Is it OK for parents who can afford private education to take state school places for their DC?

[Schmedz]

asking for a friend....

One child didn't actually cause the other child to miss out unless one was a few feet closer and they were admitted by distance. Both applied for a school that offered the subjects they wanted, that's all.

I could afford to send ds to a private school and I did so for years 7 & 8 but it was such a total disaster as they constantly refused to cater to his asd that I moved him to a local state school for the sake of his mental health and where the teachers actually care about him not an exam result.

So long as they are donating the amount they should have spent educating their children to the state school/a charity supporting children from less affluent backgrounds access education then it’s perfectly fine. But if you are having children and then choosing to make other people pay for their upbringing despite being able to afford to pay for it yourself and using the money you ‘save’ on luxuries then no, that’s morally dubious.

So long as they are donating the amount they should have spent educating their children to the state school/a charity supporting children from less affluent backgrounds access education then it’s perfectly fine

Should have spent? Morally dubious?

Every child is entitled to a state education, regardless of their parents' financial situation/charity donations.

“ But if you are having children and then choosing to make other people pay for their upbringing despite being able to afford to pay for it yourself and using the money you ‘save’ on luxuries then no, that’s morally dubious.”

Not it isn’t. Unless they are not paying their full quota of tax.

How on earth would you decide the level of being able to afford to pay?

Would I be exempt from making a "donation" because I've used the money saved on school fees for private SEN assessments/diagnoses instead, or because I have to save up for premium priced university en suite accommodation as ds's SEN means he can't share bathrooms etc?

Where do you draw the line?

Yes. DH came from a working class family and went to the local comp. His best friend and a few other close friends came from much more educated families. DH says that being exposed to their lifestyles made him much more aspirational (not just financially). A higher income family pays more in tax (as they should) they shouldn't be excluded from using public services!

Some of the opinions on this thread are plain ignorant. Education and health are vital services not charities. Everyone is entitled to use them. If someone who was well off went to a food bank that would be outrageous. Education is not equivalent. In a capitalist country people who are more well off have more disposable income. They can choose to spend this on holidays, big houses, flash cars or private education.

As for gaming the system, I am pretty offended by the suggestion that it was easier for me to get my place at Cambridge because I went to a school on the 'disadvantage' list.

Well it depends on your definition of “easier”. Cambridge does have a “distance travelled” part of their scoring system. The subject I knew about (note - this is very old) had up to two marks available for this out of the total 24 that you were scored out of. I suspect I got both marks there (I was state educated all the way through plus I was female and applying for a very very male dominated subject) and it is quite possible (even likely) that those two marks made the difference between me getting in or not.

But that doesn’t make it “easier”. Because that is the whole reason Cambridge has the “distance travelled” thing - to get the grades I got in the state system is so much harder than it would have been in the private system.

Re: gaming the system. The school I went to was the only state one in the town I lived in and had an attached sixth form. However, the sixth form was on a different site (two miles away) and you needed 4 As - Cs to get in so was very different from the true comprehensive that the main school was.

Roughly half the kids at the sixth form were “long timers” who had gone to the main school and half were from “outside”. Which with the school being the only one in the town meant from the local private schools.

How much the private school kids were influenced by the lack of uniform, mixed sex, separate site part and how much it was their parents who were interested in gaining “state school points” I don’t know. But I can see the attraction for parents. And it was obviously great for me as a very able “long timer” - losing Kenny Thomas and gaining Arabella was brilliant!

Most of them did seem to make a lot of “use” of the mixed sex fact of the school though whether their parents meant them to or not.

Actually, I think it is perfectly acceptable for any tax payer to use public services. And I would much rather someone rich used a state school than got a “means tested bursary” at a private school, thereby enabling it to tick the “public benefit” box on the application for charitable tax relief.

I agree with @TulipCat, some state schools can offer better education!

I could afford it, but the nearest private school to me is a 30 minutes drive without traffic. It's just not practical. They'd spend the day in school plus half as much time again just on travel. It would prevent them going to their sports club because they wouldn't get their in time.

Obviously it is OK to take a state school place if you qualify for it, but on the other hand, if all private school pupils’ parents suddenly decided to send their kids to state schools, the state system would be absolutely toast. So it’s probably a good thing that they don’t.
It does annoy me though when very well off parents who send their kids to state schools “forget” to pay their £40 a year voluntary donation to the school fund. This is surprisingly common...

Stupid goady question.

Asking for a journalist or researcher on a very dumbed down TV programme more like.

if all private school pupils’ parents suddenly decided to send their kids to state schools, the state system would be absolutely toast

Doubt it
there is a secondary schools within five miles of me that has 400 empty spaces

London will have a problem, but that is caused by LEAs deliberately undersupplying (Kingston) and austerity

Well, the major problem is deciding what makes you too rich to use public services.

Unless you bought your house back in the 1980s you will probably have a big mortgage. Even very modest houses in some areas are hugely expensive. It may be that someone on twice the salary of someone else may have less actual disposable income. Add childcare costs into this too.

And some people have modest salaries but have received (or have great expectations of) large inheritances that elevate their wealth above someone who is earning money.

Also, we could probably afford one set of independent school fees (at a modest establishment!) but certainly not two.

listeningquietly unfortunately where there are state schools with empty places, they tend not to be where they would be needed, eg where children’s parents jobs are. London would have a massive problem but not because of LEAs (now there are free schools you don’t need an LEA to sanction a new school) or austerity - it’s because a) land to build new schools on is so scarce & expensive and b) because of international workers and the financial services sector, there are thousands of children currently attending private schools in London. If (unlikely but if) even half of them suddenly switched to the state sector, it would be impossible to find enough places for them all.

Then on top of that, you’ve got the financial issue. Lots of extra pupils in the state sector would have to be paid for somehow - which means less cash to spend per head.

Everyone is entitled to the NHS and state education in this country. It's one of the wonderdul things about it. I presume these wealthy parents are paying tax and NI? in which case I fail to see the problem. It's like some kind of inverse snobbery to say otherwise.

Everyone has a right to use state services regardless of their income.

I do know a few parents who could effortlessly afford even the most expensive of private school fees yet send their children to state schools for moral/political/philosophical reasons.

No problem.

But, the state schools they pick are not their closest school - no, they have gone out of their way to secure scholarships or highly selective grammar places at some of the most sought after state schools in the country.

They're perfectly entitled to do this, but I take their smugness over state educating their child with a very large pinch of salt; and I do think that they have perhaps deprived someone without the benefit of choice from taking that place.

nextphonewontbesamsung

I assure you I'm no journalist and it's a genuine question! What a very strange assumption to make (letalone post).

Friend is feeling genuinely guilty for feeling as if her child has 'taken' the place away from someone who doesn't have the luxury of the choices she does.