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 adult life you meet people of all different levels of ablity."

Yeah, but nobody at my work (or from any other area of my life, come to that) shoves me around on the stairs, spits on me, or lies in wait for me outside the gates. I wouldn't put up with that, why should my kids have to?

marriedinwhite in my personal experience some private school kids can be every bit as feral as those nasty comprehensive kids. The bitchy behaviour of some of the girls at top private girls school I went to was horrendous.

"Yeah, but nobody at my work (or from any other area of my life, come to that) shoves me around on the stairs, spits on me, or lies in wait for me outside the gates. I wouldn't put up with that, why should my kids have to?"

What makes you think that bullying doesn't happen in private ed. State schools are streets ahead when it comes to trying to prevent bullying.

The child of a friend of mine is being horrendously bullied at a top prep school, and another is very unhappy indeed at a top public school.

I don't think for a moment that that is what happens at all prep or public schools. I just think it's bizarre that people write off the entire state system because of one bad experience!

What makes you think that bullying doesn't happen in private ed. State schools are streets ahead when it comes to trying to prevent bullying

I suspect bullying is endemic to humans, but ultimately private schools can exclude the really troublesome kids so I can believe both that comprehensives are more experienced at dealing with it, and that private schools have less of it.

And the point above about pressure in Comps on the really smart kids is very valid, that's why nearly all countries opt for some variant of the Grammar system so they can reach their potential.

What people tend to forget is that the bully's parents are worth a set of fees too, though!

The bus/train analogy is giving you choice of a range of private providers (you don't buy the school either!) or making your own household arrangements (like HE). There is no state provision of transport, which is why the analogy doesn't fit terribly well - unless you are in a place where the tax-payer not the passenger is picking up the fare for a nationalised system, or unless your model is a plurality of private systems.

I think, without getting too bogged down in the slightly surreal 'is a school the same as a bus and what kind of car is a private school' massive fuck-off 4x4, obviously, it works. You can have what's laid on, or you can sort yourself out on your own terms, but the state has no obligation to buy you a car or help you with the costs.

What people tend to forget is that the bully's parents are worth a set of fees too, though!

Not really, there are far more people trying to get into private schooling than out - in the main they can pick and choose, so they have no loss in chucking kids out.

Also, the fees of the one bully are not worth losing the fees of all the other annoyed parents.

not sure about that - lots of private schools are not over-subscribed. And who's to say the school are going to see it your way in terms of who is the bully and who isn't?

I wouldn't be so sure that if you have child A who is unhappy about a clique of girls making her life a misery, one of whom has three younger sisters and parents who are funding the new theatre, say, that child A's parents are going to get the outcome they want.

I've been pondering the notion that DC need to be in mixed ability schools because they will need to mix with mixed ability people in life...

I can see that that makes sense in theory, but in practice is it necessary?

After school I went to university, then to law school. I then worked in law firms and hung out with my friends either from work or uni in the evenings. Or I did my politico stuff. I married a highly intelligent man.
I'm now a writer and have lots of friends and acquaintances who are writers/poets/agents/publishers. I'm going to start lecturing in September and my students will all be fairly able. I'll probably make friends with other profs.

I don't actually spend any extended periods of time in mixed ability environments andhaven't done since I was seventeen. Yet I seem completely able to communicate at all levels and am comfortable with people of all abilities.

I suppose I'm just questioning whether it is as vital to spend the school years in mixed ability settings....

Once again- why does a case of bullying in a state school condemn all state schools, while a case of bullying in a private school not condemn all private schools?

Not life-or-death necessary, obviously, but IMO a good thing not to corral children by wealth of parents. Children should, I think, exist on a daily basis with children who come from different backgrounds - 'two nations' is just not an ideal.

And of course there is bullying in private schools. I suppose the main difference is that it is easier to exclude a bully in the independent sector. HT can pretty much make a decision to do so.

Or if the school are not minded to take action, the parent can just whip their child out. There is always choice.

I can quite see why a state school parent who is banging their head against a wall trying to deal with bullying can't send their DC elsewhere. It's just not that striahgt forward. And they may even be offered a worse school miles away.

But why a priavte school parent would stick it out and pay for it it utterly beyond me. One of the main reasons I pay is to have freedom.

"What makes you think that bullying doesn't happen in private ed. "

I don't think that. But I'm comparing my local comprehensive, which has a serious bullying problem, to my kids' private school which doesn't. (Not saying there is no bullying, just that it doesn't reach anywhere near the same level. And has been pointed out, if serious issues occur they can throw out the bullies.) I'm certainly not condemning all state schools, or saying that private is necessarily better. We all have to choose from the options available to us - if we'd had a good state school nearby maybe we'd have sent the kids there. But we don't. And unfortunately the only way really for us and other parents to avoid this school is money, whether by private education or moving to a better catchment.

MNers venture into taboo subjects in the safety of the internet. In school choices there can be a combination of money, religion, politics. It is a recipe for plenty of irrational expectations. State is struggling to pay for school lunches, they already allow charitable tax relief for independents, don't people know when to stop?

theoriginal we were talking about ability not wealth no?

The question I'm posing is whether DC need to spend their whole school day in a mixed ability setting.

Are all the DC in grammar schools or selective indies unable to communicate comfortably with people of other abilities? Do pupils in comprhensives really mix with pupils of other abilities? Or do the top sets all hang out together?

But then I guess no-one really wants to keep moving their child around, do they? Whether from private to private, state to state, state to private....

I've often wondered what I'd do if one of mine was bullied and the school didn't sort it - I think I'd be really torn between wanting to get them out, but also worrying that the impact of 'running away' might do more harm than good to their self-esteem, and, worse still, if the same happened elsewhere, what do you do then?

Sorry - not wanting to derail into bullying, but it's something I ponder sometimes.

As for bullying, how the school handles it is also subject to money and politics. Bullying is rarely done by individuals, so if you add money into the mix, it is harder to say farewell to the bullies in independent. Due to the much larger proportion of state schools [and therefore weak leaders] you should expect to see more examples of inadequate handling of bad behaviour. Neither of these will inform you necessarily of which sector tackles bullying better, at least not as convincingly as your own prejudices.

Me too. And in the light of somehting that happened at DD's school I have always been very clear that if my DC were unhappy and I didn't feel the school were taking appropriate action, I'd pull them out.

Not ideal as you say, but better than the alternative.

Being bullied can have such horrendous effects upon DC. It can follow them through life. I wouldn't put up with being bullied at work. No siree. I wouldn't put up with it for my DC.

On social integration, DCs in public and other independents, super selective grammars and comps mix as skillfully and with as much/little tension as do their parents. I cannot comment on the 25% grammar areas, but IME it is very much from the lyrics of the South Pacific song "You've got to be carefully taught".

thirdhill I would only choose a private school that had very comfortable finances for a number of reasons, but one of them would definitely be that no pupil or group of pupils (or one set of parents or group of parents) could derail the school with its block finance/vote.

But ultimately I think we have to take personla responsibilty for our DC. If school won't deal with bullying adequately...then I'd remove my child pronto.

word, even the most secure of schools would struggle to cope with parental denial about their preciouses' "moments of madness". I agree that the key is your own child's welfare, and not the school.

Which is why after many years of pointless pondering, we don't think wealth or ability has anywhere as much to do with being the right school. Even if you get the mix right, luck is what chooses the kids yours find themselves with. That school you ruled out may the be unlikely haven for a badly bullied child coming from the school that would have been perfect but for the children s/he was unlucky to be with.

State schools had PHSCE long before private schools. In our country there are programmes like Resilence training to help the mental welbeing of ALL children. The school I used to work had the scary guy to come in and talk about bullying. In my personal experience the private school I went to would not admit to the possiblity of bullying existing. If a parent complained that their child was being bullied then it was the victim who was excluded rather than the bully.

In my personal experience both state and private schools have good leadership.

Then home educated would need tgat too, I don't think tgat by choosing to withdraw from tge system provided you should be given a cheque. What about everything else, rubbish collection - ill go to tge tip for example.

On the bullying issue then surely the answer is to ensure all schools have the means to deal with this kind of behaviour so that all pupils can go to school and feel safe and happy.

Even if it were true that bullying is nit an issue in private schools then surely we are back to the point that if you can afford it your children can be 'protected'. If you can't tough. It's not fair on the majority of children. Again this isn't about what's best for your individual children, more about what the state should do to ensure the majority of the children in the country have access to a good standard of schooling on a safe environment.