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

[BertPuttocks]

No, the building hire not on an ad hoc basis at all.

It includes things like dance schools, sports clubs and coaching, language schools, holiday childcare providers, as well as countless college courses.

I'm not talking about people hiring as a one-off or even for a couple of months at a time. There still isn't enough money.

[differentnameforthis]

Yes, there is. I used to work in emergency assistance and the situation is not good. I don't think you see it here as much as you do in England, for example, as there is a lesser obvious class system here. Also, you don't get estates here like you do in the UK, so you can have the wealthy mingled in with the no so.

Of course you get your more affluent suburbs, but it isn't as obvious, in my opinion, unless you are close to the city!

Free education is something our children are entitled to. Any my children get a free education. I have to pay to for the materials they use at school.

[differentnameforthis]

*and

[DoinItFine]

Hint: something is not free if you have to pay for it.

[Herecomedanotherone]

When my dcs were at school there is no way we could have afforded this. And if you live in a grammar school area (we don't), the ONLY criteria should be whether the child passes whatever exam is required, NOT whether they can pass that and afford to pay extra to go to grammar school.

[BareGrylls]

It really isn't a new idea.
My school did this in the early 1970s, it was called a levy and was, I think, £10 a term. My parents really struggled but paid up.

[user7214743615]

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.

You seriously can't see the difference between using your income to raise the next generation (who will pay your pensions, care for you in old age) and paying for holidays?

Hint: one is essential for society to survive and the other is not.

And, yes, many families are not net contributors financially but the childless who are net contributors financially would not have any future without the children of today. The intrinsic value of parents raising children is not taken into account when working out net financial contributions.

[secrethideaway]

Wow.
To the person who said that those on £30k should be able to pay..
I'm a single parent on £30k in the Midlands, with one in nursery.
I could NEVER afford this.
I already have a budget where every penny is accounted for.
And I'd anything goes wrong (like, this month when someone drove into my car then blamed it on me, and I have to pay an insurance excess and the cost of insurance goes up).. I lose something. In this case, all the money I had for Christmas presents and a child's birthday.
It's great that some people have no concept of how this looks.. great for you.
I'm not on benefits by the way, and never have been.
It's scary to read something like this. I was top of my class all the way through school and worked so hard, I want my daughter to have opportunities, not be relegated to the only low cost school I can afford.

[firefly400]

I currently pay voluntary contributions of £40 a month for DSs school and £30 a month for DDs school . Both schools are grammar schools DDs is a super selective !

Many children at DDs grammar came through 'prep' schools and although by saying this it's like turkey's voting for christmas. I believe those of us who have been fortunate enough to have been able to send our children to prep schools , should be made to contribute . This is particularly relevant if we reduce access to grammar schools for non 'prep' school children.

Incidentally one of my cousins lives in Northern Ireland and pays £400 a year each for her two DDs to attend a 'voluntary' grammar school.

[user1470997562]

I wonder how many could actually afford it. We live in a very affluent looking area. They only ever manage to get half the dc to pay a pound to wear non unform.

[EssentialHummus]

I'm shocked at that user - is it that they can't afford it, or that they don't want to pay, do you think?

[DoinItFine]

£30,000 household income for a family is considered to be part of that hideous "just about managing" demographic.

Taxing them an extra £500 per year per school age child could cause serious hardship.

[MagicMarkers]

Obviously it shouldn't be compulsory, but lots of state school ask parents for voluntary contributions these days.

My sons' secondary grammar school asks for £60 per month by standing order. Some people pay nothing or they pay more than that. It's completely voluntary.

Our (non faith) primary school asks for £35 per year. A lot of church schools also ask for contributions for upkeep of the buildings.

[relaxitllbeok]

This is horribly disingenuous. The figure of £500 is presumably chosen because for many families it's not an utterly unmanageable figure (though equally, for many it is). It's supposed "to fund additional facilities, to bring them into line with those provided in independent schools" and "to increase the number of teachers, so that the class sizes of 34 could be reduced and workload improved for staff". On what planet...?! The difference between funding per pupil in good independent schools (not all have good facilities or small classes!) is way bigger than £500/pupil/year.

So what's the agenda here? If this got accepted, would there then be an expectation that every parent should find that their local state school was offering everything their local independent school was? When that wasn't the case, what then? Increase the price? Arbitrarily? Is this the privatisation of education? OK, if he wants to argue for that, let him do so, but there are huge implications.

The intention seems to be that the money raised goes directly to the individual school. The article makes it sound as though it would be compulsory except for children who attract pupil premium, but I don't believe a word of that. It would end up being voluntary, and so schools would end up being better funded if their parent body was wealthier. Could an argument be made that that's a good thing if it prevents parents who could afford to use independent schools from doing so? Seems a bit of a stretch.

We have a mechanism for funding state schools. It's called tax. We should use it. Everybody benefits from a well-educated population, everybody should be willing to pay for it.

[IneedAdinosaurNickname]

No no no and no.

[Spice22]

User7214 I disagree - I really don't think you had children so that they could pay my pension and look after me at my old age. You had them because you wanted them - well, you wanted the good parts, not the financial burden.
Also, the idea of a state pension in 40+ years is laughable !

In all honesty, I'm quite torn. Free education is something I do believe in , but then you can't really expect a great service for free. Maybe we should somehow encourage a culture where people give as much as they can afford , as opposed to making it compulsory? Or maybe make the donations to school tax deductible to encourage people to give more ?

[relaxitllbeok]

Why can't you expect a great service for free? It's free at the point of use, but nobody's suggested it doesn't cost money to provide. This is exactly what taxes are for. Why can't we expect taxes to provide good services?

[Spice22]

relax when I said free I was referring to the argument about the children of net-takers being vital for our future.

But besides that , it is clear that taxes can no longer support everything we want ,and to the standard we want them. Yes we could stop benefit cheats and tax evaders, but I fear that still isn't enough - especially with the burden placed on the NHS with our aging population and poorer lifestyles.
So, if the taxes can't stretch , and we accept that actually these children won't be paying our pension because there will be no pension, then maybe an additional £3-£500 a year from parents is the way to go. Everyone still pays taxes to contribute , but the boost for better services comes from parents.

[Redlocks28]

If people entitled to benefits were exempt, wouldn't it mean that those earning just above the cut off would ending up being much worse off than those under?

[PumpkinsOnTheMantlepiece]

Marking place to read later.

[DoinItFine]

The first boost for better services needs to come from the people who have already availed of this srrvice we supposedly couldn't afford.

Parents can start "boosting" their children's compulsory education after all the people who have been educated throw into the pot for their 14 years of unaffordable schooling.

[user7214743615]

So Spice22 should people stop having children? Who will look after you when you are elderly? Who will be your doctors?

Parents should not be asked to shoulder more and more of the costs of children when society needs there to be children.

It's complete garbage to say that "it is clear that taxes can no longer support everything we want". We choose to pay far lower taxes than most other European countries. We then spend the taxes we save on ridiculously priced housing, far higher than in most other European countries. Our economy is unbalanced. Other European countries have far better schools and healthcare than we do.

[NameChanger22]

Secrethideaway - my point was that those earning more than the national average wage might be better able to afford school fees, but obviously everybody's circumstances are different. I hate the idea of altogether, but if the government was going to bring it in, the only fair way to do it would be means tested.

£30,000 sounds like a fortune to me as I only earn £13,000 with no tax credit top ups or other benefits. All those 'essentials' you pay for like a car, dental appointments etc we simply live without.

I don't know anyone that can afford £500 a year, but that's because don't know many people that earn as much as £30,000, and that includes my manager. Nearly everyone I know earns less than £20,000, including many of the people I went to university with.

[Naty1]

No. I think school fairs etc dont raise much as people dont have it spare and if they did it would be better put into our own pension.
maybe scrap uniform except for a jumper say. That would save everyone a huge waste.
Say 6w into the yr and already a topic costume, a dress down day, children in need, outfit for nativity, wear old clothes etc cake sales. And a trip. £30+ and i already had the spots for children in need.
Looking at £100 a year at least.
Plus £60 for shoes/trainers. Maybe £60 for uniform.
You are expected to get the child to whatever school they get into which could be 2+ Miles away.
A lot of jobs seem to pay less than in previous generation, certainly mine had much worse pension.
You cant charge for something compulsory.
The only advantage i can see would be some people might value it more (however not everyone would be being charged).
Maybe they could waive it if you volunteered to listen to reading?

[DeleteOrDecay]

Terrible idea, one step closer to privatising education it seems.