To think that if you send DC to independent school or home-ed you should not have to pay for state education?

[valhala]

I think I can see all sides of this debate, which came up amongst a group of friends and I today. The group was about 60% female and was socially quite mixed, with a range of ages, classes and income brackets. The topic of conversation came round to whether, if you do not have your child educated in the state sector but instead opt to home educate or send him to an independent school, you should receive a tax credit to reflect this which could go towards the cost of your choice of schooling.

The state school parents were perhaps the least enthusiastic but by no means did all of them reject the idea, whilst the home-eders had reservations about the cost of this plan in terms of restrictions on how they taught being implemented by a government anxious to tighten up home education law although they agreed that they would like the money to help them do the job themselves (which they told me was on average £5K p.a.) .

Interestingly, some of those who send their children to independent schools were not as anxious to see their money refunded as others - although whether due to social conscience or just being too darn well-off to care, I didn't like to ask!

Out of fascination I thought I'd post the question here - if I say that a tax credit should be paid under these circumstances, AIBU?

So valhala, how much sympathy do you have for those who drive a car because they don't "like" the 'bus?

The reason why the private schools can educate as they please is because they are exempt from the extreme levels of interference which bedevil the state system. It should be said that some of these, CRB for instance, are ones which many parents are, erroneously, pleased and comforted by.

When I was teaching in the UK it was common knowledge that the failed, the incompetent and the child molesters (teachers, that is) went to the private system where standards were lower, particularly in the "cheaper" schools.

TheButterflyEffect I quite agree with you about trading in the chance of extra cash for the right to educate without additional interference (especially as I understand that in Scoland you have to obtain approval to home-ed, which generally we don't here). Lucky you too for the added advantages although as a coward when it comes to water I'm not jealous of the sailing opportunities!

go echt add some spurious anecdotal stuff about private school to wind up folk.you will of course back this assertion that private school teaches are

inadequate and kiddy fiddlers
up with robust data and of course the regulatory body gtc is aware of your assertions

Common knowledge echt?

It could be argued that it is "common knowledge" that independent school teachers are more highly qualified (for example only accpeting staff with Firsts) and more experienced than those in state schools.

As lovely as my cousin is, a 25 year old Canadian national with a degree from a Canadian Uni in her first appointment in a school, which is an English comprehensive, I don't think that she would stand much chance against the competition in the vast majority of our independent schools.

And if I had the choice as to whether my own DC were taught by a lady with my cousin's experience or teachers like my own, I'm afraid to say that my cousin wouldn't get the job.

I'd also say that the comparison between the person who doesn't like the bus and the parent who wants their child to have the best education they can afford/provide/both, is a poor one.

Is this serious?

What kind of society will that produce, do you think?

Do you think you will somehow be sheltered from the effects of there being lots of youths receiving a crapper education due to lack of funds and resources?

Do you want to end up living in a gated community?

This is quite an upsetting idea. For goodness sake, can't people look beyond their own back yard? So your children might not use state education, but what about the teachers who teach them? They may have benefitted from a state education, likewise the midwives that delivered your children, the doctors who looked after them, the police officers who police the streets to keep them safe, the fire service people who would rescue them from a burning building, etc etc....take away resources from the state education system and the whole system suffers, which makes society suffer. Fuck sake.

Agree with peaches mclean and unquiet dad. I love the word 'preposterous', peaches.

Don't be daft. There are tons of services I'll never use but I choose to live in this society and this is system that has developed over hundreds of years. I'm guessing many of the parents in the initial discussion went to State education themselves, employ builders who learnt their maths from state education, go to the supermarket and get served by the woman who learnt to read how much that bread roll costs from state education. OK, that doesn't work as they usually have photographs on that sheet but you get the gist.

YABU

YABU, for all the reasons explained above

TBH it makes me shudder that independent schools are incapable of teaching their students such basic concepts and instill in their pupils a civic sense about their responsibilities to society as a whole- and end up producing arrogant individuals like the parents you describe who can put forward such silly arguments.

I wonder how many people were in the OP's group in order to get such a wide range of consumers, social class etc, and then with a range of views within these groups.

As for the concept...we don't pay a specific tax for education. It isn't a line on our tax bills. Our taxes, apart from the TV License, all goes into one big pot to be distributed at the whim of the governing party.

I would imagine a lot of families would welcome a tax rebate, given that they are paying fees out of taxed income. I think there are some countries who do this. It's not the same as a pound-for-pound rebate.

In this country, there are already vouchers for nurseries and I believe reception(?), which parents can put towards any school, state or private. I wonder how many contributers to this thread have used nursery vouchers for a private nursery class? I'm sure you had your reasons, but I am also sure that the same reasons could be extended for other years.

Woe betide any rebates that are given to other people and not me. Gimme CTC etc etc, but don't given them a penny, and take away their Child Benefit while you are at it!

The reality of a voucher system is that less money will go to state schools and more to the private sector which will increase the inbalance between the haves and the have nots and decrease the life chances of those who are already at the bottom of the pile.
As for home ed. I would worry about that, I fear some feckless parents would keep children at home if there was money for them in it and not be able or willing to provide an education for this. Parents switched off of education taking children out is already a problem for a small minority.

The parents who chose to 'pay twice' are benefitting from everyone elses children being educated by the state.

No way. The state system needs more funding not less.

Society as a whole would be damaged by less funds to educate. Same for nhs.

Interesting news reports today about how much money is wasted in state schools. It is really shocking.

That's a great shame if funds are wasted. That should be dealt with.

The state system would benefit from eg smaller class sizes. Society benefits from a better state system.

There are all sorts of areas where taxes are reduced in response to self provision. They come and go according to fashion and political climate, but the principle that governments reward individuals with lower taxes if they opt out seems well established:

Private pensions have had tax advantages.
Private medical insurance premiums and life insurance tax deductable (which equals a tax refund)
Direct grant scheme/ assisted places scheme for private education.

Leaving aside all the interesting views on how society at large, including the OP's friends (and not merely their own children) benefit from state education, were any of these friends state educated themselves? Surely they've benefitted personally?

I realise the taxes paid at the time went towards their educations, but still.

I am surprised that any one can be for the idea that the gap between state and private education should be greater.

In Guernsey, where I live, a variant of the direct grant scheme exists. Independent schools receive funds from the state, equal to the average cost of state education per pupil. This is about £8,000 per annum per child. To confuse matters the independent schools gave their buildings to the state several decades ago in return for the state maintaining them; the cost of maintaing and improving the buildings is taken from the annual grant. The state pays around £2,500 per year per child to allow for the buildings (very high in Guernsey)

Fees paid by the parents are around £7,000 per year.

Complicated even more by scholarships paid by the state. 23 per year per school out of a 3 form intake. My DD just got one and had just started in Y7 (except they call it Remove) She worked out how much her scholarship would save us over 7 years, and so she deserved a reward.

So I bought her an ice cream!

I can see both sides of this too.

It rather depends on how you view the chuck of tax that all taxpayers pay towards education.

If you view that money as paying for a nationally provided education service like the fire service or nhs, then it's unreasonable to rebate unless the non-state provided sector is regulated by the state and not autonomous (like in France, where even in private schools the state pays for & provides the teachers, has its say over the curriculum and the fees go towards the extras).

If you view the tax as paying for the education of the nations children, then it may be reasonable to provide vouchers to all eligible children.

The big advantage of a voucher system would be that it would widen access to private/home education (more people could afford it) and so give more people more choice.

Against that it would still be unfair to those that could still not afford it.

YABVVVVU

If you think of what private schools offer their consumers, especially in an area where there is a lot of choice, is a tailored education system.

Parents can choose the ethos of the school that is right for their child and family, for example, super-nurturing, highly academic, sporting, lots of emphasis on service etc. Then there is the choice of all-through vs specific age-groups, single sex/co-ed, day/boarding, small/large, faith/non-faith.

Why should we make it difficult for families to access the type of education that is right for their child? Why is it better to lump everyone into a massive comprehensive that doesn't really suit anyone?

If we had a voucher system, then perhaps parents would feel they had more real choice, rather than the disappointing set of choices preferences that they have now?

And looking at it from another angle...

My sister lives in the USA and in her community (a small suburb in a large metropolitan area), they have their own school district. This means that all children in the area goes to their local school, unless they go to Catholic schools or private. The Catholic schools are for uber Catholics, who want their children to be taught catechism etc. Private schools are rarely used because the public system is so good.

What their community has that gives them such good state schools is a tax levy. They have to pay something like 4% of their income directly to the school district. The school district gets this levy in addition to what the state gives all schools.

The extra funding the school district gets means that they can have much smaller class sizes and better resources. As a result, they are one of the top school districts in the whole of the USA (top 100).

The only way to access these schools is to move into the school district - the tax then becomes automatic.

Could we have a system here where there could be a state school, where all parents pay a bit extra? I don't know - it would be miles away from any model we already have. But there, it seems to work in terms of results and attitudes to education (kids over there put ours to shame).

Tax is not paid for the sole benefit of the payer, it's for the benefit of all.