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'?

I like abbreviation - it always seems friendly!

BBQ Why should Felicity have that chance and not one of the other 4 instead? Why should the other 4 suffer a grade loss because Felicity was chosen? Any one of them would have done better at the grammar (they were all of equal intelligence - all would have achieved straight Bs at a comprehensive school), Felicity was just the one selected by the 11+ lottery either through luck on the day or better preparation for the test or because the test questions themselves were biased towards her socio-economic group.

But even if the 11+ could and did accurately determine the top whatever percentage (which it doesn't) so that Felicity did in fact have a higher IQ (or whatever) albeit only slightly so than the others, then no I think a state provided education should never offer one child more at the expense of others any more than I think we should choose 1 in 5 benefit claimers at random and give them more benefits and the others less or choose 1 in 5 houses and empty their bins more often (emptying the others less often), so that their houses smelt less bad. If there was no detriment to the others then just maybe, but even a small detriment is completely wrong imo.

I agree tosn. The answer is proper comprehensive schools. And more understanding about the comprehensive system among parents St large.

TOSN and Boschy you are almost right. The grammars add far more value to the poor than to the wealthy and as the study is showing averages it is in fact Wayne et all who would have achieved the greatest improvements in their grades had they been chosen for the grammar but they are also far less likely to be chosen in the first place. The grammar would add much less value to Felicity's results, but as all 5 were matched to similar children at a comprehensive who went on to achieve all Bs I'm afraid that's probably about all poor Felicity will achieve at the grammar too.

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.
As someone who pays I don't think the state should top up private fees either. I'm lucky to be in a position to be able to pay for education and as its a free country I have made the decision to channel my money into school fees. I don't believe the state should help me out.

My 'Felicity' at her state comprehensive is predicted a lot better than 4 as and the rest Bs anyway - and we are not unusual.

This is not a 'leafy comp' (?)
This is not a school anyone moves house to get into
This is not somewhere with an especially middle class intake

This is a normal school in a non-11+ area - if you took away set 1 from it and pushed them harder somewhere else, you might get an extra a* out of some of them, and you'd certainly bolster their confidence, and perhaps they'd have a nicer time, even. And then sets 2-5 stay in the same place but with no-one expected to do better than Bs and Cs, their aspirations are obviously going to be different.

I do not think that the parents using private school are necessarily going to come along and make state systems 'better' if you close the private schools. In fact, if the 'I'd trample on your head to get up the cliff face and therefore live my life according to this model' theme is widespread amongst such parents, they'd probably not help much at all.

However, you would remove a divisive and, IMO, odd and outdated situation where children are separated by parental wealth, and in which one lot is rarely exposed to the other, fostering ignorance and prejudice on both sides.

Why does a child at private school think he or she has been sent to private school, perhaps with considerable financial implications for the family, or perhaps not?

Because the schools in the area aren't considered good enough for him/her. What does this mean the child is likely to think about the other children in his/her community who go to those schools? At best that they are unlucky, at worse that they are less deserving (that they could go if only their parents didn't spend all their cash on nail extensions, holidays in Disneyland and cars other than 10 year old beat-up Volvos, perhaps). What are the children who do go to the state schools likely to think about themselves, and the children too good for what they've got?

And yes, you could say this about cars, holidays, houses, horses, out-of-school activities - life's not fair, etc. I would just personally argue that education is more important than any of those things in forming a child's chances and view of the world - which is I suppose the one thing I agree with the parents who openly explain that they've sacrificed those things so the child can go to private school!

Oh here we go that community tosh again!!
My DS is sent to his boarding school because for him it is a million times better than our top performing state school end of story. He mixes with children in our "community" and doesn't think they are "less deserving" than he is. I really don't think that the children he mixes with think they are different from him and they definitely don't think he's more deserving. I also don't deny that there are probably lots of other boys who would equally benefit form his education and my DS knows this but by not sending him doesn't open up spaces for all those others. He's clever and he/we were lucky at various stages in his and our lives we have made decisions that fortunately and in hindsight have turned out to be the right ones and he ended up at this school. Yes education does form a child "chances and view of the world" but is it the most important thing? I don't know the answer to this but I suspect parents are the most important thing.

Well.... I just don't think it is tosh, sorry.

I get that it is 'for him' - it's not as though I'd ever assumed anyone would do that because they thought it best 'for everyone'!

Im sorry as hard as I try I cannot see how where you go to school effects your views on the community. I live in a small rural community I shop in the butcher. baker and candlestick maker I walk my dogs in our park and talk to my neighbours as do my DH and DS's. In the dim distant past I lived in a real community where your neighbours popped in every day and where everyone knew every one else including what they were doing, here the community was so strong that your neighbours carried your coffin and picked flowers from their own garden to put on the top of it. I never went to school in this community but was a huge part of it. Life cannot be pigeon holed it is not just about school or work or anything else for that matter.

Then we shall agree to disagree

TheOrig Why is going to school in your "own community" matter that much to you? I really not being facetious genuinely curious.

I suppose I think if it's good enough for you to live there, it's good enough for you to go to school there, generally.

However, I'd also say, I think, that your own community is a microcosm of how you see the world at large - and I would prefer it if that were less often in terms of 'state school kids' and 'the privately educated'. I suppose I see it as reflective of the way in which you engage with the world/country more broadly. And I'm sure you will see that differently and can argue against it, but you asked why I felt that way, and that's how I think I can best express it.

Thank you TheOrig very interesting. Do you think the world at large does define children by where they were educated? Im assuming thats what your saying. We spend such a short period of our lives at school.
My community is very civilised and I like living here and I like sending DS1 to my local school I like the fact his friends are local he participates in local activities and he walks across the fields to school and sees his teachers in the bakers at the weekends. But I hope how I/he sees the world in general is not influenced my nice crime free community spirited little middle class town with our mediaeval buildings because I think this is a bubble and very far removed from the reality of the rest of the world. To say we are not ethnically diverse is an understatement of the century, we are also not financially diverse no few poor areas apparently we have the highest % of professionals of any town in the UK. We live in a time of globalisation DS2 at his indie mixes with a broader cross section of the population than DS1, DS2's education emphasises more the haves and the haves nots and challenges the boys taking them out of their comfort zone; in my lovely twee town DS1 cleans new cars for charity DS2 will have many more challenging charitable opportunities.

I so agree with you, tosn- you express how I feel so well. Particularly about the mind set that having "tiers" of education instils in people.

I see TOSN, you don't agree with the report and think that grammars don't add value over a comprehensive. Fair enough. It is supported by several other reports and seemed reasonably methodologically sound to me, but you can always find something somewhere else that has the opposite view.

Happy, I teach in a nice middle class not very ethnically diverse school. The kids think they are tougher and more streetwise than they actually are because that's never been challenged and also there is an undercurrent of racism because they don't really know any black people. I'd say their community influences their view of the world, but also you can hear the views of their parents coming through quite strongly.

Gelatinous I don't agree (and don't think I said!) they can't add value - and I agree, they'd especially add value to those who are probably not going to go them!

TOSN, some people don't have a huge amount of choice over where they live! So, I'm not sure how your "if it is good enough to live there, then it is good enough to go to school there" argument works from that perspective.

I don't really have a particular sense of community either. I work full-time some distance from where I live. I spend weekends taking DCs to stuff, visiting elderly parents or catching up with friends - all away from my home location. I don't go to church & I pick DCs up from after school clubs. I don't feel connected to a community in any sense & can't believe I'm the only person like that.

Thanks seeker - and no, bugsy - but then I'm really talking about the children more than their parents.

I would also suggest that the people who have the least choice over where they live are probably not the people who have the option of private school, as well.

I don't mean community in the sense of mowing old ladies lawns for them or having a beetle drive (though these would be nice things to do!), but rather being in the same learning environment as the other children where you live.

Have you seen the movie Hot Fuzz "the greater good" etc well thats where I live!!
"Noblegiraffe" (love the name) of course children's views on racism reflect their parents as well as their community. I'm lucky I work with including my colleagues a very ethnically diverse population and having lived in london for much of my adult life am very used to living in ethnically diverse communities but I worry that DS1 has limited contact with those who are not white and middle class its also alarming how quickly you can become shall we say accustomed to just seeing white people. The problem is nothing would get me back to SE London we all like it here I don't care how much "better" its meant to be.

I saw your first line on 'Threads I'm On' and thought you were accusing me of wanting to slay people who despoil the community I had my retort all ready and everything....

Do state schools really need more funding? Genuinely interested, because IME they don't lack for it.
My old school just built a whole new theatre type place (on top of having a huge new building) and they wasted resources (i.e. paper) like there was no tomorrow all the while. The system needs a drastic overhaul, not money chucked at it.

"but rather being in the same learning environment as the other children where you live."
Ok now you probably think Im being thick or just plain difficult (me?) but why is this so important? Surely community is about beetle drives (yes we have those) mowing old ladies lawns (we can tick that box too) etc. and "the greater good!"

For me the key point is the message it sends to a child if you tell him- even if the message is tacit- that in some way the schools the majority go to are not good enough for him. To me this isn't just about "community" as in the actual physical community where you live - it's about a view of one's fellow human beings.

You have no idea "despoil the local community" my town is a living breathing MP letter writing of personification NIMBYism!! If I told you any more i would completely out myself but we've been in the national press for our own version of NIMBYism! We really are that market town in Hot Fuzz!