High earners to pay for their children state schools

[Verycold]

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

Writing is not on the wall because it's massive vote loser and unworkable- but another publicity seeking stunt by Seldon that's all.... middle classes on 100k would not pay for state if this came in, they will just go private which is perhaps the aim but it won't help anyone ...just increase the educational divide...beneficiaries will be the privates.

....which one are you then gaba ......"poor", "rich" or a "Jones's type"?...

I always love the idea of a lottery ! Usually put forward by city dwellers. We have 1 school 3.5 miles away, a couple 5 miles away & then it's 9 & 11 miles to the next ones. So a lottery would involve buses zig zagging over a vast distance - not very environmentally friendly & also not much fun for the kids as their friends would be scattered all over the place. And would take hours ! Mr Seddon lives on a different planet to the rest of us - how can a family on £80k have £20k surplus income per child ? Has he not heard of mortgages, Council tax, oh, and that thing called tax. Which means people already pay for their kids education. Wish we earned that much - or had any surplus money at all !!!!

Yes it would mean travel time but I think most kids at secondary can travel. It does put a stop to the MC perception that moving to an affluent area to get a free private schooling

Why not ....Im sure there is a bus that goes to the school

What a ridiculous proposition put forward by a stupid man.

High earners earn big usually because they train hard to be good at a top end job. These jobs are often stressful, involve huge hours / time away from families etc. They often accrue uni debt which needs paying etc.

They're rewarded with higher salaries which should enable a nice lifestyle. If we keep squeezing them to make them pay for everything there will be no point in them doing the job.

I am not a high earner and yes, i still work hard. Me and DP bring in £45k between us and after childcare, mortgage etc we are skint.

i am a high earner and yes it took many years of academic and professional training to get here, long hours which meant putting off children until later in life.. the reward has to be weighed against the cost to lifestyle.

You make your choices, but if there is no tangible rewards for hard work because you get squeezed so much to subsidize others....then you take away the incentives..

kenlee
why should children be forced to travel 20 miles to school when there is a school only 5 miles away?
Bus journeys in rural areas are horribly long anyway
why trash the planet even more?

those in favour of lotteries utterly betray their urbanised blinkers

yes agree..second that ....ridiculous suggestion to force children to travel longer distances and force more cars on the road....and takes no account of effect on children themselves ...they will have enough of a long commute when they are working adults.

And oversubscribed state is not a "free private education" by any means. Nothing is free, it is paid for by the tax payer....perhaps it is "free" only though to someone who contributes little or no tax.

What's the reckoning that if all the children from a 'poor' school swapped places with all the children from a 'good' school that the poor school would become a good school and vice versa and the attainment of each individual child wouldn't change.
There is much more to a child's achievement then the school that he attends.

now that would be an interesting experiment...though I suspect the "good" school may have attracted the better teachers also...

Norudeshit / barbour
I can tell you absolutely categorically that school results are ALL to do with intake and not "area"

my local school is poor, has a reputation for being poor and is massively under subscribed - 500 of 900 places unfilled

all of those missing 500 kids are at the schools elsewhere in the area getting good results because their parents have made the effort to get them to a non catchment school.

if all 500 of us sent our kids back to the local school its results would rocket upwards
but none of us are brave enough to be the fist parent who does.

If they are concerned about parents buying into catchment areas I have a solution. End proximity rule and introduce deprivation index. There is already a pretty good method of social profiling by postcode so the idea is to go a bit deeper. Then you say that each school can have that many children from affluent addresses and then in small increments to the most deprived ones. Then you introduce borough divides so that each subdivision has decent number of schools and commute to school is reasonable (depending on existing public transport arrangements). And then you do the place allocation lottery style but keeping to the deprivation index rule. Voila! You just need decent mathematicians. Or you improve education system and end this scarcity mentality. I would also challenge the notion that family means more than a school. What about all those children that grew up to be diplomats, scientists, teachers and they were the first ones in their families to go to university. I am talking about the golden age of social mobility, was it 50s - 60s?

What is interesting is that countryside dwellers are not put off that anything you need requires a car journey which presumably is not environmentally friendly and do not campaign for more public transport. But when it comes to schools then it becomes the deciding factor.

I'd rather go private than pay more to the state. Why should those who really worked hard for it - since school - be made to pay for EVERYTHING, so that those who didn't can have a good life???

People who are 'nerds' in school often get bullied. The one thing that drove me was that I could expect a better life than many classmates who didn't care about school. Karma. Now, you want me to pay for them???

Family means more than school where I live as the school does not give students any push to change who they are, so kids of doctors go on to med school and kids of the unemployed go on the dole. It is an uninspiring education on the whole and no way would I pay for it even though on paper exam results are good. (It's the extra parental support and tutoring that keeps the numbers up.)

I would also be in favour of a lottery if it was done in a way that nobody fiddled it. Somehow though I cannot see it happening anytime soon.

Exactly SnowBells...and explain that to your kids also...work really hard now...so you can aspire to grow up to be one of the squeezed middle who works long hours, contributes high taxes, and gets back little from the state.....and pay for everything twice (once through your high rate taxes, then again from your after tax earnings).

in fact you pay for it three times, because your higher rate taxes are much higher % wise than the low earners!

Why should those who really worked hard for it - since school - be made to pay for EVERYTHING, so that those who didn't can have a good life???

Because hard work and money don't necessarily go together? Because all children deserve a good education regardless of their parents income?

TalkinPeace

The school you refer to sounds like the school my ds1 went to, not our local one because that was faith and we couldn't get in.
It did turn around eventually for a while and it became a beacon school, with the help of a fantastic superhead. It lasted about 4 years before she left and it slowly declined after that.

Talkinpeace - that is exactly what I expect. Schools are to do with intake, so the idea of good schools and bad schools and charging people to attend the good schools wouldn't improve things for the pupils currently at poor schools.
I do think that peer group and parental involvement play some role, but we can't go about charging parents for the mere fact that they have been bothered to raise their children's attainment level by being involved and living in an area with other like minded individuals.

newyearhere

The school is only responsible for the basic education of kids. You'll find that a lot of MC kids in MC schools have a home learning environmemt, too, which is what mainly sets them apart... especially if the parents went to good unis and value education a lot.

A child that grows up in a household with plenty of books will ALWAYS do better at school than one where the only book at home is an Argos catalogue or something (believe me, those households exist). There's also the nurturing and conditioning before the child is even born... genes, alcohol & cigarette consumption...

Next, someone will suggest that kids are redistributed at birth by lottery...

What is interesting is that countryside dwellers are not put off that anything you need requires a car journey which presumably is not environmentally friendly and do not campaign for more public transport. But when it comes to schools then it becomes the deciding factor.

Because full time education is compulsory for children and children can't drive.

While I don't agree with Seldon's suggestion, to those who "worked hard" - while I don't negate their "hard work" but they should also realise that for the vast majority, good fortune and personal circumstances played a great part in their success before they pat themselves on the back too much.

I have been pretty socially upwardly mobile, brought up working class and not that well off or connected, but qualified as a lawyer and worked in top London firms and bought my first house at 26.

But I consider myself extremely lucky:

• I am white British
• I was born to two healthy, loving and stable parents who supported me in whatever I did
• I have enjoyed largely very good physical and mental health and do not have disabilities
• I was an only child so any money there was, was spent on me
• I went to university with a grant that at least paid for books and accommodation
• I only came out with a small student debt
• I bought a house and the prices went up exponentially for the next ten years

As a general principle IMO, human beings should be compassionate and try to make life fairer for everyone, and help people who are less advantaged. Society is becoming more unequal with vast differences between rich and poor and we need to find ways to make it more equal. It's not a clear cut case of those who work hard and are rich/those who don't work hard and are poor or those who are smart and rich/those who are dumb and poor or those who are deserving and those who are undeserving. Compassion and fairness should be the first way you look at everything, IMO.

newyearhere a good education doesn't start and finish at the school gate firstly. Where is the incentive for me to work double the hours of a normal working week, if I pay it all out in schools taxation? Where is the incentive to get in debt for a degree if it leads to earning the same as someone who works in a shop? Our countries success barometer is based on the economy, and therefore economic reward is expected for the individual. We do not live in a communist society.

" Because all children deserve a good education regardless of their parents income?"

So I take it newyearhere you are not in agreement with Seldon's view that you should have to pay that state for a good education based on income?