Other than what they pay for they aren’t getting anything back either. So whether you find them deserving or not is irrelevant as well.
Everything any of us think is irrelevant really. I'm not sure what your point is.
But as I asked, would that be better?
Nursery and early learning could be valuable.
And so could education from 15 to 18.
I don't think anyone has a conclusive answer which is best.
The only thing we do know is that for a given child the UK spends more on education than Japan. (Plus most other OECD countries).
Spending more than most other countries doesn't strike me as underfunding education.
The UK's investment has to last longer as it's less money per pupil in real terms.
Given British culture and society, our system is still better despite the relative under funding.
That doesn't make sense.
If we wanted to reduce education spending we wouldn't fund free nurseries and we wouldn't insist that 16 year olds had to stay in education (including vocational training or apprenticeships) till 18.
That's assuming that the UK figures do include those items, which I'm not sure they do. I've done a bit of googling and still can't confirm either way.
But even if they do, it's still part of the bigger overall sum we spend per child.
Those paying for private education don't get anything back besides the services they pay for, you said they don't deserve anything back. It is not like you or I or that childless 90 year old couple are paying towards them.
If the Private School is getting charitable status erroneously, then we're technically subsidising the Private school child's education.
And saving on them not being funded through the state system?
Only posted once but it appeared twice
Yes.