to think the state should pay part of our private school fees?

[wolvesarejustoldendaydogs]

Don't jump down my throat! It's just a thought.

State schools are overcrowded and there aren't enough good ones. Private schools are expensive.

What if every child had a right to have their state school 'payment' (whatever it costs per child per year') paid to a private school? Obviously parents would have to top-up (probably a considerable amount).

That would create a bit of a market, with more choice, making private schools more affordable and state ones less overcrowded.

Or is it a stupid idea for a reason I will think of soon after pressing 'POST'?

Fayrazzled they can't give up their charitable status as their assets can only be used for charitable purposes i.e. they can't convert into a profit making organisation.

Grammar schools can have a disproportionate number of private school children, but that is because every private school parent values education and has high expectations. Sadly, the same cannot be said of every state school parent.

State schools don't prep kids at all for the 11+. All the prep schools round here do. If the 11+ test is really a measure of potential rather than attainment, why do the prep schools do this? And why are there hundreds of threads on mumsnet each year asking about tutoring?

Fayrazzled, are you sure about that? And, i so, are they truly prep schools or do they finish at 11?
Prep schools round here do nothing or almost nothing to help with 11+ tutoring because grammar school entrance is not what they are designed to do. We teach the CE syllabus and we don't want the children to leave at 11. If grammar school is the chosen route then they have to get a tutor or go it alone.

Whereas our local primary schools DO prepare for 11+

If you know at 4 that you want your child to go the grammar school route then a state primary is by far your best option round here.

*Shagmundfreud", you have failed to respond to my question, namely: what sort of test do you think would be fairer? The 11+ was designed as a test of potential. But, as with any exam, it is possible to coach for the exam - if you have 2 kids, one familiar with the exam format and one not, then under exam conditions, natually the one who is familiar with the format will be more comfortable and will be likely to perform better.

What sort of test would truly test "potential, in your view? It's all very well railing against the machine, but only when a positive alternative is put forward can a real debate get underway.

I speak, by the way, as a prep-school-educated child who failed her 11+ (scored the top mark on the verbal reasoning, failed the non-verbal).

I'm also confused by those who reject selection on the grounds of wealth, but support it on the grounds of ability, manic.

presumably, selection based on wealth is offensive because being born to wealthy parents is purely a matter of luck, not desert. but the same is true of intelligence. It's one part genetics - luck - and the other, being brought up in an environment where your ability can develop - luck again.

perhaps people believe that the less intelligent cannot get as much of education as those with more. But that is completely untrue, and insulting, and unfair.

manic- yes that is the case where i live (yorkshire). We have state grammars in some areas, although not my town. The local prep schools go up to 11. Most children then transfer to grammar school or independent secondary. The state primaries expect children to go to a local comp and there is no preparation for the grammars. The prep schools do prepare because many of their parents are desperate to get a private quality education for 'free' from the state. It's no skin off the nose of the preps to prepare kids for this because they don't have secondary schools and it looks good in the prospectus to be sending kids to the grammar schools. There's no CE here.

Reactionary- I don't believe in grammars either. I believe in fully comprehensive schools/

Peppin- I'm obviously not shagmund, but I wouldn't have an 11+ and I'd scrap state grammars. The 11+ is not a fair test and never has been. I'm sure I read recently that grammar schools actually offer less social mobility now than at any time in their history. They're basically stuffed full of middle class kids who have been tutored through the exam for the last few years.

I don't support grammar schools, or religious schools (although I have a religious faith myself), and I think admission should be by lottery.

maniacinsomniac My DD's primary didn't prepare for the 11plus as it was outside the national curriculum. I think they had one afternoon to have a quick familiarisation with the papers but that is hardly adequate preparation. I haven't heard of any primary school in Kent that does and we are an 11plus area. If you want your child to pass the test you prepare them with past papers or hire a tutor.
If state schools in your area prepare for the 11plus, the parents are very fortunate.
DD's grammar has many children from local preps.

But we can stop subsidising the private sector by allowing private schools to keep their charitable status, despite the fact that their primary activity is in no way charitable.

How - its a tiny (10% increase) of mainly bright kids coming into the state sector, they will be drowned by the majority needs and state tinkering with non educational agendas and browbeaten by the bullies so there will be no huge pulling up of intellectual standards.

And do the maths - there are c 600,000 private kids paying c £6 billion per annum extra into the education budget, that goes away at a stroke, AND you now have to hand back that £3 billion of tax you've been using elsewhere.

So you lose the bulk of Britain's world class education, and a shitload of discretionary extra education money at a stroke. Good move....

No, the only sane way is to improve the comprehensive system to the level where parents don' believe the need to use the grammar or private systems. But that means returning schools to an education function, not an adjunct of social services.

"But that means returning schools to an education function, not an adjunct of social services."

I have no idea what that means...

Fayrazzled - apologies, I'm sure it must be v different if there is no CE

Sue52 - Maybe I am wrong about the extent to which the primaries prepare. I know they do practice papers and know my friends who teach Y6 locally get very stressed about the 11+ results so I assume there is preparation but maybe it's not as much as I imagine. And yes, some prep children do go to the grammars here - but they aren't getting their places due to anything we've done in the prep, it will be either on their own merit or (more likely!) due to outside tutoring.

Whatmeworry- there's so much wrong with your post I don't know where to start.

I disagree that the 10% of private school pupils will be "browbeaten" by bullies. How do you think all our kids cope in the state sector every day. or are suggesting they're the bullies?

I disagree that private schools are the "bulk of Britain's world class education". We don't have a world class education system. We have a few world class universities.

I don't believe you can improve comprehensive schools while you are creaming off talent to the private schools or grammars. The latter need to be abolished before comprehensives can improve.

And still no suggestions as to a "fair" test...

Oh and private school pupils don't pay £6billion into the education budget. They might spend £6billion educating themselves, but it's not going anywhere near the education budget.

Peppin- i thought I made it clear. I don't think there is a fair test while private preps exist or parents tutor their children to get them in. I'd scrap grammars. no need for a test then.

Many of our private schools were direct grant grammar schools before the 1980s. In other words, they operated a bit like academies in that no fees were payable by parents. The Government removed that funding in 1975 which meant that most of them had to go private and had stayed that way.

A test that will fairly separate the population into two discrete groups? Not viewing as ability/potential/whatever you think you are testing as a continuous variable and therefore accepting that around the borderline there are going to be a group of children who realistically, given the nature of a test, might well have been on the other side of that line on a different day? No. I don't think there is one.

FWIW my personal view is that 11 is an odd age to test children for things, and it will always come down to tutoring and stage of development at that age.

Whatmeworry- there's so much wrong with your post I don't know where to start

My analysis is spot on, it just conflicts with what you want to believe.

They're basically stuffed full of middle class kids who have been tutored through the exam for the last few years

I find this view so common, yet so narrow minded. For one thing, grammar schools are not all the same,and they can have very different admissions criteria. Our local GSs ( one boys, one girls) take lots of children from state schools. They are among the top grammar schools in the country, and I know for a fact that a number of state school children got in though practice papers at home with their parents. And yes, some came from prep and some I know were heavily tutored, but none of them are there because they aren't bright enough. The test and the competition is hard enough to make sure that their students deserve a place.

Peppin Do you mean for the 11plus? If so, I don't think there is one. It's quite easy to teach exam technique over time. Verbal and Non VR can, like anything else, be prepared for given a reasonably willing child.

Outraged, you might consider the view narrow-minded but the truth is, that research has show that grammars are, on the whole, populated by middle class kids who have been tutored. The reason the view is common is because it is true! Your grammar school might be an exception, but it does not represent the grammar sector overall.

I did read in the TES this evening that Buckinghamshire County Council has advised new academies NOT to use the 11+ exam as a way of selecting or streaming because it 'favours afluence'. We all knew it but now the actual LEA has admitted it.

or even affluence