To be annoyed that private schools have charity funding.

[Olympiathequeen]

They are not charities, they are businesses.

They do little or nothing for the local community.

They benefit by about £750 mil. They part fund bursaries for around half that amount.

Leaving them with a tidy little £300+ million profit at the expense of the taxpayers.

That money is desperately needed for public schools.

WTAF is the government doing?

BertrandRussell no I am not using failing in the so called Mumsnet meaning of the word comprehensive

I using it as a term for schools that are not giving children the best education that they should be getting schools that are not getting good results, schools that have a high turn over of staff, schools that are not getting the extra staff they need

far more than there should be in south London (not sure of other parts of the country) that are in close proximity to state schools that are thriving getting great result and are over subscribed

I have just looked at the results of two schools within the area where I used to live. In 2015 one of them for 28.6% A*-C including English and maths and the other school got 23.3%. Apparently the govt standard is 40% and if a school falls below that target the DofE intervenes. So I think it is safe to say that both of those schools were failing schools in 2015 and that is not by mumsnet definition of them being comprehensives. I can say with some certainty that not many children at all from those catchments will go private and probably none will go to grammar as the nearest grammar is way out of catchment (not in the same LA) and there is no aspiration to attend a grammar even if one was able to secure a place when living some distance away. So the results are not due to creaming off of the brightest students. The schools are very much failing he kids that attend though and I wouldn't be happy sending a very able child there knowing that the teachers must be really struggling to meet the govt 40% target as I feel it would impact on my child as the importance there isn't going to be on helping children who have already reached the magic C grade level.

"It really really isn't. A D student isn't going to get theimelves to a C without lots of support and help. An A to an A*? Much easier. And less vital anyway."

I think it's 'vital' to get every pupil to reach the best achievement level they can. Whether that it A* or C or D.

No pupil should underachieve. Whether that means 'only' an A, D or E.

Pie in the sky? Maybe.
But ok to dismiss certain levels as not 'vital' and not even try to serve those pupils well? No way.

It's OK to miss a target (and there might be very good reasons why that happens). But it's night OK to not have the target in the first place.

This really is all about class isn't it. Keeping the elites away from the plebs

this battle is still continuing huh? State versus dirty private. I have one child in state and one child in private. I must remember to keep my elite child away from the pleb sibling ;-)

class no not really

nearly every working class person I know that has made money and they are in a position to (some struggle to) has sent their child/children to private school

see working class people have aspirations to

"But ok to dismiss certain levels as not 'vital' and not even try to serve those pupils well? No way.

It's OK to miss a target (and there might be very good reasons why that happens). But it's night OK to not have the target in the first place."

The fact remains that it is practically (I have said "practically never" because I know about medicine at Oxford) never "vital" for an A student to get an A*. It is often vital for a D student to get a C. It's unpalatable, but in a world of limited resources, compromises have to be made.

I will always try for that compromise not to be my child. Dh and myself have always maintained we would pay more taxes if it meant more education funding.

I hope you vote in accordance with that principle, yoyo.

Yes

Funding for education and NHS is something we look into when voting.

"I will always try for that compromise not to be my child. Dh and myself have always maintained we would pay more taxes if it meant more education funding"

Yes, me too. To both points. However.........

My point was that the compromise here was an A* to a C not an A.
Going into A levels with a C would indeed compromise much more than I was willng to give.
I think you have find the level of compromise you are comfortable with.

Is there a point where you feel you child would be compromised unfairly? bertrand

Ah. I think I have made it very clear that I am talking about compromises that will not adversely affect the high achiever.

A school which "compromises" an A* to a C cannot under any circumstances be called a good school, regardless of sector.

Mind you, I would be deeply unimpressed by my child as well as by the school, if he was capable of getting an A* and he got a C- hugely unforeseen circumstances notwithstanding.

@Olympiathequeen

Saying they save the taxpayer money by educating the children who attend is as daft as saying an employer Emily's staff and is therefore saving the taxpayer from paying unemployment benefit.

The schools will still operate only they won't be subsidised by us taxpayers who are already paying for state schools.

Private education is a choice open to wealthier parents therefore they should pay for their choice. I don't see why I should pay for their choice. I want my taxes to pay for my children's education.

'Us taxpayers' Do you not think that parents paying for private schools are also tax payers!? In fact they essentially end up paying for their children's education twice, once through income tax for the state system that they don't use and then again in fees for a private school.

Any decent country has a re-distributive tax system, so yes, paying higher taxes is what wealthier people should do. If they then choose to send their children to private/public school to buy them an extra advantage, then of course they should pay twice.