To think if the gov are serious about social mobility they should be banning privately educated kids from taking state grammar school places?

[MilaMae]

Spending ££££ on tutoring to get your kids into a grammar school is one thing but sending your kids to a private school which is free from the national curriculum and able to spend every day teaching to the 11+ is wrong and buys kids school places which should be reserved for the state educated.

Alongside freedom to teach to the 11+ private schools have tiny classes so it's pupils have even more of an advantage. Many of these children won't even be naturally bright and shouldn't even be at said grammar schools.

In our local area apparently far fewer state educated kids got into grammar school this year. Obviously this is due to more privately educated kids applying for places due to parents struggling to pay fees in the current economic climate.

This is wrong. Grammar school should be reserved for state kids only. For many kids rightly or wrongly it's their one big shot at getting a leg up in life. The rich shouldn't be able to hoover these places up because they're feeling the pinch.

You can't put a stop to tutoring but the gov could put a stop to this very unfair practice(if they truely believe in social mobility).It would be very easy to control.

This isn't sour grapes on my part(my dc are tiny) just an observation.

Thanks Joan, that's exactly it. I hold back for ages but sometimes my lot are a good case to illustrate a particular point.

What Fed Up said was entire rubbish, it's she and people like her who go on as soon as anyone mentions success, don't know why.

Well she was defending herself against the comment that she is unable to shut up about her kids - so that's going to come over defensive!

Hmm, Yellowstone, I never do that, quite the opposite. But please re-read your post addressed to me, it is quite rude and patronising, especially when I was talking about kids in abusive households, not children in large noisy families. But you obviously had to use it a platform for further bragging. Anyway, I dont want to argue, so have a good day :)

I mean "as a platform"

Regarless, Yellowstones example tells us the square root of fuck all, like most anecdotal examples. That it works for Yellowstones family tells us nothing about what works for anyone else.

Of course I'll be defensive if someone talks bull about me. Any fair comment is fine. If you can be bothered, read any posts in context since you clearly haven't so far. And compare them to other posters posts.

Still, I can't be bothered to argue with someone so short on fact ; I'm off to the sunshine!

TheCoalition it serves as one anecdote to counter FedUp's assertion that all kids in noisy and abusive households go down the pan. MN is wall to wall generalisations which are usually countered with anecdotes. One anecdote on its own isn't much use but the sum of anecdotes can be. You'll notice that I didn't attempt to generalise from the particular, I simply offered an anecdote qua anecdote, no more and no less.

Anyhow, sunshine calls.

MilaMae, I pay for all the extra stuff that my neighbours pays for on top. Initially, a big advantage was wraparound care as I was working f/t as a DHT and state school out of hours didn't cover it.

Class sizes are slightly smaller at 24 or 25. I no longer pay for swimming or tennis or rugby or ballet or judo sepatately. Nor do my kids do a full day at school and then need to be driven to these things afterwards. The tennis, swimming and rugby are part of PE. They do ballet and judo after school one week on the premises.

A lot of the fees go on regular visitors to enhance the curriculum which I don't think is adequate in state primaries. A chunk of fees also go on their bursary system which they operate from 7yrs (in some cases 100%) and that was one of the reasons I liked this school.

Longer schools hols mean we usually take our family hol either mid July or early Sept thus both avoiding the crowds and paying about half the price.

Children are exposed to VR and NVR papers which they are not in state school. This is a slight advantage but not huge as intelligent MC parents using state can easily obtain practice papers.

I liked the school; Its ethos and enthusiasm. Our local state primary is very high acheiving and pretty much an exam factory and I did not want that.

My kids are very priviledged but no more so than they would have been had we sent them state.

Btw, I grew up on a council estate and had FSM most of my school life. I also teach in a fantastic school in a deprived area. So I really feel I have weight behind my point of view.

i don't have any children so no agenda there. however i do have an interest in the educational attainments and future opportunities of children as a whole. i also pay quite a lot of tax.
i was state school educated myself. excellent primary school education in surrey and then quite a horrible move to country bumpkin land and a mixed comprehensive where girls were taught how to iron "a man's shirt" and told by the careers advisor they didn't need to worry too much as they could just get married.
personally i think the grammar school system did provide greater social mobility. i'd also be happy for the wealthy to send their children to these schools as you can't get social mobility unless you mix with the society you wish to mobilise towards. of equal importance is access to higher education. the current hiked fees and removal of grants is going to devastate social mobility. rich kids will have their fees paid and so will only pay the cover price whilst those needing loans will pay double due to interest. no doubt we will also see rich kids and their families being able to use the subsidised loans as a cheap mortgage.

Yellostone - Yes, but the fact that some kids in noisy or abusive households don't go down the pan doesn't mean that most don't.

smallwhitecat - yipee a voice of reason at long last - as with a lot of things in life on paper they look fabulous but in real life just don't work ie communism which seems to be what most people are hankering for.....purleeeese!!

We don't all have the same money/have the same priorities/spend our money on the same things/have ambition/put other people first.....its the way the world is....

knittedbreast et al - you make your own life and live it the way you want to in a democracy - not everything in life is fair for crying out loud....
What are you demanding that anyone who dares to have more money/better house/chooses to live in a better area than you etc should have it taken from them and redistributed to someone worse off like you??

erm and why do you presume that I am one of the worse off ones?

you can only live your life the way you want to in a democracy that allows you too, obviously you cannot have the same opportunities if your parents cannot afford it.

for a child, who has no choice who its born to, how can that be right that we offer xy and z to and not the rest? lifes not fair? well no but as adults we have the ability to address that which is what we should do. and a good start is the same education for all.

there is one simple question we can ask here, if you honestly didnt feel that there was such a privilidge to fr your children going to private school, if you felt that normal state school education was good enough and your children would be on par then you wouldnt be sending your kids to private school in the first place!

we cant go around offering all parents who have children well paid jobs, and we cant force them to read to their children every nights but we can make sure that all kids get the same education, its everyhting thats wrong with the uk, social class is so engrained and so engrained and in favour of splitting the opportunities between the have and the have nots. its wrong. "lifes unfair" and? if its unfair and you know it is we need to change it.

smallwhitecat, im not sure what you mean? i have never said your child should be rocking on the floor at all. I just mean that you shouldnt be able to go and buy your way in front of the queue or the best doctors at all under any circumstances. i can see you want the best for your child but how would you feel in the same situation but very poor, what would you have done if you couldnt afford the best docs? imagine that? well thats what the majority have to put up with. im sure you wouldnt like it, and so thats why its need a stop putting too it.

I wouldnt condiscate your income, i would have it so that your income couldnt buy you the best schools or the best meds or docs in the first place so your money would be of no use.

Not a lot..but they mobilised workers towards a fiver a week who would have been on much less. (Tories opposed the minimum wage)..then supported it.

All cvernments pull stunts to cover the mess with diverting headlines.

Camerooney and Cleggy...watch the stunts as the CUTS become reality.

come on FedUP we can still have a laugh about.

Knittedbreast, do you think that if SWC no longer had access to the school her DS goes to then life would improve for all ASD children? Really? Her son would just be one more ASD child that the system has failed. As a teacher, I can tell you right now that the state system is often at its best where SN are concerned but with regards ASD, we have neither the training nor the resources.

Of course it is terrible that other parents in her circumstances don't have the financial opportunity to pay for something better. Are you really saying that as a parent, she shouldn't either to put her son on that level playingfield? The one that doesn't actually exist becuase her son is already so extremely disadvantaged due to his autism.

Hell, I can admit that people can reasonably disagree with my choice and what it affords my children. I disagree but they have a reasonable moral argument. But I think it goes down the pan when you're talking about children whom the state system fails time and time again.

'I wouldnt condiscate your income, i would have it so that your income couldnt buy you the best schools or the best meds or docs in the first place so your money would be of no use.'
knittedbreast.....did you actually engage your brain before you typed that little jem? Do you actually understand how a countries economy works???
Obviously not - I rest my case you are living in your own little lala land - good for you! I think I will leave now before my will to live does........

As for me, I think on a purely academic level, my kids would get exactly the same level of education if they were at my local state primary. If I was only interested in the academics I would have sent them there considering they are close to the top nationally.

In irland they they don't have private schools only grammar and church schools if your bright you go to grammar if not you go to the equally good church school

To be honest the ops suggestion won't help social mobility even if everyone went to eaton you would still have. The parents who don't give a toss or parents who live like tramps or parents whop won't or can't make their children behave at school to be honest the thing that makes grammar schools work is only those who have bright children and care about their education enter them private schools or good state schools don't want mrs ch av and her 10 kids by 10 fathers at their school and I don't blame them

Jamies dream school Is a prefect example some of those. Yobs came from very middle class families don't let the yeah mate talk fool you and yet they failed even though those children were I imagine sent to fairly decent schools but because the parents couldn't manage to teach their children right from wrong they failed

It their calling their own mum bitches then I don't think any amount of education will help these yobs

Because of the distinct lack of parenting some children have it won't matter if they attend eaton they would not cope with rules as they have no foundation on which to build

The key to social mobility is stop allowing these kids parents to breed like rabbits and give them a kick up the arse if they are failing their children

my brain is engaged-theres no need to be rude. Just because i dont agree that you should be able to buy your way when it comes to health care or education dousnt mean my brain isnt engaged. and please dont try and belittle me by refering to my words as little gems.

I indeed know how economy works, but education and health care are too precious to be at the mercy of the markets. If you feel that way i would suggest the USA might be a good bet!

A bright child with parents who have boundaries, instill drive and work ethic in their children parents who are instrested in their children's education who support the school their child will do well in what ever school they attend

But a parent who is work shy is more instructed in what man they are dating, who see teachers as authority to be challenged instead of the key to their child further a parent who cannot say no and has the child parenting them ,has no boundaries or discipline that child were ever they go will be at a disadvantage

Its not about money good parents despite their income are already doing their best their children are already being read to taken to museums at the weekend , having consistent bed times, given rules and taught the world dose not owe you anything and you have to work hard to get any were

knittedbreast I take your point that providing all children with the same education seems like a good starting point.

Certainly fourteen years ago I totally bought into the education x3 policy.

Now, with children of my own and a few years volunteering in a local school, I'm not sure how much impact schools can have upon a child's life in any event.
Can they really be a factor in social mobility?

I'm beginning to think less and less that they can.

It seems to me that my children's education primarily comes from DH and I. School is just one of the many resources we access.
Yes, they attend a very good school, but even if they didn't, their education will never look anything like that of the children in the school where I volunteer.

OK, so let's ban private and grammar schools, and generally remove diversity of provision across the board in case it perpetuates social differences. While we're at it, let's renationalise telecoms, so no-one can buy their way to a better phone either, and we'll all have the same opportunity to wait six weeks for a standard BT unit like in the old days. Let's also nationalise clothing shops, and make everyone wear a standard uniform so people don't have the opportunity to signal their social status through their clothing.

I hate to break it to you, knittedbreast , but this approach didn't work in Russia or China. The bureaucratic class still creamed off the best for themselves, just like they do in this country. Capitalism and state communism both have winners and losers, but at least capitalism is honest about it.

Maypole is right - you can try and make education fair all you like, but a kid who grows up with an irresponsible and disinterested parent is already disadvantaged in ways that no amount of educational fairness can completely cure.

8K just for the wrap around care and clubs yeah I believe you .

I think that's my bingo card full..........