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'?

Well, I wasn't suggesting that we get the tax 'back' in the sense that 'we're not using the state education system so let's have the money back, please'. More that we choose what institution the tax money allocated to our child is spent at. So it's not comparable to people without kids getting their tax money back.

The idea being that it gives more choice, and would push standards up through more direct competition. (obviously that may be a bit of a fallacy but interested in discussing)

I suppose it's hard to discuss this without it becoming a 'which is better, private or state' fight, which isn't what I wanted to start...

whatme - that's not quite right, it's not exam based but very much down to the recommendation of your class teacher - the children get selected by grade/teacher at age 10. You have the same teacher all the way through primary so if there is a problem in the relationship you're kind of stuffed - also where I live there is no parental right of appeal of the teacher's decision.

Whilst there is some movement between school types and years - lots of repeating goes on here - it's not easy to do. You're child's whole career planand life is pretty much decided for them at age 10.

But it wouldn't be taking money away from state schools, would it? The school gets money per child attending, so a school is not receiving any money for privately-educated children anyway. Or am I wrong about that?

My parents (mother is an ex teacher) sent my brothers (one of whom has Asperger's) and I (dyslexic and dyspraxic; so there goes the no kids with SEN in private schools theory) to private school to escape the national curriculum. It is a shame that you can only make this choice if you have the money.

I think if she had been forced to send her children to a state school she would have home educated. Again, nice that she had the education and income to make that choice if necessary, many would not feel able to do that.

By abolishing private schools you are forcing parents to accept whatever hairbrained scheme the government has come up with this week. (I say all this as someone starting an English PGCE in September). I think any way of expanding the number of families that can choose how their children are educated is a good thing.

My mother didn't think that her children were too good for our local state schools (in Lewisham south east London); she thought all children were too good for those schools.

You'd be taking that choice to HE away from the parents of this country if you had a Germanic education system, gettingagrip. I have to add that it's nice of you to deign to not objecting to parents HE-ing even if you would stop me from privately educating my (non-additionally tutored, doing very well) DC if you could.

And in answer to the OP, what gettingagrip said. I will pay my own school fees thanks, not least because that way there's less chance of the national curriculum or any of the other things I'm unhappy with in the state system being foisted upon my DC.

Ha ha ha! Like the State can afford that!

The thing about education is this: we all benefit from children having a good education. That's why childless people, or people who send their kids to private schools, shouldn't mind their taxes going to educate other people's children in the state sector. Because those schools, if they're any good, are bringing up kids to be educated, do jobs that will be of value to society and become good citizens. Admittedly, that's the ideal. But imagine what society would be like without a state education system.

X posted with blueemerald!

Graham - I also object most strongly to the National Curriculum, and to any political interference in education.

Not sure how you stop that though. My DC have been the generation who have had to suffer SATS thoughout their whole school lives, and it has been dreadful. Totally killed any interesting education at all in primary/junior.

And I am not 'deigning' anything - I am responding to your points. I can object to anything I like without you pulling me up on it.

The best way to change things is from within - while so many articulate and interested parents opt out of the state system and go private, there will be no change.

I know of a lot of people who would love to use private education and are just a little bit short, this would open up the opportunity for them and give spaces at the ofsted outstanding - if that counts for anything - to other people who want them.
I think it's a good idea personally.

I think it depends on the area, gettingagrip.

There are plenty of artiulcate and interested parents who send their children to state schools where I live and where I was brought up - it is the norm and private school is seen as very, very unusual, espcially at primary level.

I think I've failed to get my message across here. I don't mind at all about my taxes going to state schools even if I don't send my children to them (which I may well do in any case.)

I'm thinking about it more as private schools being one of the options the state uses to educate children. Although it is an option that needs (substantial perhaps) topping up from parents.(Although, if the state spends £5k per child, that's not much more than the private schools near me charge (£6k per child)).

Does anyone see that point? Though, perhaps if the state was partially funding private schools, then it might want more say in what goes on in them, which might also reduce their attractiveness to parents.

Though, perhaps if the state was partially funding private schools, then it might want more say in what goes on in them, which might also reduce their attractiveness to parents

I agree that not having the state interfering is very attractive.

Whilst there is some movement between school types and years - lots of repeating goes on here - it's not easy to do. You're child's whole career planand life is pretty much decided for them at age 10

I know a few people who moved to Gymnasium post 11 y/o so it does happen, whereas in the UK there is no chance. Sounds like it might be regional though.

There are things state school does very well that I missed at private school, healthy eating for example, not selling crisps and chocolate and other crap in vending machines that the junior school could access.
Both could learn from each other and make massive improvements.

I don't know why people here are praising the German education system when it has been slated by the UN for perpetuating social inequality. It's pretty much the worst system in Europe for social mobility.

But it wouldn't be taking money away from state schools, would it? The school gets money per child attending, so a school is not receiving any money for privately-educated children anyway. Or am I wrong about that?

But it would mean the Government paying towards one child going to private school and paying for a child to take the vacant place in the state school.

If the Government are going to pay to educate both children, why not just build more schools...thus giving equal opportunities to all?

The money would be better off spent on more state schools where they are needed.

Of course, with the current government, there's not a chance of that coming to pass.

Yabu. The reason state schools are inadequate is because of private schools. We need to abolish private schooling which is pointless and elitist. If the wealthy, ruling classes children had to go to state school then state school would be fastly improved as it would then be in the interests of the people in power to put money into it.

What if all the money people pay towards private education were put into one bit state pot, along with state funding, and shared out? How good would the schools be then?

The state doesn't allocate £5000 for every child in the country, then simply pocket it when a parent sends their kid to private school instead. It knows how many private school places there are and how many are likely to be filled and takes that into account in budgeting.

If all private school parents suddenly started demanding £5000 for each of their children, that extra money would have to come from somewhere. That would probably be the general education pot, so basically money being taken from state schools. And there's very little money in the pot to start with.

" Apart from the abolishing private schools bit - if they are doing education better, then abolishing them is silly, we should not go to the lowest denominator but try to find ways to lift standards to those levels everywhere (also idealistic, I know"

I suspect that one of the reasons that private schools are 'doing education better' is because they've got more money and resources than state schools.

...and are usually selective.....and find it easier to exclude unruly pupils....and don't have to accept pupils excluded from elsewhere....

Also! The money you pay in tax for education is not yours to have back! It is for the education of all our young people who will be the doctors and teachers etc of tomorrow looking after you when you are older! It is irrelevant if you CHOOSE to send your children to private School or even of you don't have children at all. We pay tax for education for the benefit of everyone.

I agree with you. They've had a good decade or more to sort out the schools places crisis in the South East. They clearly can't or won't create new primary places (or enough to meet the birth rate) so they should give that as an option - take the money for your child's place and fund the rest yourself privately to ease our pressure on numbers. Round here (Surrey) it is horrendous and that would help.

"Graham - I also object most strongly to the National Curriculum, and to any political interference in education.

Not sure how you stop that though."

Aren't you? I just explained how I did. By not sending my DC to state school.

NB, hey I wish I knew where all these independent schools were which charge only £5 or £6K per year!