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.

Especially those whose family income is approximately equal to (or less than) what the school fees would total! No amount of "sacrifices" can find money from nowhere.

"Well , I know a lot of people who make exactly those "sacrifices" and still can't afford school fees."

....and by "teachers to be aware" I'm talking about heads and those concerned with admissions. Teachers aren't stupid and they can usually spot the difference between cramming and intelligence.

Has anyone mentioned yet that it's the taxpayer who funds teacher training? So private schools benefit from state subsidy here as well as in terms of charitable status.

Edam - yes most teachers are trained and funded by the tax payer but bear in mind you don't have to have QTS (Qualified Teacher Status) to teach in private school. Some don't when they start and train once in post. (which raises interesting questions about the idea that you get "better" teaching in a private school). In terms of actual amount I think the "benefit" you refer to is far outweighed by the fact that fee paying parents fund state schools that they aren't using.

I hate this "oh, fee-paying parents are being so altruistic by funding the state schools that they aren't using" argument. That's not a genuine motivation - it's just a bloody piece of convenience when it comes to arguing. If they want to be so altruistic, come in with us and join the state school, rather than sneering outside.

whoah, Unquiet Dad, who said anything about sneering? I never said it was altruism either - no they have no choice but to pay the taxes obviously, but I think its actually a reasonable point to be made. I don't have the figures to hand but it runs into many millions that fee paying parents "save" the state by not using the services they are contributing toward (often at the higher rate also). If those children did suddenly flood into the system where would they sit? On the laps of those already there, or is there suddenly going to be a massive building programme? How would them joining the state system improve it in a practical sense?

Trixie, we ALL pay taxes to fund things we don't use. I could do quite a long list of central and local government spending that is nothing to do with me personally, as could everyone else in the country.

Taxes don't go into some sort of individual pots, hypothecated by payee as well as by purpose. Everyone* pays tax, the government then spends our taxes. That's how it works.

(Before anyone starts, even non-taxpayers pay VAT, customs and excise, contribute to corporate taxation via Tesco and every other organisation they deal with etc. etc. etc.)

But we all contribute to things we cannot get benefit from.

Tax payers - postgrad teaching courses - those teachers then going on to teach in the private schools - I can't afford to send my child to private schools.

Our system where we rate our schools has created a market where you can charge more for property in a 'good' catchment area and at the same time some schools struggle to attract students.

My ds will never get into a catholic school primarily as his dad and catholic but ds not baptised. I did this as we're multicultural family living in a muliticultural place and I wanted ds to try before you buy (in terms of getting baptised) and I got it very wrong with that religion and didn't understand the 'system' - so he won't benefit from a state catholic education just because he's a part catholic.But my taxes pay for this.

My dh has an okish job - his cousin's dh has the same job and they will have more kids as they live in a council property and know that at some point they will get a bigger property. We have a huge mortagage on a tiny flat and for that reason we won't be having any more kids. Our tax subsidises tthis.

This is the UK - nothing will change as it's complex to try and change such a deep rooted culture of subsidies for the weathly on the one hand and the overweight welfare culture that we have.

"....and by "teachers to be aware" I'm talking about heads and those concerned with admissions. Teachers aren't stupid and they can usually spot the difference between cramming and intelligence."

But unfortunately, entrance to grammar school is based entirely on the cramming - heads and those concerned with admissions have no say in the matter at all.

No, I don't think tax payers should pay for private schools but then I also don't think parents who pay privately for education should pay twice & should therefore get a council tax rebate.

The charitable status of private schools is closely linked to the number of scholarships & bursaries they offer to families who otherwise couldn't afford to privately educate their children. Private schools are not as evil or greedy as they are often painted.

didgeridoo - the problem with the rebate you suggest is that it has as its underlying assumption the idea that people pay tax into the school system for the educating solely of their own offspring... correct?

This is not how I view it at all. By that argument, anyone who has no children should also get a rebate, as should anyone who is so healthy they never have to go to hospital - which is daft.

The portion of our taxes which go on education is for the educating of society at large. Not just our own children. We pay taxes into the education system so that we have, at the very least, a literate and numerate general public - the people with whom you interact on a day-to-day-basis. So that your accountant, who may have gone to a state school, is able to get his sums right and go on to do his accountancy exams. So that your milkman can add up his bill. So that your builder can work out the dimensions of your extension and charge you correctly. So that your hairdresser can run her salon as a viable business and afford to take on a trainee. Et cetera.

I don't pay tax to educate my children - I pay tax to fund an education system. If people choose not to use the system why should they get their money back? We live in a society - we should all contribute to it.

seeker said what I wanted to say, only more concisely. thanks, seeker.

It's a tempting idea, though, tax rebates for services you don't use. If you can prove you marched against the Iraq war, for instance, could you get a rebate on the proportion of your taxes that goes to the campaign there?

Edam, sorry, I wasn't suggesting that fee paying parents shouldn't pay tax for education, I was just answering Unquiet Dad's comment that was fairly hostile and seems to be saying "how dare people have more than others" (apologies if I have that wrong).

If we are talking about what is realistic, as opposed to in an ideal world then I would like someone on here who is opposed to private education to answer my earlier question about what, in practical terms, they think would happen if private schools were abolished. You cannot just suddenly ban them and turn all existing ones into state run schools with the same nat. curriculum etc What happens to parental choice then? Would the Gov buy the schools (as in the physical building and land) or just grab it? what about the staff who are employed on different terms and conditons (and not always more favourable)? Would you mix up all the kids with the comp to try and engineer some kind of equality? There may be very good answers to this, and just becuase something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done, but it really makes little sense t me that if we are living in a capitalist society we would try to ban buying "better" education. Would private tutors be abolished too?

I would LIKE to ban private education, and I would vote for a party that said it would do it, but realistically I don't think it will happen. But removing their charitable status would be a good start.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and I would not support the banning of private schools.

What I would support, is the removal of their chaity status.

I would support the ban on state funded faith schools - of all faiths.

Yep I'd like to ban state funded faith schools as well.

Loathe them on many levels - friend who went to church for 2 years to get her priest to do the necessary. Another friend who was told by her priest - no chance. Another friend who went to her priest - never met him before and he just said fine - where do I sign.

Have religious schools but have them private.

Removing charitable status would be a good start. As people have said, it can't happen overnight. But that's no good reason not to do it at all.

edam - I knew CND members at university who said they were going to withhold the proportion of their tax that went on Trident. I've no idea how many of them actually did in the end. It must be difficult both to work out and to do in practice!

No banning state funded faith schools is something that could happen tomorrow!

didgeridoo - they don't pat twice. They pay once to educate everybody's children and once to educate their own.

And anyway that is not how tax works - you aren't buying specific services. You are paying for a functioning state. You then vote for a government that decides how to spend the states money.

That should read "Now, banning state funded faith schools is something that could happen tomorrow!"

the arguments on charitable status have been done a bit to death, but here are a couple:

1. A donkey sanctuary gets charitable status no questions asked. Is that more worthy than children's education? Schools' profits don't go to shareholders, they are ploughed back into the school for the benefit of the pupils.

1. Some subjects such as Further Maths, Economics, Physics, Philosophy, Ancient History and Latin do not thrive in the state sector and would be in serious danger of fading out entirely without the Independent sector. The small class sizes and specialist teaching required are often not financially justifiable. The definition of a charity (for tax purposes) is something that benefits society. Would our society be better if we allow knowledge of the above subjects to disappear in one or two generations?

It would take at least a year Seeker.

One, you would have to force them to remove all religious teaching.

Two, not allow selection on faith grounds.

Three, rigourously inspect and enforce these regulations.

Schools either adhere or get their funding from elsewhere - all of it.