Open Access Independent Schools?

[HeadsShouldersKneesandToes]

I've done a search to see if this has been done but couldn't find anything, apologies if this is previously-troden ground.

This is a really interesting report from the Sutton Trust.

Basically they are proposing the idea that Independent Schools should have the option of joining an Open Access system where there is a needs-blind admissions policy for any child who wins a place via competive entrance exam. If your child gets in and you are wealthy, you pay full fees. If you are poor, you get all or almost all fees paid. They have done a seven year trial in Liverpool with very interesting results.

The sutton trust reckon that per-capita on average it would be no more expensive than state schooling because of the proportion who would pay most or all of the fees, and would be less socially divisive than the current system as the cream would be skimmed off from the comp system based soley on academic grounds rather than academic social and wealth grounds as is currently the case. They also say that they would propose it was limited to no more than 1% of each year's intake such that it wouldn't have a significant effect on the ability mix of the non-selective schools.

I thought it was an interesting idea, but it's clearly a huge step from the current system. Could it work? Would people love it or hate it?

Sounds a bit like the Assisted Places scheme - which the Blair govt. abolished within weeks of being elected because it was benefiting mostly "poorer mc children". That is, those parents who took the trouble, and cared enough about their children's education, to find out about it and jump though the hoops. It will never meet with approval until a system is devised under which children from deprived backgrounds and uncaring parents are the main beneficiaries.

Unfortunately any system which relies on an exam you can tutor for will never be socially and economically unbiased - especially if it's only picking the top 1% - look at the grammars.

I think a lot of independents would not join in quite frankly. While I see the logic there is something about handing over money for state educated kids to the private sector which makes me extremely uncomfortable. In my experience independent schools are largely unaccountable.

The idea strikes me as harking back to the way grammar schools were in the early part of the 20th century with cheap or means tested places. It normalises paying for education at source. It would cream off the middle class academic kids whose parents couldn't afford independent schools and take them away from the comprehensive schools, making comprehensive schools seem to be for the academically inferior.

I also think it sends quite a dangerous message that anyone who doesn't go to independent schools is not academically able. As a parent with a child at a super selective and another at a high performing comp, which both have excellent teaching and results, I think to see either school as academically or socially inferior is simply wrong.

Good points all. I think you are right Dilys that it would end up benefitting the middle classes more than the poorest - you are always going to get those who can afford it forking out for masses of tutoring. I wonder if it would be better targeted if there was some kind of strategic targetting of places across wealth bands, rather like some academies do currently across ability bands. i.e. you categorise all applicants into 5 bands and then take the top 1% academically of each band. So long as there were plenty of applicants representative of many different sectors of society, it would be reasonaby fair.

They do specify didofido that it should be based on a better measure of wealth than mere income, which was a major flaw of the old assisted place system (when I was growing up we knew a family who were absolutely loaded but had an assisted place as they were wealthy enough for the clever-accountant-father to arrange the family finances so that they had zero income for 7 years and merely lived on their vast capital wealth in one of the biggest houses in the town)

beingfluffy I think it would depend on the real ethos of the school whether they were interested in joining. There are some schools which seem to be fundamentally about keeping little Tristan away from the nasty rough kids but there are lots which have a genuine mission to stretch children to the best they can possibly be academically, who would leap at the chance to do this regardless of ability to pay. But I think your point about normlising paying for education, and about sending wrong messages about inferiority/superiority are very good and convincing points. Probably better to focus on getting state schools to be actually decent.

Of course it's only blue-sky thinking, I doubt it could possibly be actually implemented, but interesting to think about.

The school my DS1 attends is in support of the scheme and has said that it will take part if the government support it. My feeling is that the really poor kids with parents who are not engaged will not get the opportunity to take the exam and it could become like the faith and grammar schools colonised by the mcs who can't afford school fees but can afford to pay for a tutor and know how to play the system.
As a parent with kids in private school I would welcome it. I feel uncomfortable about paying but wasn't prepared for ds1 to go to the local comp and didn't get a state place for ds2 at the primary ds1 attended as I wasn't prepared to play the god game.

...so effectively the state would be paying for bursaries and foundation places....or are the schools keeping those places as well? Good idea if it works, although it does then suggest that the comps are left with the less able children. On the issue of obvious wealth versus hidden, the independent schools that I work with are very careful about checking their bursary recipients VERY carefully and regularly carry out house checks also on top of the rather extensive financial ones.

The idea is that the state contributes the amount they would normally pay for a child at secondary and the rest is made up by the fees paid by the other parents. There would be a sliding scale of fees with state contribution. That is how I have interpreted it.

Does this mean that the schools would only be able to judge on academic ability via their usual entrance/bursary exams or are they still able to have scholarship awards? If the extra fee portion is being made up by the school, it means that there is less available for specific scholarships in music, sports etc. I suspect that the additional portion is enormous for many indep schools.

I agree if you look at fees I think the parents who are more affluent will end up paying more than they do now in order to maintain the standards and extra curricular stuff

Would wealthy parents still want to use an independent school of this model if there was zero state funding going in? Theoretically, a school could set the standard fees so that the wealthier parents could be paying twice what they currently do, or even more, if the means-test shows they can afford it, and the excess goes to funding the low-cost or free places of poorer students, with the average fee being about what the normal fee is currently. It would only work if wealthy parents would be willing to pay an effective subsidy in this way.

This was the UK Direct Grant schools system. My brother's school used to be direct grant in the 60s. Then they were abolished and either went totally into the state system or private (his the latter).

We also had more recently the assisted places schoeme where usually rich but lying self employed middle class parents would pretend their business generated no money and get funding for private schools. It did not work very well and was abolished.

The few very poor but very bright children at my daughter's school who are fully funded by the school have done really well.

Dulwich College (private) steadily went down the exam league tables rankings when it moved from this same system of anyone gets in if bright enough and if they cannot afford it then the state or someone else pays.

Manchester Grammar, private, also hopes to get enough funding to be the same.

As the latest Sutton Trust report (see other thread) concludes there is not much difference in outcomes for comprehensives and grammars over all I am not sure they can now justify this proposal.

I am certainly not against the proposal (as long as they gave the incomers elocution lessons so their children spoke like mine do... laughing as I type)

A private school local to us which has a history of helping out orphaned children and very poor bright children is now mainly for the rich, but still has scholarships for inner city boys to give them a chance. I heard that the two they took in Yr 7 were kicked out by Yr 8 because their attitudes were so poor. had a bit of a heated debate at dinner about this yesterday when I heard. I said they needed a LOT of support to make a transition from inner city state to genteel county boarding. DH said you can't continue to throw money at people who aren't prepared to rise to the opportunity and how do we know how many chances they'd already been given.

I find it gutting that the current state system crushes the love of learning out of children. I won't even duck :). Throw stones if you disagree. I've seen it over and over and over. It happened to me. It's been tried on my own DC (Tell him not to sound so clever in class, it puts the others off him; that word does not exist because it is not in the school dictionary, so don't ever use it in your writing again etc. And both of these comments were from warm, friendly teachers at a warm, friendly village school.) That's why we're going private. I don't care what part of society DCs fellow pupils come from so long as they want to learn and support each other in that desire. But I've not come across a state school, even the so-called outstanding ones, that wholeheartedly has this attitude instilled into every pupil and teacher.

I dont know if I'm being a bit stupid here but I cant see any significant difference between this scheme and the needs blind policy that schools like St Pauls boys are determinedly moving towards. Actually there is a difference St Pauls et al. are not asking for any money from the state and also and most importantly not restricting it to only 1%. My DS's own school currently has about 15% on bursaries (current fees £32 000+ a year) and are planning on increasing this number year on year. The amounts awarded range from a nominal amount to 100% and according to their recent accounts full fee paying parents are not being asked to contribute towards its bursary fund.

middleclass - it depends on if the school has a decent foundation/sizeable donations or legacies....if not, the school will HAVE to fund through current parents.

racingheart - you are never going to find a school independent or state where every child and every teacher has the attitude you desire. My DD's super selective state is probably as close as it gets; my younger DD's inner city comprehensive very much has the hard work ethos - "success is better than rest" as they say - running through the school; not all the kids want to work but a substantial number do and do very well. Even the not so academic ones. We all have different experiences and some of our kids do very well in the state system; obviously your personal experience and that of your son has been different.

There's no need to single out St Pauls: there are a few dozen independent schools working towards needs blind access (and the one which, according to Sutton Trust, is nearest is Manchester Grammar, but I think from the way Whitgift publishes information on income/award, it must be amongst the real leaders too - and it has way more than 15% receiving awards, as do many schools).

The trouble is the cost. You need very, very deep pockets to do this.

This scheme is trying to tap the Government's pockets for a scheme which is a hybrid between Assisted Places and Vouchers. Perhaps they are hoping for more applicants if it's a Government endorsed scheme? Sutton Trust is very, very keen on improving access to elite education for the able (does huge amounts for university access issues).

Now, the crux of the problem is, why - when looking at elite secondary schools - is the answer (in this example) being sought in the private sector, not in the improvement of the state sector?

Or perhaps, after several generations of comprehensive education there is a creeping realisation that no matter how good the theory of comprehensives the unintended consequences in actual practice are intractable? This scheme is a way in which selection can be reintroduced without permitting new grammar schools in the state sector (something rucked out by politicians of all sides).

Is more selection the most helpful thing to do? (I'd agree it's probably the cheapest - and that has to be a factor at the moment).

shush I have no idea what you financial situation is but IME if you have the kind of salary/money where you can easily pay £32 000 a year (and remember most people have two children so are paying double that) another couple of £1000 per year on that is not going to make or break you!

Middleclass - both working full time, no holidays, crap car etc etc. We can't easily pay the fees but don't ask for (and would probably not qualify for) a bursary. I fully support the schools offering bursaries/scholarships for talented children but I expect the schools to raise money just like any other charity to pay for the vast majority of those places.

shush I reread what I wrote I didn't say government should fund bursaries in fact i believe goverment shpild channel more money into state ed. Independent schools should raise the money themselves if they choose to do it by selling of a Ming base or by increasing fees is surely up to them?

middlec, most day school places are about £10k . think it mkight be £12k at Haberdashers where my daughter went. It is boarding which can be around £20k - £30k but those are the exceptions. Manchester Grammar is just under £10k too.

I don't agree with racing, that there are no good comprehensives. If you look at the FT league tables which only look at a decent subject A levels rather than cookery rankings.ft.com/secondary-schools/secondary-schools-2011 there are state schools up there in the top 100 and some comprehensives. QE Barnet which I presume is academically selective is 8th in the country. The highest comp is 87th - Watford grammar (which is a comp,l not grammar) It is interesting how so many of these grammar, good comps and good private schools are all in the South East which is another issue.

Also a non selective school which some of the private schools are and the comps are is going to get worse results as they let in people with a range of IQs so you canont really compare. What you can look at though is what percentage of the children who are bright at 11 who go to comps compared to state grammars or indepenents get As in the various sectors.

I certainly do think it is worth mothers looking at how they could earn more to pay £10k fees though. I fee that the £1m or whatever I have spent on 5 children at school and university from age 3 - 21 or whateve is the nicest way I might have spent my earnings rather than on my nails, or better clothes or a yacht or breast surgery or whatever.

We pay 20 for our day school place in sw London including coach, lunch and music lessons. That doesn't include any trips etc. it is worth every penny though for the quality of the education. It is one of the very enthusiastic supporters of the Sutton Trust scheme so will have to see what happens..... Ds2 is 7 years behind ds1 so it could all have changed by the time we re looking for him

That latest Sutton Trust doesn't BTW, show that there isn't much difference between comprehensives and private, if it's the one I'm thinking of. It shows that amongst those who received firsts from Oxford, all were correctly predicted to be capable of that level of academic achievement from their GCSEs, but that some from state schools (grammar/comprehensive unspecified) did even better than the prediction at entry (ie suited for Oxford, but perhaps not expected to be first class).

If anything, it shows that private schools get their pupils performing to their full first class potential, but state schools do not. Therefore it supports their stance of seeking wider private school access at secondary level.

Edithw I'm not "singling" out St Paul's just using it as an example of what I know is already happening in some schools I also used it because I happen to know something about it. Yes I could have said Man Grammar Eton City of London Boys or a whole raft of others instead St Paul's but it would have made no difference to the point I was trying to make.
xenia you too seem to misunderstand my point I was simply saying that if parents can afford £32 000+ a year for each child to attend a boarding school then an extra couple of thousand per year towards the schools bursary fund is unlikely to cripple them. Obviously this extra couple of thousand is in proportion to the amount you have to pay. It would be unrealistic and unecessary to expect parents only paying £10 000 per year to pay another £2000 towards bursaries but they might be able to manage another £750 per year. Finally you state that boarding fees start at £20 000 I would be genuinely interested to know where in the UK a senior boarding school offering full boarding starts at £20 000.

Edithw I do completely agree with you the question is why not improve state ed rather than sending a tiny proportion of to the independent sector. There will always be people who will pay however good the state sector and that's fine and if the individual schools want to offer bursaries to a selected few who despite having a first class state school on their door sthens till want to send Henry to Man Grammar then thats their perogative. But the likes of the Sutton Trust should be lobying for the provision of an outstanding and free education for all not just a miniscule number of children.

EW I read that sutton trust report and on another thread this weekend quoted from it. It said it could not really reach conclusions and there were not that many differences between outcomes at comps and grammars. This was one looking at state grammars and state comps.

Yes if you pay £$10k you may pay £500 extra for bursaries particularly if that's the price to pay for not paying 20% more £2000, vat on the fees. Even better is pat private parents on the back for working like dogs to relive the state of the burden of educating their children and give us £5k off the fees each which is the cost of the state school place which would be a lot fairer than making us pay for state schools in taxes, private shool for our children and thirdly a contribution so clever poor children can go to private schools. In fact if it gets too much then the privates may prefer to lose charitable status and not help the poor at all and keep costs down that way.