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'?

I think the lack of kids on free school meals proves the point.

I am actually a big fan of all-ability schools, what we call comprehensive schools. That way all children are readily accommodated with no stressful selection process.

The problem in the UK is with our class sizes, support for the top 10% and bottom 10%, and recruitment and retention of excellent teachers, along with the need for excellent school management. Get those consistently right, and you can achieve great things in a school. If we concentrated on that a bit more, and social class a bit less, then I am convinced we'd do so much better in international terms.

And yes, all the kids who are there passed the test, natch, BUT what about all the kids who could pass the test but have been denied the opportunity to get into a grammar because they have never seen a test paper before and are competing against kids who've been tutored for 2,3 years etc. It is not a level playing field.

Here is an illustration of how choice doesn't really work fairly in the state sector. These are primary schools close to where we live in London all within 10-15 mins walk of each other.

Why is it that the faith schools have lower numbers of both English as Second Language (ESL) and children eligible for free school meals (FSM).

Faith School1 - ESL 67.2% FSM 35.2% (Children acheiving L4 81% L5 19%)
Faith School2 - ESL 34.9% FSM 14.4% (96% / 58%)
Faith School3 - ESL 58.1% FSM 8.5% (93% /58%)

Community School1 - ESL 76.8% FSM 50.2% (76% / 14%)
Community School2 - ESL 81.3% FSM 49.3% (82% / 5%)
Community School3 - ESL 87.5% FSM 58.5% (67% /18%)

As a tax payer with non-Christian children why is the state funding schools that actively discriminate against my children by making them such low priority for admissions?

(but as a parent who sends their children to private schools I am somehow wrecking the state system that denies my children access to schools on the basis of faith - for info those 3 faith schools admitted 1 child in total from the local community last year out of nearly 100 places).

I must have missed that research while I was doing the tutoring for my own child after work. How do you define middle class?

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.

It's c £6bn going into educating 600,000 kids, of course its an education budget, it's just not a taxpayer funded State one. AND it also releases another c £3bn of tax money that the government doesn't have to use to fund those places.

No one sane is going to walk away from £9bn of discretionary money, just to break the one bit of the UK school system that is world class.

It's not a level playing field, but the thing that makes that true is the parents, not the schools. Schools can't force parents to take a active role in their child's education, and that makes a much bigger difference than state primary or prep.

I think it's a marvellous idea
Would save me a fortune in school fees every year!

Interesting question outraged. How is middle class defined?

Whatmeworry- but you're doubling counting. It's not £9billion of money. The state doesn't see £6billion of it. If the children in private schools were returned to the state sector, then in your example, the state would have to find £3 billion to educate them in the same way it funds education for the other 93% of children. Yes, it's a lot of money to find but not that much in the context of state spending of about £90billion on education per annum. And I believe it would improve state schools for all so would be value for money.

I don't care about dismantling what you call "world-class" education that is out of the reach of 93% of our society's children and promotes social division.

Outraged- but if you have genuinely comprehensive schools (i.e. with intakes across all socio-demographic groups, income levels, attainment levels etc) then you have a critical mass of interested parents at each school- sufficient to bring the school along. Rather than the current situation where you have some schools with lots of interested, enthusiastic parents and some schools with very few.

It wouldn't improve state schools for all Fay, it would improve schools for the most disadvantaged only. The rest of us would have even more fight on our hands to get a school place, any beyond that,I can't see how it would be better for all children.h

Would you ban faith schools as socially divisive? After all they are funded by tax payers yet exclude whole sections of the population from admission?

Hear, hear Fay. I went to Grammar School because I was "clever" and not because I was rich. That opportunity is denied most these days. The system MUST be changed. Why should only the rich access opportunities?

Yes there may be issues with the small percentage of children who get a "borderline" result at the 11-plus. But for the vast majority it is a fair system, certainly much fairer than the simple state vs. private divide which is based purely on money.

For the small percentage who get a borderline 11-plus result, this can and should be addressed by flexibility in the system. A chance to move schools at a later date such as a 13+ exam, taking background into account for 11+ admissions, or further interviews or more sophisticated aptitude tests.

Chaz- yes when I'm Education Minister I'd get rid of faith schools too. All schools would be genuine state, secular schools. I accept I'll never be elected though because there are too many people with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

TBH, there are so few state grammar schools now that most children don't have the potential to access one- there simply is not one near them.

Outraged- I don't agree it would only improve schools for the disadvantaged- I think it would improve schools across the board.

Hear, hear Fay. I went to Grammar School because I was "clever" and not because I was rich. That opportunity is denied most these days. The system MUST be changed. Why should only the rich access opportunities?

Bring back Grammar schools. Sorted.

X posted.

We havea truly comprehensive school near us, I'm very happy with ds2 being able to go there. But it's a huge huge school, and some children just won't thrive in a school that brigand anonymous. It's great to say that all children should be able to be catered for in a comp, and I think most of them can be, but I think it's important that we keep smaller schools for thise children that won't have their needs met in a comp. I didn't want my child with AS in a huge school just because he's clever and would help the league tables,I wanted him in a school where he had some chance of surviving the social side of school and would be in the right type of environment.

Portofino - why should only the clever access opportunities?

You may have got a great educational opportunity thanks to your brains
My class of 16 that includes 3 children on the ASD spectrum and 1 child with other LDs who is in care get a great opportunity thanks to somebody's money

What's the difference?

Both okay or both not okay surely?

Can you explain why you think it would benefit children across the board? I really don't see that, but I'm open to changing my mind!

BBQ - I agree there should be flexibility - but I as I recall it was like that. I remember girls joining later, equally I remember girls leaving, deciding that Sec Modern was better for them. I am not arguing that Grammar Schools are the only option...

The other way of looking at it is those who pay private school fees should pay less tax since they are not utilising that portion of tax that goes to funding state schools. In the same way that those not on mains drainage get a reduction in their water rates bill.

I went to a grammar school but the ridiculous pressure these days to have dcs privately tutored for 11+ puts that oppportunity beyond the reach of many. In my day no one had even heard of private tutoring.

I don't care about dismantling what you call "world-class" education that is out of the reach of 93% of our society's children and promotes social division.

I know you don't, but that's not a badge of honour, its a display of shocking naivete.

Outraged- but if you have genuinely comprehensive schools (i.e. with intakes across all socio-demographic groups, income levels, attainment levels etc) then you have a critical mass of interested parents at each school- sufficient to bring the school along.

The 10% will make minimal impression, the critical mass will remain the disinterested parents, the interested parents willexit the systemagain in some new way.

I'm not religious, but getting rid of faith schools is really unacceptable. It actually means something to some people. Or should suddenly everyone be exactly the same regardless of religion