Top Up Fees For Secondary Education?

[GeorginaA]

Did anyone else catch the Today programme this morning? I'm still fuming... a private school headmaster has suggested that people who pay more to move to the catchment area of a good school are hypocrites. His solution is to "make the middle classes pay" - i.e. means tested secondary education.

I'm still fuming.

I note they have put it on the main BBC website but have selectively quoted to tone down his comments somewhat... School Chasing Parents Immoral

So now I'm immoral and a hypocrite for not wanting to send my child to a school which is rife with bullying, absenteeism and low achievement am I?

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

I agree. And it's not just London. I have friends outside of London who are very anti private education, but again have bought in the catchment area - at inflated prices compared to a similar house a couple of streets away - to ensure their children get into the school of their choice. I'm not judging but when the importance of supporting state education is forced down your throat yet they're also selecting the school of their choice, it seems a rather grey area of what selection is, to me anyway.

M2T: yes I accept that the main reason for moving is as you've said. S
I have had experience of people who critisise me and then blatently lie to get their kids into a "better school" - this isn't a sweeping statement I mean it to specific people. I also know of people like Sykes who rent houses out to give them the address they want - in fact it's quite common round here.....

LOL Sykes - maybe we share the same friends...I too have been lectured about "deserting the state school sector", and how I should support it by friends who then go to huge lengths to get their kids into the "best" primary school in the county!!!

BUT back on topic...
Education should not be means tested.
Imagine all the voters tony will loose - he needs the middle class voter and that is exatcly who he will alienate...
ps: sorry for spelling - I'm typing too quickly, either that, or I should have gone to a "better" school

There is a comparison, M2T. For example in the rural "city" (small market town,in all but title) so long as you weren't living on the one council estate there was no difference in facilities, crime, insurance premiums etc. at all. It was all very boring and "nice". However there were cases where people would move 3 streets just to ensure that their child got into the "best" secondary in town. They really had nothing else to gain by moving as the houses were all bog standard 1930s semis. The people that i think are hypocritical are those who criticize others for choosing private education whilst taking advantage of higher incomes, telling lies etc. but I think others have already explained this....

And on topic, I think the point of the comments were to spark debate. Should we start accepting that unless we pay much, much higher taxes there is no way that we can expect all schools to reach certain basic standards. Similarly, we cannot expect the NHS to provide all the care, tratment, drugs, support we want. I certainly don't expect the state to support me in my old age, and i'm sure most of you don't either, but to accept that would've been unthinkable in the recent past.

mmm understand what you say Marialuisa and I agree about my old age. My gut instinct says it is wrong to charge for education and I can't help thinking that it will be a certain "group" of people who get financially hit - those in the middle ground.
But how do you make sure all schools hit certain targets short of throwing money at it and increasing taxes - don't know the way forward on this one

Don't think it is "right" to charge for secondary education but I think we need to start questioning and prioritising. I will get shot down for this but as medical advances are made there is more and more treatment available but much of this is very expensive. Do we have a right to demand the new drugs etc. if we are unwilling to contribute sufficiently to the "big pot"? similarly do we have the right to demand better facilities, more teachers and so on, if we won't countenance higher taxes. Ultimately, these things do have to be paid for, don't they?

Marialuisa - I have read the explanations, but my point is that there must only be a TINY minority that move to a better area purely for the reason of a better school. That may be one of the benefits, but not the only one. And surely only a TINY minority of those that move to a better catchment area actually criticise people for choosing Private education?

And if we are talking about moving around the corner then surely the house prices aren't that different anyway??

Hmmm I think its wrong to expect parents to pay.

The most important part of my son's education at the moment is speech therapy. he needs weekly speech therapy (he could do with more- but at least weekly) this has been agreed by his NHS SALT. However she has told us that she just can't begin to provide that level of cover- she said it was reasonable for us to expect it, but impossible for her to provide (he gets seen about 3 or 4 times a term at the moment).

So we pay a private SALT to come weekly. And yep I think it is wrong, I very much resent it- basics services and an appropraite education should be provided free to every child. It is investing in the contry's future.

BTW- the reaosn SALT is relevent is becuase in terms of statementing etc it comes under education- the LEA are ultimately responsible for the amount of SALT he receives.

BTW- the reaosn SALT is relevent is becuase in terms of statementing etc it comes under education- the LEA are ultimately responsible for the amount of SALT he receives.

I suppose there is "ordinary" and "ordinary"...

It's all very well saying our taxes won't cover it... but when the money for a large war (rightly or wrongly) is needed, billions of pounds are miraculously found from somewhere! Surely we need to look at how effectively our money is spent and not just go for blind tax increases?

message withdrawn

Twilett - DD's prep school will be between 430 and £480 a month depending on the year she is in, her secondary school is about the same amount. We only have one child and have no plans for more. That is why we can do it.

Also at prep school that includes before school care from 8am and after school care until 4:30pm, it includes all lunchs, music and ballet, gifted classes or ones for dyslexia, etc if required, etc. So at least I won't need to add them on top too.

GeorginaA (& everybody): people already are making big financial sacrifices to get into the catchment areas of "good schools". High house prices in these areas effectively prevents most poorer families from getting in.

I'm working from DH's computer or I'd provide the references, but I know of 2 good quality research studies that looked at how high house prices in catchment areas of "good schools" (both primary & secondary) effectively exclude most poor families, already from the schools with the highest test results.

The question is whether this is fair, that middle-upper class parents can just inherently afford to live in the areas with the seemingly "best schools".
BUT if you look at the indicators of relative education/teaching quality, these are statistically insignificant between most schools. The evidence is suggesting that the teaching quality varies very much less than the fundamental underlying socio-economic factors (parental involvement & early years experiences, especially) that ultimately have the most influence in how well a child does at school.

Which is to say, that the suggestion of secondary-school top-up fees is a bit of a red herring, anyway.

One school in the west end of Glasgow is notorious re it's catchment area. It's the only grant aided school left in Scotland due to some complicated loophole and therefore has all the benefits of an independent school without the fees. However, the catchment is so small and so exclusive that it virtually operates as a private school, in that the fees go on mortgage payments and council tax instead of to the bursar.

An even-numbered 3 bed house in street in the catchment would cost offers over £350,000. In the Scottish system add at least 35% in order to have a chance at a purchase. In the same street an odd-numbered house would cost O/O £180,000 simply because it's not in the catchment. Same area, same crime rate, same neighbours, just not the same school - completely out of order IMO.