Grammar Schools and Private Schools

[peapodlovescuddles]

I genuinely don't know what to think here so would be interested to see what other mumsnetters have to say

Today while my son was swimming I overheard another mother moaning. Her DD has just found out she hasn't got a place at our fantastic local grammar school.
She was saying it wasn't fair people like peapod sent their children to grammar school when we could easily afford private school fees, my DCs went to a good prep school and then onto the grammar because I wanted them to meet a wide range of people from many walks of life. I didn't feel this would be accomplished at the local public school and I don't want my children to board.

So should I have sent my children to the private school so someone less well off could have had their place? Or is ANYONE entitled to a state education?

I never get this "abolish private schools and results in state schools will go up" argument. Assuming a generous 10% in private education, if these pupils were returned to the state sector, only in the very largest schools would 10% even equal one class. In a standard sized comp (say 6-class intake> 7x30 (being generous with class sizes)> 210 pupils per year group, closing private would return 21 children to the state system. Those children would not necessarily all get grades C-A* as they may have been placed in private schools due to learning difficulties or because they were better at competitive sports than academics. So at most, schools would add 10% to their stats.

If the argument is that the clearly "pushy" parents from private schools ought to be devoting their energies to pushing for better standards in state schools, the simple question is why? Why should they have more duty to argue for improved standards than any other parent? The chances are some of them would, but wouldn't it be simpler if the education system tacked of its own accord whatever it is that keeps parents like me out of the state system? It also completely glosses over why people might choose a private education for their children.

I have already mentioned on MN that my children's current (private and selective) school has far more summer-born children than you might expect, and definitely more than statistics would suggest. Why not tackle the problems at the start that send parents like me with physically and emotionally immature summer-borns into a less target-driven environment?

Well, again,as only 7% of children go private I don't think the impact/burden on schools would be that huge if all private children were converted to state schools, but I just don't understand the argument that state schools are disadvantaged by the mere existence of private schools, other than to scew the exam results tables, but then all state schools (with the exception of grammar schools, and even they only acquire a percentage, so back to the original argument) have that issue to contend with, so it's a complete non-argument. It's like saying that because I didn't deposit any money into your bank account I as good as stole from it!

TiggyR- I was agreeing with you even though I hadn't then read your post!

The birth rate is falling nationally, I am sure that state schools could absorb that 7% easily. Anyway if there was a problem the higher bands of tax could always be raised.

Presonally I do not want private schools to be abolished. Many alternative private schools have really interesting ideas. They can experiment in ways that state schools could only dream of. There needs to be a way of allowing steiner schools and their ilk to flouish and at the same time stopping the completely unfair advantage that prep school children have in the 11+

Rather than banning private schools I would like a system of school vouchers like sweden, where schools that accept vouchers cannot demand top ups. Then the child on the council estate would be able to compete more fairly with peapodlovescuddles junior in an 11+ exam.

AllFallDown, sorry weren't you proposing funding the new school places necessary if private education was abolished by abolishing their charitable status?

If not, my question still remains, how WOULD those who suggest abolition propose to fund it?

jack99 - Tax the rich, obviously. It's the easy answer to everything, remember?

ReallyTired, that is a much more sensible suggestion to fund this and I personally would be very happy to pay more tax if it meant a better standard of state education was available that meant no-one needed to pay to go private.

In France (I have a good friend there who has 2 kids in state system) higher taxation rates are generally accepted because they are able to have a really good state education system. Over there it is unheard of to go private unless your children have behaviour problems or some specific learning difficulties.

I doubt if my local authority could cope at all if all the local privately educated kids suddenly claimed the state places they are entitled to - they can't cope with the demand they have now, especially at secondary level.

Tiggy - don't have to be rich to be in higher rate tax bands now.

Though I susect you were being rather tongue in cheek!

Falling birthrates in Devon have caused some secondary schools to have quite serious deficits in their budget. Every so often, someone's kid will be allocated a place at some ridiculous distance (1.5 hours away, each way, in one instance) because they failed to get into their local more popular schools. This is all the proof you need that children are just numbers on a balance sheet to LEAs.

LEAs ought to be allocating school places on a best fit basis (and for example not withdrawing statements from extremely needy children when they become too expensive- viz my friend's epileptic, autistic, non-verbal, incontinent son, whose statement the LEA thought he could do without; when this failed they tried to take him into care, so that his funding would come from the SS budget rather than education), not considering the value for money aspects above all else.

Of course it was tonge in cheek, Jack. Blimey, even if for a moment, you were not sure then I'm clearly not communicating as well as I thought!

I just like to make sure!

Probably my personal ishoos - SIL who thinks we are filthy rich because we send our DCs to private schools.

I work FT, she has never worked even before she had kids. Personal choices, non?

Off to get dcs from school - will carry on later!

Interesting thread. Earlier on, someone said something about it being unworkable to exclude children attending prep schools from grammar school places. I was reminded of how things work in Guernsey where my parents live. They all take the 11+ there if they attend a state school, and children from state primaries who pass have the choice of either going to the grammar school which serves the whole island or to independent schools (single sex) which also serve the whole island. Everyone else goes to their catchment school.

However, children who have attended a prep school don't get the choice to go to the grammar. It's independent (if they can pass the exam) or catchment for them. It's an interesting way of doing things. The places for children from state primaries who opt for the independent schools are fully funded by the States of Guernsey. It probably wouldn't work so well on a larger scale, but it's interesting, isn't it?

"In France (I have a good friend there who has 2 kids in state system) higher taxation rates are generally accepted because they are able to have a really good state education system. Over there it is unheard of to go private unless your children have behaviour problems or some specific learning difficulties."

This is not true. In Paris 34% of children go to private school. In my apartment building no parents (except for the gardienne) send their child to the catchment area state school and I can assure you that talking about which private school your child goes to is just as hot a topic here as in parts of the UK.

Horton and Reallytired, very recently the Poole admission policy was changed so that priority for their grammar schools is given to state primary applicants before private/prep applicants.

What's the local reaction, Pristina? I wonder if it will make a difference to people's choices at primary level.

Anna- always though it is interesting to see your Neuilly perspective, Paris is not France. Countrywide, most people do not go to private schools.

Horton, I don't know as I don't live in the Poole area. All I know (from the papers) is that not surprisingly the local prep schools were not too happy about it (I imagine a number would either lose a lot of pupils or evenutally close altogether).

I think they said they had to make the change to comply with the Admissions Code (which I think includes things like social fairness in the community). I'm interested to see if the principle spreads. Also whether the Rugby decision about cross county applicants will spread.

Neuilly? What is that about?

And you should check your facts - because the flight to private schooling is a massive issue in all urban areas in France these days. But this is a recent (last 15 years) phenomenon.

Anna, my friend lives in village just outside Paris. Private schools do NOT figure for anyone there. My friend is French born and attended school there until 18.

As duchesse says, Paris is NOT France!

That would be very unusual, jack99.

The issue is very real and was one of the main drivers of the relaxing of rules governing state school catchment areas which was one of the very first pieces of legislation passed when Sarkozy became President.

The social fairness think gets me. What's socially fair about excluding affluent children? I agree they have a huge advantage but to exclude them is wrong. I still think the only thing for it is to take away the the thing for which they are seeking an advantage. I'm not trying to punish the parents of private school children (I am one!) which is what an exlcusion would do, but to make state education non-elitist and non-selective is surely the right thing to do. Doesn't mean those very bright children won't get just as stimulated and just as stretched, but it will be in the top stream of an inclusive school. There would be nothing for the private school children to aim for if they were entitled to go there anyway, so any perceived benefit would be wiped out. People who sneer at the comprehensive system like to use the phrases 'bog standard' and 'one size fits all'. Well, the fact is that the majority who are not cherry picked for grammar schools DO get that anyway, irrespective of the fact they they encompass a huge range of abilities from 'almost passed for grammar' to 'still struggling with pencil grip and using cutlery', and whether they may be a fantastic artist, actor, musician, sprortsman etc, or a hugely self-motivated go-getter or creative thinker who might really be someone one day. But apparently 'one size fits all' is perfectly fine, for them! We have a very narrow view of what it is to be 'clever' or talented.

Anna - Maybe it has changed since my friend was at school - in the centre of Paris.

I have to say her dc's school is much better equipped than state schools locally - and they are supposed to be some of the best in the UK. Also small classes, great teaching etc. Maybe this is a unique oasis in the seething hellhole of French education, but I doubt it.