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'?

Since some people don't seem to realise there are excellent comprehensives around I hit on a place, at random, that I thought likely to have a good one and clicked on Keswick. It is fully comprehensive, having amalgamated with the local secondary modern about 30 yeas ago. It is a specialist is Science school with a gifted and talented programme and has a boarding house- one of 13 state schools with one. If you look at my link www.keswick.cumbria.sch.uk/ I would wonder why anyone would pay out if they could send there. It isn't unusual, it is just the first I found.

Having gone north I decide to go south. This is a 6th form presentation for a comprehensive in Ascot www.chartersschool.org.uk/Websites/charters/images/Sixth%20Form/2011-2012/Options%20Eve%202011%20OMM%20Final%202.pdf if you scroll down you find they prepare for Oxbridge.
I don't know either school-chosen at random just to show that comprehensives have the entire range and many are excellent. You won't get this in the inner city. You do not need private or grammar when comprehensives perform well. (see extra curricular at Ascot). Unfortunately it depends entirely on where you live and is just as unfair as any other system.

I agree exotic. It makes no sense to say we need to abolish selective education because it is detrimental to comprehensive education, and things should be made 'fairer'. There are so many comps that are doing an excellent job, it is patronising to their students and teachers to say that they are at a disadvantage.

I described ds's school accurately. What I'm trying to say, probably incompetently, is that it is like many, many other schools in the country- perfectly fine. But from what I've read on here, most mumsnetters would consider any school, regardless of circumstances, which gets sub 40% a-c as an off-the-cards choice.
I don't know what I sId that gave the impression that I don't want to talk about it- I thought generally people were begging me to shut up.

My definition of a sink school? Well, it would start with being an OFSTED 4 for the majority of categories. In particular for leadership and and the ones that cover pastoral care .

I think to say 'most mumsnetters' is stretching things. I dare say there are a few, but the rest of us feel a bit miffed when you start speaking for mumsnet on our behalf.

I had a little trawl around this morning, I found a lovely small comprehensive in rural Herefordshire, a great large one in Derby and could have gone on- all useless because 'people have seen Grange Hill (if old enough) and so they 'know' comprehensives!!

Experience tells seeker that 'most MNetters take that view, it is expressed often enough. Most MN , or the ones who post about it, assume that if there was 11+ their DC would pass. Most MNetters think they have above average DCs. In actual fact most MN will have average DCs with a few above and a few below.

Probably it would be fair enough to say that 'most' MNetters are sensible enough to keep of these threads which leaves 'most' of the rest to feel that a B in any exam is a fail!

Off not of

It makes no sense to say we need to abolish selective education because it is detrimental to comprehensive education

If you have selective education then what is left is not comprehensive education.

That depends on the area nobelgirrafe. In grammar school areas I would agree with you. In areas like mine where there are a handful of private schools and two grammars that have no catchment and therefore get applicants from a huge area, what is left is comprehensive education because there are enough children to create a top set that are as capable as those in the grammars.

I think it really depends on where you live and your children. The year my son started primary, I knew parents who sent their children to private schools because they didn't think their child would get into the local primary - and guess what - they were right! More than 200 children still had no school place in the three months before they were supposed to start school - not no school place in a nice school, but no school place in that borough or any neighbouring borough.

It all shook out in the end, (after half a year of mix and match and shared classrooms - building work is ongoing), and for most of the children that was OK. The secondary school for these children is still on the drawing board, but I am sure it will be fine for most children.

However some children will struggle in this patched together school system. It's not all about sending your child to a school where they wear boaters. For some parents, educating a child privately is just about sending their child to a school.

If your child thrives in their state school, whether leafy or not, great, lucky you.

In grammar school areas it can't be comprehensive but most of the country doesn't have any grammar schools. Don't be fooled by names, many just kept it e.g. Steyning Grammar School is a comprehensive school.

Selective schools aren't very detrimental to the other schools. I seem to remember less than one grade lower across all their GCSEs for children not attending the grammar compared to if they attended a true comprehensive whereas the results of those who go to the grammar rise by an average of 4 gcse grades compared to similar children in a comprehensive area. But that there is even a small detriment to the majority makes it very hard to justify grammar schools imo (and that's aside from the vagarities of the selection process).

But this is beside the point - I can't see why the state should subsidise people who are opting out. They should certainly strive to offer fair and equal opportunities to all those who opt in, but have no obligation to anyone else. I'm not opposed to the state funding private boarding places for severely disadvantaged children in care if that would work though.

A lot of state schools have selection by house price. Here is a comprehensive where you have to be incredibly rich to afford a house.

www.stgeorges.herts.sch.uk/

However there are sink schools where there are disportionate number of poor people. I think that selection by parental wealth is vile. It would be interesting to find a high performing comprehensive where there is a higher than national average number of children on free school dinners.

Perfectly true ReallyTired, I could take a place that I don't know at all, like Sheffield and use the state school league tables to show me where the best housing areas are-that is the way that it works.

Noblegiraffe thank you for your post 19.50 last night on how sink schools come about and the direct link between social segregation and poor performing schools. The Guardian article you linked to was very interesting.

Outraged and Noquontrol can you answer me a question please just to be clear? What do you think the state should do to help :

1 those involved, interested parents who do not have the financial means to avoid having to send their children to the 'sink' school to struggle alongside these violent drug-dealing delinquents

and

2 the children who either are already or are in danger of becoming these violent drug-dealing delinquents through no greater crime than being born to parents who don't give a shit.

Note I am not expecting ' you ' or ' your children ' to do anything on particular. Just asking you to consider how things nationally could be organised to help these other members our society.

Thanks

"But that there is even a small detriment to the majority makes it very hard to justify grammar schools imo"

From your statistics I'd conclude the opposite - the grades of those at grammar rising by 4 points is a huge difference, so the points gained certainly outweigh those lost. Allowing those with potential for excellence to shine is important IMHO.

Hairy Toe, I honestly don't know. Like I said earlier, I don't have the answers, but the solution to some children's problems is not other children.

I think the state can only do so much to help both the groups you ask about. The government is not in a position to solve everyone's problems, society has to accept responsibility for itself to an extent.

The things that I do think the government needs to do which will help both groups are

1. to allow schools to hand out harsher and stricter punishment for all bad behaviours. If that means more expulsions, then good.

2. Build more PRUs to accommodate those expelled and suspended students.

3. Put strategies in place to counsel students who have been bullied, or who are experiencing a very stressful home life. I think this should be done by a separate organisation to the school, although it would have to work in conjunction with the school.

4. Fine parents whose children persistently misbehave and truant.

5. Continue what labour started with sure start schemes and extra funding for sink schools, but ensure that extra funding is spent on PSHE instead of being allowed to just be consumed within the whole school budget. This funding should not be linked to FSMs.

6. build more secondary schools instead of trying to cram more and more students into existing ones so that parents can have a real choice about where to send their child. I think some comprehensives are just too big to be able to deal with problems as effectively as they could.

Some good ideas there but :

"I think the state can only do so much to help both those groups you ask about. The government is not on a position to solve everyone's problems. Society has to accept responsibility for itself to some extent."

Ok so assuming the state is not going to help, what can those groups do to help themselves? What should parents who have no choice but to send their children to the local 'sink' school do to help their situation? What should disaffected children of feckless parents do to help themselves? (Assuming of course they have any idea of what their problem is of course, having been born into this situation and never having known anything any different, not to mention only being children themselves).

I am trying not to rant and get personal, but there is more than a whiff of "I'm all right jack" about all this.

And no before we go round in circles I'm not asking you or your children to be thrown to the lions. Just to share the 'burden' of these more challenging children/ families out a little? So rather than children from a well-off family enjoying classes free from any challenging pupils whilst their neighbour's children have 10 in their class we could move towards a situation where every child may have to put up with 2 or 3 in their class which is a much more manageable task for the teacher/school.

And as a bonus because in each class there would be less of these mire challenging pupils they would be more likely to be able to be helped put of their situation.

So yes under a new comprehensive system with a broad range of social demographics in each school some children would be slightly worse off than they currently are in their elitist probate school setting. But only slightly. And in contrast a large proportion of society would be better off, in some cases substantially. From a societal point of view that can only be a good thing?

Sorry elitist private school not probate school . Predictive text problems here!

BBQJuly, so you think it's acceptable for 90% of children to have a lower educational outcome simply because 10% are doing better? The overall outcomes are about the same under both systems by the way. I found the article this info came from again - it's here.

For me, state provided education should aspire to being as equitable as possible (and I do appreciate that this is incredibly difficult to achieve) and so a system where the majority do worse is best avoided. Of course if the alternative (selection by faith or catchment) is even less equitable which it arguably is, at least in many places then grammars may be the least bad option.

I accept the idea of personal responsibility by the way. Yes it is up to parents to bring their children up properly. But even assuming the parents you are talking about have the tools to 'change' is it right that nit only their children but also many other families who have committed no 'crime' other than not being able to earn as much money as you are currently being punished?

Not to mention the knock on effect of all those children currently bring let down by the system growing up and possibly becoming the 'poor' parents of the future thus perpetuating the problem for ever more.

Sorry for split posts by the way, I'm having some phone issues. Should probably stop and do some deep breathing now anyway .