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

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

High earners to pay for their children state schools

482 replies

Verycold · 19/01/2014 09:13

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

OP posts:
gaba · 19/01/2014 16:20

Talkinpeace

I have had my kids at a school that wasn't the closest and I didn't argue because it was better than the one that was.

But I couldn't and wouldn't argue if someone closer to that school than me had been angry if their kids didn't get a place at that school because of me.

In fact I would hide away in shame, and keep my head down, not say a word, and hope they didn't find out it was me.

Luckily that school was in a village, and it had been ordained at some point that anyone in that village would always get first pick of that school.

As for the distances kids are being driven, maybe some sort of maximum distance should be set, at least for state schools.

TalkinPeace · 19/01/2014 16:33

I'm utterly open about my choice : I told the head of my local school to his face that hell would freeze over before I subjected my kids to their happy clappy half arsed sponsored academy bilge

Ok I said "hell freeze over" to his face, but not the rest
I was at the time a governor in a local school and was overt against that group being able to take over the school
I therefore have no guilt at all in rejecting what I know should not have happened.

the fact that 500 other parents have taken the same decision as me - leaving them with a shiny new but very empty building - is Gove's problem, not mine

maximum distance : that depends on the area - in parts of Devon its 7 miles to the nearest school and 20 miles to the next nearest

schools in Dorset have 6th forms because the journey times to other areas are just too insane

Londoners forget how the rest of us live

straggle · 19/01/2014 16:40

The problem of gender imbalance often caused by there being more single sex girls' schools around than for boys. So you'd either have to abolish the girls' schools to achieve it or have more of a lottery system over a wider catchment for the girls' schools but distance for all other schools.

Interestingly if you enforced gender parity in a selective school you'd be discriminating against girls, who generally are more likely to do better at 11 in tests.

gaba · 19/01/2014 16:45

BTW Talkinpeace, what I said wasn't meant that people should be ashamed by taking their kids out of the area, not at all.

Just my personal thoughts 'what if' the school where my kids went didn't have places for the locals, since it was the only school for miles and I can imagine there would be some very angry parents if that had been the case.

gaba · 19/01/2014 16:47

I don't think that anyone should pay for state education.

I do think that the game will soon be up on all this 'free private' education.

rabbitstew · 19/01/2014 16:50

Only tenuously related to what seems to me to be the privatisation of state education by the back door, starting with academies and free schools... What I've always wondered, as I look at the US with its colossal problems with crime, poverty and low educational achievement, is why we are always told that it is the Welfare State that is the problem in this country and if people were made to get off their lazy backsides and work, and stop whingeing, rather than sit around scrounging, then our problems would be solved. What problems have a lack of a Welfare State solved in the US? It's stuffed to the seams with unhealthy, poor, inadequate people, and equally stuffed full of greedy, nasty, dangerous people who have made every effort to bring the whole world into meltdown with their self-interested behaviour. It's not as if the US can even claim to have a small State - it has its finger in every pie and its eye on every computer... lots of money available to ensure the wealthy and powerful stay that way, and none available for anything much else.

TalkinPeace · 19/01/2014 16:52

straggle
Interestingly if you enforced gender parity in a selective school you'd be discriminating against girls, who generally are more likely to do better at 11 in tests.
well as I'm utterly against any form of selection in state schools (god, exams or goolies) I don't give a stuff about that

you want selection - go pay for it

SnowBells · 19/01/2014 16:53

Haven't read all comments, but LauraBridges, I think you got it all wrong. We do not live in a communist country, and if we did, I'd leave tomorrow. If wealthier parents had to pay for EVERYTHING… what on Earth would motivate them to aim to earn more… or prevent them from wanting to leave the country. As per your example, you seem to want a family on £50k to have the EXACT SAME lifestyle as someone on £100k. If that was the case… why have the ambition to earn £100k?

TalkinPeace · 19/01/2014 16:54

rabbitstew
the USA has a higher proportion of kids in private school than the UK
and a huge number in evangelical christian home ed programmes

and they do not have maternity leave / pay ...

lljkk · 19/01/2014 17:05

I didn't think that was true about private ed in USA, it's not a huge difference. This link says 10%, and most of it is religiously motivated.
My cousins were home-ed'd for bigoted religious reasons (shudder).

TalkinPeace · 19/01/2014 17:10

lljkk
10% USA - 6% UK : that is a 40% difference ....
let alone the home-ed on top

then again as home ed is illegal in places like Germany so the USA gets their religious nut jobs too ...

SnowBells · 19/01/2014 17:25

To be honest, I think the main weakness with his article is that the household income level he has set is too high. Average household incomes in the UK are actually relatively low. So about 92% of households would fall under it.

I actually still don't understand how people can be OK living in this country. Entered our household earnings in IFS Where Do You Fit In, and we come out in top 2 percentile… and I don't think we are anywhere near rich.

Shootingatpigeons · 19/01/2014 17:27

Yes, amongst the Americans I know, I lived in SF for a while, the suburban middle classes are far more likely to have their children in public schools, it is very rare that they send them to private schools, unless there is some sort of family tradition, and the public schools they send them to are regarded as providing a homogenously good standard of education. Teachers I know who have taught expat kids comment that American pupils who have been through the American public system have a better level of basic literacy and maths than those who have been through the British system (state or private) but are not as advanced in some areas eg literary criticism. People simply do not feel the need to go private.

The problem with the US system is that a deprived area in an American city will rarely have an infrastructure, not just education but for all public
services, that could be described as better than third world. It is quite shocking to stray into such an area in SF or LA, roads are not repaired, street lighting will be bad, public hospitals appalling and as was highlighted in the New Orleans floods, they cannot even rely on equal access to emergency services. The schools are dire. There is no way out of deprivation on that level, and no will in either party to do very much about it, look at Obama's problems with healthcare reform.

However what they do have in the US is a greater culture of philanthropy. It is far more likely that the average wealthy person in America will be paying out to charity, especially their alma mater.

morethanpotatoprints · 19/01/2014 17:33

Snowbells that IFS thing is ridiculous and takes no account of out goings etc.

We were less than 5% and we consider ourselves rich and have quite a high disposable income compared to many higher earners we know.

funnyossity · 19/01/2014 17:43

The person floating this idea is the head of a private school.

So "he would say that wouldn't he."

There is no way I'd pay extra, on top of taxation, for our local half-hearted education when we spend lots of time trying to top-up at home.

It would give local private schools a big boost and increase social division round here.

straggle · 19/01/2014 17:48

you want selection - go pay for it

No personal experience of selective, private, faith or single sex schools so I wouldn't miss them either. They are stubbornly difficult to abolish though.

SnowBells · 19/01/2014 18:30

morethanpotatoprints Miscalculation here - not in the top 2 percentile but still top 4%. But the IFS calculator does not take into account that we are in a very expensive part of the South East - not London, but our area is known to be very, very nice. We live around here due to our jobs, and it is a lot cheaper and efficient to simply live somewhere more expensive than live somewhere cheap and pay the train companies an equivalent sum + have to deal with the delays. On our salaries, we do find it difficult still. So I don't know how others deal with it.

soul2000 · 19/01/2014 18:43

Snowball. You are not rich. It works something like this.

Top 5% of Earners = Comfortable...

Top 1% of Earners (Assets over 1Million) = Well off

Top 0.1 of Earners Assets over 5 million = Wealthy

Richest 10000 people in the country over 20 Million = rich.

The reality is that 95% of people or families are doing the best they can and can in no way be described as even well off.

barbour · 19/01/2014 18:47

funntossity:

"There is no way I'd pay extra, on top of taxation, for our local half-hearted education when we spend lots of time trying to top-up at home. "

That's true of some private schools also I'm afraid to say....there is good and bad in both sectors, the difference being private school parents can vote with their feet...but often they don't realize if teaching isn't all its spun to be until it's too late to move.

barbour · 19/01/2014 18:52

soul2000

I would generally agree but know everyone's view of this is relative, and earnings and assets are different ...you can be in top 1% of earners and have assets no where near 1 million (and have expensive outgoings). Not all assets are liquid either eg if your main asset is your home and housing is ridiculously expensive in many parts of the South East.

SnowBells · 19/01/2014 18:53

soul2000 Yep, that's what it takes to be rich in this country. We are comfortable, but this involves a lot of planning, saving - and luck that my parents live abroad (i.e. cheap holidays).

Pumpkin567 · 19/01/2014 18:55

Yes it's a great idea, high earners can pay for everything, claim nothing and subsidise everyone else!

Fucking brilliant idea.

Maybe they will let us opt out...buy private health, private school ( cause lots of us do anyway) and not pay into the system.......

barbour · 19/01/2014 18:58

Top 1% of earners = earnings over 160k gross p.a. The top 1% together pay one THIRD of the overall income tax collected.

morethanpotatoprints · 19/01/2014 19:06

If people on 80k and over were going to be charged through higher tax, how could people say they refused to pay it? It would just come out of their salary anyway.

SundayBrowser · 19/01/2014 19:22

Coming to this thread late and haven't read the whole thing, but I agree with many others that it's unworkable nonsense.

If there's a problem with wealthier people congregating together around "good" schools, then the answer is to focus more of the existing resources on the schools that aren't yet good. The pupil premium is one way of doing that. I also liked the idea that was in the news a week or so ago about a scheme to focus the best heads and teachers in the worst performing schools (actually, that's sort of what the London Challenge was all about, though it used consultant super-heads and subject specialists to support existing staff - probably more expensive, but it seemed to work).