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'?

In Belgium, the Royal Family send their kids to State Schools. Private schools in the sense you know them in the UK don't exist. Belgium rates higher in the education league tables than the UK. The system here is not perfect by any means, but it does not rely on how much money you have.

My dd attends a state school in a mixed area. There are lots of nationalities, a good ethnic mix and kids from all socio-economic backgrounds. My dd and a few others in her class do not have French as a first language. She is thriving. They just don't fanny about. Discipline is really strong. Desks face the front. The maternelle system means that dcs are READY for proper education when it starts (after 6th Birthday). It bloody well can be done!

Prep schools round here (Yorkshire) charge about £7.5k per annum, so Noqontrol's school is definitely on the less expensive side of the private spectrum.

And of course, the funding situation is even more marked at secondary, where fees of up to £20k per annum aren't uncommon in the private sector. My local comp on the other hand receives just over £5k per pupil per annum.

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

Its called a rational deduction, you day you've been to Oxbridge, I'm surprised you can't see it. Slowly for you then - assume 10% of all school kids have the wherewithall to go to Oxbridge, so where are they? Well, the grammar schools kids probably nearly all potentially can - so that where 3% are. There are 7% of kids in private school in teh UK, a lot of those are selectiove entry, so i assume somfe frcation - 3 of the 7% - rae Oxbridge capable. that leabes (10% - 3% -3%) = 4% of Oxbridge capable kids in the Comp system, ie about 4/10 = 40% of klids going to Oxbridge willl be from Comps. It is not going to be 90% unles you massively select against the brightest kids in the UK, which would be fucking stupid and Oxbridge won't stand for it inadvisable

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.

Perhaps not, but the difference is that your argument is purely based on your beliefs and very probably envy, whereas my argument is evidence based, in that no other country has managed to make fully comprehensive education deliver sufficient academically rigorous schooling.

I'm also against selection based purely on wealth, but all and only comp won't work. Unless you then have state funded excellence - Ecoles, Gymnasiums, Instituts, Grammar Schools; choose your country and call them what you will - which the UK overall seems very reluctant to do, then that's the only way its going to happen.

And of course at the risk of repeating a point: presumably if you are willing to pay £5500 to send your child to the school, by definition you are a parent who is supportive of your child's education. Therefore the school has an enormous advantage over a state schooll in the form of a fully engaged parent body all motivating their children to achieve their individual potentials.

Whatme - sorry you confused me there, in your explanation are you assuming all grammar school pupils are Oxbridge material? Really? I went to a grammar school and that certainly was not the case there.

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.

That argument assumes a random and homogenous split of people across teh whole UK, but it won't work that way - middle class people live in middle class areas, will send their kids to middle class Comps and demand middle class results. Poorer people will live in poorer areas and send their kids to poorer Comps, with poorer outcomes. Which is in effect what happens in Comps in the UK today.

So unless you are going to socially engineer the catchment areas (eg bussing in the US - its been tried) or mass resettle the UK population randomly, it just won't happen.

The best way ouit that most countyries have found so far is state sponsored acadmic excellence which is money-blind - they are called Grammar Schools in the UK. We ablished most of them a generation ago, and with it the chance for the most able poorer kids to excel.

Sticking most of the Grammar school kids back into the state Comp system didn't make it better then, and sticking the (far fewer as a %) remaing grammar school and public school kids in won't help it now either.

Hairytoe, there are 6 prep schools in this area. Cost between £5500 to £6500. Mines the cheapest. I'm in the south east. Secondary schools are far more expensive here, starts at £16000 and the most expensive is around £32000 from what I can remember.

Fayrazzled: My dd's school doesn't provide lunch, we have to send lunch boxes. One quarter of the school speak English as a second language. There are two child with additional needs in her class of 20. Don't know about the rest of the school re additional needs. And can't comment on ds yet as he's not started yet.

I went to a state comphrehensive. It had different streams depending on ability for most lessons. I fail to see the need for a grammar school if comphrehensives are streamed. At 14 the more technically minded pupils went off to the the local college on fridays to do car maintenence, hairdressing etc.. whilst the more academice did academic subjects. Nobody told us we were "disadvantaged" and some of us ended up in great universities with fantastic jobs. It seemed a great idea, but then it's in Wales and we worry alot less about class and what school we went to anyway!

"One quarter of the school speak English as a second language. "

Interestingly, EAL is a variable which predicts higher attainment at KS3 and beyond.

Sorry, spelling errors due to blurry vision!!!

The state pays loads of school fees on behalf of forces children.

Waders of this thread might be interested in this article on the BBC website today about the latest ISC school census. It includes info on average fees (on a nationwide basis), and ethnic mix.

Whatme - sorry you confused me there, in your explanation are you assuming all grammar school pupils are Oxbridge material? Really? I went to a grammar school and that certainly was not the case there.

I don't accept a personal anecdote in support of your own argument as evidence, and IMO the 11+ is a very good predictor of academic ability. Not all will get into Oxbridge, but these are kids most likely to have the ability.

But do the maths anyway - say only 2/3 of the Grammar school kids are Oxbridge potential then - that changes the state sector to 5 out of 10, or about 50%.

But what is very clear is that it can't be a 90% Comps into Oxford ratio, as that assumes that the Grammars and Academic public schools can only muster the same ratio of Oxbridge capable kids as the Comps can. Which, given they are selective by exam, is clearly a false assumption.

And btw I think assuming 10% of all UK kids are Oxbridge capable is being pretty generous.

you could always move to Ireland where exactly this situation applies - e.g. private schools have their salary bill met by the state; in other words a transfer of tax revenue from the poorest to the richest thus ensuring that their stranglehold on the professions is maintained for eternity. If you want private education, then pay for it; but don't expect a tax opt-out or subsidy.

Our dc went to state primary. DS was g&t - needs not met, moved at 8. DD stayed until end of Y6 (top average). Went to sought after girls comp in SW London. On arrival standards not as promised, especially re ethos and behaviour. We wanted to support the state system but it proved woefully inadequate adn we can admit it because we were able to afford the alternative.

We pay about £34,000 per annum out of taxed income for our children. We do this because the state failed us. The alternative is better: academically, pastorally, behaviourally and in the context of service and communication.

We paid more than £250,000 in tax last year. What the state provided was inadequate. We don't need a rebate to do the best for our children but there would be considerable merit in providing tax breaks. We have paid once, why should we pay twice. We wouldn't expect the state to pay twice to service its debt.

marriedinwhiteIt's like driving a car instead of going on the bus - the transport system hasn't failed you necessarily, you're making a private choice. You don't get a tax break for your car, so you don't need one for your education choices.

But the state doesn't attempt to provide me with a car echt. The comparison would be Lada -v- Merc. And in any event, DH can offset some of his motoring/travel costs against his tax liability.

No, they provide you with a bus/train.

Setting and streaming within a comprehensive school is better than mixed-ability teaching. But even so, it's not the same as being in a whole school of others with similar ability and aspirations. It's important for young people to feel they fit in well.

In a grammar you will be "normal" for being intelligent whereas in a comp there may be resentment and bullying between ability levels, as of course some lessons, activities, travel and break times will be mixed. There's a social pressure in some comps to play down your intelligence or any interest in learning.

But doesn't the state already give private schools some funding?

Its funny all these people who are experts on comprehensives when they neither have personal experience nor their kids to one.

A comprehensive with a good range of ablity works. There are good comprehensives up and down the country. In adult life you meet people of all different levels of ablity. I think its important that children learn to get on with people who are different to them.

The comprehensive system fails when you get sink schools that no one in their right mind wants to send their kids to. I think that secondary schools should have ablity banding to make it possible to run a decent top set and each school in a town get their fair share of difficult children.

It is due to them seeing the worst examples on TV, ReallyTired, they never get to see all the really good ones-they just get on with the job, very successfully, and are not newsworthy.

Echt: I take it you're not in England. The bus and trains were all privatised many years ago. Is this analogy a plug for the end of the state system in its entirety?

But you don't have to go and buy a bus to go on the bus, do you? The analogy works fine. Unless we're going to start saying, ah but schools don't take you into the centre of town, and they have names not numbers, and they can't move and they don't have wheels or gear sticks.

No exotic our daughter spent two years at one of the best, the sorts that's written up in the papers and quoted as a shining example. It was hell. Nothing wrong with the teaching but some of the children were feral and our dd was scared. There were no boundaries and the ethos was not supporting improved behaviour. Comps could work if hts had the power to exclude and if there were more pupil referral units.