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.

The so called rich/middle classes pay enough tax. why shouldn't they send their kids to state school. it is their choice.

Private school is very expensive and perhaps they want to spend their money on other things.

Most local schools are perfectly fine, as long as parents have at least some interest in supporting their children's education, making sure they go to school, get their on time, helping with homework in the early years etc.

If I had the money to afford to go private, I would send them to whichever school I thought would suit them best, be it private or state, private isn't always better, though.

Just had another thought, if you send children to private school, and your children have SN and need one to one support, you would generally have to fund it yourself, but I suppose a family on 40k are so fabulously wealthy they can afford that as well. Also, private schools tend to be selective and there is no requirement for them to cater for the needs of pupils with disabilities in the way that state schools must.

magicmummy does DD's friend's dad have an equally rich single brother? :o

DBF - I'm not sure!

FWIW, they live a very ordinary life - wear normal clothes, have normal things, get the bus everywhere! We had no idea that they were so rich, so DD and I were both when she first went to their palace house!

Magicmummy
like my friend from school whose Dad bought her one of the Bahama Islands for her 18th birthday!

The point is that state schools are funded out of taxes.
Those who go private pay twice and free up spaces for the rest of us

• part of the panic in London is 'cos of kids coming back out of the private system

and outside London and the Grammar School counties, over 90% of kids go to their first choice schools no hassle

rainbow, you allude to the underlying issue when you talk about "top state schools". The issue of oversubscribed and "sink" schools is not going to go away while central govt policy (from both this govt and the previous one) dictates that schools must compete against each other, rather than co-ordinating with one another to ensure a balanced, local intake for all. And it's only going to become more pronounced as admissions criteria become more school-centric and schools become less accountable, with the proliferation of academies/faith schools/ free schools which can select on the basis of ability/religion/what the hell they like.

Until there is a fair system, schools that can control admissions will cherry pick the students they want- those that pay into the church system, or stand to get good exam results, or have wealthy or influential parents. Not the ones with additional needs, or those who require extra care, or are unlikely to achieve high exam grades.

There's an argument that the private school system is detrimental to the state school system, because if the rich and powerful had to send their own children to state schools then they'd be making damn sure that the schools were properly funded and accessible.

Of course everyone should have the right to use the state eductaion system if that is what they want. The NHS too. Why on earth should people be paying tax towards services that they are barred from using?

I wonder whether the OP has thought this through to the next level - the amount of "good" universities that seem to offer more places to students from private schools. Would not having more children in the private education system make it even harder for state school children to get a place at university?

reallytired - No, sorry, wealthy parents does not equal "the brightest children". Thinking of the people I went to school with, most definitely not. Their parents may be intelligent or very hard working or both but it does not follow that the children are.

not an issue for us rainbow because we made a clear decision to live in a smaller village rather than larger town because
a)moving out of town saved us £100,000 on the cost of a similar house
b) the community as a whole was one we chose as good for our family aspirations.

so we actually moved here because it was cheaper the bonus is that the school is smaller than the schools in town and therefore easier to get a better ofsted rating.

the downside of that is that DH can no longer cycle to work.

emma-but even the state school pupils who go to Oxbridge, these days, tend to have come from middle class or rich homes, it is very rarely the poor kids from deprived areas and unpopular schools who get in

inertia- you haven't said anything I disagee with

halcyon- it wasn't me who said the cut off should be £40k, in fact I said I'd imagined a figure far higher

bramshot- but my point is that lots of state school dont have a braod intake because rich people buy their way into the catchment, skewing the intake

rainbow - could you just sweep your brush a tad wider for me?

Emma I suspect in the OPs utopia any child that went to private school would be made to go to a private university like the one that A C Grayling wants to set up.

rainbow what figure did you have in mind then? 100k?, 200k? does it depend on how many children are in the family? would you take into account the huge disparity in housing costs so the amount would be more in the southeast to allow for higher living costs?

Rainbow, do please enlighten us on what the cut off point should be.

rainbow - yes, but in a world where all the wealthy children are in private schools Oxbridge could probably get away with not offering places to any state school children at all. We would need so many more private schools to accommodate everyone .

Signofthetimes - better get building then! Or just convert all of the best existing universities to "rich people only" zones. Although, I do admit the government are already starting that scheme with the £9k tuition fees .

popcorn is just cooking

maybe the limit should be by profession - no bankers or footballers kids at state school but all politicians
and what about senior forces bods
and people who relocate

rainbow have only read the first and last bits of the thread but what a load of crap about state schoolers/ Oxbridge. Complete crap in fact.

There are 7% of kids in private schools currently. approximately 400k tax payers on over 100k. assume they all have one child, so 400k children to be forced into private schools whether their parents want it or not. but there are around 9m children of school age in UK, 7% of 9m is 630k. so all of those rich bastards are already doing the right thing aren't they? clearly they are not going by some others posters, but you aren't going to free up loads of spaces with this scheme. as I said earlier, it's better to make all state schools good enough for everyone to go to, then if people want to make the choice of private education they are doing it for other reasons.

First, define 'wealthy'

Second, how on earth would it be possible to insist that people spend their disposable income in a certain way?

Never mind that a lot of 'wealthy' people may also disagree with the notion of private education because they want their precious little darlings to mix with the hoi polloi.

Stupid OP.

Emma, there is an advantage with higher tuition fees though, if you don't earn over 21k you don't pay back and you wouldn't be forced to privately educate your children!:)

Signofthetimes - ah, yes, I hadn't thought of that!

yellowstone- missed this did you?

because- I'm not stupid, quit with the personal attacks

thisis- read around MN threads and you will see that plenty of people on household incomes of under £100k send their kids to private schools so you have to factor that into your figures

I never suggested anywhere on this thread that people should be forced out of the state system, but I do think it is cheaky to use your wealth to move to a million pound house next door to an 'outstanding' house then slag off less well off people who pay for private, because you get it into your head that your choice is somehow 'righteous'.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that millionaires buy houses next to outstanding schools
apart from possibly some of the parts of inner London where the education system is broken...
Round here some of the the jammiest houses are at the edge of the catchment or just outside it - fine by me.

rainbow I hadn't read that article but I look around at my kids' friends and can see that they're a pretty good mix. All my three are on full bursaries btw.

rainbow - I didn't say you were stupid, I said your OP was stupid. There is a big difference.