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'?

Wordfactory - you talk about wanting to have 'freedom' but that 'freedom' is a luxury that is only available to a small proportion of the population. What about what's good for society as a whole?

Let's look at things differently and say ok the state system is not working let's abolish it. All schools become fee paying, you pay per child at point of access. All schools gave power to exclude difficult pupils.

So lots of children don't go to school because their parents can't or won't pay. The most vulnerable children are excluded from all schools.

What happens to all those uneducated, disaffected people as they grow up? How does society manage that?

"It's not fair on the majority of children."

No, it's not fair. Sending my kids to a rough school would be fair I guess to the other kids that have to go there, but it would make life considerably worse for my kids without actually changing anything at that school, so I won't do it.

What happens to all those uneducated, disaffected people as they grow up? How does society manage that?

Stick 'em on welfare and throw ASBOs at them like we have to do anyway..... but at least they haven't blighted the lives of all the other kids in their classes while they were growing up.

What evidence do you have that state schools aren't working?

Got to agree with you on that one allpastyears.

I went to one of those state schools that some MN would move to avoid. I suppose that is why I am not so wedded to state education because I don't want my children to have to battle to learn in a poor environment (been there:done it). I am lucky enough to be able to afford to choose so I will pick the best option for my children.

Yeah I went to one too chat. It was bloody awful. Came out of school with no qualifications and had to redo them all at night school.

Sorry, chaz not chat. Autocorrect got me.

Two things. Nobody has yet answered my question about why one bad state school experience tars all state schools, but this doesn't apply tp private schools.

And comparing our own school experience to what happens in schools nowadays is just silly. In either sector. People say "well, I went to state school 20 years ago and it was awful" need to remember that children were routinely beaten for the most bizarre things in some private schools 20 years ago, sometimes by older boys. I wouldn't cite that as a reason for not sending a child to private school now! Wen are in a different world.

Actually, seeker, depending on the thread, you will find a lot of "tarring" in every direction. This one certainly has private schools as riddled with nasty bullies that the schools are totally incapable of tackling other than by expulsion.

Seeker, sorry, in not prepared to send my child to the local sink school. Should I ignore my own experience of sink school schooling then? Doubt many parents would be up for that themselves if they had a choice.
One bad state school doesn't tar all other, not at all. Most are excellent schools in my area, just not the one in my catchment. And obviously you get good and bad private schools too, obviously.

Seeker on the contrary I think there are some posters who have been through private education and because of their experience now dismiss the whole private sector.

The point I was making is that having been to a bad school and knowing how damaging and difficult a learning environment it was, if my options were between a bad state school and paying for private I would pay for private (because I am lucky enough to be able to afford it). I had the choice of a very good state school then I would save my money. Oh and children were beaten at my state school too, belting children with bits of wood was not the preserve of the private sector.

"Actually, seeker, depending on the thread, you will find a lot of "tarring" in every direction. This one certainly has private schools as riddled with nasty bullies that the schools are totally incapable of tackling other than by expulsion."

Isn't? I only mentioned bullying private schools because there does seem to be an assumption that there isn't any. And I also said that the example of bullying I know about does not mean that private schools re rife with it. Wheras that is the assumption about state schools, usually also based on heresy or a single exampe.

noquontrol- schools have changed a lot in 20 years- in both sectors. How do you define a "sink" school?

What evidence do you have that state schools aren't working?

It depends on what you mean by "working". Do they educate most kids in the UK according to the majority of job needs - probably, in the main, though dealing with sink schools seems to be a decades old problem with each new government coming up with a new but ineffective solution.

But are they good enough to be internationally competitive for the most academically able British kids? - probably not, with a few exceptions.

Nearly all other advanced countries (and many developing ones) opt for some form of Grammar school education system, the UK has by and large closed that down.

In essence, by closing most Grammar schools, the British government has forced parents to pay for getting their kids a world class education, which denies it to the poorer bright kids, and perpetuates the British caste system.

That is the real scandal in British education.

I haven't read the whole thread, haven't got time(!), but a few thoughts;

If you subsidise private school fees, you are giving a subsidy to the wealthiest in society, at the expense of the poorest (again)

If you take fees out of gross income you are giving a tax cut to the wealthiest in society, at the expense of the poorest

The state already subsidises private schools, through charitable status, and through training teachers.

The only fair way of doing it would be to allow private schools to remain independent, but to remove all fees, so that anyone could choose to go, regardless of wealth. But I don't suppose the current private school parents would all like that scenario....

I've never really understood that charitable status thing either...

You're so right, Lily.

It's all about exclusiveness. And fine if the private school enthusiasts pay for it themselves, with no government assistance/charitable status bollocks/smokescreen. But they don't, do they?

And while I'm here, and in the mood, they can fuck right off with the doing the-country-a-favour-by-privately-educating-my-child-and-still-paying-tax-to-educate-pariahs.

Type of thing.

"The only fair way of doing it would be to allow private schools to remain independent, but to remove all fees, so that anyone could choose to go, regardless of wealth. But I don't suppose the current private school parents would all like that scenario...."

Surely that is exactly what the "free schools" that our governant are setting up. However the "free schools" are not allowed to set on ablity and have to have admission rules which are not socially exclusive. Many schools are becoming academies which are giving them more independence.

Surprisingly not many private schools have taken up the offer to become free schools. They don't want to educate the lower classes.

It's all about exclusiveness. And fine if the private school enthusiasts pay for it themselves, with no government assistance/charitable status bollocks/smokescreen. But they don't, do they?

Charitable staus costs the government about £300m a year in lost tax, whereas tax saved in not funding those school places publocally is about £3bn a year.

Do the maths, as they say.....

Happy to do the Maths- could you tell me where the figures come from?

What's your point whatmeworry? Do you really think those who go private would flood the state system if charitable status was denied? So long as the private schools can pick and choose they will flourish.

Much earlier I cited the Finnish system where you can set up a private school, but can't keep out anyone who can afford them. Most people send their children to state schools. Quelle surprise

It IS about exclusivity, deny the means to it, and the parents get sensible.

"Surprisingly not many private schools have taken up the offer to become free schools. They don't want to educate the lower classes."

Interestingly, my dd is going to go to an academy that was an independent school. As a private school it was not all that well regarded. As an academy, it's the most oversubscribed school in our area - 750 applicants for 100 places. Lots of the 'private' children left when it started to let in 'non private' pupils, but it's a much better school now!

How is charitable status justified? Im'm not saying that private schools should be abolished, whatme- although it is an appealing though! Just that their charitable status should be taken away from them.