High earners to pay for their children state schools

[Verycold]

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

i am guilty of squeezing out a poorer child from grammar because my DC have lots and lots of books at home I bought them and they got into reading from an early age thereby giving them a unfair advantage....so guess I should be taxed for that moral crime...not sure why it would have been more moral to just but them a superior education which is what parents who send their children do in fact.

last bit should have read ...

....not sure why it would have been more moral to just buy them a superior education which is what parents who send their children private do in fact.

Private education isn't always superior and neither is a state grammar education. Results dont tell the full story. Value added is a much more useful tool.

£80 k a year is not a lot of money when you have more than one child. I do agree with the idea but the combined income should be raised to £150k.
We are in a fortunate position, I would not dream of taking a Grammar school or state school place for my children. I also would not mind paying full price fore my children s University education.
Grammar schools and state schools should be available for children from poorer families not for wealthy families who can afford private.

Nonsense.

Utter drivel.

Kenlee..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.

I think the head of the top performing schools should mentor the head at the nearest lower performing school. Where I live there are great state schools with awful state schools practically next door. If the top performing mentored or applied the same teaching/structure to the less performing schools it would mean that more children have access to a great education.

You don't pay directly to go to a state school so why should a school perform well, just because the parents are middle class. Or is it all about property prices and location?

It's about nature and nurture. A child with middle class parents may have inherited some level of higher intelligence. Middle class parents then build on that by being more involved in their children's education and being prepared to take some responsibility for ensuring that their children do as well as possible at school.
Middle class parents often have the benefit of having some level of higher education themselves and value the importance of education and therefore schools full of middle class families get better results.
It is of course a generalisation because some families without well educated middle class parents might throw everything they can at ensuring that their children receive a good education and some children with intelligent parents might not have inherited much intelligence themselves or have parents who cannot be bothered to be involved educationally.
I don't like to think of families in such pigeon hole terms, but deep down I do think that for some families it is true and it is part of the reason why middle class areas have schools with better results.
I do believe it is a combination of both nature and nurture, but that is solely my opinion.

The results a school gets isn't an indicator of how well a school is performing because it's very easy to get good results if you have a bright cohort with parents who assist with learning at home than if you have a cohort of children who get little support at home and don't arrive at school with some prior academic learning.

I think we're in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

While I don't agree with his proposed solution, Anthony Seldon is absolutely right in what he says about well off parents monopolising certain state schools.

I think one of the greatest problems is the admissions procedures. In our area, feeder schools are a way of ensuring that a certain type of parent gains priority. Religious schools are able to set their own admissions criteria: one very popular school has no mention of any religious obligation whatsoever and instead uses its admissions policy to ensure exclusivity.

I remember Mike Baker writing an article about his experiences of the US system. He was told simply to turn up with his daughter. When he asked what would happen if there were too many children, they shrugged and said they'd create another class. No fuss, no bother.
When the Conservatives introduced parental choice for schools, the idea was that the "better" schools would expand. Instead, some seem to have become exclusive and unattainable for poorer children, with better off parents fighting over the limited places offered.

Cream, not all of them would and not all would have children who could pass the exams for the better selective private schools so the state school might remain the better option. In studies 50% of parents would pay fees if they could afford it. 8% do currently pay. Very few will earn over the sums suggested if the scheme took off so it would not have a major impact anyway.

If people are made to pay for state schools they will expect & demand and be entitled to the same standard and facilities as the private schools. Also where will it stop? what will be next and what incentive will there be for people to work in jobs that pay well when all their money will be gone

Quite frankly I am thinking that I should just stop flogging myself to death with my job and stay at home.

utter, utter, tosh. I can't believe he means it. He is just stirring (for what motives, we can but guess). Yes, there is a problem, but this is so much not the solutioin for all the reasons others have already expressed.

Quite frankly I am thinking that I should just stop flogging myself to death with my job and stay at home

I feel like this all the time at the moment. Every month there is something about "families earning over 60-80k". I wouldn't mind if I felt rich by any stretch of the imagination!!

I think it's tosh. We would fall into this bracket just about, but we are not rich and sure as hell don't have a spare 20k knocking around. It is also crap to say that because it wouldn't affect many people, it doesn't matter. It would crucify the people just above the threshold, those of us who do responsible stuff with our spare income like putting it in retirement savings and 18+ savings for our kids.

We do responsible stuff with our spare money too like putting it into pensions and 18+ savings for our kids university education. Which this kind of thing would unfairly cut into.

Grrrrrrr.

There isn't a public service in the land that couldn't do with more cash but punishing parents for striking for the best for their children and making everyone feel like they may as well just give up on middle paid jobs which tip their family income over every threshold known to man would be a pretty idiotic kind of scheme.

I think a family earning 80k is rich by any stretch of the imagination.

A family earning £80k isn't rich if the have children and a sizeable mortgage.
If a family have a sole earner taking home £80k pa and are repaying a student loan and putting 5% into a pension fund then they will be taking home around £3700 per month after the pension, student loan, tax and NI. Out of that £3700 they might have a mortgage of £1500 (won't be much less if they live in the south east) and council tax of £200 per month which leaves them with £2000 per month. That £2000 still seems a lot but if the have 2 adults and 3 children to feed and clothe, utility bills to pay, travel expenses for the working person, school dinner money it doesn't leave loads of spare cash and certainly not enough to pay top up fees for a state education.

a family earning £80 k has more than 80% of other families
that makes them rich
how they choose to spend that money is their choice, but to have the money to spend in the first place, they are rich

me too Custardo....

it is never going to happen... but all the bleating about not being able to afford it whilst talking about needing the money for saving for the kids future education needs is a bit laughable...

I agree that 80k is a lot of money. Unfortunately if you live in London/ SE it doesn't necessarily equate to being able to fund your children's education.

For example we earn just that level but have 4 children.
Once you take off 2k rent (3 bed terrace) £800 childcare, £450 professional fees ( I work for NHS, unfortunately not an option not to pay these), £200 council tax, £200 utilities there would not be enough money left to pay 2 lots of proposed school fees let alone 4.

So whilst I freely admit we are very fortunate it isn't as simple as it seems.

I absolutely do not buy into this 'large' mortgage bullshit - I don't

you are paying large mortgage on a house worth a shit load more than people who earn considerably less than you - IF they can get on the property ladder

you still have that income - if you feel stretched - do what the rest of society does and move - get a lesser mortgage

but no - you won't do that because this is a huge investment that will eventually pay off

so you are well off - you are very well off

Disagree Custardo - if you live in central London (as an example) you would barely be able to afford a small flat to live in

Just to say I am talking about renting somewhere

justfishing
then how do the half of London's population who earn under £27,000 cope ? because they seem to

hand wringing from yummy mummies with £80k incomes does not wash with the 50% of adults who earn under £19,000