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'?

Outraged - so parents whose children go to state schools just don't care about their kids as much as parents in the private system, then? OR do you think it just might possibly be unfair that 50% of places at our two most elite universities are reserved for just 7% of the population, who have bought their way in? It's not just Oxbridge, it's the Cabinet, it's the bosses of every institution you care to name, it's the judiciary and legal profession - the privately educated have disproportionate control over the levers of power, hence power over everyone else.

This matters becuase actually brains, bright ideas, all sorts of other desirable factors are not solely the preserve of those whose parents paid for the education. If power is in the hands of a small, privileged minority, we all lose out - worse decisions are made on a narrow perspective.

Still totally unfair- good comprehensives depend on area.

exoticfruits- but if all schools were genuine comprehensives area would matter less. LEAs would be responsible for school admissions (as now) and would as far as possible ensure admissions covered children from across the socio-demographic spectrum. (To achieve this in some areas children may not be able to attend their most local school- I appreciate that).

People would move. I worked the system- I moved purely for the schools.

I couldn't afford to move house, it was actually far cheaper to use the private school. But that makes me a privileged evil middle class person who is trying to give their child an advantage over others. I dont want more though, i want equal. I don't want far less than what other state school users get for the same (tax) price. Obviously if I had moved to the area of a decent oversubscribed school I would have been a much better person for using the state system instead!
And the reason I chose not to use the sink school is mainly because of parental attitude. If a majority of parents are pulling together to improve a school I would expect to see massive changes, parental contribution is almost everything. A school might be good, but without the support of parents it is also inherently weak and likely to topple. In my area, the school is poor and parental contribution absolutely minimal. What are you supposed to do about that? A handful of parents can't do a vast amount to change a school if many others aren't willing.

exoticfruits- moving house wouldn't make any difference under my proposed model.

Out of interest, what is a "sink school"?

Noqontrol "In my area, the school is poor and parental contribution absolutely minimal. What are you supposed to do about that? A handful of parents can't do a vast amount to change a school if many others aren't willing."

but under Fayrazzled proposed model there wouldn't be a school full of disaffected parents with only a 'handful' of interested parents.

The current discussion is not a criticism of individual parents decision to send their children parents, perhaps for very good reasons given the state of the education system as it stands. It's not about you and your children.

The argument is that under a truly comprehensive system where all schools had a good mix of pupils from different backgrounds ( including proportionately disaffected parents uninterested in the value of education and well educated parents with the desire to ensure their children succeed) then all children would have equal access to a good standard of schooling. Rather than having some schools which are great and consequently over-subscribed and full of children from interested, motivated parents, and others such as the one you are describing as having to avoid.

aaarrrggg 'to send their children private' not 'send their children parents'

Fayrazzled its taken me a while to get back to this discussion but can I just say Hear Hear to everything you have posted.

Nice idea, but I'd only allow it there was no requirement for a top up payment otherwise it would just subsidize those who could already afford fees.

Oh and noblegiraffe you too. My brain hurts from speed reading this entire thread in just under 20 minutes. But then I never benefitted from a private education, although I did go to a very nice girl's grammar school.

I was addressing the comment made by exoticfruit really hairytoe, not by fayrazzled. But yes I agree that fayrazzleds plan has merit.

...."very nice girls' grammar school" not "girl's" obv

Think I'll just get my coat...

Hairytoe- that's a very good point. I think quite often the debate about private schools versus state schools turns to personal anecdotes about one's local comp or decision to send a child private. Of course, individual parents will on the whole make decisions that prioritise their children (although not always). But the state's role IS to look at the big picture. And it should be ensuring fair access to good schools for all children. Private schools restrict access to equal opportunities for children, ergo the state should abolish them. (But it won't for reasons I have outlined...)

But you see, I don't think abolishing private schools would cause us to become less competitive internationally or would result in some children not reaching their full potential. I think having the children and parents who currently use private schools in the state system would raise standards across the board. We would become more competitive internationally as a result.

I think that's naive idealism, even the most egalitarian countries like the Nordics haven't done that.

The point about international competitiveness is well made, i've worked all over the world, the UK school system is far from the best. I would not recommend moving what little is world class in the UK into it.

And I don't see how breaking a very small thing that is working is going to fix a large thing that is not. First try and fix the large thing.

The 50% of Oxbridge students stat that you keep quoting doesn't have as much relevance as you seem to think it does. Obviously, not all students are Oxbridge, or even university material.

right -0 if wea ssume about 10% of all UK kids have teh potential to be Oxbridge, its clear the grammatr schools will have 3% of them, lets assume half the public schools are selective entry so they have another say 3%, leaving the other c 4% in the comprehensive sector, so you'd expect only about 40% of Oxbridge entrants to be from the Comprehensive sector.

Whatmeworry- I don't agree with your assumptions underpinning those statistics at all. You've just made that stuff up!

I don't think there is much else left to say- you're not going to convince me private schools aren't unfair and give an undeserved advantage to a minority based primarily on parental wealth.

Fayrazzled: I believe it was you who said that people use private schools to provide a leg up and over those who send their children to a state school. As a parent who sends their children to a private school, I am simply using a personal anecdote to illustrate that not all parents who send their children to private school do so for this reason.

"And I don't see how breaking a very small thing that is working is going to fix a large thing that is not. First try and fix the large thing."

I think the point is that the existance of the small thing that is working is effectively sabotaging any efforts to improve the large thing that is not.

The small thing that is working is working largely due to being able to raise more funds per pupil and exclude a demographic section of society, a larger proportion of which are likely to be less involved and more challenging.

Exactly Hairytoe, exactly.

Noqontrol: that may not be your primary motivation in sending your child to private school but it is effectively what happens when you do.

Until state schools have the same funds per pupil and similar 'raw material' to work with they are unlikely to be able to offer the same education experience as a comparable private school.

But the funding is similar. Around £5000 per child in state school, £5500 at dd's school. But yes, agree on the raw material part.

I've just looked up the data for my son's state primary school. Last year it received £4100 per pupil- about the same as the LEA's median spend per pupil. This is lower than the national median of about £4200 per pupil.

So Noqontrol your son's school is quids in to the tune of £1400 per pupil on my son's school. And presumably your son's school has fewer children in receipt of free school meals, fewer children with English as a second language, fewer children with additional needs...which all starts to add up to quite a big advantage...

I am surprised at £5500 per year. I have no direct experience but was under the impression that in most cases fees are more like £10k per annum?
I am happy to be corrected if this in untrue. Presumably primary is cheaper than secondary too?