How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

I still don't understand the economics thing, but I am as certain as I can be that of course people being able to opt out of state education (and the NHS) means that funding is affected. It wouldn't be if, say, people with red hair, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other randomly spaced and financially representative group opted out - it is detrimental because it is people with the money to pay whose children are no longer in the system.

This means that (a) those parents no longer have a vested interest in ensuring the quality of state education, and (b) at least some of them will want to make sure that they are paying for something worth having, so actually have a vested interest in there being a gap between privately and state educated children. We see this played out when people who got degrees when they were rarer would like to deny them to the 'masses' and suggest that other people's kids should get apprenticeships or whatever - elitism only works when there are scarce resources allocated to a few.

Also, as has been pointed out, a disproportionate number of people in power have been privately educated, and this applies to those in charge of allocating funds to schools. If they know that they and theirs are going to be ok - in fact not just ok, but will have an advantage over those educated in state schools, then they have no incentive to ensure that state schools get more funding.

Then there is the 'old boys'/girls' network. Is it sheer coincidence that for the past 12 years so many Conservative Ministers have come from Eton? A statistical blip? Old school ties are not worn so that the wearers save money on buying new ones.

It's not about the choice to have oboe lessons, or to choose a smart blazer and shirt over a sweatshirt and anorak. It goes far deeper than that, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Nobody is saying that all parents who use the private system are taking money out of the state one, but that the existence of a 2 tier sector absolutely does so.

No.

It's because some people would deny others choice.

It's totalitarianism and doesn't work

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

The whole point of what everyone is saying is that state education should be funded well enough so that every child has the opportunity to reach their potential

But it is not We know

No-one on here is saying it should not be well funded.

Blaming independent schools is a red herring that is thrown up every time the subject comes up.

DaisyAnne

I think we are now going round in circles. No one has said they don't think education should be well funded. Most of those who have experience directly or indirectly of the Public/Independent/Private system seem often to have been in and out between the systems, using the state system as well.

My question was about the privatisation of the state system. Yet those who seem to think they are the only ones who care have gone on, and on about the tiny percentage, at any one time, of those making a different choice. There is no logic to that. I shall continue to worry about the state system while they have a fight with fresh air.

I'm so sorry.

I didn't realise that expressing a heartfelt and strongly held belief was "going on and on". I guess that's how communists behave, is it?

GrannyGravy13

volver oh I understand your posts, I just do not agree with them.

Oh you are, of course, quite entitled to disagree.

Even if you are wrong ?

I think we are now going round in circles. No one has said they don't think education should be well funded. Most of those who have experience directly or indirectly of the Public/Independent/Private system seem often to have been in and out between the systems, using the state system as well.

My question was about the privatisation of the state system. Yet those who seem to think they are the only ones who care have gone on, and on about the tiny percentage, at any one time, of those making a different choice. There is no logic to that. I shall continue to worry about the state system while they have a fight with fresh air.

GagaJo

Isn't it because if we just pretend there is infinite money Maizie, that that is what creates inflation?

See. I wasn't being awkward about my lack of logic. I honestly don't understand.

It's not a question of pretending, GagaJo. The state can actually create money. This is a fact. It is a fact that has been known for along time. The 'pretend' comes in when politicians like Thatcher tell you that a country's finances are just like a household's, or a company's. It isn't, because neither of them can create pounds sterling. A government can.

Inflation has more than on cause. Sometimes it is because there is a scarcity of goods and resources to purchase. Sometimes it's because there is too much money in the domestic economy which can lead to traders putting up their prices to 'what the market can bear', and sometimes it is because the prices of stuff we import are increased, as in the 1970s when OPEC whacked up the price of oil, and now, when gas and oil prices have been massively increased.

Taxation takes excess money out of the economy to prevent the first two. (It can't do anything about the third cause.) If it weren't for taxation we'd have a situation like Wiemar Germany.

In any case, the idea that taxation alone funds spending, apart from not being true, is ridiculous because the state does have other revenue sources.

volver oh I understand your posts, I just do not agree with them.

Why do you keep banging that same drum

Becuase I believe in it fervently and won't be dissuaded by the people who think money can buy education?

The whole point of what everyone is saying is that state education should be funded well enough so that every child has the opportunity to reach their potential.

But it is not and leaving the provision of education to market forces makes it ever more unlikely that it will be.

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I did explain it. I'm sorry that you didn't understand it agree with it.

And I am yet to be convinced that one's parents' financial situation is a good indicator of how one might benefit from a good education.

To deny people all the advantages of life when others can have them because their parents are fortunate enough to have a bit of money?

And I don't mean fancy clothes and oboe lessons, I mean an opportunity to fulfil one's potential. I guess there are things that I find indefensible that just aren't that important to other people

Why do you keep banging that same drum (or playing the same note over and over on the oboe)?

The whole point of what everyone is saying is that state education should be funded well enough so that every child has the opportunity to reach their potential.

No-one is stating otherwise. Everyone thinks it is important.

If you can't see that there is no way of convincing you.

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

GrannyGravy13

Sorry volver it comes down to freedom of choice, to deny folks of that I find indefensible.

And to deny folks a fair crack of the whip?

To deny people all the advantages of life when others can have them because their parents are fortunate enough to have a bit of money?

"Freedom of choice" trumps all that does it? But only if you have money, clearly. No freedom of choice for those on Universal Credit.

And I don't mean fancy clothes and oboe lessons, I mean an opportunity to fulfil one's potential. I guess there are things that I find indefensible that just aren't that important to other people.

GrannyGravy13

JaneJudge
Having money gives you more choices with everything, it doesn't mean it was right for our current government to underfund education and healthcare which affects those with less money the most.
I agree with that JaneJudge

People sending their children to state schools and using NHS instead of private will not help the poorest in society.
I agree too.

JaneJudge

Having money gives you more choices with everything, it doesn't mean it was right for our current government to underfund education and healthcare which affects those with less money the most.

I agree with that JaneJudge

People sending their children to state schools and using NHS instead of private will not help the poorest in society.

Having money gives you more choices with everything, it doesn't mean it was right for our current government to underfund education and healthcare which affects those with less money the most.

Sorry volver it comes down to freedom of choice, to deny folks of that I find indefensible.

GrannyGravy13

Latest figures (curtesy of Google) show 6.5% of school age children attend fee paying schools.

A really small proportion.

So?

Here's a stat:

While only seven per cent of pupils in England are educated in private school, a new analysis by the Sutton Trust published today shows privately educated alumni made up 39 per cent of the cabinet in spring this year, 59 per cent of permanent secretaries in the civil service and two-thirds of senior judges.

schoolsweek.co.uk/private-schools-need-phasing-out-and-heres-how-it-can-be-done/

There really are no defensible reasons for the existence of fee-paying schools its just that the parents who use them feel entitled to buy advantage. We just need to acknowledge that. ??

Latest figures (curtesy of Google) show 6.5% of school age children attend fee paying schools.

A really small proportion.

Isn't it because if we just pretend there is infinite money Maizie, that that is what creates inflation?

See. I wasn't being awkward about my lack of logic. I honestly don't understand.

Callistemon21

^You have a vote and could choose to vote for political parties at national and local levels which increase funding^.

And who says I don't?
It's puzzling though, that our Tory MP sends his DC to state schools.

Why's it puzzling? You're in Wales and you've always written that there's a different tradition. If I were a Tory MP, I'd make a point of sending my children to a state school (provided it's a good one) just to show I'm "one of the people".

If the number of people willing to pay for education directly increases, then the government has no incentive to increase spending on state education. They can maintain it at a low and even a falling level, because the thinking is that those who can pay for education will do so. It starts with oboe lessons; those who want oboe lessons can pay for it. Fair enough. But what about French? or Physics? When does it stop?

Therefore, the incentive for the government is to save money by not spending it on state education because they think people who really want it will pay for it. But some people can't pay for it. They will never be able to pay for it.

Hence, the existence of fee-paying schools undermines the principle of free education for all.

I would have thought that was obvious. So all those saying how they are being so helpful by freeing up places in the state sector, please realise that the exact opposite is true.

You have a vote and could choose to vote for political parties at national and local levels which increase funding.

And who says I don't?
It's puzzling though, that our Tory MP sends his DC to state schools.

Up till 2010, the Labour Government I voted for also allowed private schools to have charitable status, although from 2006 they had to show they were creating a public benefit.
If they don’t remove charitable status when they get in next time, perhaps they should consider giving all schools charitable status.