Why aren't private schools subsidised?
Posted by MrMrsPotts@reddit | AskUK | View on Reddit | 70 comments
In Denmark, if you send your child to private school you pay the difference between the full private school fee and the amount the state would have paid for your child at state school. That seems fair as you have still paid tax.
Why is that politically impossible in the UK? No party seems to be proposing it.
Witty-Horse-3768@reddit
The argument being had a government level is whether or not private schools should maintain their tax exempt status. The government want to be receiving money from the schools, not giving them money. Education is already provided for every child. If parents want to send their kids to private schools then it's on them and should not be subsidised. Terrible idea.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I guess the problem with making it much more expensive is that then have to pay to educate more children in state schools. So it's in all of our interests to at least subsidise the private schools a bit so they don't send the children to state schools
Otherwise_Engine250@reddit
I know you said this years ago, and i have no idea how this came across my feed but this is ass-backwards. Up until this year if you sent your child to a private school you pay a large transaction for which the exchequer could take no tax, that was a massive subsidy; in a lot of instances much more than the government would pay per pupil when you also factor in the 80% business rates reduction that they used to get.
As a teacher I think the genuine answer is to improving education is to slowly begin abolishing private schooling. When everyone is in a state school there is a collective investment in them being as good as possible, currently those with the most means to effect change in our system do not care about it as it does not effect them. That needs to change, education should be the great equaliser, where those from the most humble of beginnings are able to best those with means but no motivation
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I am not sure why you say it's backwards. In any case, the problem with the collective investment argument can be seen live in the US. Seattle is a good example that I know fairly well. Two things happen. One is that state schools in rich areas get large "donations" from parents, making them hard to distinguish from private schools. The other thing is that to attract white kids (yes, really) to inner city schools they test them at a young age and then for the top tiny percentage effectively have a school within a school for the elite kids who typical don't mix with the rest of the school.
Otherwise_Engine250@reddit
The US's school system is entirely different to the UK's. Children in rich and poor areas alike can attend any school that is local to them and school catchments overlap significantly.
Children in the town that I teach for example are in catchment for 5 high schools, so have significant choice. Also schools are assessed for how many students they can reasonably support and they must accept any application to join until they are at that number, regardless of a student's proximity to the school.
Also children with significant additional needs (including SEN, mental health, and parental negligence) are awarded an EHCP in which case they can nominate a school, which is effectively impossible to avoid.
I do however find it amusing, that you'd post to "r/AskUK" to ask a question about the UK's education system, then provide a UK teacher with counter arguments that are highly specific to the USA's education system and which do not have analogues in the UK's system
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
There are huge differences. But I think we can learn what is likely to happen if we abolish private schools from looking at what happens elsewhere in the world. I don't think being a teacher puts you in a special position when trying to predict how parents and society are likely to react to significant systemic change. The only special position it seems to give you is a feeling of superiority and a slightly snide attitude.
Witty-Horse-3768@reddit
No it's not in all our interests. The parents are already paying for the private education, all that would do is give more cash to the parents who obviously can afford to pay the fees at the moment anyway. At the moment it costs the taxpayer zero, your suggestion adds to this significantly.
Harrry-Otter@reddit
Wouldn’t that just be subsiding education for the wealthiest?
Also if we start offering rebates for tax funded services we don’t use, it might open up quite a few difficult questions. Should childless people get a rebate as they aren’t using “their” share of the education budget? If you drive should you get a rebate from the transport budget? And so on.
Clever_Username_467@reddit
I think OP's point is that said subsidy would only equal the same amount of money that the state education system has gained by not having to educate that child.
budapest_budapest@reddit
That’s an impossible figure to actually work out accurately enough to refund the money though. It’s not as simple as “educational spend divided by number of children in the country”. The same child could cost completely different amounts depending on the specific school they go to. Which figure do you use to reimburse the parents?
Small schools cost more than large ones. Rural schools have to pay more for transport (and possible teacher salaries to convince them to work there). Some schools happen to have high proportions of either very new or very senior classroom teachers. Some schools have a lot of additional pupil premium funding or a very active PTA, which changes how much is spent on each child.
Clever_Username_467@reddit
"Which figure do you use to reimburse the parents for a hypothetical school place that they never took?"
The mean.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I guess public transport is often subsidised.
Tim-Sanchez@reddit
Offering a discount to the wealthiest who are sending their children to private school doesn't make sense, especially as government funding would be subsidising the wealthiest children. That would inevitably just reduce funding for state schools, which the majority of children attend.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
But haven't they already paid for tax for their children's education?
Kind-County9767@reddit
They're free to use the state schools if they like and pay nothing.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
Yes. But that then causes a huge problem for the rest of us
Kind-County9767@reddit
No it doesnt. The richest having sole access to the highest quality education causes problems. Making kids mix together is good.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I was talking about the extra £7k per child that moves from private school that we then have to pay for. That adds up to a lot of money from an already hard stretched education budget.
Kind-County9767@reddit
Oh well. The the excessively rich have a reason to care about and fund state schools when at the moment they don't need to care at all.
CrocodileJock@reddit
So have people who don't have any children. Are you proposing they get a rebate?
allen_jb@reddit
Your taxes don't pay for the services you (and your family) use and the benefits you get. They pay for services and benefits to the country.
Someone with no children doesn't pay less tax because they're sending kids to schools.
The logic behind this is that everyone benefits - a better educated, healthier population increases quality of life and productivity for everyone.
DeadCupcakes23@reddit
No, tax just removes money from circulation, it doesn't pay for anything.
FreeTheDimple@reddit
So people that don't earn enough to pay tax can't send their children to school?
That's not how tax works.
WronglyPronounced@reddit
They have chosen not to use the state provided schooling, you don't get discounts for not using other state provided services.
Tim-Sanchez@reddit
Not directly, tax they pay goes into the general pot along with everyone else's.
And like I said, we're talking about the wealthiest in society. They have access to state schools if they don't want to "double pay", but if they want to pay to access private education then I'm fine with them also contributing a bit towards state schools.
JibberJim@reddit
And also, all that would happen is the private schools would put up their prices by the amount, knowing that the parents are able and willing to pay that, so all this results in is a subsidy to the profits of the private school.
SilyLavage@reddit
In the UK, the logic is that anyone can send their child to a free state school, so if you choose not to do this you should bear the entire cost.
In Denmark, if someone has private medical care do they also only pay the difference between what the state would have paid and the cost of the private care?
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I am embarrassed to say I don't know! I only just learned about the school situation.
SilyLavage@reddit
No problem! I was just seeing if a comparison could be made
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
The health situation in the UK is pretty unique and seems to all come from the deal Aneurin Bevan struck to set up the NHS in the first place. No other country in the world has free universal healthcare set up like we do. Plenty of other countries do have free universal healthcare though
Alarmed_Crazy_6620@reddit
Doesn't the above mentioned Denmark have more or less the same healthcare system?
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I guess one difference is how it relates to the private sector. For example,
"In Denmark the non-cancer referral-to-treatment target is 60 days (30 days to diagnosis, followed by 30 days to treatment). If this cannot be met by the public system, patients are sent to private providers and the state pays for this. "
So effectively total waiting times are capped at 60 days. That's not at all similar to the UK.
Tim-Sanchez@reddit
That seems very similar to the UK, the NHS regularly pays for private treatment when necessary.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I don't have that experience and no one has ever mentioned an equivalent rule to me in the NHS.
Tim-Sanchez@reddit
It may not be your experience, but it's happening more and more with 10% of non-urgent treatment carried out in private hospitals but paid for by the NHS.
Here are the rules with maximum waiting times, if the NHS can't meet the maximum waiting time then one option is that the NHS will fund your private care.
Rastapopolos-III@reddit
No, not similar at all to the UKs 2 week wait cancer referral system.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
Is that sarcasm? It does say non cancer and the 2 weeks for cancer is a) not referral to treatment and b) doesn't come with a guarantee of going private if they miss the deadline
Generic118@reddit
They are they're VAT free.
The fatith ones may be entirely tax free too but im not surem
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
Not for long!
Generic118@reddit
Rightfully so, why should private schooling be subsidised?
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
From a practical point of view, if we drive children from private to state schools then that is bad for everyone as we have to pay for it.
Generic118@reddit
You have to pay for it anyway.
There isn't a tax surplus.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I don't quite understand. I mean we would have to pay 7k to educate children who would otherwise be free for the tax payer when they are in the private school system.
Generic118@reddit
You still pay that regardless of if you have kids.
You still pay thag regardles of if every single child in the country webt to private school.
Theres a tax deficit the government spends more than it receives so there is not a jot of difference to the tax levels.
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
Because it is cheaper than educating them in the state school system.
Generic118@reddit
Youre entire OP argument is that the money that would have been spent on public school should be sent to the private sschooland then topped up bh parents so there's zero saving but then an aditional 20% tax diwcount. Which has to be made uk by everyone else.
The only winners in your scenario and the current are the business reciving a 20% tax discount
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I am not sure that's it. The argument is that currently we pay nothing towards the education of people in private school. If we price them out of those schools we then have to pay £7k per child that moves to a state school. Of course we also get 20% vat for those who remain in the private schools. My guess is that they will roughly balance each other out but who knows really .
Alarmed_Crazy_6620@reddit
I might get some dicks but genuinely think there's nothing wrong with giving the same funding per kid and let the parents decide the rest. I don't mind somebody paying a couple extra grand a year to have their kid do more maths, have advanced chemistry lessons, or play the tuba with a good teacher. Instead we just have a massive tutoring market.
The issue is 1) public schools would rather stay fully independent and have more flexibility 2) the total fees are now around £21k which would be way too high even if 7k was state subsidised. The conscience choice of public schools was to go for upper income bracket paying students and losing most of public sympathy.
I think the closest we have to Scandi private schools are the "Free Schools" – no (low?) fees, state funding, more independence in ways they do things
greatdrams23@reddit
The private school then has to follow the national curriculum.
Alarmed_Crazy_6620@reddit
Seems fair but was addressed in my (1) as one of the reasons why the system works differently
HirsuteHacker@reddit
Why on earth should we be creating more subsidies for the wealthiest?
DeadBallDescendant@reddit
Over half a million children are in private education in the UK. Can you imagine the impact on already strapped state schools if such a huge slice of the education budget was diverted to private schools?
Alarmed_Crazy_6620@reddit
I suppose it would be a <5% increase in funding burden. Regardless if you think it's right or wrong, it's not crazy (esp., with numbers of children in schools shrinking year over year)
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I guess a similar cost might happen as a result of Labour's plans?
dbxp@reddit
A qick Google says private schools in Denmark cost in the range of 1-2k GBP per year whilst in the UK it's more like 10-15k, it's a different group of people. It would be interesting to see if subsidies lead to cheaper less elite private schools however that may lead to more class stratification and less social mobility
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
I believe the 1-2k is the top up you have to pay. What would that top up be in the UK?
dbxp@reddit
Basic pupil funding is around £3500 per year for primary and a bit more for secondary and then there's some additional funding on top. You'd still be paying around 8-10k per year if it were subsidised
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
"For 2024-25, every mainstream school will attract at least £4,655 per pupil for primary schools and at least £6,050 per pupil in secondary schools through the NFF. The schools NFF funding sits on top of the additional funding for teachers' pay announced in July 2023"
That is a big gap nonetheless.
dbxp@reddit
That might be London weighted and it varies by year group. I used to write the budgeting software for schools and £3500 was the rough AWPU figure. The NFF isn't just your basic funding https://schoolleaders.thekeysupport.com/administration-and-management/la-funds/core-funding/national-funding-formula-summary/
Alarmed_Crazy_6620@reddit
I think schools receive around 7k-8k per kid and the average public (private) school fees are ardound 30k – a big gap
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
It's not 30k per term but maybe you meant per year? I just looked up my local ones and it's about 6-7k a term.
Alarmed_Crazy_6620@reddit
Maybe I overshot a bit with 30k but it's not far:
"The average cost per child is now £6,944 a term for day pupils, and £12,344 a term for boarders."
7-8k that private schools get is per-person per-year
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
So almost three times as much for the private schools (for day children).
Alarmed_Crazy_6620@reddit
Yes, so the Scandi system wouldn't work one for one as the parents would need to pay \~14k. Public schools do get some state subsidies – no VAT, edu grants and so on
MrMrsPotts@reddit (OP)
The first one is just about to go!
Alarmed_Crazy_6620@reddit
Just to confuse you further I think private schools should pay VAT but nothing wrong with them getting some state funding
CrocodileJock@reddit
Why should they be? More than 94% of pupils don't go to private schools. Why should the vast majority subsidize the lucky, rich few?
No-Wind6836@reddit
What you’ve described is very fair, it will never happen in the UK because there’s way too many greedy people who don’t even pay enough tax to pay for themselves so they hate the idea of anything being spent on anybody making more than 35k
AdCurrent1125@reddit
Class warfare. That's all.
AutoModerator@reddit
Please help keep AskUK welcoming!
Top-level comments to the OP must contain genuine efforts to answer the question. No jokes, judgements, etc.
Don't be a dick to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
This is a strictly no-politics subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.