Anthony Seldon
Your last chance to get tickets to Top Gear Live
All week during our family holiday we wondered what might have happened to the father. Our children played with theirs, and we chatted to the mother. Had there been a separation, or worse a tragedy, we idly wondered? Only on the last night did the mother, a high-powered barrister, explain that her husband was at board meetings in Dubai. She spoke of their children’s schools: “We are so thrilled that they are all at grammar schools: we think it is so much better for them morally.”
I had heard this before, and it troubled me. Stories are increasingly appearing of middle-class parents buying their way into the catchment areas of desirable state schools, discovering religion and in other ways manipulating their children into choice state schools. When such parents boasted of a moral superiority over parents who paid fees, it seemed even more wrong to me. At the time I was running Brighton college, and almost daily I was encountering parents who were finding it hard to pay. Like parents who used the sector everywhere, they were making financial sacrifices, forgoing holidays and cars, dipping into their savings and asking their own parents to help. Were such actions really worthy of moral opprobrium?
The evidence has mounted of the middle classes dominating places at the top state schools. The Sutton Trust in 2005 found that the top 200 secondary state schools were disproportionately patronised by the better-off. It found that only 3% of children at these schools were eligible for free school meals, compared with 12.3% in their local areas and 14.3% nationally. Research this month by Rebecca Allen from the Institute of Education showed a similar dominance at faith schools by children from better-off backgrounds. Top sixth-form colleges, such as Hills Road in Cambridge, are also packed with middle-class children.
It is clear that the present system of a fee-paying sector and a non-fee-paying sector is morally impossible to defend. The powerful and articulate will always find ways to manipulate a free system. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in this: they are doing what all parents would do – getting the best for their children. It is the system that is wrong.
Yet the system can change. I believe that the state should charge fees for the well-off. Unpopular schools should be free to those of little means, and charge low fees to the well-off, of say £1,000 a year. Highly popular state schools should still be free to poorer families, but should be open to others on a sliding scale according to parental wealth up to a maximum figure of say £8,000 per year, possibly with tax breaks.
Already countries abroad are adopting such a system. In Hong Kong, state schools apply to the government for the right to be able to charge fees. A new booklet last month from Policy Exchange, Helping Schools Succeed, cites state school head teachers arguing that “what is free is not valued” and that free education is not providing the incentive for parents to expect high standards.
An independent commission should be set up immediately to examine this question. Fee paying by the well-off is not only morally but socially just, and would dramatically improve the schools and opportunities for all.
Anthony Seldon is master of Wellington college
Explore your passion for food with the delights of Thai, Indian & Chinese cooking
In our new series, Tony Hawks takes a dry, wry look at modern life - junk mail, interminable meetings and snooty sales assistants
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
2007
£30,000
2006
£14,337
2008
£39,937
Great car insurance deals online
c.£75,000
GlosFirstmeansbusiness
Gloucestershire
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
£
£32,795 - £41,545
Universitry of Southampton
Southampton
Competitive Package
Npower
West Midlands
1 & 2 Bed apartments
From £249,995
Great Investment, River Views
Great Dubai Investment Opportunities
from £89,950
low-cost ownership homes in London
Las Vegas SALE!
£POA
With Ramblers Worldwide Holidays!
£POA
List your property with two leading travel websites
£POA
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - search houses for sale and rooms and property to rent in the UK. Milkround Job Search - for graduate careers in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
This entire article made my blood boil. As a teacher in the state sector, we follow government initiatives that state "every child matters", yet there always seem to be arguments why one group doesn't matter quite as much as the other. Whether it's because the child is from an overly disadvantaged or priviledged background.
We pay our taxes so that we have access to national services for health, government and education. The prospect of charging the middle classes (the wealthy, or anyone of any income, for that matter), is outrageous and about as far right wing as I imagine even the most Conservative Tory would dare to suggest.
I agree, it is always going to be contentious: who is entitled to attend the best state schools? I agree that the government need to streamline admissions (or indeed the provision of education in general) to make the best education available to all, but this should be without additional and divisive costs to a system that is already paid for through tax.
Hannah, Nottingham,
My 2 children are both in private education. This will cost me over £200,000 between now and their 18th birthdays. Much more than the largest mortgage I have ever had and about 4 times my household income.
This is not through a love of the private system, or through a desire to throw money around. It's not even through masochism, or the desire to keep myself in poverty.
Teaching in the (Relatively highly regarded) state primary school was inadequate, government meddling was confusing and demotivating for staff and my children were suffering.
The 14-19 agenda seems set to drive further disruption for the forseeable future and our genius education minister seems to show no embarassment as he announces under his new "strategy" for primary education that children should be able to count, read and write!
Can I have a refund please? I've been conned and will end up paying for the inadequate state sector which delivers an inadequate service, even though I won't be using it!
Jonathan Bunce, Worcester,
I've never heard such crap in all my life from the communists that hide inside New Labour. Firstly, the middle classes pay a disproportionate amount of tax compared to others that are richer or poorer so the fact that their schools are better is not unreasonable. Mr. Seldon wants to tax the middle classes twice over for educating their children via another stealth tax. If he wants more tax, come out and raise direct taxation instead of more stealth taxes. Fee paying schools as he's well aware at Wellington college are mainly for the rich but to make state schools part fee paying is crazy. It seems that all Labour sycophants rather than addressing the real issues and raising standards of the worst schools, they spend all their energies trying to socially engineer middle England by draconian taxation schemes. Its unfair, unjust, wont work and a recipe for disaster as all of Labours social policies have proved to be.
Mike, Alicante, Spain
Does this mean that Mr Seldon is advocating a reduction in taxes including Council tax for those who pay for their child's education under the new scheme? Unfotunately the system that did allow pupils from poorer backgrounds with ability to thrive was abolished by people like Mr Seldon in the name of "Equality", there is no such thing, every individual has talents and weaknesses in various subjects, to differing degrees, it's a matter of genetics. It is noticeable that the academic field is the only one where discrimination on the grounds of ability is forbidden, do schools allow a duffer at football to represent the school in competition or similarly for school bands, orchestras or plays. No it only in academic subjects that ability is positived frowned upon, the consequences of this can be seen as the UK slips down the world education league and the country's ability to pay for everything it wants in the world.
Stephen, St. Ives, England
I think this view is preposterous. Firstly itâs not the childrenâs fault whether there background is "well off" as you say. Education is in no means free. For my whole life my parents have paid for my education at an average state catholic school through working hard and paying there taxes. This money together with every other tax payers contribution has helped me to get where I am today at university studying medicine! When they pay higher taxes (and therefore provide education for children whose parents do not work) why should they be expected to pay out more? This is in my view a form of discrimination. Similarly at my church you would not be given the priests blessing and reference to attend a catholic school unless you have been an active member, so I think you should do more research on this before freely commenting. There was a large mix at my school rich and poor, but at the end of the day its down to the individual the results they achieve.
Alex Novak, Ealing/Norwich, London
Since when has education been free for tax payers?
VJB, London,
It all depends on what Mr Seldon defines as "well off" -under the current Government large swathes of middle management and skilled trades people are now classed as "higher paid". When I went to University - in the days of universal grants for all, I was always upset that some people I knew were on a "full grant" because their Father's accountatnt had managed to massage the earnings assessment down.
Yes I'm all for charging for good schools - if we can get a rebate on the taxes we have already paid - and what about a discount for attending a poorly performing school? Hang on a minute isn't that just like a voucher system? - Yes please!
Jeremy, London,
Surely, this is all part of a campaign by Anthony Seldon to get himself into the House of Lords. He must have a really good deputy at Wellington - this would explain why he has the time tp concentrate on his own interests!
Charles Talbot, Swindon, UK
So Anthony Seldon managed to get away for a holiday? We did not. The reason is that we could not afford to do so. Why? Because we pay 2 lots of independent school fees, so that our children receive a proper education and schooling - they are different! - in a part of the country where the maintained provision of education is pitifully and criminally inadequate.
In paying twice for our children's education - through taxes and to the school out of our taxed income, we do not have the luxury of languidly considering the implications of a barrister bemoaning the absence of her husband in Dubai. Nor do we ever get the chance to tell Anthony Seldon what we think about his smug, complacent views. We just cannot move in the same circles - we just pay the wages and pensions of people like him. However, we know where our responsibility to our children lies - the holidays and socialising with barristers will just have to wait.
Humphrey Fanning, Marlborough, UK
I find Mr Seldon's 'obsession' with 'equality' admirable- but I'm not sure that his proposal would further his aim. Wouldn't it be simpler to ban all private & public schools so that ALL our children, rich or poor, black or white, all rub shoulders together. Keep streaming, sets & a differential type of education under one roof, to allow for all talents & learning styles. It could easily be done.
Suzanne, Colchester, Essex
I fail to see how Mr Seldon's proposal would help those children from poor backgrounds. Would not a requirement on all schools to take an equal proportion of children eligible for free school meals be a step in the right direction?
Des, Edinburgh,
Anthony Seldon's obsession with equality will eventually achieve its only possible outcome. Britain will be equal 100th in the world's league table of excellence in educational provision. Unfortunately for Mr Seldon there might still be some countries (the Congo perhaps) with even lower standards and we will have to strive harder yet to get to their level so that we have a clear conscience.
How such an extraordinary individual became Master of Wellington College is a mystery passing all understanding.
Anthony Back, Wellington, Telford, England
You are not reading the reports. Students who dont achieve, dont achieve no matter what schools they go to. Forcing underachievers into good schools is not going to change anything.
Address the problem.
Provide resources for areas/schools where children are not achieving to change their parents and their mindsets to education to make them want to better themselves.
tony, Guildford, surrey
The poor are not free to chose where they live, they cannot hop from one catchment area to another. But look what happened to Camden School for Girls when it was put into the Camden Borough state system. Now it is a base level comprehensive open to all. Miss Bus and Miss Beale must be saddened in their graves.
JANE FLEMING, Whittlesey, CAMBRIDGESHIRE
Education is free?
Not if you pay Tax by Income, VAT, Excise Duty or whatever method.
I would expect the master of Wellington college to avoid this mistake but I presume the idea put forward is self serving.
M Sheridan, Oldham,