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'?

"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".

Because when state education was set up, the state did not set up or otherwise take over enough schools. So Church schools (ofwhich there are far fewer nowthan then) filled the gap and are still doing so. Presumably, the state could opt to provide community schools to replace them. This would, however, be very expensive as it's something like 25% of schools (is that right?) What would you cut to provide so many schools (especially as some are on land held beneficially for religious (not educational) purposes)?

All schools in England are Christian, there is very little difference between a faith school and a community school.
As EdithWeston says, people need to know their history, the 1870 education act explains why there are so many church schools and subsequent acts give the position today on collective worship.

I wasn't thinking of collective worship, actually. That could be abolished in non-faith schools in a blink, and at no cost.

I was thinking about legal ownership issues.

Whatmeworry- the Government wouldn't have to find £9billion in your scenario. Private school parents currently pay £6 billion in fees in your example and save the Government £3billion by not having those children in the state system. I see that. But if those private schools closed, the state would only have to pay the £3billion to fund their state education (i.e. based on the same level of funding as every other child) it would not have find the £6billion their parents currently pay. (Of course there would be some capital costs too but I'm ignoring those for the moment since we're talking about day to day funding).

We'll just have to disagree on the private system in this country being world class. A few schools are. Many aren't. I speak with some knowledge- i went to a very average private school that got good results because of small classes. There was nothing special about the teaching or facilities. I just don't agree that a very privileged few should benefit from an education not available to the majority based on wealth, when them actually being in that system affects the state system those other children have to use. You may call that naive. I just want a fairer system. I realise I'm not going to get it (especially from the Coalition Government but also from Labour- too many of the politicians in power benefitted from the unequal playing field or their children do now).

I know losing faith schools would be unpopular. But the current system is unfair to children (and I speak as someone who's children go to a faith school so it would affect me but unlike in many areas my children had a better chance of getting into the faith school than the community primary). Faith schools only have to pay for 10% of their capital costs, the state pays the rest. The state should not be funding unequal access to opportunities in education.

The option for us was to pay for lower level private school in Australia and not have the money to visit home or have a state education in uk. We decided state here was better than state in western Australia by a long shot (not in Perth) just our experience. Didn't realise that many people were paying for an education even if it was $2/3k per year before we moved. Would only go back to WA if it private as I think the more affordable ones were on pay with kids current primary. Secondary I'm not sure.

EdithWeston- the historic reasons for the establishment of church schools is no reason to perpetuate the unfairness of their existence today in 2012. Why should some children have no choice of local school because of their parent's lack of faith?

Ps. I would say that the school my kids were in is improving but I wasn't prepare to wait and them miss out of years. Dd's cohort still feeling the brunt of the early years problems. Ds they got it write earlier on.

Fayrazzled: I'm making no comment on the shoulds and should nots of faith schools. I am pointing out the reasons why they exist, and the cost of replacing them. For the majority are not state-owned schools permitted to have faith status; they are church-owned schools under the state umbrella at the moment. It would be possible for the state to replace them, but this would be expensive, and I am not sure the public purse would stand the cost at present.

No one has yet managed to answer how abolishing private schools/selection would be of benefit to all children.

It would be of less benefit to those currently in an elite setting with excellent facilities and a carefully nurtured sense of their own worth through knowing they deserve better than the 93%. They might not see the benefits so obviously .

I just want a fairer system. I realise I'm not going to get it (especially from the Coalition Government but also from Labour- too many of the politicians in power benefitted from the unequal playing field or their children do now)

Sure, but you don't get a fairer system by breaking the 10% that is working today (private and grammar), especially as 2/3rds of that costs the government absolutely nothing - saves them money in fact.

You get a fairer system by fixing comprehensives and increasing the number of grammar schools (or lookalikes)

In effect parents have been self-providing better comprehensives via selection by housing cost, and various governments are back-dooring "Grammar Nouveau" schools via all these various non-council school ploys.

However, truly "fixing" comprehensives comprehensively by and large means removing lowest common denominator education, so there will be fallout and that is too a bitter pill for some to swallow, so it won't be done, and so parents will continue to self select and governments will contine to back door Grammar Nouveau schools.

Some really interesting comments on here. I think amicismma put things very well (Wed 25-Apr-12 12:03:59) 'I think that the state paying for children's education is a good thing. I don't really see why it should necessarily supply that education...I don't understand why some people are so keen that there should be a monopoly supplier for education.'

That's really what I'm thinking. This would save the state (taxpayers) money because they wouldn't have to tie up money in land, buildings etc. for as many children as they do now. Effectively they'd be outsourcing education of a large number of children to other suppliers. Parents would choose the supplier that suits their child best.

If you stop thinking of 'private' as a synonym for 'privileged' does it change things? A lot of private primary schools seem to charge a similar fee to the state per-child cost, which is interesting.

Abolishing private schools would benefit 97% of children, as parents with the most power and influence would be directly involved in state education. At the moment the most powerful in society don't give a toss about state education because it doesn't affect them (with rare exceptions). (Or 93%, whichever set of stats you want to use.)

Wolves, that's the sort of argument used to disguise privatisation in both health and education. Hasn't worked in either - e.g. Independent Sector Treatment Centres cost huge amounts of money for very little gain - and a significant extra cost to the NHS for putting right all their mistakes. Academy schools - Gove is having to write to a load of them because they are crap and unaccountable to parents.

Breaking the link between services and provision benefits private providers, and takes money out of the public purse - look at PFI hospitals, huge profits to be made by companies trading the contracts, none of that money goes back into the NHS.

Exactly SteamingNit. So why is one section of society deemed worthy of having things shifted in their favour, when it would be detrimental to another section of society? Especially when all concerned are children.

The way middle class or rich people are vilified on here as some sort of evil force that want poor people to suffer pisses me right off.

I don't see how abolishing private schools would benefit 97% of children. My children are at a normal state primary, I can't see what benefit they would get from having a few more wealthy children in their class. Their school does well as it is, it would make no difference at all. It woudo only make a difference to the very worst schools, and parents already there could have a far bigger effect on those than a few previously privately educated children would.

why is one section of society deemed worthy of having things shifted in their favour

Yeah - why's it always the less well off 93% who get all the breaks, huh?

Outraged- I am middle class. I went to Cambridge, my husband is a barrister. But I believe passionately in the state education system. I don't believe in your argument that abolishing private schools would be detrimental to a section of society. I believe it would remove an unfair advantage from a minority section of society and provide more children with equal access to a good education.

Whatmeworry- comprehensives can't be fixed while independent schools and grammar schools exist because they cream off a proportion of the talent and interested parents away from state schools.

Agree outraged

There are plenty of reasonably comfortable families that are more than happy with the state education their children receive, things don't need to be changed to remove an unfair advantage for our benefit. My children have as much chance of leaving school with good a levels as any private school child, and the extra curricular stuff is up to me to provide. Some parents just choose to pay a school to do that for them instead. I really don't feel that my state educated children are at an kind of disadvantage.

Fay, I believe in the state education system too, but that that doesn't automatically men I have something against those who choose not to use it. Educating and providing opportunities for my child is my responsibility, not that of richer parents.

Abolishing private schools would benefit 97% of children, as parents with the most power and influence would be directly involved in state education

There is no way 3% will be able to dramatically influence 97%. You have to fix the comprehensives, not break the private schools

But you want to fix the comprehensives by having more grammars - how will that work?

But you want to fix the comprehensives by having more grammars - how will that work?

You can't get academically rigorous education in a "school for all".

Why?

Whatmeworry- of course you can. And there are plenty (but not enough) comprehensives offering an academically rigorous education to their students now. More comps could if they didn't have the best talent in the local area creamed off to private schools and grammars, where they exist.

Outraged- I do have something against private schools, not because of sour grapes, but because I believe all children should have access to a good education and it shouldn't be dependent on parental wealth.

OriginalSteaming- I don't know who your post is directed at but I don't believe in grammars.

Fay, It was directed at whatmeworry, sorry! I agree with everything you've said on this thread.