to think the state should pay part of our private school fees?

[wolvesarejustoldendaydogs]

Don't jump down my throat! It's just a thought.

State schools are overcrowded and there aren't enough good ones. Private schools are expensive.

What if every child had a right to have their state school 'payment' (whatever it costs per child per year') paid to a private school? Obviously parents would have to top-up (probably a considerable amount).

That would create a bit of a market, with more choice, making private schools more affordable and state ones less overcrowded.

Or is it a stupid idea for a reason I will think of soon after pressing 'POST'?

lou2321, perhaps the reason the state schools in your area are so bad is because of the existence of the 4 private schools.

Hi everyone, this is a bit off topic but not ifswim. Stick with me...

Had a colleague in today who is from Turkey, been in uk for a while and was incensed that he is paying NI contributions but when he went to dr this week he was told to rest and take ibuprofen - us experts in the office diagnosed a dead arm after excessive gyming it which apparently the dr agrees with.

He felt that he should have offered an MRI or similar and is going private with his complaint but that he should have the cost deferred from his NI contributions for the year to date.

Defend and Discuss

Education is EVERYTHING. There should be NO crap schools. Yes, there will always be schools with extra challenges, local demographic, language issues etc. But they should get more investment.

OP the logical next step to your argument (which is based on the premise that if you don't use the state system you should be able to tote the benefit of it elsewhere) is that people who do not have children should be able to tote their 'voucher' for schools, and the NHS our of the system altogether and get a great big tax break for not using the system for any children of theirs.

Everyone benefits from the State education system whether orr not they have children within it. Most of the employees who make profits for industry are educated and kepy healthy by the state - anyone who has employees has the benefit of that. In the U.S employers have to fork out for private healthcare policies for their workers. If employees had to pay for schooling, wages would need to be higher...The state educates most of the taxpayers in this country.

Fayrazzled - Its a highly populated city so not really, there are at least 10 primary schools closer to me than the closest private school which is just a 10 minute drive.

The only outstanding infant school is over subscribed and now the nearest good state infant school is oversubscribed as it has improved so much. One Junior school is good and the others are now either satisfactory and failing. Every school this year was over subscribed for Year R so if there weren't the private schools then who knows what would happen.

To be fair the 2 big private schools service a big areas as they are very popular and very successful, the next closest private school is probably 15 miles away.

I must say though I generally did disagree with private schools - until my DCs started school!

Portofino, those schools got loads of investment under labour, they are still crap schools. Money doesn't solve everything.

Countrymouse, your friend has tendencies towards being a bit of a pillock if he really believes that

Outraged most "extra" money into state schools is not for them to spend as they see fit, but for designated, often bollocky little fads. They are not part of the central allocation. Also, schools frequently have to bid the monies.

Labour was very good at announcing money several times, so it looked like loads was going in.

One HT I knew wouldn't apply for anything under 5000 pounds,as it wasn't worth the time.

I remain convinced that the ability to choose has become the responsibility to make the "right" choice. I'm in Scotland where the majority of children go to their local school. There is a right to choose in the form of a placing request, which people will exercise for various reasons, but local is the default option. The system has its imperfections and is by no means immune to the distorting effect of a "good" school but I just am not aware of the agonising that seems to be the norm south of the border (at least judging by Mumsnet, which, I admit, might be a mistake).

"What's really not fair is to limit someone else's chances of an education of the parent's choice because your children can't have it"

But we can stop subsidising the private sector by allowing private schools to keep their charitable status, despite the fact that their primary activity is in no way charitable.

We can also insist that state funded institutions like grammar schools and universities award places on the basis of a child's potential and not simply on the basis of prior attainment, so that bright children from state schools are not discriminated against in the selection process as they are at present.

Choice is a myth, you get choice if there is room - so to make sure you have to live in the catchment area, or trust to luck.

Those with the money already have extra choice. The account for about only 7% of children, so I am certainly not willing to pay anything towards it- their choice - their money. Personally I would rather have them in the state system.

Shagmundfreud, grammar schools do test potential. The 11+ is a test designed to test potential. It is not measured on prior attainment: in contrast to having to get 3 As at A-level to secure your Oxbridge offer. It is a fact of life that over time, parents have coached and coached and coached their kids from age 5 in grammar school areas... but as a test of potential, verbal and non-verbal reasoning are pretty good. What other form of test would you suggest as fairer?

Shagmund, the state does not subsidise private schools because they have charitable status. And charity status does not get handed over for no reason. I also haven't found that state educated children have been disadvantaged when applying for the SS grammar schools in this area.

If charitable status has no financial advantage, then there's no need for it, is there? So get rid of it.

I'm no fan of providing charitable status to independent schools either, Shagmundfreud, unless the school has particular grounds (eg it's for SN children).

Charitable status has a very small advantage in that the school will pay less tax, but they don't usually run for profit to need to pay tax anyway. It does not involve the government giving them any money.

I don't see why they shouldn't have charitable status. It means they have to provide bursaries and scholarships, they have to help the children of parents who may find themselves struggling, and it's about educating children. How is education not worthy of it?

But we can stop subsidising the private sector by allowing private schools to keep their charitable status, despite the fact that their primary activity is in no way charitable

The amount those parents are paying in tax, that the state then doesn't need to use to fund school places, far outweighs the state giveaway in charitable benefits to the schools. The total no of kids in private an grammar education is about 10%, so closing these schools will have negligible benefits to state school quality while losing massive non state funding going into education.

The real need is to improve state schools, but that requires the return of a learning culture to schools, which means a whole lot of non-educational agenda uses of schools have to be let go of.

You can't give yourself of charitable status. There are very strict rules about winding up a charity, how you dispose of its assets (land, buildings, equipment, other assets) and then how the proceeds can be used (essentially you have to give them to another charity with similar aims, so broadly educational).

Sorry "rid yourself of charitable status"

Choice is also a bit of myth if you happen to be a non-Christian in an area where 4 out of the 5 nearest primary schools are Christian Faith schools that either ringfence half their places for Christians or give priority to Christians so distance is the last factor taken into account after Looked After, Siblings, Members of the Parish, other baptised Christians ...oh and everyone else.

I'm in central London so there are no catchment areas.

Dont know if this has been mentioned? (having not read all the thread) ........surely this would mean home educators could have their childs allocation of funds then??

Whatmeworry- I totally disagree that having the 10% of children currently in private and grammar education return to the state sector would have negligible benefits to state school quality. I think it would make a big difference. I agree it would cost money- i.e. the state would have to now fund their education but I think it would provide value for money in the medium term. And let's face it, the state can find billions to bail out the banks or fund wars- the state could fund this if it wanted to. But funnily enough, there's no political will to. And why's that? Oh yes, because the people private education benefits have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

If the benefits of charitable status are so limited- why are private schools so keen to keep it?

"grammar schools do test potential. The 11+ is a test designed to test potential. It is not measured on prior attainment"

So the fact that all the grammar schools in my area take a disproportionate number of their intake from private schools - that's a reflection of the fact that children in private schools on the whole on the whole have more potential than children from state schools?

And being taught in a class of 15 since reception, having years of tutoring and attending 11+ 'booster sessions' and 11+ 'holiday workshops' doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the disproportionate success children from well-off families have when it comes to grammar school entrance exams?

State schools don't prep kids at all for the 11+. All the prep schools round here do. If the 11+ test is really a measure of potential rather than attainment, why do the prep schools do this? And why are there hundreds of threads on mumsnet each year asking about tutoring?

It's interesting how many of the people who oppose private education support state grammars. Personally, I actually think it creates more problems for the majority to cream off the few based on intelligence than it does to do so based on money.

Outside of London, I don't think most private schools select on ability, anyone can go who can pay, especially at Junior level. afaik anyway, just thinking about the schools localish to me. Certainly in the very non selective prep that I work in, I can't imagine the children there (or the parents) making any significant difference to any of the local schools i they were all put there. Whereas f you were to empty the 4 grammar local grammar schools and put them into the struggling comps then there would be a massive difference

I'm not convinced that, purely in terms of education, private schools do a better job anyway. Where private schools win out is in their extra curriculars, their abilities/resources and the confidence they seem to give their pupils. I am a lazier teacher now than I was when I taught in the state sector simply because I have half the number of children, they are setted by ability and they are not as disruptive. We teach a year or so ahead of the national curriculum but, in the long run, children catch up and there is probably no benefit. I have seen antiquated and unexciting teaching methods used simply because the children will run with it and not complain. State school teachers are more likely to deliver an innovative, exciting and well differentiated lesson. BUT our children have a range of opportunities that is beyond anything that can be offered by the state. Do they get a better education - no, I don't think so. Do they get a better school experience? - imo, yes, without a doubt.

I don't think the state should pay or parental choice though. Many of our children are in the school because the parents feel they have special needs (either low ability, high ability or social needs) that cannot be catered for in their local school. Many have excellent reasons for their choice that are nothing to do with snobbery but it is still a choice and therefore should be paid or by the choicemaker.