[Courtesy: The Guardian]
Robert Verkaik argues that “a child at a secondary private school has three times more money spent on his or her education than one at a state school” and that this “allows 7% of the population to buy advantages over the rest of society”. Even if that is true, were independent schools to be abolished, the state sector would still need to find £6,000 per year for each of the children educated in an independent school. With 615,000 children in private education, that would require nearly £4bn a year from the taxpayer, never mind the costs of creating the new classrooms and other facilities needed.
While there are good arguments that replacing public expenditure with private is not a legitimate charitable benefit, that doesn’t alter the fact that the cost to the taxpayer will still go up if private provision is abolished. Verkaik doesn’t say where this money will come from. If he did manage to find an extra £4bn for state education, how would he justify to parents currently using the state system that the money would not be spent on their children but on the children of the wealthy?
Julian Gall
Godalming, Surrey
