Ethically, is there any difference between buying a house in a good catchment area and just PAYING fees?

[Fillyjonk]

Seems pretty much the same to me

Both ways you are paying for an edcuation

Both ways the intake of the school is limited, one by catchment (local, expensive) one by just upfront paying fees.

Thoughts? Justifications ?

(this got posted in SEN for some reason. Not sure how. Apologies)

I guess that the difference is that you have to live somewhere, and if you have a choice you will choose the best place for your family taking into account your priorities (which could be a short commute for the parents, green open spaces for all, good schools for kids etc). But if you choose to pay a ton more just for the catchment area then really there is no difference (other than you are making interest payments to a bank rather than school fee payments). It is cheaper if you have a large family, but personally I'd be concerned that there is too much fiddling by Government and LEAs to guarantee that you'd get what you pay for.

But of course I'm from the school of thought that it isn't ethically wrong to pay school fees.

Well, I used to disapprove of private education, think it should be banned, blah blah. But now, having experienced v poor sink school in the state sector, I do think hey, we're all entitled to do whatever it takes.

Had we stayed in Bristol, where there are lots of diabolical secondary schools, we'd have paid.

And five years ago I'd have been disbelieving if you'd have told me I would compromise my principles.

From Guardianista to me me me in 2 years...

I suppose the knock-on effect of buying a house in a good catchment is that house prices locally go up, pricing the houses out of the reach of a large proportion of the populace. This doesn't happen if you just pay fees, as you just stay in the house you are in without affecting property values locally.

In fairness www I suspect that you're only hoping for your dcs to have a vaguely similar education to the one that you received - it just seems to be harder to achieve it!

Good point re house prices pushing people out, though presumably some people who were there in the first place benefit, and presumably people could benefit if they put tons of effort into turnign around their local schools (if only it were that imple....) I don't think that schools are as much to blame as second property owners/city bonuses.

yes am too lefty to be guardianista but am faced with really piss poor secondary, but decent local private

everyone moves from this (lovely) street when oldest kid is about 8

In your position I'd go for paying for decent school. It costs £10k ish to move too, so factor that in. And if you like it where you are stay and pay. Ooh that's got a ring to it!

I consider Guardianista to be the same as leftie btw!

lol

i vote green, and would vote respect if it wasn't for that PRICK galloway and other issues re homophobia/abortion right etc.

and actually do read indy cos guardian is too bloody smug and hubis-ridden

so

yes it would be +10k to move easily

but do have 2 kids

its the ethics of it that get me

like its somehow more democratic to pay for a nice house in a good catchemtn area that just be upfront with the fees.

To be devi'ls advocate you could say that buying a house in a good catchment area could be seen as worse since you are inflating prices in the area, which will eventually price all the poorer people out of the area. And people may have other reasons for being in that area.....next to work/family etc etc.

A sort of 'second home' type syndrome

But who cares what I think, I pay Private anyway?

There is a certain irony when those who have moved into a catchment subsequently find the criteria change and their kids aren't accepted. However what I think is ethically worse are those who buy/rent nearer these schools to establish an address then move out, to cheaper, less local areas, once the children have started.

At least when you choose to go private you don't have the same sort of subterfuge although there can be competition of a different kind for entry. I'm not sure it doesn't still affect property prices in the vicinity but there is more opportunity to live further away.

lol

is NO ONE going to come on and defend the overinflating of house prices close to good schools?

This is, after all , the way is works in the US

"However what I think is ethically worse are those who buy/rent nearer these schools to establish an address then move out, to cheaper, less local areas, once the children have started"

But WHY, Lizs?

its a question of money, really, isn't it?

Some people can afford to buy in the area, others only to rent for a short time?

There is, I think, at least a certain honesty about paying the fees. and playing the fees employs people in the area directly

What I meant was that to plan to do so short term seems less ethical somehow, than if you actually move in permanently. I suppose because it is an option available to relatively few with the financial flexibility and forethought.

actually technically i suppose i pay private school fees as well

ds is at a steiner kindergarten and will go there til 7 and its fee paying, though not very much.

so

round here, lizs, people simply rent a dive in the local Good School Catchment Area for 6 months or so, perhaps £300 pm? Then get in based on that. (oddly, we have student digs in the catchment area, this may be unusual) So perhaps costing £1800-£3000 ? Ie less than a years private school fees at secondary.

Does paying fees mean employing local people, though? Teachers at my school didn't all live nearby (and it was in a desirable area anyway so not sure of the relevance of employing local people - no shortage of jobs round there).

Ahhh, so lentil eating private is OK then?

LMAO

Where my kids go is a Chruch school charity. They fund non-private schools, including one in Hackney. On balance I think that paying the fees probably does more overall good that inftaling prices round the good local school and bump the poor kids out.

The teachers in my kids school live in the area. It is that sort of a place.

I suppose that you can argue that the extra money gets fed back in to the economy. But I think I'd rather support the teachers than the estate agents Prefessional brotherhood and all that

The more I read on this sort of debate the more I honestly think our independent school is a bit of an aberration. It is in a "respectable" but boring lower-middle suburb - no bookshops, no greengrocers, no coffee shops - just row after row of 30s semis.
A house round here, usually with a good-sized garden and a garage, costs about £280k. That is, I believe, cheap for London .
We have a lot of children bussed in from a nearby bijou suburb though, where houses the same size go for at least £100k more and plenty sell for over a million. Usually their child failed to get a place at the small, rinky-dink state primaries near their lovely homes. So those families are paying twice over .
Our teachers can and do live locally. All the support staff walk, several are neighbours.
We chose independent for several curriculum-related reasons, but the only reason we can afford it is because of the quirk of location of the school.

I kind of assumed you were home educating, Filly? Did I miss a decision, somewhere, or are you just exploring all the options?