The Student Room Group

Should school be free?

Something I struggle to understand is the hard demarcation line between school being free (taxpayer funded) and university paid for by students. The argument of why should the taxpayer pay for university whilst not giving a thought for the billions of pounds of public money spent on schools, or even that the more money spent on schools the better holds very little water if you think about it. The same with why should the dustman (who left school at 16) pay for the university education of the doctor.

Therefore should state schools be free or should children who attended them pay for them through higher taxes as an adult? Children who attended private schools or were home educated will not have to pay this tax. There could be different tax rates depending on GCSE results. Those with high grades get a rebate and those with poor grades get the full whack.

At the same time GCSE exams are free (taxpayer funded) for all children for the first attempt in a subject even if they attend private schools or are home educated.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
So private school children will in effect be paid to stay away from state schools...?
Imagine you're a state. You need a large percentage of low-skill workers to manage the low-skill labor. If you don't, your state falls over like a big cake.

If the lower classes suddenly become professionals because education is free, someone needs to replace them. But who? Robots? We're not there yet.

The intention is to make education appealing for ambitious or capable people while preserving order for everyone else.
But you choose to send your child to a state school or home school them.
Original post by SWCoffee
Imagine you're a state. You need a large percentage of low-skill workers to manage the low-skill labor. If you don't, your state falls over like a big cake.

If the lower classes suddenly become professionals because education is free, someone needs to replace them. But who? Robots? We're not there yet.

The intention is to make education appealing for ambitious or capable people while preserving order for everyone else.


Not everyone would want to pursue higher education, even if it were free. Also there wouldn't be enough high-skill jobs for everyone so the excess would be unemployed and forced to settle for low skill work.
Education up until the age of 18 is a right that everyone is entitled to regardless of how much money their parents have. State education is paid for through taxes paid by most parents, it isn't technically 'free' in that sense anyway.

All this would do is widen the gap between the rich and poor. Those whose parents couldn't afford private education or homeschooling (and would potentially be disadvantaged in terms of GCSE results) would effectively have to pay for their education again.
I'm being hypothetical. Even so, I contend people will, given the necessary social stimulation, actively seek to better their own education.

Education can be simple. For example, watching another person doing something and imitating them, or going to WikiHow and learning how to bleach your hair.

I'm not suggesting disadvantaged people will seek qualifications. I'm suggesting all people seek education, and that these little experiences all add up for the better.
Reply 7
Original post by Daisy2001
Education up until the age of 18 is a right that everyone is entitled to regardless of how much money their parents have. State education is paid for through taxes paid by most parents, it isn't technically 'free' in that sense anyway.


Education and school are two different things. Do not confuse or conflate them.

All this would do is widen the gap between the rich and poor. Those whose parents couldn't afford private education or homeschooling (and would potentially be disadvantaged in terms of GCSE results) would effectively have to pay for their education again.


I dispute this. It's quite common for kids (of all backgrounds) to learn more out of school than in due to poor teaching, classroom disruption, etc. Also, if there is a tax rebate for getting high GCSE grades then there is incentive to study harder as a result.

I'm of the opinion that kids who get poor GCSE results should be deemed to have wasted the taxpayer's money.
I think parents with children at public school should get a small rebate.
Original post by Arran90
Education and school are two different things. Do not confuse or conflate them.



I dispute this. It's quite common for kids (of all backgrounds) to learn more out of school than in due to poor teaching, classroom disruption, etc. Also, if there is a tax rebate for getting high GCSE grades then there is incentive to study harder as a result.

I'm of the opinion that kids who get poor GCSE results should be deemed to have wasted the taxpayer's money.


What is your alternative to schools then? Obviously education isn't limited to what you're taught in school, but schools are important in terms of providing a basic education that gives pupils the necessary skills/qualifications needed to pursue a career/get a job; in this sense they are necessary and everyone should have a right to attend one.

Not everyone has the incentive to work that much outside school in cases where the class has been disrupted or there has been poor teaching. Every situation is different, if someone hasn't been raised to value education and has had little support and encouragement from parents (for various reasons) throughout their school life this is not their fault. Additionally there could be other factors such as bullying, illness, mental health problems, being a carer etc. which could impact GCSE grades.

'Poor' GCSE grades don't necessarily mean the pupil hasn't worked hard. They are dependent on so many factors, and people do genuinely find them difficult. Why should they be punished for this and how is it a waste of money as long as the get the qualifications needed for their chosen career path- 'top' GCSE grades aren't really required for anything.
I don’t mean to be rude but this post is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. I started to write an actual answer to this but it would be thousands of words, that’s the level of idiocy I’m faced with here. If your concerns are genuine you really need to think about them more critically and think why the system you have proposed will never happen.
Reply 11
Original post by GovernmentEarner
I don’t mean to be rude but this post is one of the most stupid things I have ever read. I started to write an actual answer to this but it would be thousands of words, that’s the level of idiocy I’m faced with here. If your concerns are genuine you really need to think about them more critically and think why the system you have proposed will never happen.


As an economist as well as an engineer I'm well aware of the multitude of services that the public gets uptight about when it comes to spending public money - benefits and higher education are classic examples of more recent times along with that old stalwart of defence - but if there are two services that nobody cares how much public money is spent on or every penny is a penny well spent they are schools and prisons.
Original post by Daisy2001
Education up until the age of 18 is a right that everyone is entitled to regardless of how much money their parents have. State education is paid for through taxes paid by most parents, it isn't technically 'free' in that sense anyway.

All this would do is widen the gap between the rich and poor. Those whose parents couldn't afford private education or homeschooling (and would potentially be disadvantaged in terms of GCSE results) would effectively have to pay for their education again.


I agree
Original post by Arran90
...why should the dustman (who left school at 16) pay for the university education of the doctor.
...
Those with high grades get a rebate and those with poor grades get the full whack.


Given the obvious contradictions in the above, i suggest you figure out what you're actually arguing for here! Either we incentivise education by making higher degrees cost less, or we say that those who are getting the most out of education should pay for it. Can't have both!
Original post by Arran90
if there are two services that nobody cares how much public money is spent on or every penny is a penny well spent they are schools and prisons.


Just schools.

I wonder, does it take more money to treat people than jail them?
University is free. Just that graduates now pay an additional 9% tax over and above £25k for 30 years. I think the big stigma that universities have is this idea that those who graduate have a debt. They don't. It isn't a debt in the traditional sense at all. If you have a bank loan or mortgage, you are obliged to pay it off regardless of your circumstances. Student debt is nothing like a debt. It is a tax. And a reasonably progressive one at that.
No, it should not be free, but money should not be a barrier. The current system meets this, although it also seems to have been designed for the majority to never pay it back which is also not ideal in the incentives it provides (e.g. you should borrow as much as the government will give you).
Original post by Arran90
Something I struggle to understand is the hard demarcation line between school being free (taxpayer funded) and university paid for by students. The argument of why should the taxpayer pay for university whilst not giving a thought for the billions of pounds of public money spent on schools, or even that the more money spent on schools the better holds very little water if you think about it. The same with why should the dustman (who left school at 16) pay for the university education of the doctor.

Therefore should state schools be free or should children who attended them pay for them through higher taxes as an adult? Children who attended private schools or were home educated will not have to pay this tax. There could be different tax rates depending on GCSE results. Those with high grades get a rebate and those with poor grades get the full whack.

At the same time GCSE exams are free (taxpayer funded) for all children for the first attempt in a subject even if they attend private schools or are home educated.


School should be optional.
I have a system that may seem counter-intuitive. Give parents cashback equal to the cost of private tuition, for sending kids to private schools. There are two contrasting angles on this, yet both are true:

A) On the one hand, it looks like a tax-break for the wealthy.
B) On the other hand, it would open up the opportunity for many more poorer families to send their kids to private schools that average higher education standards.

I like putting this question to people. It let's me judge quite effectively what their priorities are. Are they: A) more interested in hammering the wealthy, or B) more interested in helping the poor?

(Of course... such a scheme would need more details to be worked out for it to function. Providing limitless cashback to parents for sending kids to private schools could for example incentivize private schools to double their fees, just because they can. A scheme like this could also completely savage property prices in many areas, which is risky business)

In the long-term, I'd expect that demand for public schools would fall, current teaching staff would migrate to teach in private schools instead, and the cost of funding public schools would fall a lot as a result. All that = lower government spending on public schools, that would pay for the rebates for sending kids to private schools.

.
(edited 6 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest