On what grounds do you think private school pupils save the public purse?
What double taxation?
Because LEAs are funded per pupil. So if there are fewer pupils in State Education there is either more money per pupil available or if funding per pupil stays the same, money is freed up to spend elsewhere. I don't know which of those it is though.
Agreed; so if LEA are funded per pupil, and pupils take their funding away by going to a public school that doesn't mean the LEA has less buildings, less staff, etc. One could also argue that efficiencies go down. Existing schools remain, they still require teachers, smaller classes, less funding, still very similar basic costs.
The mum/dad can't afford to pay school fees anymore, the state quickly has to move into action to provide that back stock and safety net.
And so on....
I'm not convinced it is that simple as suggesting by simply suggesting your child goes private one saves the public purse.
I just googled and allegedly 6.5% of UK children are privately educated.
So if they weren't, the public purse would have to find funding from somewhere to provide education for them.........unless I'm missing something.
Last time I looked there isn't a lined item in the taxes that says ring fenced for education of my children.
As I highlighted above, if the LEA and schools get funded by the pupil that means they will get less funding. They'd still have a school building, they still have staff working there, they will still need teachers for the classes, none of that actually changes, nor do the costs go up/down materially. As such there is a base cost to running everything. Taking pupils out of that system removes their funding, but doesn't necessarily remove the costs.
Think of it differently; a pupil gets removed, their table/chair can be removed. Doesn't mean the teacher can be removed, nor the walls become smaller, or the class can be eliminated, not the concierge be gotten rid off, nor student services being required, nor that the bus routes can be removed, or roads are no longer required, private school teachers /staff etc still get universal benefits or working tax credits and so on...
It is a very complex calculation, and to even suggest anyone is doing the public purse is favour doesn't begin to come close to understanding how public funding truly works and is impacted by our actions.
Bringing the costs down is more closely related to having more pupils in state education than the opposite in order to obtain better efficiencies and standards across the board.
At the end of the day the system isn't perfect but I'm glad we have still got free schools available with good teachers.
Compared to many other countries in the world I'd rather have our state schools and facilities.
Kinda like the NHS
It isn't perfect.
Yes you can get better and faster treatment privately.
But it offers a good basic service accessible to all.
In most cases the NHS is perfectly fine, in fact OUTSTANDING.
However in certain cases it fails patients andthe private option is better and faster.
It would be great if we could have a health and education system that was perfect but we can't.
We can't exclude the patients with special needs who put a great financial srain on the NHS to create better funding per capita fot the masses resulting in "better" care for the masses.
In the same way we can't exclude the "difficult" children in schools to benefit the majority leaving the teachers more able to spend time teaching and not performing riot control.
But don't begrudge people who have the means, to seek private healthcare when they feel they have been let down by the NHS.
The world isn't fair.
You either have money to spend on private healthcare/education or high end AV gear .......or you don't.
We shouldn't prevent the public for spending their money the way they see fit in these instances.
As a side note, respect to all our teachers in tough state schools doing the best they can.
I never had I'll feelings towards them and always knew it was the small percentage of trouble makers who dragged my school down resulting in its eventual closure.
As I said, their hands were tied by the systems need for inclusion but at least I was still given a free education of a certain standard.
LOL I’m the last person to begrudge anyone how they spend their money. If that is what you the the responses are about you’ve got that very wrong.
I must admit that I am building a bit of a picture of it being mainly a “new money” kind of thing these days. More so than it used to be. And whilst state schools have moved on and get incredible result, there is a little bit of a view that if you pay for it it must be better.
As per my very first post on the subject; better in this context has a very personal definition. There is no one size fits all. And whilst lack of money may mean a choice becomes prohibitive for some, I don’t subscribe for one moment that the reverse means it is the best choice. Nor that it should be a driving factor, but again that is subjective as well.
Well all those who currently go private have a right to a State education should they so wish. If they all decided tomorrow that they were going to avail themselves of the State system then the State would face the extra cost of educating another 600,000 kids. £3,600,000,000 is quite a good saving for the Government.
The world rankings are a bit of a shambles. The UK play by the rules (ie representative of the UK), many other countries don't.
It's also pretty much impossible to compare given the almost infinite variables between countries.