High earners to pay for their children state schools

[Verycold]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25798659

Well actually straggle that might be a mixed blessing, when they abolished most Grammar Schools back in the 70s a lot of them turned into very poor schools. The staff couldn't cope with the mixed intake. Discipline and results were worse than in the former Secondary Moderns. I am not particularly impressed by what I have seen of the teaching etc in the local superselectives, with the intake supposedly the brightest 3% they should be getting much better results than they do. I wouldn't pay to send my DDs there, indeed my older DD turned down a free place there, she thought it a very grim cold environment. They are surrounded by outstanding comps whose top sets do just as well without the pressure and tutoring.

I also think it is a bonkers idea on so many levels, many of which have already been highlighted on here.

Can't imagine ever flying or having any credibility at all. I am surprised it got air time to be honest.

Then we agree that selection by ability may as well be abolished. Those driven to the private sector to get their fix of selective schooling and/or social advantage will pay. Those who can't or won't pay will remain at the school (which will indeed have to adapt), or go to more local comprehensives, ensuring they all have diverse intakes, but with an average proportion of bright students. The lottery system could be used more widely to avoid too much selection by postcode. Much fairer and cheaper to administer than means testing and assisted places, and much more realistic than abolishing private education altogether.

o Norudeshit a school that serves a deprived area has to be a bad school?

No, not necessarily, but there might be a link between why people are prepared to pay a premium to live in catchments of 'good' schools. The house prices near good schools might be part of the reason why more affluent areas have 'better' schools. People with money and choice are less likely to choose to live near a failing school, meaning that those schools deemed to be poor and more likely to have a higher ratio of students from deprived backgrounds. It's not the case in London because house prices and catchments are very different in London from the rest of the country.
It is all very simplistic though because too often schools are deemed good by results and ofsted reports, rather than by value added.

straggle I would support Grammar Schools if they genuinely selected the top 3% ability level and then gave excellent teaching that did facilitate bright children from poor backgrounds to go on and achieve. Many of my peers at my Direct Grant were genuinely given aspirations and chances that they would not have had otherwise, particularly bearing in mind that a much smaller number went to university and women accounted for only 1 in 9 students. Girls from poor backgrounds were if anything more represented than they were in the wider community, as well as fees being means tested, 60% of the places were accounted for by County and town scholarships, and you could not qualify for fees remission or a scholarship if you applied from a private prep. Tutoring to get in was unheard of, and 90% of us went on to university, definitely a vehicle of social mobility, and one my mother had benefited from before me.

If you look at previous generations of politicians, the Denis Healeys, Barbara Castles etc. they were all given their chances via Grammar Schools.

Now we have Grammar Schools that are dominated by the middle classes and politics is once again the province of the wealthy private school educated.

Surely the ideal is for all state schools to have a decent social mix? What he is suggesting would just result in lots of middle class families going to private schools, rather than jumping through the hoops of getting into popular state schools. Which is probably what he wants.

I am sorry, but I just can't take lectures on social equality and social justice from the headmaster of Wellington. If he cares that much, why doesn't he go and find the worst performing school in the country and offer his services there?

The current decline in social mobility now compare to the 60s has, in my view, as much to do with global economic forces and changes in technology as to do with the education system, in my view.

Lottery System for admissions
is only applicable in areas with several schools to choose from.
THe carbon footprint madness of driving kids past several schools to the lottery allocated one is just stupid

schools should federate to share good practice - cheaper and easier to move the teacher than the class

Well, if I go back to work we'd be in this category, and I'd want to know if the state primaries are going to charge like the preps (and at £15k as per the suggestion in the article, the state schools would be more expensive than the local preps), are they going to provide the same level of service? are they going to limit fee paying class sizes to less than 20, ideally 15? Are they going to provide music classes, a range of sports (with the facilities for them), before school clubs for every child starting at 7:30am, after school until 6pm with enriching activities in that time, not just childminding, and all included in my fees?

Are they going to be strict on discipline, removing any DCs who create problems quickly?

Right now, we aren't going to privately educate (we actually can't afford it, even on those wages), but if I was going to have to pay for it anyway, there's no way a state school, no matter how good, can compete with the bulk of the private schools in the area.

And yes, the assumption does seem to be that good schools in expensive housing areas are good independent of the area/intake and that house prices only are higher round there because of the school. This might be true in some parts of London that previously were dodgy areas, but outside of London, it does seem to be that the expensive areas containing the outstanding and over subscribed schools have been expensive for a long time.

Yes, lotteries only works in areas of dense population and it's outlawed for LAs to impose that system too widely anyway. But you could have e.g. 20% admitted from an outer area by lottery to spread the catchment out a bit. Would be fairer where there is a single sex school or faith school that skews the balance of surrounding schools admitting on distance.

There was no golden age of grammar schools shooting - in the age of Dennis Healey the school leaving age was 14, grammars took 30% of the population because they were already there and secondary moderns had yet to be built, yet did not offer any exams when they were first set up. So anyone who took exams and went to university and is someone we have heard of is likely to have been at a grammar. There were also working class politicians like John Prescott and Alan Johnson who went to secondary moderns, however. Further education colleges/night schools had just as big an impact as grammars, and offered second chances to a wider group of people.

straggle
DCs school catchment is already 10 miles across, how BIG do people want!

This was the same man who was complaining bitterly not so long ago that Oxbridge has a bias against his school because they don't take enough from Wellington.....not sure how that equates with his sudden denouncing of a middle class stranglehold on state education....more soundbites.

Talkinpeace not bigger than that! The popular schools in my area have catchments of 1.5 miles but you can guess I'm in London.

I think Anthony Seldon must have been on the "Crystal Meths" again.

Why oh why would you want to make any "state school" Fee paying based on someones salary... People pay "Income tax" based on earnings ( Does the stupid Tony Blair Lover not know that)...

What we need to be doing is to allow the ex "Direct Grant" fee paying Grammar schools back in to the state sector by allowing selection.

Seldon and his mob Eton/Harrow and the rest of them would not be able to cope if the best state Grammar schools become free "Boarding schools" for any child who passed.

What we need to do is convince "everybody" to use state education, the only way that is possible is by allowing all type of schools. "selective, boarding and whatever types parents want. We want to make private education "For Foreigners or Snobs" ... This being the case if people or families can get the right education suitable to their children.

The idea is such utter nonsense, I won't even discuss it!

Straggle Soul That was exactly what Direct Grant Grammars achieved in the city I lived in, there were only two private schools and they were very small and for the rich and thick.

They were most definitely a vehicle for social mobility over several generations in the history of the City.

"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," Dr Seldon said in the report.

Are all the best schools those full of middle class in the top set or equivalent? I thought there were some excellent schools in deprived areas too. Would their funding be less? Not sure if this money goes prorata to the schools with lots of middle class ( definitely not fair and increasing segregation) or just gets swallowed up like the rest of our taxes in some nebulous melting pot.
There is some truth in what he says, it's just not all the truth. Mumsnet is perhaps over represented by the parents he alludes to.

Just seen the answer to my question about the money

'He said a quarter of the money raised through charging should be retained by the school, with the rest redistributed among other state schools'.

So middle class area schools would get even better and richer.

But these days they would turn popular and thriving comprehensives into secondary moderns by creaming off more of the top sets, there's be a tipping point and more of the squeezed middle ability kids would go private. Because the leaving age is 17 and all schools do GCSEs, so no justification for separate schools offering separate exams.

summerends also good point. Seldon is bonkers.

I would find it interesting if a state primary school did try to charge £15K for a place when published LA data often has the cost per pupil at around 1/3 or that value or less.

Talkinpeace

'THe carbon footprint madness of driving kids past several schools to the lottery allocated one is just stupid

schools should federate to share good practice - cheaper and easier to move the teacher than the class'

This is one of my niggling little issues at the moment. My local school is jammed with kids from rich London postcodes 20 miles away. It is one of these top performing schools (AKA STATE FUNDED PRIVATE school). All and I mean ALL the parents could easily afford private, but can get the same education for free, off the tax payer.

I don't think charging is the way to go but it may be time to say that kids just go to the school closest to them.

Also how about for state funded schools; a set price per pupil right across the country, instead of this variable amount.

This system is so corrupt.

If one child costs 50k to 100k for a private education, there obviously going to be shenanigans if you have these state funded private schools as there are now, with everyone trying to get their kids in.

gaba
I have to declare an interest here : I drive past my local school every morning to take my DCs to their school.
I would home educate rather than send them to the local school
BUT
yes, its about time mapping technology was brought to bear in state school places allocations that kids are sent to schools near them
with the controls that

• equal amounts of each sex at each school
• equal numbers from each term cohort at each school
• county average FSM at each school

the data is all there, just not being cleverly used
and if cleverly used the mind bogglingly rich parents of the september girl would have to know so much about all of their neighbours that it would flatten the house price bubbles around schools

because the catchment boundaries would be different for different pupils
BUT
the corollary has to be
state schools are allowed to build federated campus extensions to ensure that EVERY child is in a catchment
shockingly NOT the case in parts of London at the moment

The removal of a universal benefit (like free education) from general taxation is the route to a poorer society and smaller state as the the 'rich' will either shelter income aggressively, reduce their work (to stay below thresholds) or vote to reduce taxation. It is the latter issue that will kill this silly proposal off. Affected families could sway many a marginal seat in middle England to a tax-lowering party. In particular, the Labour Party would never touch this as they would not want to generate a taxpayers revolt.

It should be remembered the top 5% pay just under 50% of the total income tax take and the top 1% around 20% (as of course increased earning attracts higher NI and marginal tax rates). in other words, the rich pay a whole lot more in total terms and relatively (which is only fair). To expect another tranche of money will be counterproductive. Look what happened with the 50% tax rate (the busiest people in town were the tax accountants). It generated diddly squat.

His point on grammar schools being full of middle-class children is not the fault of the children. It is predominantly down to geography (grammars predominantly survive in relatively affluent areas) and parental influence (genes, values, expectation etc). As has been said, you can pay fees or a higher mortgage.

The obvious outcome if this were ever adopted is that high earners would simply go to the independent schools as the outcome of many of the grammar schools is frankly disappointing given their superselective intake (except for those who cull at 6th form). Whether that would help the schools I don't know.