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.

Tethersnd - I really wanted to come on and say that in our area (kent sussex border) there are several prep schools that will accept all sorts of SEN. When we looked into schools for DS1 none of the 5 we looked at excluded SEN. My DC now attend one of the "higher achieving" preps and there are several in DC years with ESBD. Some have one to one in all lessons.
DS2 had fairly severe speech and language problems at state school and was not getting anywhere near the support he needed (we were told that he would be taught with a very aggressive boy with autism as "neither of them understand the work so its best to put them together". DS2 is now flying after 2 years of smaller classes and SEN assistance. Sad but true that he just wouldn't have got that at state.
In terms of secondary schools, there are two locally that have excellent SEN reputations, neither require a CE pass and are very well thought of.
I guess what I'm trying to say (and the thread has probably moved on!) is that not all private schools are totally selective, some are just brilliant for special needs.
Oh and I agree with PP about sacrifices. We are definately not super rich and have three children to put through, still, think of the money we are saving the government - yet still giving them in our 40% tax

I'm with Hobbitmama on vat and charitable status. I did think that academy schools were not meant to select on ability which is why grammars cannot apply for that status. Could be wrong.

sorry *Tethersend - I hate it when people gt my name wrong!

lil, acorn looks very interesting- mind you, they are specialist schools, not mainstream. Many of their students have their places funded by SS and the LEA, due to their being extremely difficult to place.

Interestingly, you imply that the standard of eduction would rise dramatically if state schools were absorbed by private schools- I believe the same would happen were private schools to be dissolved and absorbed by state schools; why do you believe the opposite to be true?

You are lucky then. I sent my ds to state and it was crap. What should I do? We have the money (tho we come from nowt to go private. I feel private is unfair but so is a system where some areas of the country are much better served than others.

*get - going to bed now

I was referring to cornsil btw. I'm obviously tired too!

stoppingat3, I agree that specialist SEN provision in the state sector is woefully inadequate, and I was hasty in my assertion that no private school caters for children with SEN; however, the vast majority of children with ESBD are educated in the state sector.

And thanks for correcting my name

Tethersend - how do you think the system would improve by adding 7.8m (figures from annual census 2009) children into state? How would the government be able to fund the extra £39, 000, 000, 000 (using the £5,000 quoted above) needed?

yes I accept that but then the majority of children full stop are educated in the state sector. I would genuinely be interested to see how it works out % wise. Most of the children in DC years see the SEN for one thing or another. Usually for things that would not have even been piced up on in a state school. A further example is DS1, very bright, scholarship level etc but cannot blend sounds, as he has a photographic memory state never picked it up, top marks in spellings etc but they got it within weeks here.
p.s your welcome

Fabulous idea, naturally the money would be better spent for private schools than shovelled into botomless putrid pit that the benefit thieves represent.
Before collective shrieks, note I said 'thieves', not honest individuals going through difficult times.

bottomless even.... sticky keys you undestand.

larks35, I don't actually believe those not needing state care, of whichever form, shouldn't contribute or get a rebate! Of course we should all be socially responsible. All I'm arguing is that if you say if my child is in state education, none of my taxes should be used for academies, then surely someone in private could argue the same. And that would obviously be unworkable and deepen the state / private divide.

All I'm saying is that I can't go around using NHS, maternity pay etc that a lot of people pay for too, yet refuse for the government to use my taxes as they see fit. Especially since I think in this situation it might just benefit more children.

This is a bit of an aggressive discussion which I am normally very scared of, but just to make the-I'm sure very politically incorrect- point,that those in a position to pay school fees also pay tax towards supporting state schools.As they are likely to be high earners they pay a lot of tax and this is likely to rise in the near future.If all the children in the private sector suddenly returned to state schools we would be in a pickle!
I'm not saying it is fair, but then life isn't.....
Oh, and by the way,I know one family with 11 children-and they are all being privately educated

Very true crunched about private sector children re-joining the state sector if push comes to shove and the cost of funding that.

The private school academy might actually save the state money overall. And ease up competition for the good state schools.

There is a two tier education system in the UK whereby those who are better off are entitled to advantages that other children are not.

The two tier education system perpetuates this society, so it's in the interest of those in power to make sure it stays that way.

This does not happen in all countries and I think it is wrong because it means that the thick but slightly wealthier kids are getting major advantages over bright kids born into poverty.
This is has led certain members of society believe they are 'special' and other members are 'scroungers'.

Measures brought in to help the poorest kids or those from disadvantaged backgrounds have now been hijacked by middle-class parents who can't quite afford private school, meaning that bright kids who are disadvantaged now stand no chance.

Sakura, that's exactly it. Much more eloquently put than I could manage.

stoppingat3, I am not seriously proposing the dissolving of the private sector into the state sector, but using it as an example in order to question lil's assertion that standards would plummet were this to happen.

I'm sure (I hope) that she was not seriously proposing that the state sector be absorbed into the private sector either- unless you can persuade private schools to admit all formerly state educated children at the price of their previous state school place?

Leaving aside the current state of the nation, I believe that were private schools to be absorbed into the state sector, standards, provision, facilities and results would rise almost overnight. Don't underestimate the impact of an interested (and rich- ie, one who can afford school fees) parent on a child's educational ability.

tether I am suggesting that the private sector could be capable of running our schools. This is not necessarily a bad thing. As we know the civil service is inefficient with tax payers money, its bloated, its lazy, it doesn't have the incentive to challenge the status quo.

The private sector does constantly challenge the current thinking, continually strives to be better and more efficient and yes make a profit.

That's why I can see there may be good things coming out of the academy idea and I wouldn't automatically resist it because the word 'profit' is used.

And other countries such as Germany for example don't really have a private sector, but have a thorough grammar school system which of course leads to just as much argument in the UK as anything!

No perfect answers, agreed!

bring back assisted places

It is not a case of giving money to private schools or benefit thieves! (Like some on this thread seem to suggest!). As Sakura said - the two tier education system leads to those that are 'special', or 'scroungers' - those on this thread that are suggesting that private education funding is a better use of money than spending on 'thieves' are pandering to this suggestion yet further.
Private education should not receive state funding, there are many better uses of government money and that does not mean spending on benefits!

Britain needs well educated people. There would be no envy or resentment if private schools didn't do this better than the state sector. Which they do, for the most part anyway. In grammar areas the private schools might tend to cater more for the worried parents of the not as bright, but on the whole private schools perform better than state.

I would be more worried about private schools taking tax money because it would mean more government interference in their processes, which would be a bad thing. If the money helps educate more children better then great: I can well imagine the money spent there will be more productive than in the state sector.

But if it's to be so, academies that take tax money ought to offer assisted or free places.

I don't think there are better uses of state money than education. But it's used badly in many state schools.

There are no leading fee paying schools which are profit making organisations. All the good ones like Eton, North London Collegiate, Haberdashers, MTs, St Paul's etc etc they are all charities with no profits for any shareholders.

As for discrimination 94% of children are in state schools and they are hugely discriminatory. You go to a posh middle class state school if mummy and daddy earn enough to live in the catchment area. It's much less fair that the private system.

When I was very little we had a "Save our direct grant" schools campaign. In those days just as comps were being launched - grammars went in 1970 where I grew up never to be seen again, schools which were kind of independent but not fee paying got a direct grant from the state (like academies).

"There is a two tier education system in the UK whereby those who are better off are entitled to advantages that other children are not."

This is largely because of the failings of the state sector and is not the responsibility of private schools, their pupils or the parents who send them there.

A public education system, funded by billions. It is the greatest achievement of a civilised society. The money has been there: it has not been used productively, plainly.