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'?

Manic, I already said several times that I think ALL schools should be good. All children should have opportunities. But the way things have gone means everyone is expected to get lots of GCSEs and Uni place, or be a total failure.

I don't agree with this. Some are suited to academic pursuits, some to more practical ones. What should NEVER come into the discussion is how much money you have.

Noqontrol but it is acceptable that my non-Christian children can't get in to 4 out of the 5 nearest primary schools?

The other way of looking at it is those who pay private school fees should pay less tax since they are not utilising that portion of tax that goes to funding state schools.

I don't really think you can apply that logic. My children are both in private school but both I and they are taught by teachers, cared for by doctors and nurses, kept safe by policemen, served by retailers, driven around by train and taxi drivers, treated by dentists and befriended by others most or all of whom will have been educated in state schools. Our country needs an educated and skilled populace and thereore we should all pay into the state education system that produces it, whether we educate our own children in it or not.

Chaz, what is the 5th school like? Can't your children get into that?

I'm not saying we should not contribute but I do think there should be some sort of allowance. Say the cost per pupil is £5,000 for the LEA (it varies from LEA to LEA) then say half of that should be rebated and the other half spent towards the state school.

We have a lack of reception places this year in our area which is due in no small part to those who would previously have chosen private school not being able to afford to do so now. The LEA doesn't have enough places and so far isn't doing anything about rectifying that. I suspect they are hoping that those who have applied and not been given a school place will somehow find the money to go private.

Its 3x oversubscribed

But why as non-Christians do we have a choice of 1 school out of 5 but Christians have a choice of 5 out of 5 when we pay the same taxes.

We can all think of areas of central or local government spending that don't benefit us as individuals directly. Should we give millionaires tax rebates because they'd be very far down the priority list for council housing?

Tbh chaz I don't really know how Christian schools are funded. I'd assume it's in part by the church? Educate me on this one?

But what happens to those who aren't offered a state school place? In our area you go on the waiting list. If you don't get a place from that you end up with nothing (that is in writing from our LEA)? Sounds barking to me. In reality what will happen is the parents will go to the press, employer lawyers and force schools to provide classes (as has happened in previous years). I'm not talking about not being offered one of your preferences and instead being offered the worst school in the area, I'm talking about being offered no school place at all.

Some of those parents will bite the bullet and find the money to fund private schools. How will they feel about paying their taxes?

Good point bisjo. Am interested in the replies to your question.

In those cases the state should pay the private fees. They send NHS patients to private hospitals when they need to, they should do the same with schools.

I think CofE schools are owned by the church, and the church puts money in too.

Portofino - but isn't the whole problem that all schools AREN'T good? 50 years ago secondary moderns mght have been excellent providers of practical education but that cannot be said of comprehensives in grammar school areas now (at least not ime)

I'm sorry that I misunderstood what you were saying but I do think we have this terrible problem in grammar school areas now where they only way out of a less than ideal education is either brains or money. And I don't think the one is any more moral to use than the other. But, as a parent I am and will use both or either.

Whatmeworry- but you're doubling counting. It's not £9billion of money.

Count the money. £6bn from public school parents in fees. £3bn from their taxes. That £9bn of spend on education the government doesnt have to find, and it produces the bulk of the UK's world class education. Bonus.

"50 years ago secondary moderns mght have been excellent providers of practical education"

They weren't! Some of them might have been good, but an awful lot of them suffered from poor resourcing and high teacher turnover.

The amount of money the church puts into faith schools is not very high - the buildings are usually owned by the church but the state contributes 90% of the capital costs plus of course funding the running by paying for each pupil who attends. (Voluntary Aided Schools)

So for 10% of the capital costs they get to restrict entry to their faith.

"I think CofE schools are owned by the church, and the church puts money in too."

And the church's money comes from its congregations, thus churchgoers are helping to fund church schools, so why shouldn't their children benefit from that?

So church congregations can pay for school places by contributing 10% of the capital costs of the school but woe betide anyone who pays for a private school place.

"From Dept for Ed website
Voluntary-aided (VA) schools
Updated: 12 April 2012Voluntary-aided (VA) schools are maintained schools and often, but not always, have a religious character. These schools are eligible for capital funding by grant from the Department. These schools are paid on a similar basis to other categories of school, but the governing body must usually pay at least ten per cent of the costs of capital work. Responsibility for work to VA school premises is shared between the school's governing body and the LA. In simple terms, the LA has responsibility for the playing fields and the governing body are liable for all other capital expenditure."

Ok chaz that's interesting. If you're right then I understand why you would be pissed off. Must research this one in the morning, it's not something I had ever thought about tbh.

Thanks for your post Chaz, it has contributed to my education. That's not very fair is it.

All VA schools can specify their admissions policy, so can someone explain why only church schools piss off some?

Either all VA schools are unfair or OK, not some unfair while others are OK, or is it OK for those objecting to be unfair themselves?

Either all VA schools are unfair or OK, not some unfair while others are OK, or is it OK for those objecting to be unfair themselves?

You are asking for Reasonableness about religion :o

I'm from Australia where we do have public funding of private education. At the moment, I believe about 1/3 of public education funds are going to private schools. It may be a little less than that now but it really reached a peak during the Howard years (when Australia was being governed by the ideological equivalent of the Tory party). I do understand that many paying the highest taxes would prefer to send their children to private schools so I can somewhat understand the reasons behind it but when some schools are struggling to provide chemistry labs and others are building their second indoor full-length swimming pool with those funds, it does seem quite skewed in the wealthy schools favour.

Also, as Chaz said, there are other issues when it comes to public funding. When we looked at a number of schools for our DD, it was made quite clear that unless she had a baptismal certificate she was going to receive lower priority on the waiting lists than other students who did (even if their baptismal certificates were from another denomination). I do understand the concept of looking after the flock but I don't think schools should be receiving public funding to reinforce this type of discrimination. Some parents just get their kids baptised, some even convert, but this was not something we were prepared to do. We didn't and don't mind at all if she receives religious instruction or if it is a part of the daily school life but it would be dishonest of us to pretend that we have a religious conviction which we simply don't have.

I worked in New Zealand where all are state funded . Private schools just charge extra fees which may be reflected in the extra activites and additional staff they have . Even state schools have different levels of funding depending on social economic status of majority of pupils .So schools in affluent areas top up their needs by parents fundraising , business sponsorship or optional fees .
I think it's much fairer .
UK citzens should at least get a tax break if they choose private .

In any case - all of this is about the PARENTS: their faith or their income.

What about putting the child at the centre of the argument and asking: what is their right to a fair and decent education. Children are citizens too in their own right.

BahrainB - would you support this even if you knew that the end result would be better educational provision for the richest and less spent on schools for the poorest?

Because what you are talking about is taking large sums out of the education budget to give to well of people.