Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think it's a bit cheeky for the wealthy to monopolise places in the top state schools instead of coughing up for private?

264 replies

rainbowtoenails · 21/06/2011 18:12

I've read a lot of the education threads on here and lots of people seem to despair that they can't get into their local state school unless they live within a few feet, where the house prices spike up by several thousands of pounds.
I agree but I'm going to take the arguement one step further by saying that I think its wrong for someone who can easily afford it, to forgo private schools, and take up places at the most oversubscribed state schools, often by using their money to inflate local house prices.
I know that these people have paid their taxes for the state schools but we all pay tax for services we dont use.
If everyone who could afford it went private there would be a lot more spaces in the top state schools for pupils from a wide variety of backgrounds. I firmly beleive that the top state schools should not only serve the rich. This perverse system means that lower income families are paying tax to provide an education they themselves have no access to.

OP posts:
ENormaSnob · 21/06/2011 18:14

Yabu

MrsFogi · 21/06/2011 18:16

How are you defining "afford it" and "rich" rainbowtoenails?

scurryfunge · 21/06/2011 18:17

No because education is free for all regardless of income.

I can easily pay for a private education for my DS but choose not to.

ajandjjmum · 21/06/2011 18:20

Actually, education isn't free. We all pay for it through our taxes, and are equally entitled to it.

michglas · 21/06/2011 18:20

WTF the wealthy pay more taxes than most, so that makes them more entitiled to state education. What next, are you going to say that those on benefits aren't entitled to state education either?

brokenarrow · 21/06/2011 18:21

Oh yes, you are U.

Irksome · 21/06/2011 18:21

YABU, I don't want to see a state sector used only by people who can't afford to buy out of it.

Think it through.

kittywalker · 21/06/2011 18:22

Well lets not stop at education, why not make them pay for there own health care too? Hmm I think maybe yabu!!

activate · 21/06/2011 18:22

if everyone who could afford it went private then the top state schools would not be quite so good and we would have a truly divided society of the haves and have nots

as a long term social strategy its rather short-sighted

I thnk we should reinstate grammar schools on the premise that ability to work hard and intellect should be the tickets into the "best" schools and not money

Jajas · 21/06/2011 18:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
rainbowtoenails · 21/06/2011 18:24

aj- but we dont all have equal access to the best state education- how would you resolve that?

scurry- do you mind me asking why? have you ever considered this angle before?

mrs-only when it was unquestionable, not the 'squeezed middle' and obviously how far a person's income stretches varies by region

OP posts:
wordfactory · 21/06/2011 18:26

Well that's the first time on MN I've been told I'm doing the morally correct thing by paying for education Grin.

I'd still like the option to be able to drop out and go state though if I choose so, reluctantly, I'm going to say YABU.

nokissymum · 21/06/2011 18:26

I think we should take all the rich people and shoot them! Honestly because they cant win.......if they private school they 're "automatically judging those who cant afford" and if they go to state schools they "taking other peoples places" when they can afford to go private.

Op do you know how ridiculous you sound ?

Original poster
rainbowtoenails · 21/06/2011 18:31

jajas- read some of the education threads on here, it wont take you long to find people lamenting on not being able to get into their local schools

activate- I think it is quite insulting to most people in this country that you think that only the children of the wealthy contribute to a school's success.
The way grammar schools seem to work nowadays is that rich kids get most of the places by being privately and expensively tutored to within an inch of their lives. The 11+ isn't a great measurement of true ability in these circumstances.

I never said that state education should be means tested (but maybe that is another arguement to have) but just that the wealthy are having their cake and eating it and shouldn't be so sanctamonious about using the state sector, when they are only creaming off the top of it.

OP posts:
Irksome · 21/06/2011 18:37

I think the 11+ is a terrible idea, flawed in concept and in its implementation.

I also think if state schools are entirely populated by people who can't afford private - and are known, therefore, to be 'what you do if you're poor'- that can only be detrimental. A kind of NHS Specs Education policy...

It's bad enough that some people think that's what state schools are anyway, without making it official!

Shoesytwoesy · 21/06/2011 18:38

yabu

BelleDameSansMerci · 21/06/2011 18:40

YABU.

Who are you to determine relative wealth and ease of paying (or not) for schooling. Do you feel the same way about access to Health Services?

Please have a look at the system in US where the "haves" pay for education and the "have nots" do not/cannot. Their state schools are funded (I believe) by local taxes ie very local to the school and therefore if the school is in a deprived area there is little or no hope of it improving as there will never be much money coming in. (Apologies to any US citizens if this is inaccurate but it was my understanding based on some work I did with a charity while I was there about five years ago).

I think if your suggestion was carried through you'd see the same situation here.

activate · 21/06/2011 18:42

rainbow I work in an educational setting in an incredibly poor inner-city area - I work with problem teenagers whose problems are in the main is caused by the grinding poverty, the breakdown in society and family structures, alcohol, drugs and gang violence so maybe my perspective is skewed

megapixels · 21/06/2011 18:44

YABU. Even if all the "haves" leave the state schools alone the richest of the "have nots" are going to be monopolising the top state schools and pushing house prices up beyond the means of the poorer "have nots".

Ever thought of that?

lockets · 21/06/2011 18:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JoySzasz · 21/06/2011 18:46

I think your last post has makes for an interesting angle and ...

I don't think it is a crazy point of view,but...there will be no clear cut cases in any given family situation.

It would be impossible to regulate, and it is only fair and logical that wealthy people shouldn't have to use their cash on education.

Many wouldn't out of principle...

Wealthy does not always equal wanting to spend it in schooling.

Many wealthy families keep their financies secret,investing in what they see fit. :)

bubblecoral · 21/06/2011 18:46

YABU

The wealthy pay more in tax, and are equally entitled to choose state schools that they pay towards. It's as simple as that really.

You could say the same thing about the NHS, but you would still be wrong.

And btw, not that it is relevant to your original aibu, but plenty of state school children get into grammar school, even the top ones, without private primary education or tutoring. Mine did.

Icelollycraving · 21/06/2011 18:47

Yabu.
The more you earn,the more you pay in tax. Education is available to all.

northerngirl41 · 21/06/2011 19:12

You could argue that the reason these schools are so good is that they have lots of parents who are actively participating in the school's success.

E.g. when it comes to school fundraising the better off parents can afford to give more, or spend more time organising these events since they don't have to work so they raise more money and have better equipment and resources.

Likewise, since they've invested so much in getting them into the school they obviously place a high value on education and will make sure that ethos is passed onto the kids.

I'm not convinced that the schools would remain outstanding if they didn't have these extra resources and extraordinary pupils attending. It's no bad thing to have a mix of backgrounds all in one place.

stuffthenonsense · 21/06/2011 19:12

or we could flip your argument and suggest that those who 'opt out' of state education/ health care etc, pay less tax!

am i wrong in thinking that schools in poorer areas receive more money per child than those in more affluent areas? is this a myth?

i think that the question that really needs to be asked, is what makes a school successful...the area? the teachers? the children? the parents? the funding? or a combination of many things?