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.

If schools with a challenging intake can be great, then it's obvious the opposite must be true.

For whilst the intake must be relevent,so must the decisions taken by the school.

Of my three local schools, one instigates setting, one streaming and none teaches mixed ability classes.

No guesses which order they perform in.

WorriedTeenMum, logic says that's got to be true. There will always be (in both sectors) crap/weak heads who appoint crap/weak teachers, provide no vision and demoralise the good staff and ultimately the kids.

"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"
Rabbit I'm not ignoring you been out for day. My DS started off in state ed. after a couple of years I was told by the governors at his primary school that although they had identified and accepted that he had a special need (a maths ability that what I understand only 1 in 500 have or one MNetter told me 1 in 1000's have) that they to quote directly from their letter they sent me had "neither the time money or interest" to help him and in a "school of only 80 children that it was not viable to put any special measures in place as the chances that another child with his ability would come along in the next ten years were unlikely". They suggested I purchased books and helped him at home they were fully aware that at the time I was very seriously ill.
I also looked at another school one of the best in the county the head their advised me to send my DS to an independent school because the sort of education he needed was not available in the state sector. Three years ago we relooked at the state sector (I accept things change all the time). I'm get fed up paying we are not very wealthy relatively speaking. At our local "outstanding comp" the head of special needs advised me not to remove him from the independent sector as again his needs would not be met in the state sector. Rabbit what would you hvae done? We're rural choices are limited.

A person who values themselves less highly than you think I do (as you don't know me you don't understand how ridiculous this is, my friends and detractors would laugh at this description) and one who is less selfish might be happy for their DC to be educated in a completely inappropriate environment when they had other options or might have gone done the home ed. route like a local group but being a thoroughly selfish individual I went down the route I went down. I am not embarrassed or ashamed of my choice I did what most parents would do; the very best thing for child whether we talking about education health or a whole host of other things. I don't expect him to become an inventor, a politician anything but that, an investment banker ditto I just want him to be intellectually stimulated and by being able to participate in a wide variety of activities not be a one dimensional maths nerd.

If that in your book is selfish so be it and frankly I don't give a toss.

seeker - yes, you are very confused! IQ is about measuring academic potential (not other sorts of potential). Academic attainment is measured by SATs, but a child who, for whatever reason (including poor teaching) hasn't attained in line with his/her IQ potential, won't be well served by SATs.

No. But, as I said, I thought we were talking about holding schools and teachers to account. In the circumstances you outline, SATs would be invaluable.

And does IQ measure academic potential? That's questionable, isn't it?

In what way questionable?

rabbitstew (btw... poor fluffy bunny!)

It still doesn't need to cost that much to develop great scientists, surely?... unless the only great scientists now come from a tiny minority of top boarding schools?

About 40% of the most prestigious scientists were educated in independent schools.

It does cost a lot when you are in the developed world. Resources are more expensive here than, say, China (though even there, wages are expected to go up).

Not sure whether this is due to teaching or facilities, but independent schools already dominate science degrees as they count for one-third or more of the top grades in science subjects.
In an article somewhere, the education director for the BLOODHOUND Education Programme said that independent schools normally are a good fit due to operating longer working days with a stronger after-school club culture...

happygardening

You are not selfish. How people often say that about parents sending their kids to school with their hard-earned money rather than waste it on something else, I really don't know.

Tas I've never claimed it was fair that a small group should have so much but I'm keen that others should have similar opportunities hence this thread because I know what a difference it really makes. But we have the opportunity and the means in our situation only a nutter would not do it.

SATs only measure children's attainment, not the gap between a child's attainment and his/her potential attainment. Where SATs can be useful in tackling schools is where early SATs were excellent and then it all went down hill. But that can be due to things other than the failings of teachers. So they are never invaluable.

happygardening

I do agree with you, but I am also realistic enough to know that making that sort of education available for the broader population is quite unlikely to happen. Hence, I can be quite flippant on these threads.

Really, in case of "opening up opportunities" to those who show innate ability, selection is the only way to go (and I know seeker hates this). If not via Grammar Schools, then probably via Specialized Schools - not the way we have them in the UK (which are not actually too different from normal schools), but maybe the ones in New York?

Did you know that Bronx High School of Science (yes, Bronx!) has the highest proportion of alumnis winning Nobel Prizes? It has more Nobel laureates than most countries out there! And it's not the only one in New York. There's also Brooklyn Technical High School which is just one of the many schools that specializes more on sciences and maths. There's another school focusing on humanities and classics (and languages), the well-known performing arts school LaGuardia High that everyone will have indirectly heard of via FAME... they even have one school specializing on AMERICAN STUDIES (we did mention that on this thread!).

Applicants have to go through the Specialized High Schools Admissions Test (in the case of La Guardia, auditions), while their academic and attendance records are also scrutinized.

These schools have and will continue to churn out good scientists, journalists, politicians, people in the entertainment industry... basically, potential leaders of tomorrow. All that without the need for privated education.

This is not just a legacy of the past either - the newest schools were only opened in 2002.

When the city of New York can have such schools (on top of numerous expensive private schools), why can't the UK as a country have them? The problem is, there are too many people against the whole "selection" thing, that they'd rather have everyone be educated to an average (or below) level than have average schools and a few superb schools to educate those with innate abilities.

^ Those schools have enabled kids of first generation immigrants from a long time ago emerge as leaders in their field... in case anyone will say they are full of MC kids.

And the NYC Department of Education is quite quick to respond to such criticism and set up institutes to prepare middle school kids for admission. Of course, there will still be people complaining, but really - looking at the pictures of the schools, they are quite a multicultural bunch.

Nobody has ever been able to explain to me why clever children need to be educated in a different school to less clever ones. I can understand different classrooms- I believe in setting- but why different schools? . Nobody, to be fair, has even tried. Beyond a sort of generalised "they just do, all right?" Oh, and the person who didn't want her child queuing for lunch with less clever children (I kid you not-she actually said it. Wish I could remember who it was)

And nobody has ever even tried to explain why, if selective education is so good, the LEAs that have a fully selective system don't have significantly better results than the ones that don't.

seeker

How do you think the "less clever" people would feel knowing that every day, they go to school and attend the "less clever classes"?

I'd rather just go to school where everyone is the same??

Just turning the argument upside down here...

Why they need to be? Because they can, because in general the bright children are often usually the good sports nad music people and good at debating so all the hobbie the school does tend to be to a higher standard (may Millfield can be an exception but in general the better the academic standard the better the music and sport and hosts of after school clubs are).

Second reason teenagers copy their peers. So if children at school aer going off to work in call centres and do their beauty therapy your lazy slacking bright one will think - gosh that will be a piece of p iss I'm off to do that too as Jake who is as thick as a plank with his 90 IQ is doing it. If instead everyone in the school is destined for great universities and high paid high flying careers then your typical go with the herd teenager is more likely to pursue those better options if he is in the academic private schools in the first place.

Also children who struggle at school tend to cause more trouble so in play grounds and the like and corridors they may well have more behavioural issues and pour scorn on bright nerds in a way you cannot at play time if the whole school is bright nerds as it were.

happygardening, for someone who doesn't give a toss you sound quite upset. I would most probably have done what you have done, but would at the same time view myself as colossally selfish for supporting a system for my own child's benefit which I viewed as fundamentally unfair and an over the top use of resources. I can think you selfish and not dislike you, you know. In fact, from your posts alone, I can honestly say that in a virtual world way (ie not knowing the real person), I like you a lot and find your opinions interesting. I like Tasmania, too. I don't have to agree with people to like them.

Frankly, I think myself incredibly selfish for wanting as much out of life and craving as much comfort and security as I do even without sending my children to £30,000 a year boarding schools - I think people are naturally selfish (which is why I don't hate myself for it), although some have real limits, most have technical limits which they will in certain circumstances overstep despite the personal discomfort caused (just look at all those privately educating Labour politicians), and others appear to have no sense of guilt about extreme consumption whatsoever and are happy to think that the sky's the limit. The only thing I really object to in how you approach your ds's education is your vehement opposition towards the suggestion that such schools should not really exist, as they are a symbol of a view of the world which I don't particularly like, because it is one which appears to approve of or at the least actively tolerate conspicuous and extreme consumption. As I've said before, I think I have a bit of a puritan streak in me and anything which goes too far beyond the simple and necessary makes me mildly uncomfortable. It would be nice if I could rid myself of it so I could enjoy more regular bouts of conspicuous consumption, but it is always there in the back of my mind.

Tasmania - there is a big price difference between an £8,000 per year independent school and a close-on £30,000 per year independent school. How expensive are the schools which produce the scientists? How much money is it NECESSARY to spend? Isn't that the whole argument with state education?

Oh, Xenia, you do talk crap.

Tasmania- so you're in favour of selection because it's so much nicer for the less clever ones? Well, that has the virtue of novelty!

Seeker - no, just turning it around. Why focus on just the clever kids?

The grammar schools in London are filled with the children of first generation immigrants too.

Not sure about Nobel Prizes though.

Ah. We're not doing proper discussion any more. I'll check back in later and see if things are back on track.

Xenia - You do realise you are being silly dont you?

I think you might have contradicted yourself just a little bit. You claim that for some reason bright children are also automatically good at sports. At the same time they are nerdy and in need of protection from the the thick roughs.

Funnily enough state schools are not populated by toughs prowling corridors armed with knives and knuckle dusters, frothing at the mouth, preparing to attack the bright kids.

Your lazy slacker is just that. The only person who thinks he is bright is probably his mum.

rabbitstew

The nearest girls-only senior school to me is around £12,000 per annum. But this includes all-day care until pretty much 6.00pm with all the drama and sports thrown in (extra for music lessons).

The local co-ed secondary school which apparently did get out of special meatures and is now "satisfactory" spends roughly £5,500 per pupil... which seems to be the going rate for secondary schools in my area.

If you add up after school care on top (that doesn't quite offer what the private school above does), it would come to about £7,500 per year. I guess the difference is what provides the added value, which is £4,500. This probably gives you good drama teachers, sport coaches, etc. - and of course, the grounds and playing fields maintenance.

So in general, instead of paying £5,500 per pupil, the tax payer would have to fund an additional £6,500 per pupil which is more than double.

With regards to boarding with regards to happygardening - I prefer her spending that money on her DS than on pretty Laboutins or the latest car. My college at uni charges around £5,500 per year for accommodation these days (term-time only) with full catering (and cleaner, etc.). So remrkably similar to a boarding school, but these are people who are 18+. No school nurse that needs to be around. Not necessarily a fully-fledged housemaster either.

You then have to add to this the fact that the boarding school will most likely pay a higher rate insurance policy because so much more can go wrong on the grounds, the longer a kid stays there... and loads of other factors associated with kids staying over night.

What ever is the difference between the total of the above and the boarding school rate will be the cost of educating the kid at a well-known establishment which most likely will have other things to offer on top of the private day school, which I have not thought of yet...

I wouldn't want to pay any more taxes than I do, as frankly I feel like I pay a huge amount already. But the biggest issue for me is that, especially under this government, I don't trust the authorities to use my tax money in a way that benefits people like me in anyway.

I would much prefer to get a tax rebate for sending my children to a private school, this I think would be much fairer. In the same way as I think we ought to have had a tax rebate when we had 2 severely ill children and nowhere to turn to in the NHS. We had to go private in the end to save one of my children's life, and I thank my good fortune every day that I was savvy and I could afford it.

As far as education is concerned, our children go to an allegedly top state school for primary, which is rather passive to the needs of brighter children and SEN children alike, but again we have very little choice apart from top up at home.

I personally don't think a successful education system is about segregation but very much about aspiration, you can do so much more with children but nobody take responsibility - it is always someone else's fault but there isn't really a political willingness to change to a more aspirational society. Of course selective schools do better but it isn't really the point, as every child should matter and every child should have the right to a good education, however you define it.

seeker

Ok... let's put it this way. Someone (called directaction) said on the Eton On The Cheap thread that What works at Eton will not work in the majority of the state sector. And with that, someone suggested that teachers who are good at teaching bright kids may not be the best at teaching the less bright ones.

Those suggestions came from pretty leftist people by the way!

So, let us assume you take those theories / opinions and add in yours, i.e. comprehensive schools for all ... how on Earth is that going to work?!?

Do you now need to have TWICE the amount of teachers??? Bigger buildings obviously? US high schools - 4 years only - often have 3,000+ kids, but the U.S. is also a bl**dy big country...

Just food for thought...