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'?

Gelatinous, mandated average curricula? What did you have in mind that a state school can't offer?

I think lots of people think that the National Curriculum is somehow all that is allowed to be taught in state schools.

Exactly noble. So doesn't that prove that the problem isn't with the private schools, it's with the failing state schools.

outraged I don't understand why you don't get it. The failing state schools are usually chock full of disadvantaged students. To get rid of failing schools, part of the solution would be to ensure that no school was stuffed with disadvantaged students while the good schools have none or few. So, even up the social spread within the school system as a whole.

My school is a good state school. Outstanding in fact. But if you took all its kids out and replaced them with kids from a failing school, despite being outstanding it would also slide down the league tables and become a school that parents would think twice about.

If removing private school sand distributing the students to other schools would improve results from schools overall, would it really make a difference to individuals?

Im not sure it would. I think some failing schools would be able to claim that they had improved, but it wouldn't be down to anything they had done, it woudo be down to the parents at home making sure their children achieve wherever they go. Those children that were likely to achieve anywhere may even get worse results than they could have done in a better environment, so that's no good for them, but the school would be able to claim it as a success because it was a result better than what they started with.

Those children who were unlikely to achieve may have their E grade upped to a D, and again the school would be able to claim success. But would it be worth it for the individuals rather than the league tables? I don't think it would.

To get rid of failing schools you need to get rid of disadvantaged children, not ones who are achieving.

"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."
Couldn't agree more thebestisyettocome so all of you pro community/society, state ed are you governors of your local failing schools, do you lobby your local counsellor, MP Michael Gove David Cameron the local bishop write to the press for improvement in all schools not just the ones you DC's attend? I hope the time you spend posting on here is equally spent writing letters/campaigning to raise awareness that many children are leaving schools without basic skills and the urgent need to find a permanent solution.
Seeker you state that you're going to ensure that you DC is in that "38 %" topping up with extra help after school if necessary but what about the 62% whose parents are for what ever reason are unable do this? Are you going to actively and consistently help these children if not then surely your being as "selfish" as many of you think I am paying for education.

I think you are proving my point when you talk about replacing the children at your outstanding school with disadvantaged children. It's not about the school, it's about the children. I would guess that one of the major factors in your school being an outstanding one is because you have engaged parents. As I do at the outstanding Primary school that I work in.

If all parents were to engage with their children's education, there wouldn't be a problem and the outstanding state schools prove that by being able to achieve while still having a state intake. If you improve the intake, you improve the school. So we should focus on the cause of the problem, which isn't private schools, it's parents who allow their children to misbehave and have no respect for education.

"Seeker you state that you're going to ensure that you DC is in that "38 %" topping up with extra help after school if necessary but what about the 62% whose parents are for what ever reason are unable do this? Are you going to actively and consistently help these children if not then surely your being as "selfish" as many of you think I am paying for education."

Well, I certainly intend to be a school governor as soon as I possibly can be, yes.

The other point to remember is that top GCSE grades are not for everyone. I agree that more kids could and should get them, but for many children other paths and qualifications are the appropriate ones. And in ds's prospective school, bearing in mind that it is high school, there probably isn't a huge amount of scope to improve the top GCSEs. I will be interested to find out more about what's available for the other 62%. Oh, and no, I don't expect to have to "top up" after school. I do expect to have to keep him on track, though!

Okaaay. So, happy, the only way an anti-private school advocate can justify their views is to be a an activist in helping the less fortunate. This is a forum for views, so back off, why don't you?

"Well, I certainly intend to be a school governor as soon as I possibly can be, yes."
Having done a brief spell as a governor you're going to have to do more than that if you want to help the other 62%. Perhaps you could organise after school homework clubs, extra curricular, activities fund raise and don't forget and possibly most importantly spend as much time lobbying the relevant people as you do on here. I'm sure amongst the the 38% of parents you will find loads of equally community minded types keen to join you. You know what they say "never underestimate the power of a minority!"

Whoo- did you actually read my post, happy gardener?

While there are undoubtedly many things that can be learned from the Finnish school system, the later starting age for FT school is not one of them. Finnish is a much easier language to learn to read and write than English - English-speaking DCs need extra school time versus DCs with MTs like Finnish, Italian or Spanish.

Hello whats this?
"This is a forum for views, so back off, why don't you?"
echt I am expressing my views so why do I have to back off? Earlier up this thread I was accused of not caring about other children/the community/or society on general so all I'm doing is challenging the community minded who post on here to convince me that they are doing what they accuse me of not doing!

What makes you think there isn't a huge amount of scope to improve the top GCSE grades at a high school Seeker?

I thought you believed that the 11+ was often inaccurate, and if it is, surely there is lots of scope for improvement in the top GCSE grades.

If there really isn't much scope for improvement in the top GCSE grades, then that would back the idea that selection is a good thing to give each child the right education for them.

Yes seeker I read it you said you are going to be a governor.
You are going to keep your DS "on track" that is what i meant when I said extra help after school but I'm talking about those who don't for whatever reason cant "keep there children on track" are you actively going to help them as well?

I think this is a tad unfair! 'You claim to do one thing out of a sense that it's right and fair so why don't you do everything!'

'If you are nice to your own dog then why aren't you rescuing dogs out of ponds, hmm hmmm hmmmmmm? If you claim to be such an animal lover??'

If 23% of the kids are creamed off to the grammar school, I don't know the actual figures, but it seems to me that if 30-40% of the remaining 77% get good GCSEs that sounds about right, no? Or am I wrong?

Thank you The OriginalSteamingNit. You've said what I thought I'd said to happy, who chose to respond to my post partially.

Harirytoe "Goosey Loosey out of interest what do you think the State could do to help those children in your comp with acute behavioural problems? Or the children left behind who are suffering from their actions?"

The state appeared able to do nothing. They spent years exhausting a variety of avenues and it made no difference at all. Perhaps the child in question was not suited to mainstream education. I could not make a decision in relation to that child, so I made one in relation to my own.

In relation to dd, she sits around the average, maybe a little below. She has problems focusing on instructions but does not seek help. I looked at her books at parents evening and she completed on average around 20% of each worksheet and drew unhappy faces over all of her work. I was told as she was performing adequately, there was no chance of any additional support for her. Again, I appreciate that the state sector has to allocate limited budgets to where there is the greatest perceived need and that that is unlikely to ever be the quiet, well behaved, average child. However, when that child is my child and I have additional resources, I can and will ensure that she is no longer left to struggle in every lesson.

I have no idea Seeker, I've never looked at those types of figures because I don't do figures (dyscalculia) but I don't really see that that's the point.

The point is either that there is a large amount of scope to improve the results at high schools or there isn't.

If 30-40% of children at a high school get good GCSEs, then it would seem that that school was meeting the needs of its students. Especially as they are down 23ish% on the brightest students. Although we would need to define 'good' GCSEs.

Why is it that 2 countries mentioned here (Belgium - 14th and Finland - 3rd) as having no private schools, rank so much higher than the UK - 28th - in the OECD Education rankings?

There seems to be this belief that importing the Finnish education system wholesale would somehow magically improve our schooling. I'm afraid that it wouldn't. Have you ever been to Finland? It's a very different culture and a very different country. The population is small and mostly ethnically homogenous. There aren't schools where half the pupils don't speak the native language as there are in the UK.

The idea that we could simply drop this system in to the UK and our education system would radically improve is nonsense.

"The point is either that there is a large amount of scope to improve the results at high schools or there isn't. "

No- I think the point is thai it is insane to judge a school by GCSE results alone.

I don't really think that private schools are the cause of the problem. Of the 7% that go to private school not all of them will be high achievers schools like the John Lyon and Shiplake are not aimed at the 16A* at GCSE brigade. So you are losing may be 4-5% of high achievers ( I know that the effect is skewed in London where a higher proportion go private in some boroughs).

The problems are much wider such as:
Social segregation by postcode -
broadly poorer people and richer people do not live next door to each other.
How do you solve this? You can't really expect people to haul their primary school kids across a city to share out the advantaged and disadvantaged pupils. Do you acquire more social housing in the well off areas? In London, a lot of social housing is "street properties" i.e. flats and houses bought in residential streets rather than purpose built.

Aspirations / Educational Experience of the parents
I value education because I have benefitted from it. I have a degree and professional qualifications and consequently a good job. If your experience of school was struggle and humiliation then you may not see it as having a positive role in your life.

Teaching is not valued as a profession
I was horrified at the maths tests for trainee teachers, they were simple enough for a good primary child to be able to do them and yet some trainee teachers were failing.
I think this is an interesting suggestion
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/9236477/Teachers-should-be-given-a-Royal-College-education.html
I work in a profession which is well regarded has a powerful professional body and reasonably high entry standards. I think teachers need the same.

Academic Qualifications are seen as the be all and end all
I think all children should be taught to a good basic academic standard (e.g. 5 gcses inc English & Maths). However, for some children that should be coupled with proper high quality vocational training. My brother understands electronics in a practical way that I cannot despite my higher academic qualifications. He can look at a circuit board and understand how it works as a system and how changes will modify the output - I have to look it up in a book. Luckily he has job which suits his skills but it took him quite a few years to find it.