• Schools: Echoes of NHS crisis threaten Cameron's re-branding mission
• Policy: Tories 'would make NHS biggest quango in world'
• Paul Waugh's blog: Bromley's reverse ferret

Reader views (43)

 Add your view

Well I'm one of the stupid parents who did dream of sending my children to private school, (one child has aspergers and couldn't fit into main stream education, the other has dyslexia) and I now have long term health problems and can't afford to fund them any longer, yes I'm a sad pathetic loser and to make matters worse I have let me children down too. So next time you scorn people for trying to improve the future for their children then think again. I'm not posh or rich, I'm just a normal parent who wanted the best for their children after I was dragged through a second rate comprehensive education and was left to endure early career choices like digging up the roads and making strawberry milkshake in a factory, how many of you heaping scorn can say that? its not about class its about improving your children's job prospects in the future, when the world is full of millions of educated english speaking chinese and indians who are looking to take over all the UK jobs at reduced payment rates.... wake up!!!

- David, Wiltshire, 26/05/2011 23:42
Report abuse

What the UK needs is a more socialist system like Denmarks where 13% of children are educated privately. I personally know a care assistant in an old peoples home who sends her children to boarding school, fees paid by the state.

This UK nonsense in forcing the poor to send their children to state schools smacks of some lunatic ideology that wishes to reinforce class divides and cares nothing for the children's growth and education.

- Threaded, Roskilde, Denmark, 19/08/2009 07:33
Report abuse

It would be one thing if the proposal was to allow any parent to use the money to send their child to the school of their choice.

But to limit it to those who have already chosen private education and then fallen on hard times is immoral.

Why don't Bromley Tories care about the vast majority of parents in the borough who would have loved to send their child to private school but could not afford to? Why is it only those who could afford to, but who now can't, that get the bailout?

Bromley's Tories are just feathering the nests of their own supporters again. It's not a question of principle. It's just vote buying.

- Bromley Resident, Bromley, UK, 18/08/2009 16:39
Report abuse

Typical Tory thinking. screw anyone but the rich.
How about
1. No public/private schools
2. No faith schools
3. bring back grammer schools, entry on merit only
4. improve secondary schools, fund them properly
5. free university education, if you get the grades.
6. Increase fees for foreign students.
7. immigrants not speaking english must attend a language school (at their cost) before attending mainstream schools

- Kerry Trubee, purley, 18/08/2009 16:20
Report abuse

If I lived in Bromley & this measure was introduced, I would not pay another penny in Council Tax.

- Robert Turner, Corsham UK, 18/08/2009 15:33
Report abuse

Although I think the French system is fairer in principle - where you are helped at the same level at which you were earning so that you can bridge the gap in unemployment without having your house repossessed and your life fall apart - it relies heavily on you quickly getting back where you were earning, which might not happen in the UK. The principle behind Bromley's strategy is that some children will have an enormous upheaval in their education because of perhaps a year of their parents' unemployment. Having switched to the State sector it is unlikely their parents will disrupt their education again by removing them from it when their income is more stable: in real terms it would probably cost the State less per child to pay for their private school fees for a year than to pay for their State education for perhaps another 5 years after that.

To pay the fees for these schools the parents must be high earners or have taken out a very long-term loan: they have probably hitherto paid a fortune to the State in Income Tax and must find it rather iniquitous that whilst they contribute an unequal payment into the system, they are expected to receive an equal payment out when things go wrong. Thanks to Labour bringing everything down to a lowest common denominator there is an over-whelming moral sense in the UK of 'if I can't have it, nobody can!' - irrespective of the financial logic - unfortunately on that basis this story doesn't help the Conservatives one bit.

- Roz, France, 18/08/2009 15:30
Report abuse

The spelling in some of these postings!
"balmy" when they mean "barmy"
"loose" when they mean "lose"
"creaping" when they mean "creeping"
"aloud" when they mean "allowed"

And some people think that we have a good education system!

We need a population that knows how to talk, how to think, how to write, how to contribute. Instead, too many people can barely express themselves properly. Ideally the state would provide this quality of education. With few exceptions, it has proved incapable, and this is why all sorts of people scrimp and save so that they can put their children into a good school. It's not just about the "rich". Good for Bromley!

- Paul, London, 18/08/2009 15:10
Report abuse

Might I point out that a huge portion of the so called self-financing parents who send their children to private schools are usually financed by their employers. Banks contribute to their executives private schooling costs, the military (officers only), the foreign service, etc. all support the private school sector.

If Bromley Council's intention is to support "all unemployed parents" in sending their children to Eton/Harrow, et. al. then so be it, but I suspect that the recently unemployed city dealers are the ones who will yet again benefit from taxpayers, in this case the council tax payers of Bromley. It should also be pointed out that Bromley ship across borough boundaries a large portion of their needy pupils into areas such as Lewisham and Southwark putting excessive pressure on these councils.

Keep it up you Boris supporters, show us your true intentions, historically you closed a Teacher Training College to use its facilities for council offices, and then privatised a large section of your council responsibilities. The truest and bluest Tory thinking for the future of this country. Let us see Boy David squirm out of this one - the Conservative Party is the self-interest party - bring on the next election and their total demise!

- Geraldinho, Hurst Green, East Sussex, 18/08/2009 14:55
Report abuse

Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital has learnt from the Evening Standard that Bromley Council is drawing up plans to subsidise the school fees of privately-educated pupils whose parents have lost their jobs.

Commenting on this revelation, party leader, John Hemming-Clark said,

"This is an outrageous use of taxpayers' money. I went to a private school and if my dad had lost his job he would either have taken me out of the school or worked with the school to find a solution. Taxpayer's money should be used to help those most in need with food, clothing and housing and the like, not to pay for private education.

More than ever we need independent representation on Bromley Council. The London Borough elections next May cannot come quickly enough. In the meantime I will be watching out for more flagrant abuses of taxpayers' money in an attempt to buy votes."

ends

John Hemming-Clark
Party Leader
Independents to Save Queen Mary's Hospital

- John Hemming-Clark, Chislehurst, 18/08/2009 14:47
Report abuse

LOOKS LIKE THE TORY PARTY ARE SHOWING THEIR TRUE COLOURS AGAIN.

What is wrong with an education sysytem that caters for pupils of ALL abilities.

Academically bright kids could be selected and tested , then fast-tracked into education more befitting their abilities.

The less academically inclined,could be given vocational training to help re-build our dead manafacturing industry.

Just catering for the kids of the upper middle class (tory voters perchanche ???) , who may have lost their cushy deskbound jobs , leaving little Panchetta Crouton to toddle of to the local comprehensive , is NOT a vote winner in my book.

The old class divisions of the tory party are as strong as ever.

NO PARTY HAS EVER BOTHERED TO SOLVE THE EDUCATION PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY.

EDUCATE THE YOUNG

DON'T USE THEM AS TOOLS TO BOLSTER FLAWED GOVERNMENT STATISTICS.

AND DONT GET ME STARTED ON N.V.Q'S FOR GOD'S SAKE.

LET TEACHERS TEACH

IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT .



MR ( WHY CAN'T THEY GET THE BASICS RIGHT) PASTRY

- Mr Pastry, london, 18/08/2009 14:37
Report abuse

Regarding your comments on private schools, I would not agree that Bromley are misguided. Many parents make very significant sacrifices to put their children through private schooling, because they are not satisfied with what is on offer from the State sector. I would suggest that all parents are given vouchers equal to the cost to the public sector cost per child per year and allow these to be used in full (state)or part payment (private) towards the child’s education. This would have the effect of making the state sector improve their standards (or face closure) to encourage those parents who would go to the private sector to choose them instead. That way we would have a win win situation, give parents some real choice on schools, and hopefully would achieve what 10+ years and God knows how many billions of “Education, Education, Education” has failed to do.

- Very Very Angry At Paying Tax For Mp'S Expeses, Home Counties, 18/08/2009 14:32
Report abuse

This seems very fair to me. The likelihood is that these people will find employment again soon, at which point they can start paying the fees again and not burden the state with further demands. As long as it's monitored properly (ok- a lot to ask of the public sector)we can think of it as a small tax return to say thankyou for paying for everyone else's education through the tax system even if they don't use it themselves. Or we could, as some people seem to be suggesting, force everyone to use the state system, thereby increasing costs, raising taxes and having to live with the guilt of forcing parents to take a course that they deem to be against the interest of their Children- a very dubious moral place to be I think...

- Jim, London, 18/08/2009 14:16
Report abuse

That's possibly the dumbs thing I've heard in a long time.
Can't afford the fees dont send the child to private school.
Good grief I'm voting Green this year

- Clear, London, 18/08/2009 13:58
Report abuse

So the kids that have grown up with all the advantages, will still get the advantages over state educated kids.
This is so wrong. I can tell you when I worked in a private school for many years the assisted places scheme only helped the middle classes, that is the plain truth. Middle class parents had their clever accountants telephoning the school to see how much they had to reduce their clients income to, to get a free place.it was also the middle classes divorce charter, money given in a divorce/alimony is not counted as earned income as it has already been taxed through generally the father's
taxes, and if the ex-wife doesn't work than she has no earned income.So got a free place for her offspring, and she could have been paid £100,000 pa by her ex. The whole system stank to high heaven. These parents keep on about subsidising the state system, but it's their choice to send their kids to private schools, we should not be paying the school fees it's immoral. Don't forget the middle classes always have the advantage over the less advantaged, but their children are no less precious to them than ours are to us. This is all about good education for middle class kids and two fingers to the rest. Don't feel sorry for them, their children will survive a state education like the rest of ours have had to. They are no special case at all.

- Ros, London UK, 18/08/2009 13:18
Report abuse

Over the past few months the Tory party, boosted by the opinion polls, has started to show its true colours to the electorate. Half of its MPs don't support the NHS, they behaved just as badly as Labour during the expenses scandal, and now stupid ideas like this. A few months ago I was all set on voting Tory (and I live in a swing seat), but now I'm definitely voting Lib Dem.

- Matt, Enfield, London, 18/08/2009 12:56
Report abuse

Will Dave Cameron distance himself from this ?????

As a life long Tory, well as far back as Margaret Thatcher, I cannot agree with this balmy idea, it's bound to loose the Conservative party votes.

The implication is that every child publically financed in the borough is fully supported and has the very best education availabl, all problem children have be fully supported and are now being well educated, all teaching posts are filled, all schools are in perfect condition equipped with the best and most appropriate equipment available and all poor families with children at these schools are fully subsidesed to univesrity level.

Well if such utopia exists then rather than fund the rich who choose to put their children into alternative education they should hand this funding back to the state to where it can be put to better use or use it to create more space for those dropping out of the private system because they cannot afford it.

- Jacqui, London, England, 18/08/2009 12:55
Report abuse

The logic of the 'rich' never ceases to amaze me.
If you can afford to send your children to a fee-paying school, then you can easily afford to take out income protection!!

This solution would obviously require common-sense, which is something the 'rich' are seldom born with!!

- Paul J, Northampton, 18/08/2009 12:43
Report abuse

All UK taxpayers are subsidising: workshy single mothers living on benefits and subsidised housing, unemployed immigrants who bring no skills whatsoever to the UK apart from knowing how to leech hard working taxpayers money,freeloaders who feign disability. The list is endless! Goodness knows how much the government spends on sinister PC literature that's brainwashing our school children.Why shouldn't hard working parents be subsidised for their child's private education - they've paid more than their fair share in taxes.Well done Bromley I hope other councils follow your example!

- Larissa, Kingston, 18/08/2009 12:37
Report abuse

All those people who say they don't want their money to go to paying for other people's kids to have private schooling... they've been paying for your kids for years without any personal gain. The state system clearly wouldn't be able to cope if all the private schools collapsed and the children had to be taken in by state schools, and it is incredibly difficult for children to adjust to being dragged out of one school and shoved into another one. Not to mention the reverse snobbery they would clearly suffer based on the comments here. I hope you are not spreading your classist attitudes to your children, you are only fuelling the divide.

- Helen, London, 18/08/2009 12:29
Report abuse

Some private schools are no better than state schools. Most of them charge an extortionate amount of money just to teach kids out of text books. They don't even cater for different abilities. If parents who have more money than sense want to pay for that then great but why should WE have to?

- Natalie, London, 18/08/2009 12:17
Report abuse

I agree with Sandra from Hounslow. The cat has been let a bit out of the bag here with the revelation of the little discussed fact that Council's receive £4,700 per child, whether they go to state schools or not. In that context, a small return to certain children who would normally see none of this allocation does not seem at all unfair. As Sandra suggests, the truly radical way forward would be to promote a voucher system for all children. Give them £4,700 a year to spend on their education -- that would give many more of them a real choice, and light a true blaze under the cozy bottoms of local schools. No chance of that, then.

- Bloke, London, 18/08/2009 12:00
Report abuse

What's really ironic about this is that it costs more to educate a child in a state school so the local authority is actually saving tax-payers' money by doing this!

Can't really see the connection between this story and Nazi Germany though; didn't the Nazis (National Socialists) force everyone into state schools so that the kids could be fed government propaganda?

- Pondering, London, 18/08/2009 11:57
Report abuse

All parties have ensured that most state secondary schools are not good enough.

With up to six million unemployed & unlimited immigration, almost anybody can become unemployed. Only the rich are immune, & they benefit from low wages & high immigration.

Soon, we will not have enough workers to pay the taxes to support the unemployed.

So, who's going to stump up to pay the school fees ?

- British Not Racist, Bracknell England, 18/08/2009 11:57
Report abuse

The council are looking at a possible practical response to the recession - avoiding ex-private school pupils putting further pressure on the state system.

These parents have already paid their taxes for that "subsidy" they will be receiving.

Now, if we had an education voucher system ....

- Neil, Bromley, 18/08/2009 11:47
Report abuse

Well the council has no excuse NOT to fund any repairs or maintenance needed at its own schools as if it has money to send cameronites to public schools it has funds to fix schools and supply all the needs of its state schools.

- Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, 18/08/2009 11:47
Report abuse

Keith Price, yes I understand and maybe several others who have had to endure the bog standard education provided by some state schools that our children have been forced to go. I can understand why you cannot read Neil's comments, as I presume you also went to a bog standard comprehensive thereby limiting your intelligence. Our children would never have graduated from universities if we hadn't paid for private tuition, as some of the maths teachers in their schools hadn't even passed their GCSE's in Maths and had to re-sit them several times. All due to Labours thinking that one type of education is suitable for all types of children. Hope you now understood the remark, if not its very sad to see what education you have had. Never too late my dear to attend evening classes.

- Nicholas, RICHmond, 18/08/2009 11:45
Report abuse

Why shouldn't the parents who choose to send their kids privately - paying for this out of their already taxed income - receive some of the benefit of their taxes which are supposed to pay for education?

Its iniquitable that generally they do not!

Yet its OK under Labour for taxpayers money to pay for bankers bonuses?

- Bardirect, London, 18/08/2009 11:45
Report abuse

Tax the poor to subsidies the rich. Traditional Tory Party policy. If you are going to vote for the Conservatives in the next election this is what you are voting for.

- Mick, London, England, 18/08/2009 11:43
Report abuse

It's a good idea.
First if you pay for a private school, you're actually paying twice. You don't get a discount on your taxes because your kid isn't in the state system.
Second, won't someone think of the children? It's very disruptive for a child to move school.
Third, if they have to pull their child from a private school because of a job loss, there's a good chance they'll find another job and be able to start paying private fees again. If they can't, then at some point the assistance should be reevaluated.
Finally, take a guess how much it costs to put a child through the state system for a year. It isn't that different to the cost of a private place. Any shortfall is more than made up for by looking at the reasons above.

Andy, your idea of fair is comically inaccurate. See the points above. What you're actually saying is "Boo, I feel hard done by, where's my slice of the cake?" Once you look at the facts, and stop listening to the emotional blackmail spouted in response by Labour it doesn't seem such a stupid idea.

- Ian, london, 18/08/2009 11:33
Report abuse

Many of these comments indicate that New Labour is on the back-foot as far as education is concerned, apart from, I would guess, the many left-wing socialist MPs that send their offspring to private schools because Brown's state system is rotten to the core.

- Ted, London, 18/08/2009 11:14
Report abuse

At first sight I don’t want the state playing for private schools for the well off. However if a child is 15 (or 10, or 17) and the parents have just lost their jobs a case could be made that the state should pay to keep them in the same school for their last year.

Otherwise the state has to pay to find a place in another school and provide the child with a lot of support as they change schools.

However I think it should be a loan that the parents have to repay once they have found new jobs.

- Ian, Stockport, 18/08/2009 11:11
Report abuse

I think Neil is right - streaming can only benefit all the children and is critical to enable the brightest and the dumbest to maximise their potential. Instead of subsidising a very small minority to maintain their private education, the council should be this pumping money into the state school system to allow teachers to stream classes, if they're not already.

- Isabel, Woking, 18/08/2009 11:09
Report abuse

Using state cash to pay private school fees - Why?
Unless private schools are opening doors for all state children, as most could benenfit from the standard of teaching.

- Jade, London, 18/08/2009 11:05
Report abuse

What a fabulous idea by Bromley Conservatives and a massive vote of thanks in the local state schools! Clearly the local state schools are already swimming in cash and in no need of any more funds, so it would just be a waste to have it lying there doing nothing - how much better to dish it out to unemployed toffs so the private sector can be subsidised.

- George, Surrey, UK, 18/08/2009 11:02
Report abuse

"Antone understand what this man is trying to say?"

I'm not Antone but I believe he's trying to say comprehensives are letting down brighter kids and that they try to feminise boys *. I can understand that because I didn't got to one.

* And based on the horrifically PC books my mates' kids are given to read, it's true. Unless they genuinely think the way to tempt a 6 year old boy away from his Nintendo Wii is a book about a disabled girl learning to make pizza. Or two Indian boys learning to share! They seem more concerned with socially conditioning kids into Guardian readers than teaching them.

- Kevin T, Beckenham, Kent, 18/08/2009 10:59
Report abuse

"kids can be given a one-size-fits-all feminised education in dumbed-down comprehensives."
Antone understand what this man is trying to say?

- Keith Price, Luton England, 18/08/2009 10:35
Report abuse

Jan from Dorset grow up! What a comment to compare Nazi ideas to giving a child a good education. Maybe you should go back to school to study history, or better go to a private school to improve your intelligence.

- John, Ealing, 18/08/2009 10:32
Report abuse

Either the council funds all children to go to public school or it funds no children to go to public school. If it decides to fund such places why should they automatically go to the children whose parents would, but for the recession be able to afford to send their children to these schools? An independently supervised 'lucky dip' would be the only fair way!

- Andy, london, 18/08/2009 10:29
Report abuse

I think this is good. The Government has to understand that many parents are saving them many thousands of pounds by sending their children to a private school. Thereby the monies that would be used for their children's education in a state school is diverted to others. Now that these parents are having to face hardship due to the cock-ups by the government, subsidising some of the school fees would benefit all concerned. If these children have to be pulled out and put into state schools, can these schools even cope? Am sure there will be many who will be bleating that this is so unfair, I don't think its a bad idea and maybe Cameron should seriously consider taking education out of local authority council and give vouchers to all parents if they want to put their kids into private they can then subsidisse the balance, if they want to put them into a state school, they could and by this you will find that the state schools will improve as they have to compete with the private, and only then one can see the parents who would not be bothered with their kids education, and this could also be dealt with.

- Sandra, Hounslow, 18/08/2009 10:26
Report abuse

The Tory Party is losing the plot.First on the NHS and now on Education.

David Cameron take note. I and other Council Tax payers throughout the UK pay our taxes to pay for state schools. I DO NOT PAY IT TO SUBSIDISE PEOPLE WHO ARE BETTER OFF THAN ME.

If people want to opt out of state provision then they must meet the cost....not ordinary people like me.

DAVID CAMERON IS IN REAL DANGER OF LOSING MY VOTE AND THAT OF OTHER ORDINARY PEOPLE.TAKE NOTE CENTRAL OFFICE.

- Andrew Nicholls, Ely ,England, 18/08/2009 10:16
Report abuse

I would love to have sent my children to a private school. BUT, I COULDN'T AFFORD IT. Why not let the MP's and and the wealthy in this country just be aloud to take all our homes our few possessions and any saving and pensions (which are becoming worthless as the years go on), then have an extermination order for the rest of us. I thought WW2 was founght by the ordinary man to abolish Nazi ideas. They just seem to be creaping in gradually. Just like the petrol is creeping up again.

- Jan, dorset, 18/08/2009 10:07
Report abuse

I am totally speechless! I can't afford to send my son to a private school .. perhaps I should ring my local council.

- Kim, Lancing, West Sussex, 18/08/2009 10:02
Report abuse

The best thing for the education system would be the reintroduction of segregation by ability, and the dropping of the pretense tht kids can be given a one-size-fits-all feminised education in dumbed-down comprehensives.

- Neil, London, London UK, 18/08/2009 09:29
Report abuse

Add your comment