3 ms·

Yes, but not really for urgent care. All Accident & Emergency (ER) departments are NHS-run, so everyone can expect poor state provision to bite them when they'r

by gmac 4y ago

Yes, but not really for urgent care. All Accident & Emergency (ER) departments are NHS-run, so everyone can expect poor state provision to bite them when they're most in need. For education, on the other hand, rich people and MPs can indeed fully opt out. And private schools still have charitable status.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
Well, private schools take approx. 550k pupils out of state schools while parents still pay the same amount of tax. Since the state system spends about 6.7k per pupil this means either (a) that the state saves 3.7b a year, or (b) that the state could spend an extra 380 pounds per state school pupil with the money. My conclusion is that private schools are helping tremendously but are singled out for ideological reasons/politics of envy. Many families who send their children to private schools could not afford a 20%+ in tuition fees, so would fall back on state schools and the net effect on state schools/government finances would be negative. It's different for healthcare because, first as you mention everyone has to go to NHS' A&E for an emergency, but also now the same facility/professional runs both NHS and private services. If you need to go to (NHS) hospital for potentially important checks and analyses they'll tell you the next appointment available is in 3 months on the NHS or next week privately. Dentists will say that they don't take new NHS patients but will happily see you the next day privately (that one is purely because NHS charges have not been increased in 10+ years so that dentists don't want to bother with so little money anymore). If private healthcare had to be provided only in fully private facilities then potentially it could help. But, same as for schools, the state should not take the opportunity of fewer patients to cut spending. All that being said, at the moment the main issue at A&Es and hospitals seems to be a massive surge in the number of patients.
- gmac 4y ago
  Despite apparent savings to the public purse, private schools remain pernicious in a bunch of inter-related ways: * Per the comment up-thread, private schools allow the rich and powerful to insulate themselves from a failing system. If these people’s kids were at state schools, you can bet state schools would be better resourced pretty soon. * Relatedly, private schools perpetuate social stratification and reduce social mobility and equality of opportunity. Rich parents buy better education for their kids, who get better jobs, and stay rich. * Rich kids mix with other rich kids, rarely encountering poor kids. This gives them a distorted understanding of how the world works, and a lack of empathy for the poor. See this extraordinary paper in the American Economic Review: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180044 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180044 * Because rich and middle class kids get filtered into private schools, poorer kids lose out on the positive peer effects those kids would have had on their education. For these reasons, I think one could reasonably argue for a ban on private schools. But at the very least, I think we should stop providing generous tax advantages to them. In my eyes the public benefit (which is the normal test for charitability) is vastly outweighed by the public costs.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    None of your bullet points are factual and pragmatic, they are all based on belief and ideology. A counter, more positive take, is that if state schools actually pushed all pupils then the middle class wouldn't be looking for alternatives. The existence of private schools is not what creates the issues the state system suffers from, which is potentially lack of funding (but as per my previous comment, private schools actually help on that front) and but also too often a culture that does not promote effort and ambition (which is what those who choose private schools are after). Education is first and foremost down to the parents and values learnt at home. The greatest filter is there and those who prioritise education will make their children succeed. An anecdote: When my daughter was in (state) primary school she did not do that well in maths and was put in the lower set group. When we asked the school what they did in the lower set in order to push pupils up they effectively replied "nothing, we just sort pupils according to ability, some children are not very good at maths". So here you have it, they give up on 8 year old pupils. So we did what other parents do: additional private tuition (which the majority of families can actually afford) and ultimately the school self-congratulated themselves for moving our daughter to the top set because she improved so much. Obviously, we looked for alternatives for secondary school. It's not a question of being 'rich', it's a question of priorities.
    - gmac 4y ago
      My points may reveal something about my politics, but they absolutely are not just belief or ideology. I already pointed you to a rigorous academic paper to back up one of them. I don’t have the same to hand for the others, but something like this is a good start: https://theconversation.com/why-britains-private-schools-are-such-a-social-problem-111369 https://theconversation.com/why-britains-private-schools-are... I don’t see that your anecdote has much bearing on the argument. I certainly agree that all state schools should be excellent and some of them surely have room to improve.
      - mytailorisrich 4y ago
        The previous article you mentioned was about Delhi, this one is a political piece. And none of these disproves my points. Banning private schools isn't going to improve state schools in the same way that purging the bourgeoisie did not help the proletariat.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

by gmac 4y ago

mytailorisrich 4y ago

Well, private schools take approx. 550k pupils out of state schools while parents still pay the same amount of tax. Since the state system spends about 6.7k per pupil this means either (a) that the state saves 3.7b a year, or (b) that the state could spend an extra 380 pounds per state school pupil with the money. My conclusion is that private schools are helping tremendously but are singled out for ideological reasons/politics of envy. Many families who send their children to private schools could not afford a 20%+ in tuition fees, so would fall back on state schools and the net effect on state schools/government finances would be negative. It's different for healthcare because, first as you mention everyone has to go to NHS' A&E for an emergency, but also now the same facility/professional runs both NHS and private services. If you need to go to (NHS) hospital for potentially important checks and analyses they'll tell you the next appointment available is in 3 months on the NHS or next week privately. Dentists will say that they don't take new NHS patients but will happily see you the next day privately (that one is purely because NHS charges have not been increased in 10+ years so that dentists don't want to bother with so little money anymore). If private healthcare had to be provided only in fully private facilities then potentially it could help. But, same as for schools, the state should not take the opportunity of fewer patients to cut spending. All that being said, at the moment the main issue at A&Es and hospitals seems to be a massive surge in the number of patients.

gmac 4y ago
Despite apparent savings to the public purse, private schools remain pernicious in a bunch of inter-related ways: * Per the comment up-thread, private schools allow the rich and powerful to insulate themselves from a failing system. If these people’s kids were at state schools, you can bet state schools would be better resourced pretty soon. * Relatedly, private schools perpetuate social stratification and reduce social mobility and equality of opportunity. Rich parents buy better education for their kids, who get better jobs, and stay rich. * Rich kids mix with other rich kids, rarely encountering poor kids. This gives them a distorted understanding of how the world works, and a lack of empathy for the poor. See this extraordinary paper in the American Economic Review: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180044 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180044 * Because rich and middle class kids get filtered into private schools, poorer kids lose out on the positive peer effects those kids would have had on their education. For these reasons, I think one could reasonably argue for a ban on private schools. But at the very least, I think we should stop providing generous tax advantages to them. In my eyes the public benefit (which is the normal test for charitability) is vastly outweighed by the public costs.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  None of your bullet points are factual and pragmatic, they are all based on belief and ideology. A counter, more positive take, is that if state schools actually pushed all pupils then the middle class wouldn't be looking for alternatives. The existence of private schools is not what creates the issues the state system suffers from, which is potentially lack of funding (but as per my previous comment, private schools actually help on that front) and but also too often a culture that does not promote effort and ambition (which is what those who choose private schools are after). Education is first and foremost down to the parents and values learnt at home. The greatest filter is there and those who prioritise education will make their children succeed. An anecdote: When my daughter was in (state) primary school she did not do that well in maths and was put in the lower set group. When we asked the school what they did in the lower set in order to push pupils up they effectively replied "nothing, we just sort pupils according to ability, some children are not very good at maths". So here you have it, they give up on 8 year old pupils. So we did what other parents do: additional private tuition (which the majority of families can actually afford) and ultimately the school self-congratulated themselves for moving our daughter to the top set because she improved so much. Obviously, we looked for alternatives for secondary school. It's not a question of being 'rich', it's a question of priorities.
  - gmac 4y ago
    My points may reveal something about my politics, but they absolutely are not just belief or ideology. I already pointed you to a rigorous academic paper to back up one of them. I don’t have the same to hand for the others, but something like this is a good start: https://theconversation.com/why-britains-private-schools-are-such-a-social-problem-111369 https://theconversation.com/why-britains-private-schools-are... I don’t see that your anecdote has much bearing on the argument. I certainly agree that all state schools should be excellent and some of them surely have room to improve.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      The previous article you mentioned was about Delhi, this one is a political piece. And none of these disproves my points. Banning private schools isn't going to improve state schools in the same way that purging the bourgeoisie did not help the proletariat.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]