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'?

It's not right that children from families who have done nothing wrong have to endure sink schools, but I think solving that problem is an entirely separate issue from the issue of private schools. The two things are not in any way connected.

The things that parents can do if they find themselves forced to use a sink school when they want better for their children include teaching them at home, encouraging their dc to use the many resources on the Internet to further their learning, use libraries, get involved in the PTA and raise funds for the school, encourage the right values and attitudes in their children, encourage friends from out of school and provide other educational and social opportunities.

There is a bit of 'Im alright Jack' about it, I'll admit that, but I'm not proud of it. However I do my bit for society as a whole in other ways, so I'm not going to feel guilty about doing what I need to to give my children the best education I can. (Should say I don't think it directly affects my situation though as I have one at a GS and one will go to an outstanding comp and I'm more than happy with both. I haven't had to do anything special like move or pay tutors to enable that to happen)

I don't blame individual patents for sending their children to private school. No one should feel guilty for doing the best for their children. Mine are currently at state school, and in my area the schools are ok not brilliant but not downright scary. If they were and I felt that it were better for my children to go elsewhere I could find myself in a position where I was considering private education. And we may at a push be able to afford that. But that doesn't stop me wishing the option wasn't actually available and I and every parent like me were forced to send their children to the allocated school, and get in there and work with the school to improve it.

Why would you wish the option of private school wasn't available? I don't understand that, because I don't see what difference it makes to anyone else if someone down the road decided to send their child private.

I wish that state education was so good and was available to suit every child's needs that there woud be no benefit to going private, but until the state can provide that, I very glad they don't tell me what choices I should be making for my own children.

Because the people with the influence and power to make state education better currently aren't that arsed because they can always send their kids private.

What people do you mean?

There is plenty of great state education, so someone somewhere must have been arsed to make that happen.

Yes it's exactly whats happening here only on a larger scale. It's all very well wringing your hands and saying oh what a terrible situation for those poor people to be in, what can be done??? But if you yourself can use your wealth to ensure you are not directly affected by it there is little motivation for you to help improve the system.

And before you say it's up to the people in the state system to change things that's the point. We create a two tier system where the majority of the people who have the ability ( intellectual, social, cultural) to effect change are outside looking in. And the system you want to change is disproportionately populated by people who are either unable or unwilling to do so. That's not to say there aren't a large proportion of parents in the state system who do care and are capable but their effect is diluted due to other like-minded parents jumping ship.

Actually ships are a good analogy. If on one ship everyone is rowing the same way that's great the ship moves forward. And on another ship there are a few people rowing backwards thats ok because the people who are rowing forwards can overcome that. But on the ship where half the rowers are either rowing backwards or not at all it's much harder for the conscientious rowers to keep the ship going forwards. And if more and more of these good rowers pay to move onto one of the other shipsthe situation is only going to get worse.

And as noblegiraffe says al the strongest rowers with the biggest muscles, best navigational charts and most advanced oars are all on the 'best' ship.

Hope I haven't lost it there. This whole thread is sending me a bit insane.

"BBQJuly, so you think it's acceptable for 90% of children to have a lower educational outcome simply because 10% are doing better?"

I certainly think there should be far more grammar schools, so that there's a far higher percentage of pupils who can benefit from an academically selective school - regardless of money. The benefits of 50% gaining far higher results would be substantial. Why should the brightest half of the population have their education dumbed down, to only very slightly benefit the other half?

I'm liking and totally getting the rowing analogy!

And I do see what you mean, I really do, but I don't think the problem is exactly as you describe. I imagine the first boat with all the rowers to be a bit smaller than all the others, because there are so few of them that go in the red private boat compared to the many in the blue state boats that are also going forward.

Ok, I'm confusing myself now

I don't think that there should be more grammar schools - these days they are simply a way of pushy middle class parents getting a great education for free. We should be concentrating on a great education for all.

We also don't want 50% at university- a complete waste of their money.

Actually we might well, exotic - we are supposed to be a 'knowledge economy' as other countries can do manufacturing cheaper. Although that is the groupthink of the sort of economists, politicians bankers et al that got us all into this mess in the first place. A little more manufacturing and a little less reliance on financial services would be a darn good thing IMO.

Ok so boats! The red private boat is smaller I agree. But then the blue boats aren't equally matched.

Through the system of 'choice' lots of motivated, engaged, pro-active parents in the state system effectively buy their way into the 'good ' state schools by moving house. These are the people you referred to who actively help to improve/maintain their school, the ones who are 'doing something right'. but the problem is they all end up in the same schools.

So back to the boats, the red boat, though small, has the highest proportion of strong, well equipped and knowledgeable rowers. One of the blue boats quickly becomes known as the best boat and the most able state rowers ' buy' their way onto that boat. So the red boat and the 'best' blue boat sail (?) off into the distance. Meanwhile the other blue boat, crewed by rowers who aren't interested, can't row or couldn't afford to pay ( through moving house) to get on the better blue boat, are left drifting towards the rocks.

So the 'answer' is not just in abolishing the private option but re-organising the state system, the two go hand in hand. and thus we end up with the socially engineered, fully comprehensive model outlined by someone ( noblegiraffe? Fayrazzled? I haven't the energy to scroll back that far!) 2 days ago.

So to really hammer the point home, with our three boats what we really need to do is take all the crews off all three boats and distribute them equally between the boats ensuring each boat has equal proportions of great strong rowers with titanium oars and a built in sat nab system, and equal numbers of disinterested, lazy , weak rowers attempting to use an old broom handle. In thus way the captain of each ship might have some hope of moving the ship forward and may even be able to concentrate some time on encouraging/motivating or otherwise enabling the less able rowers to
Improve their effort/technique .

"these days they are simply a way of pushy middle class parents getting a great education for free"

In some cases, maybe. But grammars are also the only way those who can't afford private education can attend an academically selective school for free.

Pushiness will only work on the borderline cases anyway. The 11+ will be accurate for most.

And who says all grammar school students will go to university? There are many advantages of 50% of students getting a better education, which benefit the whole of society, regardless of whether they go to university. More rigorous and academic thinking is a good thing. For one thing there might be fewer employers complaining that school-leavers have poor literacy and numeracy.

"We should be concentrating on a great education for all."

True. But I just don't believe comprehensives are the best way to achieve this - it certainly hasn't happened in the decades so far that the comprehensives have had to prove themselves.

Bring back grammars, and find ways to improve secondary moderns (surely it's not that hard to make it so all pupils go up by just 1 grade?)

BBQ using a test at 11 with a correlation of 0.7 between performance at 11 and at GCSE (such as CAT or Midyas) to select the top 25% of pupils would result in roughly 22% of students being allocated the wrong school for their ability.

see page 21

Even if that's the case it still leaves nearly 80% of students at the right school. And if the top 50% are currently being failed by the comprehensive system (they could be 4 grades higher at a grammar) then reintroducing grammars has to be an improvement. There is also already flexibility so that students showing suitable improvement can move across to the grammar later. Additionally I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of man/woman to prepare a more rigorous and accurate assessment process in this day and age.

What on earth makes you think that 50% of the population could get 4 grades higher at GCSE if only they went to a grammar instead of a comp?

PS CAT and Midyas are the latest and considered pretty accurate assessments. Predicting GCSE results are big business.

The 11+ isn't accurate for most. These days they are tutored so much that everyone has to do it. The bright DC doesn't stand a chance against the tutored bright child. To be accurate it needs a level playing field and that just isn't possible.
I take it that you assume that your DCs would go to the grammar BBQJuly and that you are not expecting them to make do with a secondary modern?
Luckily it will never happen, people with comprehensives will fight tooth and nail not to go back to throwing DCS on the scrap heap to have a sub standard education. Did you not look at my links? Many, many comprehensives are doing a superb job.
Today they are coming out of university to get the sort of job you used to get after O'levels, and many can't even get that. A 2:2 used to be a respectable degree, now you have to get at least a 2:1 - the world has gone mad!

We would get the best education system if it was designed by people who assumed their DC would be disadvantaged. You will never get it when they assume they are top of the heap and are not too bothered about those at the bottom.

HairyToe - I'm not sure distributing the rowers works. It may be that the middle class children don't suffer any negative consequences but I am not sure that their presence in the school provides much positive benefit to the more disadvantaged children. There is evidence that middle class children in inner city schools don't necessarily mix with other social classes etc.

This research is interesting
www.educ.cam.ac.uk/research/projects/downloads/ESRCFinalReportWhitemiddleclasses.pdf
www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/identities/findings/Reay.pdf

I remembered reading about this in the press when it came out.

I think secondary school is almost too late to be seeking to even things out. If children come from disadvantaged backgrounds then intervention is needed earlier and needs to have a broader context than school.

I have chosen private school for my children because it allows me to escape the patchy nature of state provision in London and I know I am fortunate in being able to do this. Some state primaries in London are supurb and produce excellent results sometimes under challenging circumstances - others do not.

The OECD says "Secondary school systems with large social differences between schools tend on average to have worse results in mathematics and reading and a greater spread of reading outcomes. Social background is more of an obstacle to educational success than in systems where there are not large socio-economic differences between schools. "

This OECD report Ten Steps to Equity in Education recommends limiting academic selection and postponing the point of selection, and also ensuring a mix of social backgrounds in each school. It reminds us of the huge social cost to society of people who leave school without basic skills.

Chaz it's not about the 'middle class kids 'having a great effect on the others, it's about reducing the effect on the whole school community of the others. If you have a large number of vocal kids rubbishing the teachers and perpetuating the message that education is pointless and uncool it's very difficult for other kids to fight against this, it's much easier to go along with that idea just to fit in. A more balanced social mix makes it easier for those in the 'middle' to move towards the idea that ambition and learning is a good idea. Yes there will be those at the other end that you may never 'change' but a large swathe of kids somewhere in the middle could go either way with the right encouragement. But while they're 'cowed' by and trying to fit in with the 'lower' element they haven't got any alternative path/example to follow that's unlikely to happen.

It's about changing the culture in the school so that education, achievement and being a good member of society is 'cool'. And the larger the proportion of disadvantaged kids there are in a school, the harder that is to do.

HairyToe I see your point and maybe you're right. One thing that struck me reading that research (which I appreciate was not the full research but a summary) was the sense that the middle class parents wanted the cohort to become more like their children rather than their children become more like the cohort.

I think there does need to be a wider framework of breakfast clubs, homework clubs, mentoring etc because school is only part of the picture. If a teenager comes to school having had a mars bar and a can of coke for breakfast then their concentration is going to wane before long. Its hard to do homework if you are living in overcrowded conditions so you don't have space and quiet to work. If they have never met someone who has been to university then university is something that "other people"do.

"What on earth makes you think that 50% of the population could get 4 grades higher at GCSE if only they went to a grammar instead of a comp?"

noblegiraffe I quote the post from gelatinous

"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."