For anyone who still thinks that access to selective state education is a level playing field.....

[curlew]

I have just read the latest OfSTED for my dd's grammar school.

There are no children in Year 7 who are eligible for FSM. None. Not one.

Private schools are up front
you have to have stacks of cash to get in
grammar schools are not
Years ago a bright child would normally get into the local grammar just on their 'natural' ability
Nowadays things have changed, the only way you can into the local grammar is either if you have an exceptionally brilliant child
or if you plug away for 2 years with extra tuition & past papers etc....
A lot of parents can't afford the expense or the time
Not sure what the answer is
the grammar schools are almost defacto private schools
What we really want is for the state schools to offer appropriate education for all
The huge difference between grammars & comps is causing the problem
Do comps really work, they cannot compete with grammars
If grammars are not supporting the local community, then perhaps they should have their funding removed
I am all for grammars for more gifted children, but am not for grammars for the parents of kids who can afford 2 years of entrance preparation

And what about those having "unfair" advantages because their parents are Russell Group graduates so better positioned to steer their children educationally than blue collar parents, or even more advantaged because their parents are teachers and know all the ropes, can get all the right practice exams or know all those in the know ...shouldn't they be penalised to "level" the entry to grammar playing field then? I mean those must present significant advantages to a child also. But you all keep just bringing it back to money, FSM etc. as if it is as simple as that. What do you mean by local community? If the trip to school is commutable then why isn't that local community especially if it is the only grammar for miles around...if the local community means only how many metres from the front door, then that will be skewed by incomers pushing up the price of local housing.

in other words do some real analysis instead of repeatedly banging on your favourite drums....and why take away a possible excellent state choice when so many want to have it locally or to try for it even if it can be skewed sometimes by some who have "advantages"...it just smacks of resentment that's all.

Att100
I don't know what the answer is
I am speaking from my viewpoint which has its own bias
There are different agendas
there is the parent's agenda
there is the school's agenda
there is the DOE's agenda
etc....
if I ignore my aspirations for my own kids
I would want equal educational opportunities for every kid
and that is regardless of their ability
the question is how to try and achieve that
the state cannot penalise parents for helping their kids
can the state be a substitute for supportive parents?

it certainly is not a level playing field, but how do you level it?
should there be weightings based on certain criteria?

i know why my DS got into a selective grammar ....I attribute it to his educated pushy parents, lots of books to read from early age, stress on education in wider sense at home and because he is reasonably bright. He went to a nice non-pushy prep school which focussed much more on sport than on any academics and did nothing at all on 11+ prep because it wanted to keep children to 13. ...so despite perceived prep school advantage for prep for 11+ - there was none....no paid tuition for 11+ either unless you count DIY....so perhaps you need to screen against pushy, educated parents who can afford lots of books and are prepared to spend the time on DIY, because apart from his own inherent capability, that was the significant advantage he had in my view.

And you are right, everyone has their own bias on this point which is usually rooted in their and their child's subjective position.

I don't see why primaries can't give help say outside normal lessons in year 5/6 to kids whose parents want them to go for 11+ and why the 11+ exams can be made less tutorable as they are aiming to make them. But to abolish excellent grammar schools because your child cannot get into one or you have none in your area or because some parents choose to tutor for them is entirely a subjective and political agenda. All it will do is make the gap between private and state even wider.

I don't advocate abolishing grammars at all
if anything I think we need more of them
I just don't think that they are a level playing field, and don't know what should/could be done, if anything, about that

I was just responding to the original op

I think it is obvious (in my opinion) that they are not a level playing field
and the reason that should be an issue is because it is a state system

my comments about abolishing them were not aimed at you
teachersaspirations and it didn't mean to come across that way ...just at the others who can only contribute to the debate by repeatedly demanding that they should be abolished even if that takes away chances of excellent choices for some

Att100 - I cant understand if your child was at a Prep school and you were happy to pay for education then why bail out of the private education at 11.......why invest money between 4 and 11 if all he did was more sport?

Education in the UK is a total mess....it should be a level playing field no matter where you live ...there should not be schools in some areas that offer academically bright children a better education than in other area's ...money should not come into it neither should where you live ....

I dont think anyone is asking to abolish excellent schools what they are saying is that the existing Grammar Schools need to be changed ...the education system needs a fundamental re vamp - so we have excellent schools on all area's that will take in children from all backgrounds ...these excellent schools could be academic and they could be vocational but would meet children's educational needs....

I'm not a pushy parent, I have a very bright daughter who has her own aspirations - she would like to go to Cambridge to do Biomedical Research ...we dont have Grammar Schools in our borough so she has just started at the local comp...she knows that she is going to have to work hard to get what she wants but that's life ...She's at a good school where they are stretching her it does cater for children of all abilities and offers a high level of vocational studies than probably academic but that is what is on offer unless we go private and I feel that she will need the money in her education later in life rather than now ..

So Att100 is this fair ? Why should my daughter not have the opportunity to go to an excellent school just because we live in an area where GS's dont exist....its a bit like the Cancer Treatment Postcode lottery where you live in one town and you can have the new drug...you live in another and you cant....

We dont have the choice ...and given that I (and my dd;s father) have paid more than our fair share of tax I think we should have the same choice ...and if that means closing down the remaining GS scheme and creating a new schooling system then that's the right thing to do ...

I totally agree with some of your post....as for going to prep primary then state a lot of people do that or the other way round..and I preferred the preps to any primaries around here ...basically for the more all round and after school clubs etc...I had no idea if my child was going to turn out academic and didn't think of the grammar til he was 10...and then after looking into all the options decided it was the best school for him around here as it was the most academic within commutable distance and it was him who made the choice of school (since it was a good choice I didn't argue with it) ..I don't call it "bailing" - there's no conveyor belt for education, that once you are in private or state you stay on) - you look at your options at each stage, as most parents do ...including at sixth form.

But again can't see why closing down grammars and taking choice from others is going to help your daughter in any way ...improving other schools is the way forward and increasing grammars in all areas. I was glad to have the grammar option also, as like you we also feel my DS could use the money later in life...when he goes to uni. But if he hadn't gone there, we would have used it for private.

If your daughter really wants it ...she will have her fair chance of going to Cambridge I would hope who are more and more taking factors such as what type of state school you went to into account to overcome any odds rather than state vs private.

Impressive that an 11 year old knows that they want to do Biomedical Research at Cambridge, btw!

i know why my DS got into a selective grammar ....I attribute it to his educated pushy parents, lots of books to read from early age, stress on education in wider sense at home and because he is reasonably bright.

That's terrible, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Its parents like you that create all the unfair disadvantages suffered by the children of parents who don't give a shit about education and just stick them in front of the telly all day. If you were a decent person you would make more effort to bring yourself, and your children, down to their level so that everyone can be the same.

ha ha ..FastLoris...for a minute i thought it was going to be another middle class bashing post ....so fed up of those....fired at from the working class and from the rich class...either for choosing state selective or private ... if you go private you can't win either as you will be accused of buying advantage...if you manage to the best local state you can't win because you had undue advantages being middle class in the first place ....but yes, the most significant advantage which no-one wants to acknowledge, is involved parenting (of whichever class) and instillation of aspirations from an early age...leaving all to what they do in school, private or state, is a mistake, imo, especially in the early years.

At last count this post is now 888 messages long. I think it clearly shows that Grammar schools and selective testing is still a hugely divisive subject. Whether you aim for a selective school or not, I just wish that parents (and their children) were more supportive of each other and whichever school they choose. When my DD passed the 11+, she had to deal with months of bullying and nasty geeky nerdy name calling. Some mums also just stopped talking to me and these were mums who I considered to be friends. Was this jealousy or a fundamental disagreement to selective education? Well maybe a mix of both but what I found interesting was that many of the kids giving my DD a hard time also sat the same 11+ entrance exam as my DD (but did not pass) !!! Make of that what you will.

Smartbutdopey...it's festering resentment usually....

what should be underlined is the main reason the middle classes are taking up the grammars more is because there are so very few grammars around now, and because the indies have become so expensive with inflation busting fees as many of the indies' heads themselves now point out putting them out of reach for the ordinary country GP or lawyer who a generation ago would have sent his/her kids private ....even the boarding schools are now in an arms race for facilities to attract the global elite who will pay higher fees for the brand and this in turn lead to more homegrown parents being less able to afford them ...and nowadays middle classes even with very bright children won't qualify for bursaries (which often have low income thresholds) and scholarships are often minimal or token (whereas a few years ago they were much higher). Also, while there are some very good (and leafy) comps in some areas which may draw even more affluent parents than grammars, in other areas, there may one or two excellent grammars but the alternatives are much less than satisfactory causing even more resentment of the grammar and hence leading to increased divisiveness. The parity should be sought not by bringing down the excellent grammars but by improving the alternatives.

The other thing is, smartbutdopey ...sorry stream of consciousness here...but you will find you cannot win - ....... some people who are just into competitive parenting (usually the types living vicariously through their children) and will judge you whatever you do, ...if you go private, you will have in-laws or friends think who do you think you are must think you are better than they are because they don't send theirs private and who will tell you you are completely wasting your money, or that it is grossly right wing of you to try and "buy" advantage (never mind if the state options are not great and there is no wrap around after school clubs or breakfast clubs and you work full time).

And worse if you started off at primary then in a minority that then go private, sure there will be other parents who will give you a hard time for going private and trying to buy advantage.

Alternately, If you start of at prep (especially the sort of posh prep where most of the cohort carry onto big name senior private schools), you will have people looking down on you because you convert back to state ....even if the state is in your view better for your child..

At the end of the day, it is every parent's duty to do the best for their child in what they believe genuinely will be the best school (private, grammar or comp) for them, both educationally and pastorally etc. (and which may not be the "best" school for another child). That doesn't mean we don't want educate for all to be improved. I'd much rather have a state of education like the Netherlands where so many of the state schools are so good that it doesn't occur to people to go private (unless they are temporary ex pats or something who want to send their kids to an international school usually v expensive unless you cover it with a relocation allowance)...but that is not the state of play in the UK right now.

So in the meantime, the best approach I find re: other people's judgments on your children's education is to take a Rhett Butler, "frankly, my dear I don't give a damn" what you think attitude regarding their opinions on your educational decisions for your own children which are highly personal after all.

the thread has seemed to have moved off from level playing field for state selective schools in one direction

here is another

should private schools enjoy charitable status when they only benefit a small minority of the population?

And does the provision of a small number of bursaries really out-weigh the huge advantage of a private education effectively subsidised by all tax-payers?

hmm, that's a term set to get the emotions running isn't ....how are they "subsidised" by the tax payer --?

Do you think private schools get state grants out of taxes for their facilities or something?

What you really mean is why don't they have to pay taxes like any profit-making companies with shareholders except they are not - institutions whose primary purpose is educational - and that is usually associated with a charitable purpose.

Or do you want fees to be hiked by forcing private parents to pay VAT on top of fees ?

thirdly, have you thought about how every home-grown child in private is actually saving tax payer money by not taking up a place state tax payer funded place ?

So if you tax the private schools, private fees will be even higher making them even less accessible to the middle classes and only accessible to the very wealthy or global elite - how will the system cope with even more middle classes seeking and competing with existing state pupils for even more selective grammar (when there are far fewer places around) and leafy comp places at the additional cost to the tax payer (especially when some of those fees will just go into private tutoring which people already complain about in terms of ordinary (working class children competing for state selectives))?

Tell how that would actually benefit anyone at all, state or private?

Taxing foreign non-EU students to study here in privates might make sense because their parents have not already paid into the system as tax payers and because they may not stay here.

You could also just as well morally argue that you should get a tax break for sending your kids private as you are paying taxes for a free state education and you have children who could qualify and are entitled to that.

It all depends on what side of the fence you sit on.

Why not do what France does and actually subsidize private places thereby taking burden off the state ?

We need new thinking to solve the issues of alternatives that are no god enough instead of lobbing of the same old emotive grenades (private vs state; selective vs. non-selective, catchment vs open selection) on the pretence that somehow that will achieve "levelling" but are actually only about taking away decent choices, even if not all can benefit.

"not good enough"....having said that, I don't think taxpayer should be paying for any faith state schools at all....just like in the US...if they want to select by faith they should be private.

I don't like to stigmatize any parents who simply try to do their best for their children regardless whatever their levels of class, income or education. It is human nature, in general, we all want to be able take advantages of the state system. Imo it is a question for the policy makers. I ve been struggling to understand why state primary schools are not allowed to involve with the 11+ preparation for their pupils while private schools, private tutors, tutoring centres and knowledgeable parents are doing the preparation. After all 11+s are state school entrance exams. Is it a way to further disadvantage those who already very disadvantaged?

gosh
that is a huge response if only you had numbered each paragraph

subsidised (with a z?) refers to not paying tax (or paying the rate that charities have to pay, certainly a reduced rate I should think)

I am not a tax expert by a long stretch and some of my points may be wrong, but the gist is not
I thought that private schools had to offer bursaries to demonstrate that they were benefiting society other than their fee paying students, and in return were allowed to have charitable status
If that is correctish, then I was asking whether the bursaries offered out-weighed the tax benefit enjoyed by the schools (I think not)

Haven't thought enough about the VAT aspect, but I think VAT on education is an own-goal

this is the red-herring of red-herrings "thirdly, have you thought about how every home-grown child in private is actually saving tax payer money by not taking up a place state tax payer funded place ?"

I can't work out where you are at all, I think we all want better education for our kids

If the state are paying for it, it should be inclusive
If the state are allowing educational institutions charitable status, they should be inclusive

How does the tax-benefit given to x% of the privately educated benefit the rest of the kids educated?

It would be interesting to see the actual sums

I am not sure what you don't understand in the last point ....for every middle class private child that leaves the private system because fees are escalating even more than they already do (which they will if you start imposing taxes), you are going to have one more child taking up a state place which will costs the tax payer more....and also who will be competing, if selective schools are sought after, for those places more and more...I am simple, me, so I like to keep it simple. But you raised this issue as a "taxpayer" burden issue and I think that is a red herring because of the reasons i stated.

And again, private schools are not paid for by the state ...but the much bigger issue is faith schools are...so I pay taxes for local schools that my child can never get into in fact because he is not of that faith or because he is atheist. Why on earth is that paid for (its buildings, facilities, and teachers) by the everyday tax payer?

I think I agree with you totally wrt faith schools
but still not about the benefit that private schools are giving to the state schools by lessening the burden on the state schools

actually I am not suggesting imposing taxes, I am suggesting relinquishing the tax-relief that is a benefit in kind, and it is a benefit to the privately educated, more so than the other factions of society

is that benefit in kind justified for a very wealthy minority?

But it's not a benefit in kind, you pay for it, and there's no tax relief on parental income for private school fees (though I wish there was) ...what you are saying is I think the schools themselves should pay income tax on fees paid....which just will mean higher fees of course ...I don't believe in taxing education and don't see how it will benefit anyone at all. ...it won't level anything, it just make it even more inaccessible and elitist with a greater gap between the classes especially since many ordinary middle classes already sacrifice a lot to send their children private because they don't find the state alternatives up to standard. Why seek to punish them further? Why not seek to improve state options so private is not as attractive anymore- that should be the real focus.

I agree with what the real focus should be, improve state education

but alas .....
if it is not a benefit in kind why do private schools have to provide bursaries in order to maintain charitable status
if charitable status is not a financial benefit (or in any other way you wish to describe it) then why do private schools seek to maintain that charitable status

and I think we will not agree