwing resources at the earlier years is the way to go.

@ThursdayTomorrow how is your propose to do this --- Get all those children who are motivated, and have parents interested in their education, into state schools ??

You get what you pay for. The private school along the road from my dds state school has 6-8 children per class, my dds class has 27. I doubt the state could ever afford to have only 8 children per class.

You could do all those things and you will still have people who can pay for better education for their children!

As long as people have choices there will be those who have the ability to buy better - be it homes, cars, holidays, health care or their children's education.

There will never be a level playing field. People aren't equal in all things to start with are they.

Some are richer or - better looking, healthy, intelligent, ambitious, diligent, committed, brave,
Etc etc etc

As I posted upthread even if you closed every private school what are you proposing to stop parents paying for private tuition after school?

It's no good wailing "Not fair" but having no sensible solution.

You sound rather Orwellian.

This

Good quality teaching where the teachers are respected and a field to run around is all that’s required
Sadly with state schools it’s so variable and teachers are not given the agency to actually teach.

Inequality has grown significantly.
Widening inequality leads to a more unhealthy population with poorer mental health and growing poverty.
I would support any moves to reduce the inequality gap.

Would you send your children to the "failing" school in order to improve the quality of teaching there?

People always advocate this but only for other people's children. Bit like the Labour party and the amount of their MPs whose kids are privately educated.

Yes but the point is there's no motivation from the people who run the country to do that, because they can just opt their children out.

Even the MPs who do use the state system more often or not ensure they are living in catchment of an excellent state school. They have no experience of how dreadful some schools actually are, and in effect opt them out of those anyway. Starmer sent his kids to a primary where the houses in catchment are £2m. That’s hardly promoting “equality” is it?

The problem is the huge inequality in the state system. Some are excellent. Too many are failing our children. Every child should have access to a great state school. The system where only a few areas have grammar schools is ludicrous. Why should only some children have a chance to attend those? The only academically selective schools available to us are private, and yet some children can access state selective schools.

I mean you can look at it another way … special schools cost more per year which and desperately short of spaces hense too many children in mainstream need as

Or they move to a state catchment where the houses are £2m and take the moral high ground because they are using the state system (forgetting that most of the country don’t have access to such good state schools).

Labour would love to abolish private schools.