DfE finds that higher parental incomes buy better educational outcomes

[noblegiraffe]

In a piece of research that will surprise no one, it turns out that children of wealthier parents do better at school.

However, while it is obvious that PP students and especially FSM pupils perform particularly badly, pupils from below-median-income families perform lower than, but more in line with children from wealthier families than with PP pupils.

What the DfE really want to know in this consultation, however, is whether they should refer to below-median-income families who don't qualify for PP as 'Ordinary Working Families'.

consult.education.gov.uk/school-leadership-analysis-unit/analysing-family-circumstances-and-education-1/

Good to know that they are spending their time and effort focusing on the key issues in education at the moment.

I know of a family on a gross income of around £90k (so not very rich)

Dare you to post that on AIBU. Even with 30k school fees taken out they're hardly living in penury.

What percentage of private school kids board? And if they can't afford boarding, will these kids actually transfer to state schools? I can't see it if they've got the sort of parents forking out that sort of money.

£90k gross corresponds to two incomes or around £45k each, so perhaps 65k after tax/pensions etc. After paying 30k for fees, that leaves them with 35k net. Of course that's not penury but it's certainly not "very rich" either - particularly given that they live close to London, so housing/transport costs are quite considerable.

I would suspect that the decision on what to do if boarding is unaffordable depends very much on the alternatives. I suspect that indeed quite a few parents might go for private day schools - but some could look at London state schools too.

"I know of a family on a gross income of around £90k (so not very rich)"
it's posts like this that remind me that most threads in Education are pretty futile.

Do you all define "very rich" as top 20% of family household incomes?

Because top 20% corresponds to a gross income of 85k.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2016

I wouldn't personally define a household that is top 20% (but not top 15%) as "very rich".

BTW, for households with two adults and children, top 20% for gross income is considerably above 85k.

The 85k figure consider all households i.e. those with only one adult, no children, etc.

Noble did you read my post?
I said that presumably overseas parents send their children for a British education. If there are only a tiny percentage of British children then the overseas parents may as well send their children to an international school.
Maybe you are correct and the schools will continue but with the vast majority of students being from overseas.
Would you object to these schools so much if they were just for foreigners?

Well a family income of £90 is certainly rich when, compared to the families whose children are in receipt of Pupil Premium.

But I suppose, what you are saying, Dapple and user that families will have to be richer, than before, in order to afford independent school? However it is difficult to relate this to educational achievement for this sector, since the figures published do not include those for independent schools.

£90k! Typo.

Would you object to these schools so much if they were just for foreigners?

The problem with private schools is that they give the wealthy and powerful an opt-out from the state system. The people who have the ability/influence/money to make positive changes don't use the system. If they did have to use it, there might be a bit more action if e.g. the government of the day decided to make £3bn of cuts. Indeed the government of the day might not make £3bn of cuts if it affected all the kids they knew.

It's a difficult one, noble, for me. I think people should to be able to opt out of State education, from a libertarian perspective.

Don't get me wrong, we can't afford independent school, ourselves, and even if we could I've not seen many local ones where I think my DC would be happy. However I think there are situations whereby State education is not really the best type of education for a particular child. The existence of independent schools don't really bother me, that much.

I read an Eton thread on here where someone described how charitable former Etonians are - someone from the school was describing to an ex-pupil how they wanted a new theatre or whatever, and the guy whipped out his chequebook and wrote out a cheque for a million pounds.

That bothered me! Enclaves of hugely wealthy and powerful men all slapping each other on the back and doing each other favours is to the detriment of the rest of the country, IMO.

The people who have the ability/influence/money to make positive changes don't use the system.

But most of us can't actually make positive changes.

I believe in higher funding for state education. I believe in increasing taxes to fund better education. I believe in providing sufficient support for outliers (bottom and top of ability, SEN, those with anxiety or other mental health issues). I wouldn't use private schools if the state schools provided the support my DC would get in other countries. I am active in trying to influence education policy (university related policy consultations with government).

But I simply cannot individually make the country vote for more taxes and better provision for education. It is ironic to me that those who are going to be worst hit by the cuts in education are those who are voting for it while I, who can afford private education and can insulate my children from the cuts, am pushing for higher taxation (which would affect me) to fund better education.

The people who have the ability/influence/money to make positive changes don't use the system. If they did have to use it, there might be a bit more action if e.g. the government of the day decided to make £3bn of cuts.

If only 1% rather than 7% of British children go to state schools then perhaps this will happen. I'm not so sure - there are loads of rich influential people who already send their children to state school, why aren't they doing something about it?
I could well be wrong, though.
Re. Eton's generous alumni it's not just old boys which give big donations, but also parents pleased with what the school did for their sons - and it's not just Eton, other public schools too.
Maybe state schools should fund raise from former pupils as there's no shortage of successful ones in all walks of life. But maybe they already do.
Anyway Giraffe, thank you for answering my questions.

Maybe state schools should fund raise from former pupils

I really don't think that would get anywhere, it would be more expensive to ask than it would generate. I just looked up 'famous alumni' from the school I work at, and there are none. No casual million pound cheques for us!
A lot of schools are going the route of asking for funds from current parents - above the usual PTA fete stuff, setting up direct debits and so on.

I can't see the likes of Eton having to close down because not enough Brits can afford to go there. If increasing the fees is too dangerous they could simply make efficiencies, or sell off the boating lake or whatever.

If private schools were not an option, the wealthiest and most powerful would NOT use the state system - they would look abroad to elite institutions which offer the kind of education they would like their children to have. The very top boarding schools in the US are not much more than top day school fees here and offer a phenomenal education recognised internationally.

THe average private school user would not bother trying to change the system - instead they would plough their money into outsourcing. It is far easier to accomplish and to see results this way. Sorry, but that is reality. Also, weather people tend to cluster in groups and thus would probably be in a good school catchment anyway.

wealthier, not weather!

Maybe state schools should fund raise from former pupils

I don't think most even try. It's just not in their DNA.

My brother went to a private school, long since closed (30 years ago), but their ex-pupil association is still alive and kicking, and doing some damn good charity fund raising, alongside their annual dinner-dance, and other social activities. This wasn't some exclusive/top school only for the rich, it was a quaker school in a run down northern city full of pretty average pupils (my brother only got a couple of O levels). My mother was a teacher and father a shop worker, so that shows that it wasn't particularly elite/expensive. Few, if any of the ex pupils are millionaires - most are just local people doing pretty normal things.

My old school was a comp. Absolutely zero in the way of anything set up for ex-pupils, never heard a single thing from them in the decades since I left. Some of my ex classmates have done well for themselves, a few city bankers for example, a few others in various top jobs/professions. With a bit of organisation, I'm sure that could have been tapped into, to keep some sense of belonging and yes, maybe fundraising. It's not as if there's no interest as recently there've been loads of facebook groups set up for "class of 83" etc which seem active, and they've led to several group reunions.

It's just something that grammars and private schools seem to do very well as they nurture and encourage their ex pupils to keep in touch. Comps just don't seem to have that same ethos and could therefore be losing out on a lot of potential benefits.

The government invests a huge amount of money in private schools. Many members of the armed forces, diplomats and more have their school fees paid for by the government. Maybe they could stop this policy and invest the money into state schools. Our local public school has about one third of its pupils funded this way.

I just looked up 'famous alumni' from the school I work at, and there are none.

But if there's no active "ex pupil" association, who would know and there'd be no alumni website on which their details would be shown. Your school will almost certainly have some rich/famous ex pupils somewhere (maybe not film stars or millionaires, but certainly some who've done well for themselves), but if the school isn't organised enough to keep track of its ex pupils, it'll never know. As said above, a couple of people from my school are rich city bankers - that information isn't on any school related website - someone doing a google search wouldn't discover that. I only know because I know friends of a friend etc. Same with our local MP and a well know children's book author - both went to the same school, but you'd need to do a lot of google searching to find that. Simply typing in "xyz school famous people" would bring up nothing. Typing in the school name, would give the MP details on about the 5th page and the author's on about the 10th page both on minor web pages that just mention their school as a passing comment.

Most private schools don't have a third of its pupils funded by the government. Most private schools don't take boarders at all - and the policy for diplomats' children etc applies only to boarders, whose parents are out of the UK and moving quite regularly.

Actually, I would be astonished if any public school had as many as one third of its pupils funded this way - please show the statistics, and also show that the parents concerned don't pay part of the fees. (My family certainly didn't get all our fees funded - we had to pay a significant fraction themselves.)

And what do you suggest for the children of diplomats? They should be forced to go to local secondary schools in the countries where their parents work, moving every couple of years? Do you really think this is realistic?

Many members of the armed forces, diplomats and more have their school fees paid for by the government. Maybe they could stop this policy and invest the money into state schools.

But this is probably because their children board there. Even with day schools the children often can do their Prep work there, after school hours. People with the careers you mention pestilent, children are at a disadvantage because their parents travel in order to serve the country. School fees are part of their employment benefits package to compensate for this.

The thing is, parents with children at State schools often have to put in a lot more effort supporting their child themselves. Particularly with supporting homework, sometimes actually teaching what has been not adequately taught in schools.

The state system system is not really adequate without children having extensive family support. Pupil premium does not make up for this, either. Children whose parents cannot give this support, because they are in dire poverty or perhaps suffering from serious health issues themselves still remain at a serious disadvantage because of this, as shown by the attainment gap.

The thing is, parents with children at State schools often have to put in a lot more effort supporting their child themselves. Particularly with supporting homework, sometimes actually teaching what has been not adequately taught in schools.

Exactly. It's all down to whether parents are able/willing (or can be arsed) to step in where the school/teacher is failing. Many parents can do that themselves, and it's nothing to do with money, it's giving their time and support either to help directly or to put pressure on the school/teacher to up their game. Some parents have money to throw at the problem such as to fund private tuition to bridge the gap.

But, back to the original point of this thread. Is it because parents have money that the outcomes are better, or is it because the parents are better educated and better jobs and more likely to be able to help/support/engage because of their own qualities/abilities. Perhaps the money side isn't the actual deal breaker. Perhaps it's the personal qualities of the parents that makes the difference, and that those with those qualities are more likely to earn more??

It's not about money. It's about privilege. They are not the same thing.

Is it because parents have money that the outcomes are better, or is it because the parents are better educated and better jobs and more likely to be able to help/support/engage because of their own qualities/abilities.Perhaps the money side isn't the actual deal breaker. Perhaps it's the personal qualities of the parents that makes the difference, and that those with those qualities are more likely to earn more??

It's not about money. It's about privilege. They are not the same thing.

Bertrand, Badbad But it appears money can buy a more complete education, when parents are unable to support their children, engage and be present enough to provide educational support. Parents with money can pay for tutors or independent schools (who look after the child for a greater proportion of their time).

Parental ability to support is not necessarily linked with parents' education either. They could be in dire poverty due to health issues or simply because they have been made redundant. The stress this causes and the fact that their very first priority must be escaping from their situation mean supporting homework etc is inevitably much lower on their list.

Perhaps it's the personal qualities of the parents that makes the difference, and that those with those qualities are more likely to earn more?

This kind of thought could be a pretty insidious and divisive. It suggests we are actually living in a meritocracy! That those at a disadvantage, are so because of some fault within themselves(?)