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'?

flatpackhamster ethnic mix and second language would not stop a government from saying private schools could not stop anyone from going there, as they do in Finland. You could do this overnight.
How is this problem? Do you imagine there are no SN children in Finland, or any with less motivated parents?

"Why do you keep thinking that it's all about you, Happy?"
Having been accused of only thinking about myself I am keen to learn in what way others on this thread think about other children. IME actions speak louder than words particularly practical actions so I want to know what practical steps you are taking to help them!

I've never made any grandiose claims that I go around helping others.
With regard to Finnish education surely we are comparing apples with oranges. Finland has a population of 5.2 million the UK 63 million and according to the CIA world factbook 0% live below the poverty line where as in the UK 14% live below the poverty line. As far as I'm aware poverty is the biggest factor when looking at educational outcomes.

Outraged "To get rid of failing schools you need to get rid of failing children" how? By a cull?

Seeker, I completely agree that it's ridiculous to judge a school by GCSE results alone, I was merely responding to your point about there not being much scope to improve GCSE grades at a high school, because if that's true,I think it woudo support selection.

I'd still appreciate someone explaining how abolishing private schools would help individual children rather than just the league tables of failing schools.

"IME actions speak louder than words particularly practical actions so I want to know what practical steps you are taking to help them!
I've never made any grandiose claims that I go around helping others.
With regard to Finnish education surely we are comparing apples with oranges. Finland has a population of 5.2 million the UK 63 million and according to the CIA world factbook 0% live below the poverty line where as in the UK 14% live below the poverty line. As far as I'm aware poverty is the biggest factor when looking at educational outcomes."

Pay higher fees, rather than ask the state to pay for you. They can spend it on the needy instead. Higher fees is not the same as starving yourself because there are starving people, it's just being less greedy, and it may make a difference to someone who is genuinely starving.

I think people have tried a few times to explain why they think it would, though.

I must say though that overall this has been one of the best-tempered state/private threads I've been on. I'm cheered by this, despite disagreeing as much as ever with those opinions I always disagree with!

HairyToe, I don't know how you get rid of failing children, but I know you don't do it by limiting the choices of achieving children. I explained what I think should be done to help disadvantaged children a few pages back.

It has to be done by improving parenting where there are large numbers of failing children, not be preventing achieving children from achieving as much as they currently do.

It is completely unfair, and completely useless, to limit choices to some parents to make up for the failings of other parents.

Also in Finland only 3% of the population don't speak Finnish as their first language not that I'm completely convinced tis is that significant. But they do spend a higher % of their GDP on education but also pay significantly more tax than we do; theres a link there!

Well I'm a governor at a school with many many problems (poverty, racial tensions, poor rates of literacy, behaviour) and let me be honest, importing a handful of pupils from the local private school aint gonna fix 'em.

I think it's patronising to think it would improve much at all.

TOSN, I have seen the explanations on how abolishing private schools would improve results in failing schools, and I can well believe that would happen. But I don't think we would end up with a higher number of individual children getting As or A*.

The effect would be on league tables, not individuals. And where there would be an improvement on a few individuals, it would be minimal. It would be E grades improving to D grades, it wouldn't be enough to make huge difference to outcomes after leaving school.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos no is going to explain:
"how abolishing private schools would help individual children rather than just the league tables of failing schools."
becaue they cant. But if you keep asking awkward questions they will ask you like me to stop posting on this thread because apparently "this is a forum for views!"

No, no-one thinks that children from private school are so amazing that they'll sort out their less fortunate counterparts!

It might do some good for those children, though, to know that whatever else, they are having the same education under the same roof as children more materially fortunate than them - that anyone who can afford to pay gets the hell out and wouldn't put up with what they've got. It might be better for all those children growing up to be aware of one another, beyond the awareness that That Lot go to the school down the road where I would be bullied, and That Lot go to the clever school down the road that won't let me in. I think that would be a good thing overall and for society, of which communities are just a constituent part.

I know many disagree, but I think it's as Disraeli put it:

?Two nations; between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other?s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws.? ?You speak of ? ?said Egremont, hesitantly. ? THE RICH AND THE POOR.

I disagree that it would do private school children good to know that they were having the same education under the same roof as other children whose parents have less materially.

Why would it do them good?

You speak as if they can't possibly have an awareness that they are fortunate unless all children are educated in the same building, and that's just not the case. Private school children mix with state school children all the time through their neighbours, their parents friends, guides, scouts, whatever other activities they do etc. They can learn empathy and an understanding of others without having to be surrounded by it all day every day.

I've never been to Africa, I can still understand what goes on there.

There will be no benefit whatsoever for private school children to be moved into comps, especially as their parents would be likely to still have the means to move them to good comps. And if that couldn't happen because allocation was done on a lottery, the effect on failing students would be minimal, while a whole host of other problems would be created.

So you can't see how it would be good, because it wouldn't necessarily immediately good for private school children?

Also I think the analogy of the less well off with 'Africa' is both inapt and telling!

Chaz it's not the high achievers that the state school system needs. It's the knock-on influence of children from motivated, interested families who care about their kids education. By definition you would assume that anyone currently paying a lot of money for their child to be educated would fit that category.

Goosey thanks for responding to my question. I just want to reiterate I am not asking you to justify your decision. It's not personal, I'm not attacking anyone sending their child to private school for any reasons. I'm just asking is it fair that the mother down the road in the same position as you with the same sad underperforming child currently being let down by the state system hasn't got any other options.

And no that's not a reason for you not to do what's best for your child. And no its not your fault. But it is the State's responsibility to do something. And that is what we are debating.

I think the national education system would be fairer and of a much better quality ( obviously in conjunction with other social initiatives, adequate targeted funding, better quality teaching) if parental ' choice' were abolished.

However that doesn't mean that given the current system, given different circumstances, I wouldn't consider privately educating my children. I would , clearly, if I felt it was necessary. And before you all call me a hypocrite as I've said before I don't blame anyone else from using that option. I do , however, wish it wasn't there as then I strongly believe the likelihood of anyone needing to consider it would be reduced. As the statutory state provision would be suitable.

Not sure I've made myself clear even now but I'm trying to get away from the idea that those of us who are against private education are attacking those who are using it. Certainly for me that is not the case.

Ok TOSN you think that by sending my DS to a our local comp will make other children and society and the lets not forget the "community" feel better about themselves/itself. I notice that you do not claim that education/results itself will improve and I doubt there is any hard data to prove this either. But what about my DS what if he's not happy in this utopian dream? Can you honestly say as a mother that you would make your DC unhappy for this big happy society?

ISTM that all those arguing in favour of the abolition of private schools are far more interested in the system than in the children. So long as 'the system overall' is better, that seems to be what matters. Treating people as things to improve the system is not the answer. If people don't want to buy in to the system, you should be reforming the system, not forcing the people in to it.

theoriginal would you also ban home education?

Woul dit do those children good to be forced into their local schools?

Same question to you hairytoe

Would you ban HE? Those home edders are some of the most dedicated motivated parents I've ever met.

Shall we force them to their local schools?

What if my children aren't happy now? They are, but they might not be! I could apply the logic of 'best for him' which determines use of private school, I suppose, and say that I think it'll be best for them and almost everyone else if there is more social cohesion in schools, and sod those who aren't so happy with it!

However. In answer to the first question, of course it is a touch difficult to offer hard facts, but I think it pretty obvious that if the higher results are included in teh overall results, the overall results will be higher. As you say, no hard data as of course it's never happened.

I don't know - I imagine a world in which Gideon and Dave and MAude have rubbed shoulders with people to whom 'kitchen suppers' mean nothing, and having experienced the education which the vast majority of the country have experienced, and I think it would be better.

TOSN, no.

I can't see that it will be good for private school children and I put a lot of weight on that because they are children too and they have as much right to be considered as anyone else. If there will be an effect on them, then that is a valid and important concern, they shouldn't be dismissed just because their parents have more money than other and some people don't like that.

I also think that the effect on the disadvantaged children would be so minimal that it would be pointless, at the same time as it depriving our society of highly educated individuals.

What do you think is telling about my Africa analogy? I'm only trying to make the point that people don't need to be surrounded by something every day to understand it and be respectful towards it.

But the point is not about individual children and parents making a difference. I believe that state education is not given the full focus and investment that it needs because the people with the money, power and influence get the choice to opt out of it.

If ALL children had to go to their local state school, you can be sure that someone would be doing something to make sure that school was as good as it could be. Noone is claiming we can just introduce say, the finnish system overnight, but there are lots of learning points from other countries that could be incorporated.

HE I think is another discussion altogether - I don't know anyone close who does it, and the one case I do know of is very bizarre and probably very idiosyncratic, and I'm wary of broadening that into a debate. I have reservations about it as a thing, but they are not quite so political. So I'll reserve judgment on that, I think.

Careful flatpackhamster you also could be asked to "back off" this thread because remember this is a "this is a forum for views!"
The right to express contradictory views is not part of this community orientated society that many are so keen to create!

Yes I'm not sure many of us in the West can claim to 'know what it's like in Africa'. Reading about it in the news, wringing our hands and bunging a few quid their way on Sport Relief night really doesn't give us much of an insight tbh.

But I'm going off tangent