High earners should be charged for state schools!

[RawCoconutMacaroon]

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.

Referring to whatever's comment on this post and numerous similar quotes on loss chb threads etc.

What was you quote in brCkets than?

Seldon is a rent a quote.

We are in Scotland and DS' school is around £8,000 pa for primary school and £10,000 for secondary school. However, there are lots of additional expenses and you can easily add a couple of grand each year onto those prices. He's at a pretty reasonably priced school- Fettes, Merchiston, Loretto etc are around double that cost as far as I recall.

As ever, this is an attempt to avoid dealing with the real issues that are destroying our state education sector.

Surely the most obvious solution to all of his is to equalize education provision so that post codes and being able to afford to buy into good state school areas wouldn't be necessary or matter. All schools should be outstanding, no matter where they are.

This may mean that some of us will have to pay more tax, but do you know what, I don't think many higher earners would complain if it really meant better education across the country.

Chunderell, I takeousur point but what should higher earners who also believe in state education for all do? Move into areas with less good schools even if they don't like them or aren't convenient or send their kids to private schools because they can?

Sorry wing, I see we crossed messages. I agree but changing the way children are admitted to schools doesn't touch wider issues of inequality between the state and private sectors. Though it would be a good start.

wingding is right- the only way to destroy the stranglehold of property prices on school desirability is to run a lottery allocation of places.

However, I can tell you now, that would lead to a vast number going fee-paying where we are. There is no way some of them would set foot in certain schools.

Incidentally our local secondary school is rubbish. So if we had 22k a year to spare an independent school would be fab. However, it just isn't affordable.

The money would arguably help improve the state system so if it were genuinely going to schools then I'd be in favour of it.

The thing is though maybe someone on 80k could afford 4.5k. But with 3 dc say 13.5k sound ridiculous. Plus I bet that figure would stay the same as salaries rise. Plus why should higher rate taxpayers pay twice? They already pay a higher proportion of their salary than basic rate taxpayers. They have lost child benefit and now they want them to pay again.

Sorry appreciate this is not govt.

I think this is a rubbish idea and agree with free education for all, however I must ask.

If you earn 70k or even 80k per annum and your mortgage is 1k per month and you can't afford schooling at 7/8k per year, what are you spending your money on?
I am not being difficult as for all I know there may be something I have over looked. Obviously taking into consideration utilities, council tax, and essential costs, there is still a huge amount left?

I think noblegiraffe back towards the beginning of the thread, hit the nail on the head-top performing schools are that precisely because they are full of children from middle class, educated and often better off families. The types of families who support their children's learning massively , lots of books at home, help with homework, visits to museums/historic sites/abroad, tutors if/when needed. That's what makes the school perform well, not the school itself. Take those children out/dilute them and results won't be so great, what then, follow the kids who have moved to a non-high performing state school around the corner when it becomes better

precisely why we picked our local outstanding state high school for our kids.

the teachers and head are obviously much more sensible and clever than this silly idiot.

I wouldn't want him teaching my children.

morethan- I think most people on that kind of income have a mortgage over 1K p.c.m. tbh. Larger house means higher utilities, definitely more council tax, water, etc.
And the point is- you're already making £27k in contributions!
People on high incomes still have childcare costs, etc.

80k does not constitute being "well off", at least not in the south east. I am looking at going back to ft work in a couple of years, when the kids are at school but why bother? Better to stay just below the threshold, have more free time, possibly less stress but of course less disposable income. How are we expected to save up for university tuition fees?

Zak

I see this but there are some single working households who wouldn't have childcare costs and i'm sure the higher utilities and slightly larger than 1k mortgage would still mean this type of family could afford private tuition.

I'm not suggesting that they should have to btw, but do hear of families with less money struggling to find private school fees because they personally think it is better for their dc.

Isn't it more about the preference of the parents than merely affordability.

FFS 80k is well off, people in this country are on less than 20k and managing so 80k is a bloody fortune. If people are on 80k and are not well off then they need to learn how to budget.

1k mortgage 100 endownments 350 pension 200 car loan for commute. 200 petrol for commute. That 50% gone before bills food etc

Pluse service and maintenace of a car doing 500 miles pw is not cheap. Neither is food for a family of 5.

80k a year = £204 a day after tax and NI, £1022 a week, £4431 a month.

I would agree that 80k family income is not neccisarily 'well off'. Comfortable yes, but you can't really look at a salary and say that person is rich.

highho you still have £2650 a month left...more than many people earn.

Yes 80 is alot but nearer 50 to 55k after tax I guess. Not enough to pay for a private education in all cases and idea a family with 4dc say would stuggle to pay 18k under these daft proposals.

Of course bronze, no-one on £80k lives in London or the SE, and has to pay for housing, nor pay london priced childcare, commuting costs etc. They're all just poor at budgeting.