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

[rainbowtoenails]

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.

PMSL at Ishani. God I have seen you spout some rubbish, but this takes the biscuit.

Where oh where is that "ignore poster" button? I am beginning to see the point of it now.

OP, you would be amazed at how hard and long DH and I have worked to be in a position to choose between state or private education. YABVVVU.

Dogsbestfriend: YABU too, but you know that.

rainbow (sorry about the delay in answering)

Private schooling does not sit comfortably with me. I was state educated and did pretty well, so was DH, my parents were state school teachers and I taught for a short time in state schools. I am confident in my child's ability to do well in state schools and don't need to throw money away. I realise that some parents are not so lucky with a decent choice of state school in their locality or that their children would benefit from smaller classes (class size is the main difference I think).

Ishani - even the private day school round the corner from us charges £3k/term and that's not counting all the extras that goes with private school (special uniform, school trips, after school clubs etc). Plus you also have to have paid tax on the money you spend on a private education so add 40% on top of that.

It's all very well saying that those who can afford to go private should, but actually they top up much needed support into those local state schools which they otherwise wouldn't get. Our local state primary school has a brand new playground because one of the school dads is in construction and offered to redo it for free. I daresay he could afford to send his kids private, but thank goodness he didn't!

Scarlet, :o :o

(Yes it's my personal opinion that anyone who state educates their DC on "moral" or "ethical" reasons is bloody mad sacrificing their child/ren on the altar of their principles but hey ho, I appreciate that many won't agree with me and because my view affects neither them nor their DC I reckon I can say it with a grin and get away with it!).

activate said: "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"

I couldn't agree more, activate.

Imagine being able to afford independent school for 2 children on £40k p.a.?
Hilarious suggestion! Day fees are around £10k p.a. per child out of taxed salary (so about £24k). What are these children supposed to eat? Where will they live?

I think everyone has the right to send their children to state schools. However it does annoy me when people are judgemental about private schools but happily buy their way into the catchment for the best state schools.

Chrysanthemum, despite the obvious claims to the contrary I'm pretty damn sure that the majority of the "ethical" rich pro-state-school educators would have their DC into Dulwich College quicker than you can say knife if faced with the alternative of some of the shitty inner-city state schools I know of.

So if you don't want or can't afford the private school option you pay the levy which is still cheaper than the house price premium, remove carchment areas and pay by postcode and suddenly the state sector becomes a lot more equal. Truely makes me laugh at how narrow minded some if you are, see a problem, moan about it. What about talking through some solutions ?

Dogs - True. Sad, but true.

Morals only apply under certain circumstances!

Ishani is your last post at the OP? 'Cos she seems to be the only one moaning.

Hilarious - please can we only pay 2% more after 40k a year rather than the 50% more on most of his wage that DH pays.

As for the top schools - how many will continue to be top schools when you kick out all of the people's kids who earn over £40k a year????

You could look on it like the top tax payers get a better standard of education for their kids or a quicker appointment from the doctor or cancer specialist if you worked it the other way round!

Jesus Christ, there is some absolute bollocks being said on this thread.

OP, how about looking at it another way? If no parents sent their children to private schools, they would cease to exist, forcing state education to improve. As it stands, even if I was earning a six figure salary, I wouldn't educate my child privately and not just out of principle, out of wanting them to grow up to be well-rounded human beings.

Solution to what, Ishani - the fact the rich are using the state system to which they are entitled?? That's not a problem. That's what they're entitled to.
The problem is not whether the rich (who contribute huge amounts of tax to pay for the state sector) should be allowed to use them, if they have children. The problem is that in some quarters, state education is not good enough.

Dogs - I agree and that's what gets on my nerves when I hear the self-righteous discussions going on in my area about never going private. It's a much easier thing to say when your catchment school is the top one in the town.

"If no parents sent their children to private schools, they would cease to exist, forcing state education to improve"

Not sure about that at all poppy. IME state schools and local authorities are making a first class cods for many kids already in the system, feck only knows what further cods they'd make if you suddenly added yet more thousands to the mix.

Far from improving I think that adding to the burden with which some schools/teachers/HTs/LAs clearly cannot cope would be the final straw.

Solution to the three tier system which wouldn't be half as bad if it was as simple as state v's private.

I'm with Scurry. We could afford to send both DDs to private school but don't. We also use the NHS...

Why? Because I don't necessarily think private=better. Plus we pay a lot in tax. Why should I be barred from using state services?

Dogsbestfriend, I'm fully aware that it is a ridiculous proposition to suggest that abolition of private education would or could ever happen, but no more ludicrous than the OP's suggestion!

I would disagree with your implication that schools and LAs couldn't cope with more students though. More students would equal more money. And you can guarantee that if every politician's child was state educated, standards would quickly improve!

YABU

"Top state schools" as you call them are only deemed as such because they achieve good SAT results. These schools are predominantly in areas where house prices are high because parents with higher incomes tend to be professionals with jobs requiring academic abilities and therefore producing children with high academic abilities. These parents also support their children and the school. As a result the school achieves good results because it's intake has a high potential to do well. I doubt that teachers teach any better in "rich" areas than they do in "poor" areas.

Don't you ever wonder why top state schools are never on council estates or inner city areas?

irksome-most state schools are 'the schools people go to if they cant afford private'

belle-I think the NHS/health is entirely different

mega-but it is only some people who can afford to move into prestigious catchment areas, everyone who cant would benefit from people not doing this, not just the people at the very bottom

bubble- the wealthy actually pay a smaller proportion of their income and wealth in tax than low and middle income families

northern- but I dont think the current system encourages a 'mix of backgrounds'. Some state schools only take children from very wealthy homes. State does not equal diversity.

stuff- as I said we all pay tax for things we dont use, I dont see how education is different

diablo-this isn't about me but i think what I suggested would benefit the thousands of DCs per year who dont get into their school of choice because rich people have monopolised the catchment area of their local school.
Also if you think there aren't 'frightful snobs' at state schools you are kidding yourself.

this is- would you actually leave the UK if income tax went up? How much would it have to go up by for you to move? tbh I dont think the numbers of people who would follow through on these kinds of threats would be significant.

bythepower- but would you send your DSs to a state school if it was a lowly rated inner city school? You choose state because you have access to the best schools the state can offer. Low income families dont have this choice.

lockets- I didn't suggest the £40k figure (I was thinking of something much much higher) but 2x£9k fees=£18k, leaving £22k- this is more than a lot (millions?) of familes live on so it's tight but not undoable.

dogs- I think the opposite would be true. most private schools fund bursaries through current fees so if more people were paying fees there would be more money to give in bursaries therefore more opportunities for poor pupils

thebest- I know people who work very hard in very stressful jobs with long hours but still only earn £15-£25k, higher salary often doesnt equal harder work

Rich people have as much right to use public schools and services as anyone else.

And I say that as someone who would like to tax the rich until they no longer were rich. I just think you have to be consistent and fair in the meantime and barring better off taxpayers from using public services is just wrong.

Far too simplistic to say that private is always better. My local state school is great, it's 200 metres from home and it has children from a range of social and ethnic backgrounds. The local prep schools are none of those things. Why would I go private, even if I didn't think that segregating children according to parental income was a Bad Thing?