Is it bad to send a child to a good public school, depriving another child of their place, if you can afford for them to go to a private school?

If you are looking at this from a strictly financial standpoint, the ethical waters are muddy. It's not as simple as "rich child takes a seat away from a poor child." Many good schools, at least in the U.S., rely heavily on parental contributions to fundraisers and booster clubs to fund their activities.  When a "rich" family leaves the school, they are taking their extra funds with them.  Also, due to the way schools districts are set up, the odds of having an incredibly rich family living in the same district as an incredibly poor family are low.  If a "filthy rich" family leaves, they are likely to be replaced by an "equally rich but less concerned about education" family.  So the way society is (neighborhoods largely segregated by wealth, schools not fully funded by government budgets) makes the financial ethics of private/public school choice difficult to call.

One solution to the dilemma as you've stated it is to send your kid to the public school and donate to that school, preferably more than the public cost (preferably even more if you can afford it). If the school in question doesn't have a "friends of" not-for-profit, start one. This helps the school and gives a better education to the other kids in the school that can't afford private education.

I'll tell you the way my family sees it; and it couldn't be more clear. To achieve the highest quality education for my kids, we can choose one of the following: Pay $18,000 per kid, per year for private schools Pay roughly the same in mortgage costs for a property in a "good" school district, where the property values have been inflated due to overwhelming demand for the district So it's not like we'd be saving money if our kids went to great public schools. The cost would be about the same, the money would just go to inflated property values and property taxes rather than some private school.

There aren't any kids who will be left without a school place if you send your kid to a state school. The government provides for this in many rich countries. There's no way to stop some people from giving their kids a better education. People are born with various advantages/disadvantages in life, some of which are parental wealth and parental focus on education. There's not really a way to fix this. I think a proper education system for everyone would be a good start, but you'll never get the fair race that the question alludes to.

There have been a large number of paper written since the housing lead financial disaster of 2008-2009. That wanted to look into why the west was buying larger homes than most could afford and they seem to have found that it relates to your question. Lets talk about the US to simplify the discussion. In the US public schools get a significant portion of their funding from property taxes and the studies found that the size of the homes in those school districts whose students performed above the national median on the standardized tests for college acceptance is were the trend of larger and larger homes gets its start. Parents want there children in good schools, the real estate in those school districts is priced at a premium reflecting it's desirability. Owners who are paying an inflated price want the most they can get for their money so they pick larger homes. That starts the cycle moving. Until we stop funding schools based on regional taxes and instead fund with national dollars this will be a problem.

Well, firstly(assuming thats a word) the notion of good and bad schools is generally jisunderstood.  The largest factor is typically the students enrolled in the school. The more good students in the school, the more successful the education will be, attracting even more good students. This could be academic talent, or merely a willingness to make an effort and try to learn. This is regardless to ethnicity or socioeconomic differences. However, low income areas do typically have more students whose family or home situations contributes to them being the type who doesnt care about their education or becomes disruptive etc.  Whether you send your kid to expensive private school, or the prepaid public school is a secondary issue.  I say prepaid instead of free because if you are paying taxes, esp property taxes you have indeed already paid for the school. I suppose if your kid is a good student (attitude as much as grades), their presence in the public school would be bneficial. As to morality, your first obligation is to the needs of your child!. I am scared indeed at the thought of those who would sacrifice the needs of their own child for some meaningless contribution of a theoretical common good.

It would be morally unacceptable not to afford your child the best education possible. If that means to send them to your neighborhood public school, so be it. That is why I am for a voucher program that would give all children the opportunity to choose a school of their choice (public, religious or private). Unfortunately the is opposed to it, and they get their way in the parts of the country where the program is most needed.

State should provide equal education for all. If there is a gap between schools it is first the state responsability. So, it is ethic to send your kid to public school even if yu can pay for a private one. In a moral sense, you can donate for helping other kids.

I am not very familiar with the educational system in the UK, so I am answering as a someone who grew up in the U. S. I would argue it's good to send your child to a public school. I think many parents in the United States think private always means better and it doesn't. I think a strong public school can prepare your child for life in ways that some private schools do not. I am the daughter of a retired math and science teacher and a big believer of the importance of public education.