AIBU in thinking that tax-payers shouldn't fund private schools?

[larks35]

Several private schools in my area are going for Academy status, which will bring them public money, while they can still continue to be selective and charge parents for their child's education.

This is an absolute travesty IMO. I always hated the Academy idea, but the Labour government thought it would help out schools in deprived areas. Now, the Tory/Lib govt. are actively encouraging private schools to take up the status and therefore, those of us who cannot afford to send our kids to the lovely private school up the road are contributing to their funding. Grrrr, it is pissing me off.

Interesting debate. I work in a private school and think I would rather fund this than ask tax payers to give benefits to those people who sit on their arse, have 12 kids and collect 40K in benefits. Let's put it in perspective.

Well Dalex, I for one would much rather 'my' tax went to those sitting on their arse, have 12 kids and collect 40k in benefits than went to fund a profit making private business.

YANBU.

Whatever the funding is, the govnt are still paying less for the academy children than they are paying to educate your children - so its saving you the tax payer money.

It costs around 5,ooo pounds per state child, zero pounds for a private school one, and somewhere in between for an academy one.

And before people start on about charitable status, that's pennies in comparison with the 17.5% VAT the private schools have to pay for educational equipment, when state schools pay zero.

There are inequities everywhere you look!!

My heart bleeds.

Nothing like AIBU for sarcastic responses rather than intelligent debate...sigh

Arf at the sarcastic response to a sarcastic response, lil

i'd rather not pay for state schools when my dd can't even get into one.

"There are inequities everywhere you look!! "

Yes there are, but your example is not

YANB at all U IMO. If they receive public money then the public should have the right to send their children to the school and not have to pay extortionate fees.

Oh, and I had posted a comment previous to my sarcastic one, so am I allowed to continue being on the thread please?

WHAT!No fucking way do I want to fund private schools. Fucking Tories.

Private schools can apply for academy status? I did not know that. Very interesting ... I suppose in line with Tory policy to attach a funding value to each child.

Showing their true colours more like.

What Warthog said. I'd like a rebate.

Private schools have been able to become state schools for a while anyway, havem't they. Certainly a Jewish school near me used to be private but now is state.

Are you sure the private schools will still be able to be as selective when they become academy status?

The reason I ask if that my DDs school went from private to academy status in Sept, although still part of the Girls Day School Trust, we no longer have to pay anything but the school is no longer allowed to be (as) selective.

They are supposed to take children from a wider area academically. They have to put into 5 sets according to test results then pick 20% of each set, although after the other priorities of 10% maths and 10% music then sibling, so not totally non selective.

For me I love this idea. The school was struggling numbers wise, doing very well results wise. The infants and juniors are now full with 20 in a class (2 classes each year) and the seniors are now 100 each year group.

I am sure that the academic results wont remain as high (currently 98% GCSE grade a-c) but that is fine with me. I love the school for the traditions and values it instills in the pupils.

So its just Tories beinf unfair is it?

But Labour have funded and encouraged loads of religious schools, my kids can't get in there - where's the uproar???

Academies can be selective about their intake apparently.

corn not as selctive as my local catholic school.

Can I have a rebate?

How are they being selective then -on SEN?

As someone who's worked in both private and state -

1. Private schools are NOT charities, they shouldn't have charity status - they are businesses that make plenty of profit. The supporters of these businesses are quite frequently, people who have so much money, they don't know what to do with it.
2. Yes, it's outrageous that they could be eligible for governmental money - THEY DON'T NEED IT.
3. VAT - yes, why the fuck shouldn't they pay VAT on everything - a private education IS A LUXURY NOT A NECESSITY. (Unlike other products which have VAT applied to them!)
4. This argument isn't about benefit culture, or a judgement on those who have to claim them - it's about the pointless waste of giving rich consumers free money for an education that should be paid for! In my mind, both are unworthy of receiving free money, but to be honest, the thought of awarding this money to people who REALLY don't need it turns my stomach far more! YADNBU.

Dalex - how many people do you know with 12 kids? I don't know any, so how can I put this in the perspective you propose?

I will admit to being a bit of a socialist and have always felt that the very existance of private schools inhibits social equality; but now that my tax will (maybe in a small way, but still...) fund those higher echelons of learning that only the rich can enjoy quite frankly, sickens me.

Examples - Bristol Cathedral school, St. Ursulas school for girls and these are just in my area, I'm sure many more will follow now they know they can.

Religious schools re unfair too- that doesn't make this a good idea... Why argue in favour of a model which irks you, lil?

*re =are

..But I cannot get into my local catholic school cos I'm not catholic - I am funding that school - how is that any better than the charity staus of a private school.

Answer is , its the same, but its about the politics of envy not fairness..