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'?

But NobleGiraffe do you really think if we take those 7% who are privately educated and put them into state ed that they will have any impact on the number of children leaving school without basic functional skills?
I don't know how many leave school without these skills but its the quality of education these children receive from their individual schools that is causing this problem not the 7% in private ed.

happy, but the whole point is that a section of society gets to opt out. If that section had to use state schools you can be sure that state schools would improve. WHY should your child be entitled to a better education than someone elses, just because you have money? Why?

If Noblegiraffe we consider another scenario a nurse on a NHS ward fails to notice a patients condition is deteriorating he then dies she doesn't blame her failure on private health care! She might blame it on her training, she might simply lack the experience to recognise the obvious signs that something was wrong or more likely she was so busy and had four other very sick patients to look after and hadn't even looked at this patient let al

happy, what the feck is that totally irrelevant example? I repeat, WHY should your child receive a better education because you have money?

If Noblegiraffe we consider another scenario a nurse on a NHS ward fails to notice a patients condition is deteriorating he then dies she doesn't blame her failure on private health care! She might blame it on her training, she might simply lack the experience to recognise the obvious signs that something was wrong or more likely she was very busy and had four other very sick patients to look after and hadn't even looked at this patient let alone measured and recorded his vital signs. Not one of these reasons has anything to do with Mr A having his gall bladder removed in a Bupa hospital. The fault lies with the government or the individual nurse or her training. So why does this not apply to education?

Also we have a society that seems to accept that the movers and shakers are all drawn from that 7%. Something has to be done about that . Actually it's less that 7% because realistically there are only a handful of schools that count.

But would we improve state schools? How and why would we improve state schools? I send one of my DS's to a state school I haven't improved it

happy, do you live in fairyland or something? If I worked for the NHS I would be extremely insulted by that post. Who do you thinks trains teachers and nurses? It is not fecking BUPA or Eton.

I agree seeker we don't want all the "movers and shakers" to come from independently educated wealthy back grounds any more than I want them all to come from social housing. I would like to see a broad cross section of people in positions of power a true representati

Should also say that Finnish teachers have MAs, and the profession is respected, the jobs sought after.

Government after government has been happy to preside over low-quality entrants to teaching. Please spare me the wonderful-with-children-but-can't -spell arguments; I believe you can have it all; brains and attitude, and it should be demanded as requisite for the job, which might then have some claim to be a profession.

The job has always been seen as last resort. Friends of mine wondered aloud at when I'd go for something better/more suited to my intelligence.

When at school in the early-70s, teacher training was seen as the option for those who couldn't get in to uni.

The "mums' army/real army" solutions to staffing issues by various governments have added to the general air of "anyone can do it", which is most unhelpful.

Here's a comparison; think about the people you were at school with who ended up doing medicine; were they really ultra-bright? Brighter than you? No. Undoubtedly intellectually capable. They had to work their arses off to get into a closed shop, and still do. In Australia, the competition for medical courses is so fierce, students have to be in the highest percentile in empathy tests, as well as academic exams, so they think brains and attitude matter, too.

Raise the entry qualifications, and the money for teachers, and see the difference. But because most politicians educate their children privately, they're not interested in this.

I should say that the majority of teachers I've worked with have been very intelligent, with excellent subject knowledge, but I've met far too many dim bulbs.

I agree seeker we don't want all the "movers and shakers" to come from independently educated wealthy back grounds any more than I want them all to come from social housing. I would like to see a broad cross section of people in positions of power a true representation of our society. I would also like all children to receive a top quality education which enables each child to achieve his true potential in what ever area his abilites lie but even if we reached this happy state of affairs private ed should still be allowed to exist because some and I maybe one of them will always choose to pay and it is important in a civilised society that we accept this.

Ah ECHT I'm sadly speaking from my own personal experience.

Which bit of what I said are you referring to, happy?

Sorry echt was addressing my comment at portofino.
Anyway we are all never going to agree we are all utterly convinced we are right you probably think I'm a stuck up stuck up cow. Good night.

Meant to say selfish stuck up cow! Not got my glasses on.

I agree that it is wholly unfair there is a two tier system in this country and that privately educated people are overrepresented in the best jobs and positions in the UK.
However, having been state educated and having sent ds to a state school I am enraged at the lack of will on the part of politicians and educators to ensure that children in the state system acheive their potential. I hate the fact that I felt we were being left to rot by the tories and I hate the fact that my 'choice' of state secondaries is a specialist sports college with a underwhelming academic record rather than some leafy, lovely comp deep in the heart of the Home Counties. That is the reason why I think the anti-private brigade are wrong. Use your enenrgy to improve the failing schools rather then argue for good (private) schools to be closed down.

Oh, and I don't give a frig what works in Finland. Nor do I live in 'fairyland'

thebestisyettocome the Finnish model is one which would result in excellence, that's why it's worth a look. Also, the current government has expressed interest in the Finland's system, but only the bit about raising the teacher entry level to MA, not about ensuring private schools can't discriminate, nor about starting schooling at 7. Oddly enough.

They are never interested in structural reform except on the most superficial level, e.g. academies, preferring that which locates it in the teaching, as if for years, teachers have known how to get children to be literate, but just couldn't
be arsed.

No-one said you lived in fairyland.

The OECD's recommendations to improve equality of education include:

End selection. (so: get rid of grammars)

Ensure that there are no big socio-economic differences between schools (so, close schools that contain overwhelmingly disadvantaged children - usually known as 'failing schools' and ones that contain overwhelmingly privileged children - usually known as 'excellent schools' and disperse them to ensure an even distribution of social groups throughout every school.)

Oh, that would definitely improve 'equality of education'.

It would destroy any semblance of quality, but if we're looking for mediocrity and institutional failure, that scheme would provide it.

The gap between good state schools and bad state schools is far larger than the gap between good state schools (including grammars) and private schools.

I'm am struggling to see how removing private schools would improve results in those bad state schools. I can see the point that it's is wrong that we have a two tier education system, and I can see how people might believe that the 'motivated to learn' students would water down the effect of thise students who struggle because they are from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But those unmotivated students are still likely to come out of school with poor results because the problem isn't with the quality of teaching,it is with the attitudes that come from home and the fact that so much time has to be spent on behaviour management in those schools that less time can be spent on teaching.

I glad there are as many schools as possible where children can fulfil their potential. Society needs that just as much as it needs disaffected children to be prevented from achieving next to nothing.

It's usually argued that starting school later wouldn't work here because we have more deprivation. If that's true, then it could be rather risky assuming adopting the Finnish system here would yield the same results. It also sounds expensive to implement and would not be generally popular, so very unlikely to happen. Better and more pragmatic to work to improve what we do have in smaller incremental ways imo. Private schools are so expensive now, that far fewer can choose them and many are closing due to the recession and the rest are starting to give more bursaries to widen access and partner with state school too, so in fact, we are moving towards what you want, but in a more market-led, slower and less radical way. Failing state schools are closed and re-opened as academies and get greater funding, some places are adopting ballots and fair banding admission systems so we are arguably moving in the right direction except for the grammar schools which seem to be expanding at the moment. Even faith schools are possibly going to have to restrict their faith admissions soon. There's still plenty more to do and a long way to go, but I would caution against a too radical approach.

And yet it seems to work in countries like Finland. The OECD recommends it. But I'm sure people who simply claim that it wouldn't have any effect know better

I don't think Finland is known for its educational mediocrity either. Some might be surprised to learn that kids can get A*s at state schools too.

Besides, so what if it caused a private school kid to drop a few As at GCSE? The thing with the kids getting those grades is that they will not stop at GCSE, they will go on to A-level and university. Once you've got your degree, no one really gives a fig if you got an A or an A in Geography. For the kids who get a boost at GCSE, it could be the difference between leaving school with nothing and something. Getting a C in English and Maths. Getting the grades to get onto a college course. Being able to do A-levels. That's more valuable than a couple of A*s for the privileged top-end.

outraged the gap between good state schools and private is less than the gap between good and bad state schools because the good state schools are stuffed with kids who aren't that dissimilar to private ones. An even distribution of social groups would involve the good state kids as well as the private ones.

dropping a few grades isn't the main issue - swapping a choice of inspiring curricula for mandated average ones is less appealing, as is legislation on how people can and can't spend their money.