Charge parents £500 per year to boost school funds

[noblegiraffe]

A government advisor has suggested that schools plug the ever-widening chasm in their school finances by charging parents £500 per year.

www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/charge-parents-ps500-a-year-boost-school-funds-says-former-adviser

In South Australian Primary schools/secondary you pay for "materials and services" so photocopying, pens/pencils/coloured pencils, rulers, individual whiteboards, scissors, text books, writing books, access to ipads/pcs etc.

The school can set their costs, and it used to have to be under $300 per year. I pay $260.00 per child this year. It rises by $5 each year.

For secondary school next year, I will pay $400.00. Plus she has to have a laptop, so in all, approx. $1000. I also have to buy her "book list" which is pens/pencils/calculator, maths sets, writing books, lecture books, USB sticks, scissors, ruler etc.

Families on low income can qualify for a school card, which means the charge is wavered.

It's usually paid over the first couple of terms, but you can ask for a payment plan, so it can be spread out over the year.

This is additional to costs for excursions etc.

The schools are also allowed to take you to the debt collector to recover costs if you don't pay.

Most people manage, because you have to if you want your child to be educated.

Parents already take most of the financial burden for raising children Wtf? Who the fuck should if not the parents? I take all of the financial burden for my holidays and cars etc.

We have this system in Australia....if you can't afford it, then you have something called a "school card" and that lets you off. It also entitles you to other reductions and waivers.

Oh I see Different explained it better! :D I'm in South Australia too!

And may in fact lead to bullying in schools re the payers/non-payers. Seriously? I doubt it. I don't think any other parent (other then a close friend) would be aware of my ability to pay the fees. Let alone a random child in the yard! The school don't give the children whose parent's can't pay a big red P (poor) to wear around their neck!

The 8yrs my girls have been at primary, I have NEVER known one child to be bullied because of school fees!!

And the income tax rate in southern Australia? 22.8% +2% for Medicare. (Source Wikipedia, sorry if that's incorrect). UK tax payers on similar income (£30k/$50k AUD) pay 20% tax + 11% NI. From what I can see, the tax burden is lower in Southern Australia, so I can see why funding on top for education might be sought.

A lot of people actually don't take financial burden for their children in the uk. Only around 40% of the uk adults are net contributors who pay more tax than they take out each year, they basically support the other 60% who pay less tax than they use.

Each child for example costs £6,200 per year in taxes for school alone. So if you had two children that's £12,400 tax, without NHS and other resources tax is for. Plus then any benefits received ie child tax.
If your household income is say £30,000, they get £11,000 tax free, then they will be only paying 20% tax on the remaining £19,000. Which is £3800 a year. So a family with 2 children on £30k will pay around £3800 tax, and be recieving at least £15,000 back

Why don't we just kill all the children and spend the money on a big holiday for all the adults?

The tax burden direct from pay may be less, but you are taxed heavily on other things.

Road tax for example. You are taxed, you are also taxed on the admin fee (so 2 lost of tax on the same thing)

Not to mention that wages are lower here, and cost of living (groceries etc) is higher compared to wages.

So it's by no means more "doable" for us. We just know we have to pay, so we have to factor it in.

Hmm. We're not there yet with our DC, but if this was on a sliding scale based on means, I think I'd be in favour. The primary and secondary schools mine will likely end up at are in a wealthy enclave of a broadly impoverished part of London. Anyone who can afford to live there with young children is likely earning well. I'd happily pay with my money or time to improve or maintain the school.

"I also have to buy her "book list" which is pens/pencils/calculator, maths sets, writing books, lecture books, USB sticks, scissors, ruler etc."

Unless our local secondary is very different to everyone else's, parents are already paying for these things here in the UK. That's on top of very expensive school uniforms and shoes that have to comply with the school's uniform policy.

Our school already hires out its buildings to local community groups and businesses.. It's rare to find a day when the building and facilities aren't being used by someone (Christmas Day maybe?). That's still not going to save it from the impact of the funding cuts.

Only a minority of parents would be able to find an extra £500 per year. There are also a lot who fall into the category of 'low income but not entitled to FSM'. A scheme where it was free for PP children would be of no help to those families.

A sliding scale based on means would be more expensive than charging nothing.

If the UK has decided against the principle of free education for all, thej let's just go back to charging for school places.

Of course, it can no longer be compulsory.

You can't force people to pay for a service you are forcing them to use.

What shall we do with all these children running the streets during the day?

Maybe we should prop uo our ailing building industry with a programme of chimney building?

Then put the little blighters to work cleaning them?

The trussel trust (just one food bank provider) said they issued 1,109,309 food supply parcels in 2015/16. On average, people needed two referrals during the year. So half a million people relying on food banks?

I know these people will be exempt from any charges, but what about those just above this level? I doubt they have a handy£ 500 per child stashed around.

School should be the great leveller. It shouldn't matter whether you're chauffeured home from school (by mummy, I don't mean a driver!) to your comfy 4 bed, centrally-heated home, popping into the stables on the way to kiss your pony goodnight before your fencing lesson, or you're walking home herding your smaller siblings to a maisonette above a take away, unsure whether you'll find anyone home yet, any electricity left on the meter, anything edible to heat up- schools should be where you receive an excellent grounding in academics, gain the skills and knowledge to change your circumstances, come out the other end ready for the next step of education, training, or employment, ready to have something to offer to society, and to live a fulfilling life.

We're so far away from that at present.

I would happily pay it.
If you can't afford it then you can't pay it obviously.

I'm horrified to see that some people are broadly in favour of this idea.

And isn't this the way these things are done these days? Float an idea on social media, see how many bite, let the populace get used to the idea - after all, it's fairer isn't it - especially to the childless and those whose kids have left school. Then say you're going to introduce it and, after outrage, reduce the charge a bit. And if course, the charge will never go up. And then put it up, annually. Educating kids is so expensive these days.

Don't fall for it.

Well said, PhilO.

I think before we start charging £500 per year for children currently in education, we need to start hitting up all the freeloaders who went all the way through without paying a penny.

So every adult over 18 owes 14x500 for what they have already taken out.

£7000 pp upfront.

Then we can start charging children for going to school.

If we're agsinst free education, thrn everyone who got one needs to pay pack what thry took.

The problem is people immediately think that those that cannot afford it must have feckless parents. Unemployment is at one of its lowest rates - two thirds of the 3.9million children living in poverty in the UK have an adult in the household that works. 1.6 million households in UK are in extreme debt (>40% of income goes on paying creditors), no mortgages included.
37% of the children in my authority live in poverty. In some wards that's 47% of children. Do they not deserve excellent education, at the same standard my children receive?

If we do not do something about the vast inequalities in our society soon, it will be too late.

Brexit and Trump suggest it might already be too late.

Populism is on the march.

BertPuttocks My point was, that that is in ADDITION to paying services and materials charges of $400.00 and buying a laptop of $700.00. The only thing we don't pay for yearly is the laptop. The $400.00 will rise each year.

Oh and that's on top of very expensive school uniforms and shoes that have to comply with the school's uniform policy. Cos you know, kids don't go to school naked here!

PhilODox We have food banks here too. In South Australia alone, per month they provide food relief to around 60,000 South Australians every month. One third of them are children! So food poverty is here too.

I agree that 500gbp is a lot. I don't know how they would come to a figure, and what would work. And you wouldn't be paying for an education, because 500gbp per year won't pay the teachers, you are likely to pay for the same things we do. Materials, as explained before. So essentially, education is still free!

The problem is people immediately think that those that cannot afford it must have feckless parents. Has anyone said that? And how would anyone know that someone can't afford to pay? The only people who know that at our school is the principal and the finance officer.

I don't know why people are are scared of being judged if they can't pay, because the only way anyone would know, is if you told them!!

Different I've only been in SA for 11 months...is there really that much poverty? I never see it...not doubting you at all but I think it's a bit easier to stick your head in the sand here.

I don't like the idea that I don't see it...I suppose the poverty stricken people live in certain areas and it's a big state....

People who want to give £500 to their children's school already can and those who feel they can afford it do.

Why the need to make this kind of payment compulsory, unless you are planning to squeeze it out of people who will struggle to pay it.

Free education is something our children are entitled to.

Charging them £500 per year to go to school is taking away their right to something extremely valuable.

Our school already hires out its buildings to local community groups and businesses.. It's rare to find a day when the building and facilities aren't being used by someone (Christmas Day maybe?).

Indeed, but that's the problem. A lot of it is "ad-hoc" when it's local groups etc, an hour here and there, £10 here and £20 there. Probably costs more to administer than it brings in. That's why I highlighted the £18,000 p.a. rent for the dance school renting the gym, which is a proper long term commitment with a proper lease that brings in easy money - the school administrators don't have to do anything - that's £1,500 per month coming in by standing order!

Yes, it is definitely a good use of teacher time to have them seeking out sales opportunities for the school's resources.

My kids' teachers don't flog anything.

Lazy fuckers just in the class teaching and doing extra curriculars.

And speaking of extra-curriculars - bleedin' school choir contribution to the coffers last year?

Zero pounds.

Boot them out. Bring a dance school.

Loadsamoneyyyyyyyyy