High earners to pay for their children state schools

[Verycold]

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

Never heard of this bloke so not really that bothered by what he has to say - what his motives are I'm not certain either.

He seems to fundamentally not understand some very basic "facts" concerning education which I should find odd, given that he is a HT.

However, you don't necessarily need to know much about the education system to be head of a private school. A friend of mine is a HT of a private school and has never worked in this country in the education system. I know he is very talented and I'm sure he does a very good job; I suspect his role is much more business / people management though.

My views -
"Better" schools in middle-class areas appear to do better than schools in less affluent areas often because of the catchment - children of accountants, doctors etc have people at home supporting and pushing them and academic success is an expectation. That is, of course, a generalisation but there is a lot of truth in it.

One expects the "better" schools to have "better" teachers. Where is the evidence for this? How would anyone be able to say with certainty where the "best" teachers are? How can they be judged? By exam results? Well that presumes that children achieve in line with the "ability" of their teacher. Well that's bollocks. So it isn't actually possible to say.

Thus, until anyone can pinpoint with 100% certainty what makes a school "better" than any other, any suggestion that parents should pay for one school over another is absurd and totally unworkable.

A friend of mine over coffee recently suggested children should all be given education "vouchers", to be cashed in and used whenever that child was ready to use them effectively. There are, in some schools, so many young people who aren't "ready" to learn when we want them to, and they largely are failed by our system as a result. They also disrupt the learning of those who are ready and want to do well. Brilliant idea. But just as cloud-cuckoo land.

straggle
see that's the thing, I went to private single sex selective schools,
one sibling went to boarding school, children are at comps, DH went to comp, nieces and an nephews are at every permutation
ranging from central London to the sticks
so I DO have experience of all sorts
let alone DH going to over 100 schools a year all over the country

twerp from Wellyboot should stay there and keep his nose out of our business

I live in Cheltenham and we can see very clearly the things which whatsisname is talking about....

there is a very good grammar here - not many FSM children go there - kids are shipped in from all over the place.... it is an MC enclave surrounded by council estates....

the local secondaries have a "pecking order" too - MC go to one side of town and "council houses" the other... seems to be a fact of life here - you can guess which schools are deemed the "best"..

if MC kids from the wrong side of town don't get the grammar, they go for the "lesser" grammars in Gloucester (I have really heard them described as such in RL) , if they don't get there then they tend to go private, because they know where the kids will end up...

Not sure how to get round this problem, but paying to not go to a school full of people outside below your social class would probably work here..... as that is what seems to be the problem....

I'm waiting for the collective squeal if a "lottery" system were to be introduced...

Instead of blaming middle class parents and charging them for living in the correct catchment and sending their children to the 'good school' why don't they concentrate on making sure that every school is good and provides a good education. The problem is the schools, not the middle class parents.

I don't think the problem is just the schools. If it were, it would be pretty easy to fix.

Rowler's views -

""Better" schools in middle-class areas appear to do better than schools in less affluent areas often because of the catchment - children of accountants, doctors etc. have people at home supporting and pushing them and academic success is an expectation. That is, of course, a generalisation but there is a lot of truth in it."

Absolutely agree with this ....which is also why more middle classes may succeed in getting their children into grammars...it's not necessarily a question of money...but a lot of people just won't accept that when they argue about low FSM figures in grammars and put to all down to those who can afford tutoring vs those who can't.

Rowlers
the problem is the schools.
since Bliar brought in "parental choice" schools go in and out of fashion
that and a steady stream of teacher bashing ministers
brought to new heights by the eejit Gove
mean that many many bright teachers and heads will not touch struggling schools with a bargepole : they clamour to get into naice MC leafy comps like the one DCs are at, rather than the happy clappy sponsored academy I drive past

until ministers butt out and leave education policy to those who have the foggiest what they are on about, disparities will continue

which is just how the Tories want it because they would never want upstart proles from poor areas threatening their hold on power

You could require places by lottery as Brighton tried so you mix rich and poor together even bussing from poor to rich areas etc as the US did when they were trying to break white/black segregation.

Laurabridges
but lottery only works in cities big enough : it is not relevant to much of the UK
and is environmentally indefensible

Second what tiggytape said.

Find it ironic that Seldon chooses to write a report highlighting how much better indies are and wants to charge m/c parents for oversubscribed state schools ....when his own school Wellington (which charges about 8-9k a term for day) gets significantly lower Oxbridge success results percentage wise than the two state grammars a few miles down the road....but then I imagine Wellington is far more socially exclusive and that's partly what you pay for (and the amazing facilities and sport of course) but not necessarily its academics.

However, their pupils may do better in the long run, because parents are likely better connected (for those internships or job intros) and already loaded...and often that is the overriding secret to mobility to enter into the professions for example, rather than merely the product of a difference in education in going to a state vs. a private which is what the reports like those written here simplistically focus on.

Do people succeed by merely going to a public school like Eton or Harrow for five years (vs. a good state) or because they (or rather their parents) are already of an upper middle/ elite class financially and socially (and so well networked)? More likely the latter IMO.

Talkinpeace,
I agree with you, for the most part.
However, I am not so sure that "many bright teachers and heads will not touch struggling schools with a bargepole ".
I have been teaching for 20 years and have seen a lot of staff come and go. I know some friends of mine have left our "outstanding"-rated school to work in less academically successful schools and have never looked back.

Some brilliant teachers relish working in schools where the students are more honest and open, where they might tell you to "fuck off" one minute but sincerely apologise the next, where students go home to a very different home-life than any of us MNers on here would recognise.
Anyway, I suppose I was trying to say that education and academic success is not just about which school you attend.

I don't think the problem is just the schools. If it were, it would be pretty easy to fix.

Well if the problem isn't with the schools then charging the higher earners for a school place isn't going to solve the problem.

rowlers
so long as the Value Added measure stays in the league tables and ofsted criteria, teachers will get rewarded for working in struggling schools
the day it disappears, watch those vacancies rise

I said, I don't think the problem is just the schools.
By that I mean, it's far wider than just which school a child goes to.
You can't just chuck a child into a "successful" school and think the situation will resolve itself.
And I agree, charging higher earners isn't going to solve the problem in any way.
If my child went to a school where this chap was HT and he was spouting such crap, I'd be worried.

Talkinpeace,
Not sure I know any teachers (classroom) who are recompensed for a school's value-added "success". Senior staff and HTs maybe? It would be interesting to see figures such as number of applications for headships related to their Ofsted and value-added ratings.

It is the craziest idea I have heard in a long time.

• No wealthy parent is going to PAY for their child to be in a class of 30 when they can pay a private school down the road for a class of 20
• What happens for freelancers, artists and many others with variable income levels? Do they get charged in arrears via the tax form?! Wow, what an incentive to always ensure you earn just below the threshold
• Those London and SE folk who spend another mortgage on childcare (nannies, nurseries etc) - is this tax deductible now too as that would need to be taken into consideration. It would only be fair..

The problem is that too many left-wing journalists and educators want to level the playing field by dragging down others. The system of education in this system is weak compared to our international counterparts - do we want to make that worse by triggering a middle class flight from free education? I can't see how that is going to help disadvantaged children at all.

If the state can't educate its young properly, it can do bugger all properly.

I also think we try and tackle the problem at secondary level when, to be honest, the seeds are already set for most at primary level.

It has to be the stupidest suggestion to fix the fact that so many state schools are not fit for purpose...ok so "let's fix that by making the ones that are fit for purpose raise hefty charges on the middle classes to attend"...makes no sense at all. We pay plenty of taxes already for a state education system. ...which should be a lot better than it is.

I haven't read through all the comments but when I mentioned the original article to my DS he said "I'm already paying through my taxes". High earners on PAYE are paying at the very least 40% tax on some of their earnings whether they have children of not and regardless of whether their children are educated privately or by the state.
Secondly I wouldn't pay £20 000 (a figure suggest by AS) for state ed in a million years it's frankly not worth it. I'd rather emigrate.

the rich would find a way around it anyway - greater pension contributions that you can withdraw in 10 years or something

80k gross in the South East is not "rich"

We would be the laughing stock of Europe if this went ahead ...can't think of another Western country that does this. Compare France with its heavily state subsidized cheaper private schools, or the Netherlands or Nordics where hardly anyone sends their children to private because the state are just fine. ...and they don't charge middle classes any sort of special education tax above anyone else for attending.

Seldon as usual is just spouting complete rubbish. He states that the UK would be "in debt for many years to come" and that state schooling is "the last great bastion holding out against the principle of payment." He seems to have forgotten that other even greater "bastion"; the NHS with a budget of 108 billion (education 88 billion), that's 8% of our GDP (education 6.3%) and only more are employed in the Chinese Red Army, Walmart and the Indian Railway and still holding out against the principle of payment. How can anyone take this man seriously when he so obviously writes such rubbish.

I actually think he has gone about it in the wrong way. He really only wants to get more MC to pay for private education...

The best way to win in all aspects is simple. You increase the catchment area of the schools which will overlap each other.

The top performing school will take over the bottom performing school. Yes that means a name change. All its teacher allocation will be changed so there is an even distribution between teachers of both schools.

The name will change to that of the top performing school and those who apply will be given a place at either of the school by lottery. Yes that may involve travel.

This will stop the argument that high earners move to affluent areas.. It will also stop the incessant arguments about the best teachers goes to the leafy comps. (Which I doubt).

This will not infringe on the high tax earners to pay for state education.

There is no need for tax...just a way better way to level the system...Im not saying my idea is viable but its a damn sigtht better than a clumsy attempt at getting MC parents to go private.