to ask would you send your eldest Dc to a grammar school?

[var12]

Hypothetical question... if there were grammar schools in your area and your DC1 was offered a place, would you accept it?

Ah but they still cost the tax payer something, its not totally exempt. Also, taxation isn't a pay in get out system, you don't get a plus tick in book for not sending your kids to private school.

But the saved costs of educating the kids in the state sector is something that has to be taken into account when discussing the financial status of private schools.

If you remove charitable status from my DC's school and the fees increase by 10 or 20% to pay for the tax the school pays, then I would have to remove my kids and sent them to state schools. Many other parents would have to do the same. Before introducing such a policy it would be sensible to check whether it would be cost effective.

Doubt it Var.

So you don't think the UK government borrowing when interest on bonds is low is a good idea? When its for investment in things that increase the long term capacity of the economy.? Well there are far more eminent economists than me that would disagree with you.

I would, yes.

If a grammar school come up locally which could compete with our existing private school in terms of academic education, sport provisions, and pastoral care then we'd certainly be applying for both DCs and hope to save ourselves £21k a year.

However, I suspect that's not really the point.

But your children will have a place in the state system it's provided for them so the money has largely already been spent

Of course private schools should pay tax and it's for the schools to work with the parents on deciding what increase in payments can be afforded

its that your reasoning is flawed, as previously pointed out, repeatedly grammar schools favour the already privileged, proved with data

How on earth can you try and use any data on this as the situation stands now, ie in limbo?

You do realise Small that primary schools have knocked down the ladder for their pupils and discriminate against them? A few PS seem to help in small ways but no where near enough as they should be doing.

Implement a proper structured program in schools, cover the curriculum required to pass the test, give exam technique classes, identify potential students and discuss with parents and all the rest of it, that private preps would do, then come back and discuss stats.

At the moment you couldn't possibly cling on to any as proof of anything. But thats pretty obvious.

"But the saved costs of educating the kids in the state sector is something that has to be taken into account when discussing the financial status of private schools."

True, but when you consider that the cost of educating a child in the state sector is about £4,500 a year. The fact that the average school fee is about £14,000 means that effectively you get £2,800 discount as VAT is removed, then private schools don't pay business rates ( which the giv is now going to charge schools) and other taxes, so in effect the saving isn't that much.

yes... but I'd dispute your analysis of the investment potential..

I'm not going to do this.

"How on earth can you try and use any data on this as the situation stands now, ie in limbo?"

Because the argument is constantly that grammar schools are good because they improve social mobility and the data proves that, you can use data to look at the current situation and use it to discuss the effectiveness of extending the program, you can also look how it worked in the past when grammar schools are far more common.

To ignore it and say "oh this will be totally different" would be completely wrong. I don't understand how you can suggest otherwise.

Its quite clear that currently primary schools do the bare minimum to help their potential 11+ pupils do anything to pass the test.

Therefore you cannot look at data right now and say " look FSM dc are not getting in.

Its very clear they are not getting in because their school, is not helping them.

I don't understand how you can suggest otherwise

Because I have read the Sutton Trust Report on this, clearly you have not .

It lays out very clearly what PS need to do to help bridge the gap as well as more out reach from Grammars.

State primary schools are specifically forbidden to provide coaching for 11+ exams, although many do.Technically, their exams could be declared null if they were found to be offering coaching.

So it is wrong to blame the primary schools.

As Bertrand says Primary schools are currently forbidden to do this.

Oh and I have read the Sutton Trust reports, your understanding of the topic is limited as demonstrated by your lack of knowledge of the above.,

You can clearly look and say FSM aren't getting in, and the historic research shows that grammar schools have always been in the favour of the middle classes, and not of ability.

"You can clearly look and say FSM aren't getting in, and the historic research shows that grammar schools have always been in the favour of the middle classes, and not of ability"

How is innate ability measured and separated from socio economic background? Genuinely interested.

We have a grammar and a secondary modern about a mile apart. One has 37% FSM. The other has 0%. Guess which is which.

Just one source:

www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2015/07/Less-able,-better-off-kids-more-likely-to-become-high-earners-than-bright-poor-kids.aspx

the argument being used to justify the creation of more grammar schools is that they improve social mobility

No its only one of the arguments used. As has already been argued, not all comprehensives stretch bright academic children. Also there is already wealth selection so grammars are fairer. A majority of parents also want the choice. It would be better for the whole country if we pushed our brightest further. Also we already have selection in other areas of ability. And its cheap way to make changes...

So far all the neigh-sayers are coming up with is, lets give comprehensives loads more money we don't have.

Well its one of the arguments used but the main one, and the one that the government are using.

SOME people are saying that the brightest aren't being pushed and the evidence suggest that the majority of non selective schools do achieve top grades with the children with potential.

Grammars aren't fairer on wealth selection that has been proved over and over.

Grammar schools are not supported by the majority at all.

Who are you calling a horse, mathmum?

Also, the evidence shows that the majority of comprehensives do cater for the most able, the ones that were shown not to in the 2013 study also happened to be in the areas of highest deprivation.

Oh and "money we don't have" austerity is a choice, not a necessity, don't be fooled by that.

smallfox2002, I have head politicians use all those arguments to justify grammars, except it being a cheap option. Also we are not saying the brightest kids at comps don't get the best grades, I am saying they are not all being challenged or stretched, can you not understand the difference?

"money we don't have, is a choice"? - isn't that an oxymoron? I don't have enough money to buy a private education because I choose to... leave it hanging on the magic money tree, or because I dont have enough? wtf!

multivac

I have heard

True, but when you consider that the cost of educating a child in the state sector is about £4,500 a year. The fact that the average school fee is about £14,000 means that effectively you get £2,800 discount as VAT is removed, then private schools don't pay business rates ( which the giv is now going to charge schools) and other taxes, so in effect the saving isn't that much.

Your logic is flawed. If you increase the fees from 15k to 17k (to pay 3k of tax) and I stay in the private school then the state would gain 3k.

But if you increase the fees from 15k to 17k and I leave the private school (which I and many other parents would) then the state is down by 5k, for educating each of my children. (Secondary spend is 5k around us).

My guess is that the tax gained would not counterbalance the costs of kids returning to the state sector and private schools going out of business. There are way too many parents who are only just managing to afford private education for whom an extra few k would be the final straw.

Now combine tax on private schools with re-introduction of grammar schools. Guess how many private school kids will be coming back to the state sector, taking away yet more grammar school places from less wealthy/educated families.

Grammar schools are not supported by the majority at all.

And yet the polling says otherwise.

Your 'money' is a different concept from 'our' (i.e. the country's) money, though, math. For example, we certainly magicked up a fuck of a lot of money all of a sudden when it looked like the Brexit vote was going to upset The City...

I couldn't pay private school fees in, say, crops that someone else hasn't grown yet. Or 'confidence'.

Polling of teachers and head teachers doesn't say otherwise, haybott. Still, what would they know, eh?

If the Paris situation is anything to go by, parents of 11 year olds love state-supported selective education. 34% of 11-15 year olds in Paris are educated in 60 private, state-supported middle schools. The other 66% attend 115 state middle schools. The main difference between the two sorts of school are modest fees and the right to select pupils (and teachers) for the private schools. The private schools are heaving...