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.

YANBU not to want taxpayers money to go to private schools. However I have no problem in it going to academically selective state schools which are open to children from all backgrounds for free.

Sakura - why is it so bad that "middle class" people who are ambitious for their children do what they can to see them succeed (in the academic field- success can of course be measured in lots of ways)? I have never understood why this is seen as a bad thing. You don't have to have money or be well educated yourself to appreciate the value of education and help your DCs by supporting them in their endeavours, using libraries is free (at the moment) so being able to buy books, provide internet etc is not the preserve of the rich. My parents left school at 16 and worked in basic office type jobs but always pushed me and siblings to work hard and encouraged us to apply to the local selective state school (weird, masonic thing that was free but had the ethos of a private school) . From there I went to Uni and am now a teacher (have done state and private). My point is that you don't have to be middle class to help your children succeed - if there is a section of society who choose not to value education and pass that on to their children (and I am not sure there is a demographic group like this) then there comes a point where we have to accept that in the name of individual liberties and not penalise those who do choose to "push".

YANBU as long as you don't think I'm BU when I don't want to fund state schools which my children don't attend.

Is it just me or are some people just incapable of expressing their dislike of something without recourse to foul language?

Regarding private schools - the more the merrier, as far as I am concerned. I think they should be encouraged and their reach extended to allow them to take over the running of state schools as well.

I say that as someone who went to state schools and long joked about seeing private education as "expensive schools for children with special needs".

Some schools have opted into the state sector I think and some private schools (the bad ones) have struggled in the recessino and plenty of local authorities have had a huge upsurge in applications for places from parents made redundant whose children have had to leave the private sector education system.

Then you have a tradition too. Prseumably Haberdashers Herts where one of my daughters went in the private sector and Haberdashers Hatcham (state) had the same original foundation. It's not a new thing for schools to move between sectors. Indeed I assume all old foundation schools were very likely to have been fee paying until the 1800s everywhere . We have quite a tradition in the UK for schools moving in and out of the state sector.

If they get academy status they will not be allowed to charge fees and will be bound by government admissions code, which means they can't really be selective, besides there are lots of grammar schools out there that really are selective....

trixie
Wanting the best for your children is not a bad thing; please don't put words in my mouth, words that I have not said.

What is bad is that there is a two-tier education system in the UK, which means that a large amount of very bright children are not given opportunities because there is a group of people hogging resources for themselves. The society is designed in such a way that resources flow towards the few, rather than distributed throughout society so that all kids have a fair shot.

So yes, why not? Let's not change society so that education is improved for all. Let's just make sure our children are ok at the expense of others (I mean, you never know what might happen if all the bright kids who are currently stuck in a poverty trap actually get out and start competing on a level playing field..we might end up with a meritocracy!!! And then maybe jobs will be allocated to the best and brightest, rather than just those who managed to get into the top tier of education.

Eveb better, let's get tax-payers to fund the top tier, even though most of them will have no access to the resources themselves

It may be two tier but it's two tier within the state sector. You get goo posh state sschools and bad area state schools and it's all idivided up neatly by how much house prices cost in particular areas and the tiny tiny number at private schools almost don't count in that divide. The divide is within the state system itself and even also on religious lines too.

In the UK mostly jobs are allocated on a meritocracy. Even if someone thick idiot gets a job because his father worked on the bins or was on the board or whatever the privilege is, they don't last if they're useless. And plenty of companies now have Codes which prohibit ob offers to those you are related to. It's part of corporate ethics. If you know someone you won't get in - nice reversal.

yanbu!!!!! at all

Xenia, I see this increasingly in the banking industry - where I work. We used to get a lot of sons of 'high ups' in this sphere coming on board post MBA and if they were not dedicated, motivated and bright enough for the job they were out pretty quickly. (To be honest I was amazed some I dealt with had managed to get an MBA)!

Interestingly just read that Euan Blair got a 6 figure bonus this year, but imagine he is pretty bright.

Surely a private school becoming an academy is a very quick way of providing an extra state school which is free but with good facilities and staff...straight away! Voila!

Much cheaper and quicker than finding land, building buildings, recruiting staff etc. I'd say it was a good idea, and they are no longer private schools they are now state schools.

So we are not funding private schools, we are getting a new state school for free.

Would it be feasible to suggest that parents who send their children to private schools would, generally speaking, be in the higher tax brackets.

Therefore their taxes are paying for state schools and private schools.

Looking at things very simply can we say that all school children are allocated a set tax dollar for their education.

A common furfy is that if every private school closed their doors tomorrow, the government would have nowhere to put the children from these schools.

The amount of money used to fund private schools would come nowhere near to providing accommodation and teaching facilities for the children now attending private schools.

So going back to the OP - "AIBU in thinking that tax-payers shouldn't fund private schools"

YANBU but it doesn't matter because then don't.

"Would it be feasible to suggest that parents who send their children to private schools would, generally speaking, be in the higher tax brackets."

That would be a reasonable assumption, but if you got your information from Mumsnet, you would get the distinct impression that private school parents are generally struggling by on the minimum wage, making huge sacrifices to send their child to school, and that everyone could do the same if only they cared enough about education!

Point taken seeker.

Interestingly enough, I know lots of teachers who were privately educated and are now teaching in the state system.

Why can't people accept that their child goes to a particular school, state or private and leave it at that.

In some of the comments re state versus private a feeling of inferiority comes across.

There is no need for this.

You do not have to justify why you send your child to a particular school.

They all end up at the same universities if they are that way inclined.

This is horrific.

Cameron is genuinely taking money out of the education budget, and giving it to the independant school sector?

Those who say "I'd rather my taxes went towards this than paying benefits" are missing something.

You do not pay taxes purely to fund things which have immediate benefit to you and your family. You pay them to enable the powers that be to run society effectively, to enable this country to be a civilised society.

We cannot achieve this with an apartied in the education system. Yes, you want the best possible education for your children, we all do. However, I am assuming you also want them to live in a society of civilised people. This means giving everyone a decent education. This includes the less academic, the children of the "feckless" (I hate that term), everybody.

There is such an academy near me. I am close to two people who went there. It teaches creationism as science. It forces teenage girls to show that they are wearing the correct regulation underwear.

What the Tories are doing, has already been happening for a number of years.

Google Emmanuelle (sp?) college, gateshead. Look at the place.

Do you want that?

Do you?

I'm livid.

That would be great. It would be really good if someone didn't start talking about "the politics of envy" as soon as anyone questions the funding, ethos or equity of private schools. It seems very hard for private school parents to believe that it is possible to make a positive choice to send your child to state school, and that there can be valid reasons for that choice. Not everybody would if they could - there are many that could but don't!

StuckInTheMiddleWithYou -They aren't. If an independent school converts to an Academy it ceases to be independent and has to follow all the rules on admissions etc, and no longer charges fees.

"politics of envy"

That's just another way of saying that all of us oiks should simply be happy with our lot.

The academy I mentioned above, manages to get away with a whole host of stuff which normal state schools do not.

This is not a hypothetical example proposed by the far left to discredit the tories, it's real.

That's a question of rules not being enforced, not what rules apply.

It's a question of reality. Thw whole point of these academies is to give the schools greater freedom. More faith schools, more schools aimed at particular social groups, more devision, more inequality... Wonderful!

And this has more to do with the character of the management than the Academy status per se.

The academy status allowed the character of the management.

Can you imagine a normal state school acting like that?

Acadadamies will only result in faith schools, more schools aimed at particular social groups, more devision, more inequality if the Government allows it. Allowing schools to operate outside LA control does not necesserily lead to these things.