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.

rainbow most of the houses im talking about are 4 bed houses, most of them have at least 3 or 4 children, so these police officers should privately educate all their children ? A number of them also have an elderly parent living with them, that they are caring for. saving the nhs some money

What if this wealth isnt put into property, i have a seemingly wealthy friend ageing playboy, who lives in a one bed flat near a school, are you suggesting estate agents/house seller refuse to sell him his flat ?

Tbh, the only place where your idea would work is in a communist state, that really will be the answer to all your worries about inequality, so what you should be fighting for is a political reform. Everybody will be the same and have exactly the same possessions, Soviet Union did it for a long while and then it was abolished, i wonder why sincerely.

Yes, clearly "some people" are, but I'd wager it's not nearly such a pervasive problem as you might like us all to think.

There are many things which inflate house prices in a particular area - proximity to transport links, sea views etc - you can't possibly legislate for all of them.

bramshott very good point!

anyone who thinks access to good schools in this country is fairly apportioned is deluded

Nokissymum the OP's solution is unworkable and would also be unfair but there is some middle ground between that and communism.

chen where would the middle ground be ?

nokissymum I'm sorry, what was I thinking.

There are of course only 2 choices facing us in the UK, either the OP's enforced private education for the wealthy or the current system.

My apologies for thinking otherwise.

In a lot of areas house locality isn't 1st on the criteria list.

A lot of families may rent in order to be able to live near family or in an area they grew up.

Also some families may not be rich but bought their house when it was cheap. Some families also plough all they've got into bricks and mortar giving up holidays,computer games,cars etc.

Not sure any of the above should be penalised.

chen we have the current system, which is freedom of choice, op has brought forward her preffered system which many including myself dont see how it will be implemented, i have suggested " a communist state" which i agreed is radical but op's suggestion IS radical, and communism will solve this problem of rich v poor for good, am not an expert on communism, but it seems to have been the answer to inequality in some parts of the world.

You are arguing there is a "middle ground" what are your ideas ?

The fact is that education is extremely unbalanced and it is not just about cash in the bank - its about influence, area, it has been defined in sociology as "status and party" (Pierre Bourdeau I believe - really racking my brain here!) e.g that by knowing people in power or with influence, or sometimes just by having money you will be allowed privillege because money breeds money.

Private tutoring is another example. True, some children may need this to help them catch up, or just in one subject. But many "tiger mother" types do this to hot house their children into top schools. Something I personally dont believe is healthy.

But, sadly there is no one answer to this massive problem - you cant insist people pay for private, believe it or not there are some rich folk who find private education objectionable you know!!
Then theres the issue of the wealthy paying more in tax, they have paid for state education already.
And how would this be policed? Who defines "wealthy"? We have seen the problems with the tax credit cut off, would you do it by combined income or seperate?
And finally, what happens if said rich parent becomes ill, pregnant or loses their job? Are you going to turf that child out of their school and into state? Or use government money to keep them there (therefore defeating the object of your idea)

No, personally, I think private education should just be abolished altogether, therefore levelling the playing field, but that will never happen when all those with the power to do so went to private schools and intend to send their children too.

Tell you what I'd do, then.

First, get rid of faith schools, grammar schools and private schools.

Divide areas so that you have maybe four schools in a group, and within that area a lottery system: I know this would have to be tweaked in some places, but it would be based on the idea that most kids have at least two schools they could walk/get to, and some, like in villages, will always have to bus it. Where I live I reckon most kids could get to three or four schools, and so if we lost the privates and made the catholic school take everybody, that would work. At the moment, say where I live, half a street is assigned to school B which is considered less desirable than school A, where the other half go.

So I'd have a lottery and kids would still, by and large, go to a school near them and in their community, and school B wouldn't become progressively less and less desirable as the wealthy and motivated either move away, lie, or go private.

I know it's flawed, because I can immediately see that if you divided my city up, quadrant 1 (for example) would be considered more desirable than hypothetical quadrant 2.

However as it stands at the moment, far from the 'nice' houses being nearest the 'nicest' schools, there are big areas where you can buy a very nice house, but near to the school no-one will touch with a bargepole. So within each quadrant there are schools which are equidistant from certain houses, and if we could mix up the intake a bit, I think everyone would end up benefitting.

Rainbow my husband and I are relocating for his job.

Do you suggest I purposely move into an area where the schools aren't good rather than are good despite the fact that

1. we can't afford to privately educate our three boys
2. we have equity but we live a in the Southeast; a stonesthrow from London where you need hundreds of thousands just to buy a decent sized house in a decent area.

Has it ever occurred to you that the school in good areas are good because of the people and parents that live in the catchment area?

You do realise this is likely to be the case. So all these good schools, maybe won't be as good if your idea of utopia was put into action.

Would you be happy if we bought a three bed-semi in a not so great area and then sent our three boys to private school? Is this what you're suggesting those with equity in property or those with decent salaries should do?

Because if it is, I'll be back later to tell you exactly where i think you should live, how you should live your life and what you should spend your money on.

And then I think I'll tell you what to wear, who you can and can't speak to, perhaps who you can and can't vote for, what you can and can't feed your children etc.....

Deluded much?

"Has it ever occurred to you that the school in good areas are good because of the people and parents that live in the catchment area?

You do realise this is likely to be the case."

Yes, people on lower incomes do bring down the educational standards (and tone) of an area down don't they?

Err, no.
Read the bloody post. Where do I mention the wealth of people as being the sole determinant of how good a school is?

State schools in many areas have a mix of people in them - wealthy and poor.
That said, you can look at every map across the country and lower performing schools tend to be in poorer, more deprived areas.

That is a fact!

You got a problem with that, take it up with the government not me. I don't give a shit if someone lives in a council house or a 5-bed detached!

FWIW my son's current school is ofsted outstanding (it wasn't when we bought the house but it has since improved) and many of the children that go there are from deprived areas.

My point being is, the quality of the school is because of the people that put the effort it. You can't streamline it so that all state school are the same. I just won't work. And you can't tell people where to go either.

Well yes Chen23 they do.

If you're on a lower income it's most likely because you didn't do very well at school yourself and therefore don't value education as much as someone who has been to university and used it to better themselves. You'll also be less able academically to help your kid understand concepts or with their homework. You've set an example to your kid of what they can achieve. If that's really high, their goals will be much higher than someone who is 4th generation unemployed. That's how it affects your kids' prospects, and also affects how they influence their peers.

Statistically kids from poorer backgrounds also eat less healthily than middle class families and that has an impact on behaviour in the classroom, which affects all the kids. A friend of mine who is a primary school teacher in one of the UK's most deprived areas says that the kids arrive in her classroom falling asleep with hunger because their parents haven't bothered to feed them, and then undermine the healthy eating policy of the school (including free school lunches and fruit) by passing chips thru the school gates at breaktimes.

Incidentally my kids go to a state primary which is in a mixed area, and if you look at the parent volunteers they are all middle class mummys. Not a single one of the unemployed mums bothers to come do reading or help out with sports day etc.

The mixture of kids from different backgrounds is really important in schools. But I think telling the posh kids to go private is actually going to do more harm to the state schools than to the ones forced to go private. But I think that by staying public my kids are much more rounded individuals, which is a very good thing, but not necessarily indicated on the school's Offstead report.

Also parental involvement(which has a huge effect on achievement in schools)is less likely in poorer families.It may not be PC to say but it's true.

Personally I think a varied intake is best for all children.

"Err, no.
Read the bloody post. Where do I mention the wealth of people as being the sole determinant of how good a school is?"

we were discussing how in many cases you needed to be earning a relatively high wage in order to afford a house in a good catchment; figures like £500K were being bandied about.

the only common determinant I can infer from your post is the ability to afford such a house.

not sure northern girls reductive nonsense deserves a response tbh.

northerngirl are you serious?! Really?!

"if your on a lower income its because you didnt do well at school yourself"

Why? And we could turn that round and say actually, its because your parents didnt BUY you advantage, but hey ho....

"You dont value education as much as someone who has been to university and used this to better themselves"

Oh dear God. Do you really think this? Alot of people actually go to uni to get pissed and shag around, or because its "expected" of them. Fuck all to do with "valuing education".

There are plenty of people on low incomes who are infact clever and dont feed our children burgers every day, including me. And no matter how many plates of asparagus and seabass you give your children, they wont grow up to be great individuals if you feed the biggotted crap like that.

I think a lot of what Northerngirl has said is true. Many schools on sink estates have a lot of parents who for generations haven't done well at school and are scared of school.They keep away and this doesn't help their children as they simply don't get the same support as kids who have parents that know the system and what they need to do to help their kids along.

Research shows a mother's education has a huge impact on a child's life chances.

Having parents in a school who do get involved spreads and has an impact.I've taught in schools where it's a battle to get parents in to attend parents evening let alone anything else.The difference at my dc's school is staggering(school open until late,jammed packed with parents).It's outstanding but not a posh school with a varied intake from a variety of homes ranging from council houses to waaaay more than most of us could afford..

Mothers who feel confident also get more involved with fundraising which again has an impact on a child's education.Take away the richer families and you take away confidence,knowledge and support.It does kids no favours not to acknowledge this.

You have to have free choice. If there is good state education you would be mad to pay.

It's surprising how many people seem to equate more wealth with more brains.

Not really very clever of them.

Theres a difference between saying people may have lower confidence and dont know the system, and saying that basically poor people are stupid, bring down the quality of schools and dont value education.

I worry about people claiming to be teachers who have these views about parents and children.

Have you ever considered its your prejudice affecting how you treat these children, and that leads to lower standards?

"Oh well, Im at a school in a poor area, and little Johnny's mother doesnt have a job and has 5 kids on benefits, she will never bother to read to him and he will never amount to much, so why bother? I'll help little Jemima over there....."

Ring any bells?

Bollocks.

You really don't know what you're talking about.

PMSL with your little Jimmy scenario.What gives teachers a buzz is getting kids achieving. It's the most wonderful thing in the world making a struggling child achieve.It's why teachers teach.A teacher wants to make all her pupils achieve and has to by law.You'd find yourself out of a job if you didn't .

Hence why there are regular threads on the education boards of NQTs equating private with better behaviour.
Hmmmm.

All up, OP was talking unenforcable hogwash. Time to let this thread fall off the front page.

MilaMae I have the utmost respect for anyone who chooses to be a teacher, it's a noble and under respected profession; that said I'm not convinced all teachers have your high moral and ethical standards and makes every effort to ensure all their pupils achieve as much as they possibly can. I doubt all those who don't are sacked either tbh.

What Chen said, milamae.

And it was little Johnny actually, not Jimmy.

If you all find yourselves out of jobs if all children dont achieve, why are there -

A) Still teachers left, and
B) Lots of people who underachieve?