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'?

Ell us about your local school , noqotrol.

PestoPenguin Fri 27-Apr-12 20:31:52
'What you're proposing is not that different than what the Blair Labour Govt did with patient choice for elective operations, where patients could hoose private providers if they wished (who were paid the same price as the NHS). Potential problems were cherry picking, where the NHS got all the complex (and hence more expensive) cases. I can imagine an analogy with education here too.'

yes, pesto, good point and more problematic than the health one, too.

noblegiraffe, I don't think the government seems to understand that either.

You chose to send your dc private don't be so greedy.

Which part do you want to know about seeker? The seeming lack of an anti bullying policy which leaves some children afraid to go to school? The dealing that goes on at the school gates? The dads that like to walk their kids to school in one hand whilst clutching a can of tennents extra in the other? The physical fights between some of the mothers at the school gates? Or just the overall lack of education compared to other schools, probably down to them being unable to recruit and retain staff, and when they do their time is spent trying to reduce chaos rather than educate?

Tell me about yours.

The article also says those schools should be closed noblegiraffe. I for one would be happy to be shipped out to another school, pretty much any other school in the area is better than ours and there's a lot of them here. I'm sure a lot of the parents on my estate would also like that. It would give all the kids here a better opportunity to start over somewhere else.

A schools intake wouldn't beso important if all parents taught their children how to behave, respected teachers and were engaged and involved with their child's education. It is the parents that don't do those things that create sink schools, not the parents who don't want their dc to be surrounded with those attitudes.

I would say a sink school is one that has a huge problem with behaviour and bullying and doesn't effectively deal with it, and also has a large number of parents who do not value education or instill good learning attitudes in their children. They tend to have police on the premises regularly and get consistently bad results.

Charitable status is not easy to get. The charities commission is very strict and expects charities to have a clear charitable aims and beneficiaries. Every penny has to rightly be accounted for.

How can anyone think that education for children isn't charitable enough? It is spiteful to want it removed for private schools. Do you want it removed from the PTAs of schools that are in nice middle class villages too? It's not like these schools are getting grants from Comic Relief FFS, they are just paying a little less tax that most of them probably aren't required to pay anyway as they are not for profit organisations. And the money the parents pay for their children to attend is already taxed!

Yes, noqontrol because those schools can't improve to a reasonable level when they have such an overwhelmingly disadvantaged intake. The whole point of closing them is not because the school is crap, but to disperse the intake into the other schools and water down its effect - the parents of the other schools in the area would of course not be happy with this situation.

Ariel indeed the government don't understand. Getting rid of contextual value added is only going to disadvantage the already disadvantaged and make the middle-class schools look better than they are. Raising expectations is not on its own enough to raise results in particular groups of students, the problems run far deeper than that.

Why would the parents of the other schools be happy with that situation?

As has been said before, my (usually) well behaved children are not there to 'water down' the effect of other badly behaved children. My involvement as a parent does not exist to absolve other parents of the responsibility they have to be involved with their own children's education.

It's not about parents being disadvantaged in terms of money, because showing an interest in your dc's education is free, manners are free, and there are plenty of excellent parents on low incomes to prove that. It is up to each parent to do the best for their child, and if some choose not to bother, that doesn't make those who do bother, and who do give their children the best they can in some way wrong.

I know the idea is to water down the effect. Sounds like the perfect solution to me. That way kids stand more of a chance of leaving school being able to read and write. A more equal education for all.

Some kids stand more of a chance of being able to read and write (although I would have said they have that opportunity if they and their parents want to take it anyway) and other kids will stand more of a chance of being bullied or offered drugs.

Outraged, as I have pointed out previously, education policy should not be dictated by your personal selfish agenda, but what is best for everyone.

outraged Drug dealers should be expelled. If they get expelled from two schools (as is currently the case) other schools can refuse to take them and they should go to a PRU.

Sorry outraged, I didn't notice your post back there. You are right though, it's about parents really. I was thinking more about the parents who do give a shite about manners and behaviour and would want their children to have the same opportunities as everyone else. As for the parents who don't give a shite, which then impacts on their kids, well, I don't know, what's the answer? It's not the kids fault, they deserve the opportunity to break out of all that, but how is it done?

A tiny proportion of DCs go to private schools or grammar schools and a minute proportion Home Educate, that means that the vast majority go to comprehensive state schools and the bright ones do really well. Unfortunately the worst are seen on the news, or in drama or stand out in a neighbourhood so that people think it is the norm. The majority are just getting on with the job and doing it well.

I agree that education policy has to be there to suit everyone, and it can do that within the state sector. But we just don't live in the sort of country that tells us what choices we are going to be forced to make for our children. And thank goodness we don't. I think there would be something fundamentally wrong with the type of government we have if parents were ever prevented from using private schools if they want to and have the personal means to.

Yes, drug dealers should be expelled. But what about drug takers? There were never any dealers in my school, but there were people using drugs who could influence others, and introduce dealers out of school if they wanted to. And they get the chance to do even worse than that in two schools before they are dealt with effectively? You really can't see why people have a right to keep their children away from that if they can afford to?

I do see the other side that some parents wont have that choice (those that you talk about who do give a shite about manners etc) and that's awful, but I don't think everyone should be penalised because of the misfortune of the few. Do we expect other counties to go hungry when there is famine in some because it's only fair? It's the same principle.

I don't have the answers for those children whose parents don't give a shite, and I agree they should have the opportunity to break free. It's always going to be problem because home life is more influential than school life for children, but I don't think the solution to some children's problems can come from other children. It has to come from adults, because other children just dont deserve that burden.

That's a good point exoticfruits- I often wonder whether people on here think that every successful person or polite child they meet must be the product of a private school! I remember my neighbours once took ds out with their son ind dil and their children and later neighbour said " your ds has such lovely manners, son and dil were amazed when I told them he goes to state school"!

That's quite some generalisation though exotic to say "the bright ones do really well". Some of them do, others don't, for various reasons some of which may be due to the school.

Exactly exotic. That's why state educated children are not at so much of a disadvantage to private school children that they need them removed.

H, outraged- do you really think there are no drug takers at private schools? Really?

When I was talking about drug takers at my school, I was talking about a private school. But I know that there were more drug takers at the two comps that my friends went to than there were at mine.

I think parents who take dc out of the state education system because it isn't meeting their child's needs and then homeschool or seek more specialised education (e.g. because they have dyslexia or other SEN) should receive more financial support.

However, the problem is where do you stop - Do childless people get a tax rebate when they get to 60 without having put a child through school? Do you get an NI rebate if you use BUPA?

So, my answer, is theoretically in some cases it wouldn't be unreasonable, but practically it'll never happen.

Those at private schools tend to be the ones who can afford the drugs.
I would say that over 80% of our DCs are at comprehensive schools, or very near that figure, and the majority are polite, friendly,articulate and keen to learn. They are, however, no newsworthy.

Sorry - not newsworthy.