Would you be prepared to pay more tax to get better state education for all?

[happygardening]

Any other suggestions welcome to ensure that all where ever they live and whatever their background have access to education of the highest quality.

I would in fact go further, and say that the skill level measured by public examinations in most countries is pretty arbitrary. Schools can get good results by "teaching to the test" and ensuring that their pupils have mastered the syllabus and exam techniques, and yet those same pupils may still not know very much at all. Thinking modern languages...

That is exactly not what I am saying, seeker.

Seeker I accept that I should clarify what I have said. There are posters who believe in the abolition of grammar schools and private schools preferring instead I assume (although it has not always been made clear) a national comprehensive education.

As I have said previously ,I do not believe that streaming works nationally. It can work where the demographic and geographical area allow it but it means that there remain a significant number of under-achieving schools (nationally) where childrens' needs in the comprehensive system are not being met. To my mind this is what needs to be addressed.

Seeker I have previously made my views on an open debate with you clear. I consider you to be a hypocrite and I struggle to want to enter into a debate with someone who spends so much time being angry at parents who send their children to private schools and the private school system itself where surely all that energy would be better placed trying to improve the state education you clearly and rightly value. Private schools are here to stay and you cannot change that.

Incidentally nothing wrong with being "odd". I quite like it.

Tasmania - "I do think that in those cases, it's not the school that is the problem. It's the HOME. And that's the real issue at hand. Because if everyone had motivated parents like there seem to be so many on this thread (regardless of our different opinions )... we may not have this problem."

What you say has usually been my assumption, however it doesn't apply to my DS (7 in Y3). DS is at or just below average, he is young and immature, hates reading, writing and the like, he finds it all hard and he is not listing and concentrating well at school.

At home we are both educated, we value education, we read to DC every day, since Y1/2 I supported DS with maths at home, we visit museums ... and do losts of stuff, TV/screen time is limited and selected, both DC are fully bilingual.

I expected DS to do well at school, but he is not, he is struggling in every way.

because the teaching at the private school is better.

I can't be the only person who has known teachers swap between sectors. The ones who left the state system, suddenly became better teachers? The ones who left private to go into the state sector suddenly became worse? I doubt it.

Succubi- I am afraid I don't recognise your name. Have you changed it recently?

"I can't be the only person who has known teachers swap between sectors. The ones who left the state system, suddenly became better teachers? The ones who left private to go into the state sector suddenly became worse? I doubt it."

Teachers don't teach in a vacuum. In the private sector, some schools give teachers the means (through smaller classes, better materials, more hours, more field trips) to take their pupils way beyond the syllabus in a way that state schools cannot.

Seeker I am not sure I understand the relevance of your question but I have been a long time poster and I have only ever used this name.

A lot of people won't as they don't want a level playing field. they want to buy an advantage for their child.

Tasmania - you seem to be more hung up about "class" than most people here are. My grandparents worked the docks. DH's father is a retired miner. DH and I both have degrees, have, or had jobs (I'm a stay at home carer, now) in line with those degrees and mix comfortably with most people, though gel best with people who are also highly educated, regardless of their background, simply because we find more to talk about.

Just can't remember ever debating with you before- or hearing your opinion of me before. Oh well, my loss, I suppose!

Bonsoir In the private sector, some schools give teachers the means (through smaller classes, better materials, more hours, more field trips) to take their pupils way beyond the syllabus in a way that state schools cannot.

All of which cost more money.

Absolutely - the kind of money that state schools are never going to have.

Did you know that English state schools have some of the smallest classes for 16-18 year olds in the world?

seekermakes the point that selective schools get better grades because they have selcted out anyone who might not get those grades...which is a fair point.

But only half the reason, I feel.

Selective school also get the best grades because they are specialists. They focus on a certain aspect of education and pour all their resources into that. This gives you a lot of bang for your buck.

If you want to teach a mixed ability cohort, covering all aspects of education, it costs an arm and a leg to do it properly. It is inherently inefficient.

Take my nearest town. Three comps in about a three mile radius.
That's three ill stocked libraries. Three under resourced SEN units. Three under equipped sports departments.

It makes no sense whatsoever!

So why doesn't Kent get significantly better grades overall than other counties ?

It may help seeker if you link us to the stats that gave you that conclusion. I thought Kent also had sec modern? are all the sec schs in Kent GS?

Russian so someone very kindly found that only one state school beat Eton but you tell me your Dc's are at a better school that beats everyone but St Pauls and westminster perhaps you'd like to share your schools results.
I'm not sure whether or not your being deliberately obtuse or you just can't help it but not once have I claimed that teaching in the independent sector is necessarily better and as many on MN will cheerfully testify I have on numerous occasions said that if I want fantastic results I don't need to send my DS to an independent school. I have also said on so many occasions thats its becoming boring that for me education is not all about exam results and that its about all the other things as well. You aside even the most ardent supporter of state ed admits that it not possible for any state school to provide the depth and breath of a extra curricular activates etc in comparison with a school functioning 24 hours a day 7 days a week where the ratio of children is 1 teacher for every 7 and the parents are paying an eye watering amount of money. The state cannot currently match this not necessarily because it doesn't want too or because it is bad but when the push comes to the shove it doesn't have the recourses to do this.
I am interested in how we can provide a broad and high quality education for all if people like me want to pay let them but how can we improve the situation for those who would like this kind of education and cant pay directly? Hence starting tis thread

seeker would hazard a guess that apart from vague selection (top 25% isn't that selective, and you have to factor in all the other things like tutoring), Kent doesn't really do specialisation.

I would hazard that the secondary moderns replicate a lot of what the GSshools do and vice versa.

What you've got in Kent is just a bit of syphoning off, not a real effort to make the most of all resources.

All I know is gs always come on top on league tables. Can't link as I am using phone but the league table I am looking at, the top 50 a level results for 2012, had 3 comps (cardinal Vaughn 38th, Watford grammar for girls 23rd and hockerill 10th) , 4 partially selective schools and 43 grammar schools from across the country.

I guess when it comes down to it, there is a difference in philosophy between those who think it is acceptable to aspire for your own children to benefit from superb facilities, 1 teacher for every 7 children, etc, etc, when the vast majority could never get anywhere near that; and those who think it is wrong to aspire to that level of training, perfecting and entertainment for such a tiny group of people, when the same people could grow up to be just as nice, thoughtful, happy, creative, entertaining, useful, and inventive on an awful lot less money - and have more understanding, that way, of what life is like for most people. It never in the past cost quite so much to train up our great inventors, explorers, scientists, artists, musicians, etc. I think aspiring to a life that is unsustainable unless you can grab most of earth's resources for yourself and not have to share them with others is selfish. Sometimes you have to accept that you are grabbing more than your fair share and throwing everything else out of balance as a result, because you value yourself too highly above others...

No, but only because I think the money would not be used as intended.

Yes that does puzzle me. I can understand entering ds for 11+ but cannot understand the appeal if so passionate about the decisive nature of gs. Also seeker never answered the question about how is it that 75% of parents in her area look down on their own children and Call them failures.

'it's before my time on MN'.... Bonkers.