Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arran90)

    Therefore should state schools be free or should children who attended them pay for them through higher taxes as an adult?
    All adults pay tax, even if they are on low incomes or in low skilled work.

    You are basically suggesting that those can afford private tuition get a tax rebate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So private school children will in effect be paid to stay away from state schools...?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    But you choose to send your child to a state school or home school them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think parents with children at public school should get a small rebate.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arran90)

    I'm of the opinion that kids who get poor GCSE results should be deemed to have wasted the taxpayer's money.
    Just another postcode lottery to add to a failing system then.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    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).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.