Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

High earners should be charged for state schools!

289 replies

RawCoconutMacaroon · 19/01/2014 09:50

BBC report this morning carries the suggestion from Dr Anthony Seldon, head of the private Wellington College, that parents with a family income of £80k should pay for state school places.

WTAF? Kind of ignoring the fact that it is ONLY people on fairly high incomes who actually pay enough tax to cover the cost of their child/children's state school place (roughly £4500 per year per child). Yes of course tax is collected according to an ability to pay and then distributed so all benefit from "free" education, which is right and proper...

BUT he thinks people who are already paying a lot in tax should effectively be penalised and charged again for their child's place at state school! Although maybe he's coming from the POV that if high income parents have to pay for state school, they will be more likely to pay out for their child to go to his private school.

OP posts:
Casmama · 19/01/2014 10:10

Why is it news that a school teacher has views on tax policy? Also why should I give more of a fuck about his opinion than he should about mine?

Casmama · 19/01/2014 10:11

Sorry should have read the article.

TheOneWithTheHair · 19/01/2014 10:11

I'm so glad people agree it's a stupid idea. I was Shock and Hmm when I read it this morning.

tiredbutstillsmiling · 19/01/2014 10:12

bonsoir although I agree more funds need to be placed into teaching training, as a teacher of 14 years I find your comment highly offensive. I have 4 A grades at A-level & a first in English. I also passed my degree with honours and a distinction for my QTS.

I am not poorly educated.

monkeysox · 19/01/2014 10:13

Enian choosing to pay for private school is very different to being on a low income and getting some tax relief, you must earn a fortune to afford that. Another posted suggested you may get subsidised private ed if they start charging for state school. People have to be on a very low joint income at the moment to get any tax credits.

Starballbunny · 19/01/2014 10:16

WTF, our household income is a bit under that and single earner. After the taxman/NI etc, we see 1/2 of it.

No way can we afford private school (believe me I've done the sums a dozen times, DDs DF goes, but she has well of GPs and parents with way less mortgage than us).

And that's the reality. 80k sounds a lot, but if you have never inherited an appreciable amount of money or made a big profit on a house sale, it isn't. It's enough to be comfortable, have one holiday and a weekend away a year and for the DDs to do some extracurricular stuff.

It's nice, but it's not rich!

Original poster
RawCoconutMacaroon · 19/01/2014 10:17

Monkeysox, tax credits etc, part of the benefits system and given to those who need it. They are certainly not available very high income families (rightly), so not the same as refunding your tax do you can transfer that money to a private school in the form of fees.

They will never do that, because that tax money is what is funding the state schools. My children have (or will be) at state schools but if we went private we would accept that that is our choice and that we SHOULD continue to support state education through general taxation.

OP posts:
whatever5 · 19/01/2014 10:18

It's not a stupid idea from his point of view. He is suggesting this because he knows that if high earners have to pay anyway, more will send their child to private schools.

RustyBear · 19/01/2014 10:18

Rawcoconut - I'm not supporting the principle, merely explaining what he claims his motivation to be and linking to the BBC article.

Though access to many of the best state schools is effectively means-tested at the moment, according to whether you can afford to live close enough.

missymarmite · 19/01/2014 10:20

God no! They will eventually just send all their kids to private school then and perpetuate the division of "rich" and "poor", making the current "old boys club" situation much much worse! Not well thought out at all. I'd rather see all children on a level playing field, entitled to the same education and with a fair chance at reaching the top echelons of society. This will be totally wrong. Not to mention unfair!

Original poster
RawCoconutMacaroon · 19/01/2014 10:20

And we are well into the income brackets being talked of, and private fees x4 would not be possible even where we are (cheaper private schools, cheaper housing)!

OP posts:
Mim78 · 19/01/2014 10:29

Shocking! Worst idea I've ever heard.

WooWooOwl · 19/01/2014 10:30

Ridiculous idea.

High earning parents already pay high tax, and at many state schools parents give financial support anyway.

A school with an affluent intake and an active PTA get money out of parents just by asking or by holding events that they charge over the odds for. Both of my dcs state secondary schools ask parents for significant donations, some parents give, some don't. They have to ask though as if they have low numbers of children on FSM they only get very basic government funding which puts them at a disadvantage, so parents feel they have to financially support their schools already.

By formally charging high earning parents it would just create private type schools within the state sector, and the gap between good and bad schools would increase.

Dahlen · 19/01/2014 10:32

If they bring this in, we'd quickly end up in a situation where there was a two or three-tier educational system.

JustGettingOnWithIt · 19/01/2014 10:33

I'm from the level where £80,000 makes you very rich, and I absolutely disagree that even millionaires should have to pay for state schools, but I do agree with the sentiments behind it about buying property to access decent education

The strike out is mine and the bit I don't agree with:

"We have to end this unfair farce whereby middle-class parents dominate the best schools, when they could afford to pay and even boast of their moral superiority in using the state system when all they are doing is squeezing the poor from the best schools,"

Mabelandrose · 19/01/2014 10:34

I think he is an idiot.

arethereanyleftatall · 19/01/2014 10:37

Yanbu it's ridiculous.
Government needs to be careful. We are getting to the situation where it makes no financial difference whether you earn 100k, 50k or 0. You are either topped up or chopped down to end up with the same disposable income.

noblegiraffe · 19/01/2014 10:37

I can see his point, there are many better off parents who put all their resources into getting their kid into an excellent state school - buying a house in the right area, intensive tutoring for grammar school tests. If this doesn't work and they don't get their kid in, their kid doesn't go to a lesser school, their kid goes private.

If they'd sent their kid private in the first place, as they had the resources to do, then the place at the excellent state school would have gone to someone less well-off.

Better-off parents are effectively buying their places in the good schools to avoid going private.

Thing is, it is hard to disentangle cause and effect. How do we judge an excellent state school? Results? It is entirely possible that the excellent state school is getting those good results because it is stuffed with the children of the better off. If they were removed to the private system and replaced with a disadvantaged intake, would the school still be excellent?

Crowler · 19/01/2014 10:39

It's a boneheaded idea.

But I don't really like to see grammar schools dominated by tutored, middle-class kids whose alternate path would be private school, so I can agree with the underlying motivation.

EnianShelZman · 19/01/2014 10:41

What's next? Maybe higher council taxes for people living near excellent schools?

EnianShelZman · 19/01/2014 10:43

To be honest re grammar schools - I think iy is only fair, higher earners are paying much more tax, so at least they are getting something back from the system.

Lifeisaboxofchocs · 19/01/2014 10:44

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

missinglalaland · 19/01/2014 10:47

The unintended, undesirable consequences of such a policy would be myriad! Too many to list.

Let's just say, the headmaster of any school I was going to pay for would be a very big selling point for me, if I was going private. This article would certainly put me off Wellington College. I would wonder about the HM's intellectual capability and leadership.

WooWooOwl · 19/01/2014 10:49

I agree noble.

From what I can see in my area, the schools that are good are good because they have supportive parents who care about education and they don't have to spend a disproportionate amount of time on behaviour management. They still have issues, but they are not the norm.

The schools that many of us wouldn't touch with a barge pole are schools where a large proportion of parents stand outside smoking and swearing.

These things are nothing to do with money and everything to do with attitude.

If parents want to pay extra for their rent or mortgage in a good catchment area, or to pay for tutoring then that's up to them. They are just doing the best they can for their children with the resources they have available to them, and their children have as much right to a place at an outstanding school as children whose parents are on a low income.

firesidechat · 19/01/2014 10:53

Let's get this right, he's the head of a private school. Well in that case he would say that wouldn't he. If you were being charged up to £20,000 for state schooling (heard that mentioned on the radio, but it may be an exaggeration) then of course you're going to send them to private school instead.

The man's a money grabbing hypocrite with a hidden, or not so hidden, agenda.

Swipe left for the next trending thread