Postby Scientist » Mon Sep 15, 2014 12:36 pm
Here is my possibly controversial view, which will solve nothing in the short term but I believe is worthy of consideration:
We moved, legitimately, in order to get our children out of a private school into a "good" state school and it worked. We have stayed within the catchment area and have benefited from the sibling policy. One of the things we like most about the state school is the sense of community which a tight catchment area bestows. Although it doesn't affect us, we do sympathise with parents who can't get their children into good state schools even though they live locally, yet who witness parents coming from far away to drop their children off. It doesn't seem fair. Now for the controversial suggestion..........
It also doesn't seem fair to me that parents who pay a lot of tax and send their children to private schools subsidise more state school places than anyone else. Ditto healthcare etc. It would seem logical that high taxpayers who do not represent a burden on state services should receive some sort of rebate against the notional value of their children's unused places at state schools - or perhaps more appropriately, that the rebate could be paid directly to private schools so as to bring down the cost of private education - and therefore to encourage more people into the private sector. Because, until there are a greater number of excellent state schools, or private schools become more affordable & numerous, the majority will have to accept a standard of education which is, frankly, below par. The money is there somewhere, but it is neither fairly nor efficiently utilised.