Mumsnet Talk

Doesn't it go against the whole principle of offering a good education to children who couldn't otherwise afford it?

There are parents who send their children to state primary schools who could afford private schools - why should the system decide that one set of children can be offered grammar school places, but not the other?

And if being able to afford private schools meant you couldn't have a place at a school your taxes were already paying for, that would be hard to justify.

blah blah blah blah blah

No. Otherwise you'd have to means test and priciples-test any parents wanting their children to go to grammar schools.

What principle? State schools aren't for children who can't afford private school. They're for all the children of the land.

Why don't we just make a big fire and stick all private school children on it? After all, everyone seems to hate them so much on here.

Every child is entitled to a place in a state school. They are state schools. Any child who meets entry requirements should get a place. Parental income should have nothing to do with it.

State schools don't prepare for the 11+ so there is some inequality. You have to be able to pay for a tutor in areas where there is stiff competition. I don't know the answer - abolish them entirely?

Of course they should be allowed to go. State schools are for everyone. That said, it ires me that they are prepared for the 11+ as part of the private primary curriculum where I am whilst the state primary schools for the most part don't cover it at all (a couple of them have after-school 11+ prep clubs).

Why punish the private primary pupils because state schools fail to prepare pupils for 11+?

lol - it always comes around at this time of the year. Lefties with no/pre/primary school children insist that 'private' schools should be abolished and all parents should send their child to state schools.Then an amazing transformation happens when said leftie's child gets to y5 and they realise the dire choices in the state sector IN SOME AREAS (caveat - UQD & usual cohort - I did not say all). So they start to tutor for grammars and realise that other parents are ahead of the game and are: a) in the state sector & have been tutoring since birth or
b)failing to live on the corner next to a fgood primary have sent 'private'.
So then the bleating changes 180 degrees to whine that 'private' parents should be allowed, its not fair, etc etc etc.Its as much a harbinger of autoum on MN as the falling leaves....

shouldn't be allowed

"Why don't we just make a big fire and stick all private school children on it? After all, everyone seems to hate them so much on here."

Actually there is a fair amount of harsh comments on both sides. For example state school kids are often called "thugs" and "thickos" They are all just kids.

It is sad that state schools do not prepare the kids for grammar entrance - they should.

"state school kids are often called "thugs" and "thickos""

Can't say I've ever seen state school children in general referred to like this.

Why do you assume that parents who send their children privately at primary level can afford to continue the fees that increase fairly significantly at secondary level?

Aren't children who have been educated privately entitled to the benefit of a state education at some point in their education?

Everyone should be eligible for grammar schools if they are bright enough. The thing that seems wrong is that some areas have kept grammar schools but most have abolished them. If grammars were available everywhere there would be less pressure on places and more children would have a chance of a grammar school education.

Course they should.

There are many people using state schools who could well afford to go privately - I take it you think they shouldn't be allowed to use grammar schools, either.

I just know I am going to regret getting pulled into this.. I always read but avoid posting on the state versus private threads....
BUT .. I have two dcs .. one is at state primary and one is at private secondary -


I alwyas get angry with all the generalisations in this issue - as we really dont fit into either camp.. My son was at a state school - a comprehensive - but he was bullied SO badly that we had to pull him out and sned him privately as he was being destroyed by the situation at school.. I am not kidding, the school completely failed my son , they failed to protect him and completely refused to do anything about this other child..My son is now in therapy because he has now got depressed over the treatment he has had at school over those 18 months.. we cant afford to have our son at private secondary - we really cant - we have had no holidays and we never go out etc because we are paying for his fees...
However we had no choice at all. we have to find the money or the alternative was to watch our son probably end up flipping out and trying to kill himself..

My point is just that not all us private school parents fall into the neat boxes that a lot of people on MN try to put us into... I would love to have the option of sending my son to a safe school which we didnt have to pay for..But it wasnt there for us ..

Ok, rant over.. please try and remember that there are always grey areas - life is NOT black and white.

Sorry if that sounds too harsh .. am IMHO understandably a little defensive on this issue

We could just abolish the remaining grammars, then we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

And should people who use the occasional private doctor/consultant no longer be allowed to use the NHS...........

These threads are begining to get tedious. I preferred the chat thread which suggested a topic are for private school parents only. After all should we even be allowed to share the same conversations, we might be using a laptop paid for by huge bonus from husbands investment bank.

LOL lazymumofteenagesons .. I need your username actually - fits me to a t !

However I am using my own laptop paid for with my own money - so there !

This type of thread seems to be like the breastfeeding and the benefit system threads.. they just keep coming back .. terminator thread !!

I think the phrase is "live and let live" isnt it ?

"I preferred the chat thread which suggested a topic are for private school parents only."

Then you are just as bad

As Duritzfan said live and let live.

This is getting tiresome.

The "thugs" and "thickos" thing was a quote but I am not going to name names. Not all state schools are bad just becasue a particular child had a bad experience in one.

It's called ' playing the system'.

It exists in several forms - buying an overpriced house in a desirable catchment area, finding God at about the time you need a church school place or taking the calculated risk that an independent school will get your child into a (free) grammar school. Many independent primary level schools rather specialise in this - and why wouldn't they? If you run a business you give the customer what he pays for.

I think where the OP is coming from is the ( undisputed) fact that the overwhelming number of grammar school places are now going to children from higher income families who can afford the extra coaching - in whatever form - to lick the test.So it seems a bit unfair if a bright child's parents aren't clued up. In the days of many grammar schools, this wasn't necessary as all primary schools prepared children and the social background didn't come into it - and more schools meant more places.

I think this was what David Willetts was getting at when he suggested that grammar schools were now the preserve of the middle classes.
He lost his job, though.

Some state primaries do prepare for the 11+. My neice and nephew went to a primary school in Kent where 80%+ went on to Grammar schools. Not sure about most of the pupils but they def didn't have any tutoring either.