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'?

Oh I completely agree that school is only part of the picture when considering social equality.

As for your point about " middle class " parents wanting the cohort to become more like their children rather than their children becoming more like the cohort". I do understand, and that theme has come out several times here. The idea of a class full of feral under achievers with just a couple of well-meaning middle class priviledged children trying to 'influence' the majority. In reality the 'cohort' would be a jumble of different abilities, backgrounds etc, the very challenging pupils would be in the minority. Then at least the school has some chance of influencing the rest of the class to 'act up' rather than 'dumb down' .

I think the elephant in the room is clearly that some upper middle class parents would rather their children did not have cone into contact with ANY 'rough' kids under any circumstances and would put that at a priority over and above the children of less well off parents being over-whelmed by them. The idea being I'd rather things are perfect for me and shit for you rather than pretty good for both of us.

The idea being I'd rather things are perfect for me and shit for you rather than pretty good for both of us.
Is this completely incomprehensible to you HairyToe? Don't most parents ultimately when the push comes to the shove want the "best" for their own children putting their own children above others?

And while we're on the subject I also hate the attitude " you go ahead and make the state system better and if you're really good and do well then maybe, just maybe, we'll come back". Thanks.

By the way I don't mean to sound arsey and I'm not directing these comments at you in particular Chaz.

I'm middle class but do not want to be endlessly involved in making state provision better. I don't want to fund raise, be a governor or anything else I just want to send my DS to school and for him to receive a high standard of education.

Happygardening yes! I want good things for my children obviously but not totally at the expense of others! Is that hard for you to understand? I like to think if we were all climbing a mountain together I'd be racking down to help others on their way or at least not stamping on their heads to get higher myself !

Sorry for over use of exclamation marks it helps to stop me swearing.

And before you all scoff I'm not talking about sacrificing my kids to the wolves. We're still climbing the mountain at a reasonable pace and ultimately should be able to get as high as we'd want to. The difference being my fellow climbers ate also maybe half way up the mountain too rather than stuck at the bottom.

Asserting "I'd be reaching down" not " I'd be racking down"

Happygardening well for your sake then I hope you and yours are always in a position to make that happen and never find yourself in a less privileged situation.

HairyToe I agree with your mountain climbing analogy but when the chips are most parents are going to put their owns child's welfare first.
I'm not trying to start a fight here but I pay for education what difference does it actually make to your children?

But happygardening isn't doing anything that is 'at the expense' of anyone else. What anyone else does is their own business.

There is nothing wrong with just wanting to send your child to school and have them receive a good education without having to be a governor, be on the PTA etc.

If these are the kind of selfish anti-society lessons you learn at private school then I'm glad my kids don't go.

And thinking the problems in society are nothing to do with you and not your problem is so short sighted it's unbelievable. If a large proportion of the population of the country where you live are disillusioned and unable to earn a living for themselves it will undoubtedly affect you and your kids the future. from rising crime levels and anti-social behaviour to a massive financial burden on the welfare state, ultimately paid for by increased taxes.

Dont you think that most parents just want to be able to send their children to school and for them to receive a first class ed? Who wants be a governor/fund raiser etc? Who's got the time or most importantly the expertise? Ok you want to be kept informed about whats going on and even consulted but do you want to be that involved? We are not expected to be that involved on other areas. Your GP/local hospital doesn't expect this level of involvement yet you expect to walk into hospital and be treated appropriately why is education different?

the study referred to in my post BBQ compared outcomes in selective areas with those in similar comprehensive areas. It looked at selective areas with between 10% and ~30% selection. You simply can't extrapolate the results to guess what might happen if you changed to a 50% selection. And your claim that it's 'easy' to improve grades by one per is ridiculous (if it was we'd have done it, and the comprehensives you were comparing with would also have done it so the differential would still exist).

What the study shows is that a grammar system allows Felicity to gain 4 A grades with the rest of her B grades GCSEs when the similarly abled (straight B grade), Kaylee, Wayne, Connor and Cindy will slip one of their B grades to a C at the school down the road. An unjust system even before you factor in the socio-economic bias in the selection process as well.

Thank you noble and Chaz for your links - all very interesting.

HairyToe are you that naive that you think that if I send my DS to our nice high performing middle class comp them it will have an impact on "rising crime levels and anti-social behaviour to a massive financial burden on the welfare state,"
I think not.

I'm not asking you to be a governor or fund raise?

You don't have to actively do anything more than you are undoubtedly already doing to help raise standards in a school. You send your child to a school, support their education, instil values, ambition, the desire to learn and if enough parents are ( to differing extents) doing that the culture of the school will reflect those values. The difficulty comes when a large proportion of a school's intake is not receiving that message or any kind of support.

The fact that some parents will want to extend this by becoming a governor or PTA member is beside the point. No-one is saying everyone has to do that!

No I don't think you sending your kids to the local comp will in isolation make all the difference obviously. but this whole thread isn't about you it's about what the state could do to improve equality in society.

"I'm middle class but do not want to be endlessly involved in making state provision better. I don't want to fund raise, be a governor or anything else I just want to send my DS to school and for him to receive a high standard of education." to quote happy gardening

well - I'm middle class; I'm a secondary school governor; I fund raise for school - isnt that what people are kind of meant to do if they care?

btw, we are in a grammar area; our (officially Good) school's intake is changing to a much more 'naice' one mostly because we have an absolutely shit-hot head, SMT and teachers and the word has got out. actually, not that much has changed - our CVA regularly outstrips the local single sex grammar and we out-perform the boys grammar but the perception has changed, that's all.

I don't want to start a fight either by the way, I think I'm just getting a bit het up now and have probably posted more than enough for now. No personal offence meant in any of my posts.

well - I'm middle class; I'm a secondary school governor; I fund raise for school - isnt that what people are kind of meant to do if they care?
Frankly no. As I've just said the NHS doesn't except you to do this on this kind of scale I'm assuming you do or would care about the standards in the NHS. May I also suggest that you trust doctors nurses physio etc to do an excellent job and get it right 99% of the time. Governments interfere lay down very strictly adhered to guidelines as do the various professional bodies write in the vast majority of cases excellent protocols/guidelines etc. Why in Gods name do schools expect parent to become so involved??

Very late to this thread - but just to say I would be thrilled by some kind of state subsidy. DS is autistic spectrum - he is intelligent, so not behind scholastically but can't cope in a class of 30 and a year group of 200 odd. There is no state help for him. Believe me I have tried & tried & tried. I've been fighting for him since he was 5 and he is 12 now. So, I am financially cruicifying myself to send him to a school that specialises in dealing with boys with his issues. I would be delighted if the state would help in some way or another!

that's the thing though - I DO trust the school to do an excellent job and get it right 99% of the time! and I like to think that playing a part in that is important.

Given that there is no way we could ever afford private school fees (and I wouldnt want to, and our nearest is a 50 minute drive away, and boarding is not what we want) why would I not get involved and be supportive in any way I could, to a level which the school finds helpful?

boschy do you sit on your pt/gp committee or even better on your local NHS board they're crying out for Jo Public to play a part?

"What the study shows is that a grammar system allows Felicity to gain 4 A grades with the rest of her B grades GCSEs when the similarly abled (straight B grade), Kaylee, Wayne, Connor and Cindy will slip one of their B grades to a C at the school down the road. An unjust system even before you factor in the socio-economic bias in the selection process as well."

But it's unjust to deny Felicity the chance to make the best of her abilities, isn't it?

You think Felicity shouldn't have this chance because someone else will drop a level. But I think she should have the chance, and would prefer the brightest to be better educated than for the middling grades to be held up slightly by holding the brightest back. To me there is more "value added" when applied to an education which is already at a high level but could reach excellence.

We need the state system to bring forward students at the highest levels. Otherwise the country will basically continue to be run by the old boy (girl) network from the top independent schools. Why shouldn't there be an opportunity for this level of excellence, which realistically most comps don't provide?

Yes there will be some students on the "borderline" at the 11+ which is why the system needs flexibility. But the vast majority will end up in the correct school - and currently this doesn't happen, because too often, comprehensives aren't the best for the brightest.

happy no I dont (I already do the school stuff and volunteer in our local hospice... and work for money. hours in the day and all that!)

but back to the OP: no I dont think the state should top up private school fees in the same way that I dont think the state shouldnt top up other choices that individuals make in the belief that because it is best for them and theirs that that's what matters.

I think most comprehensives are quite capable of getting Felicity her 4 As and clutch of Bs, you know! The point about slipping is it's more likely to happen in a school where the brightest have been creamed off.

TOSN (sorry for abbreviation!) I agree.