Part-pay schools

I don't think it would work however you managed it gilly. If you do it on a local level all that would happen is that largely mc intake schools would be even better, and schools with mainly deprived/ low income dc would be the same as currently or even worse.

If you did it nationally lots of parents would have different objections. I wouldn't be happy to contribute spare income so that the mc dc who are already more privileged than mine can have an even better state school, even though I'd happily contribute to less privileged dc. Nor would I be happy if it went to the catchment school because no dc would see it.

Ditto for mc parents in good schools, I don't think they'd all happily contribute to a central pot if their dc didn't see any of it because it all went to improve bad schools, or struggling schools.

Or parents of children with sn who have been completed failed by the education system, I imagine quite a few would resent paying when their own dc have been prevented from remaining in the system.

Unless it was done as a tax increase so there was no choice, and that would be political death for whichever party raised it.

Now I know this is different before the usual poster reminds me of this, but the principle is similar.

My dd attends a specialist music school where fees are around £32k give or take a few quid.
The parents are charged fees due to income, the more they earn the more they pay. So if your total income is 190k you pay the full fees, if you earn under 20k you pay very little.
The difference is the gov/tax payer foots the rest of the bill.

However, if you were looking at means testing for state school you would just have a different sliding scale, so those with a medium sized income would pay more than those on a low income, whilst those on benefit paid nothing.
It may not cover the whole costs of running the school but would help with a significant proportion, unless all the parents were low income or benefits.

I think for it to work you'd have to look at admissions and people being able to move closer to better schools.
Not sure how you'd manage this though.

The theory of an "an excellent education for all" through taxation is great but who wants their child to go to a failing school?

When I was a child, our local grammar had just turned into a High School (mid 70's). The party line at that time (swallowed hook line and sinker by my parents) was that the High School would give everyone a grammar education. What a load of crap! The nearby secondary moderns were closed at the same time and the grammar was massively expanded. Results, behaviour, etc just plummeted. Worst 5 years of my life due to substandard teachers, awful bullying, etc. It wasn't even a "failing" school - it was supposed to be one of the best. It's about time there was some standardisation of schools as it's plainly ridiculous that state schools can be so different.

The 11+ pass bar is ludicrously high

Depends on the area. In our area, the admission criteria is usually around 70% which I don't think is particularly high. Though I do know some super-selective areas where it's 95%+ which is indeed ludicrous. It's just down to demand. In super-selective areas, there's obviously far too much demand for the relatively few places available so they have to set a high level to choose how to admit. In our area, there are usually only 2 applicants for each place, so the bar is set a lot lower.

cookie so why not just give that £150k to the school then? Because of you want the money to only help your dc, it's a tutor you need not a school. I can't imagine a decent private letting you buy a teacher on that basis either.

ttbb If everyone only had kids they could afford then we wouldn't need state education, as everyone could pay for private. Or do you see a moral difference between the tax payers funding mc dc's education and funding people at the mercy of employers or in the poverty trap? Because I don't. And the tiny, minuscule minority of genuine scroungers really aren't big enough to make a difference. It doesn't need to be shit for everyone to make education fair for all.

we just have a government that wants tax rates to be low and public services to be underfunded. That is the issue here.
with bells on

This is just not needed. Income tax already varies according to income. I would much prefer the ££ were taken via income tax and used to properly fund schools. The cost is then also spread over your working life.

That is actually how it works now, we just have a government that wants tax rates to be low and public services to be underfunded. That is the issue here.

People volunteer time and money every day. Not just to the education system, a lack of social responsibility is not the issue nationally in my opinion. A tax system and an elected government to redistribute the taxes according to their priorities is what we have, If we dealt properly with poverty and inequality then the education system would have a better chance.

It does not have to be shit for everyone.

Excellent idea. But brits are such an entitled bunch they would never voluntarily pay for this stuff (unless they are in the nice, socially responsible minority like you). You'd gave to introduce a mandatory means tested system. Another alternative would be to adopt the American system where council taxes are raised and part of this goes to schools (although in the poorest areas this would be ineffective). Unfortunately no matter what you do, while people who cannot afford children keep having them there will always be this kind of inequality unless you standardise the system and make it shit for everyone.

Cookie - so you would pay into the school for the few years that your dc attend, or until your circumstances change, you move house, lose a job, have another child, any number of things can change... A school needs to plan budgets and have stability they cannot work with parents injecting money for additional staff on an ad hoc basis. How would that change your relationship with the school? Would you be a customer? A shareholder? What about the teacher bought with parental funds would they be able to do their job knowing it was at the whim of a few parents?

If you want private school experience/ ethos you pay for it at a private school.

State schools need to be managed by the school Head and board of Governors and funded through Taxes to ensure fairness and proper redistribution, ad hoc groups of Parents can't wade in with cheque books flapping it is unworkable and unfair. Some Schools are very fortunate to have additional support from PTA that fund enrichment activities and supplement schools budget for equipment. Be glad if your dc attend such a school and that you are in a position to support and encourage your dc in their academic achievements.

"So instead we fund the pta which raises a huge amount of money (£10k at our last evening charity aunction for example)"

Hmm. Well, that doesn't happen at the schools poor children go to...........

So instead we fund the pta which raises a huge amount of money (£10k at our last evening charity aunction for example). What I'm saying is there is money to tap into and there are some parents willing to provide it. Gladly.

No. I didn't suggest separating children. I said enriched curriculum that can cater for spectrum of abilities. If middle class parents like myself are offering money. In our primary class that is best part of £150,000 which we seriously offered to our state school primary, how can that not be positive for all that attend the school ? It's not for me to decide how to spend it.

I know what to do.

Next election make education a priority, every debate, someone on your doorstep, or meeting ask about education.

If education is at the top of the agenda it will be better funded.

Give teachers some trust and same respect.

As a society we should all value the education children receive, it is a cliche but they are the future.

Ah yes, the good old school voucher system being resurrected yet again. Must have some means for the middle classes to separate themselves from the riff raff.

I think you will find the original plans are in the same filing cabinet as tax breaks for school fees (individual tax breaks that is as opposed to the sodding great tax breaks obtained via 'charitable' status).

"This country is extremely polarising. It's getting worse."

And your middle class parents paying 10k to separate their children from the hoi polloi is going to help with this exactly how?

I do agree it wouldn't work in the state sector and be massively difficult to administer. But I do think there is a gap here for middle class parents willing to commit £10k a year to support an enriched education.

Completely agree with the poster though. This country is extremely polarising. It's getting worse. When new comp schools being created are creating dumbed down curriculum not fit for today's workforce. Spending more time on yoga mindfulness and 'coaching' than maths. There needs to be different kinds of schools for different kids. Rather than shoe horn everyone into the same curriculum. I now have to move fortunately I have the financial power to do that.

Practically I can't see how this would work. Who decides how much parents can afford? Every case would like bursaries in the independent sector have to be looked at individually. It's not about what you earn it's about your outgoing. You could earn £90k a year and have a massive mortgage, four kids,, two at uni and elderly parents your assisting financially, live in a house with needs a new roof (ours would cost in excess of £40k to replace) etc . Or be on £35k a year, have no mortgage 1 child and few out goings and no leaking roof. So it would mean every year parents would have to complete some sort means test , who could crunch the numbers, check parents are being honest (in the independent sector home visits for those applying for bursaries are not uncommon), without a doubt there would have to be an appeals process, and what happens if a families situation changes? Administrative costs would be considerable. What happens if parents don't pay? In the independent sector parents can be asked to remove their children how would that work under this scheme? Do you take parents to court for not paying?
Like the NHS a high quality education regardless of your ability to pay and free at the point of delivery should be available for all. If we really want this then we'll all have to pay for it by paying more taxes, and by prioritising (long term) the money from the taxes we pay for health and education rather than things like pointless wars.

" I realise not everyone can do this but it's ludicrous that such an offer legally needs to be turned down."

Of course it needs to be turned down! As anyone who thinks for more than 30 seconds could see,

About half of our my dd's Yr 2 class parents offered to pay a full time salary of a new primary school teacher to bring down the numbers from 31 to less than 16 each. We offered to pay up front as well and commit to 5 years since we worked out it would be cheaper than private school education for 16 kids!! I realise not everyone can do this but it's ludicrous that such an offer legally needs to be turned down.

We don't live in a 11+ area. I have 3 children in 3 different state schools and I am currently a sahm. Our income according to your proposal op would put us in a position where we would have to pay a great deal to supplement their education. There is no mention of funding for SEN in your op, as I have two children with ASD I would love to know how that additional support would be covered.

I am actually happy with the schools in my area. As we are semi rural and there are no grammar schools in the county the nearest high school is rated outstanding. Ds will start there tomorrow and hopefully will thrive. I am far more concerned about pastoral care and obviously smaller class sizes are better for learning and discipline (and teachers stress levels).

Anyway nothing in the part funded proposal convinces me that it would provide 'the answers' - just another idea that would squeeze middle earners and top earners would stay in the entirely private sector and the poor would be just as fucked as they are now. Housing developments already provide funding for local infrastructure and that is great for areas that are economically active with a buoyant property market, jobs etc. However that won't help the areas of the country with high levels of deprivation and no access to jobs or decent public transport and that is why we need education funding from taxes to be redistributed.

in my opinion the biggest influence on educational outcomes is the education level and income of your parents not which school you go to.

Yup, probably the same schools
not that many selective gels schools in the 70's after all

Assaulting teachers was a game

sounds like many of the schools that I know