We haven't had a state vs private debate for a while! What did you think of the Fiona Millar programme on schools?

[WideWebWitch]

Well?

My belief had always been very similar to Miranda2's - a belief in the role of society and our responsibilites within it - but also the richness that that can also endow. And yes, maybe an "arrogant" belief that I have a duty as an articulate middle class parent (and proud of it), to bring my "skills" to the local school and to kick up a stink if it is not up to scratch. I was brought up on good Socialist principles of equality of opportunity in health and education - my dad is/was a doctor, my mum a teacher, both only ever prepared to "practice" in the state sector.

HOEWEVER: Ds is 3 and a half and it pains me (politically) to say that we are having to consider private schooling. The problem is that round where we are there is a very large Indian/Pakistani community. That in itself is not a problem for me - what IS the issue is that NINETY EIGHT PER CENT of the kids starting at my catchment primary school have "English as an Additional Language" - and the vast majority of them will start at primary school not speaking a word of English. One of its recommendations is that the school needs to improve on provison for kids who are capable of attaining more - my suspicion is that that two per cent for whom English is their first language, would be included in that category.

I don't want my son treading water for those previous first few months in school. He's a bright kid and would get bored - and might start not to like school.

There are three primary schools close by and we have heard that the headmistress at one of them (unfortunately the furthest away one) is brilliant (in fact she has an MBE for services to education), so we want to find out HOW the schools deal with those kids who DON'T need the extra attention to bring them on in English.
But it may be that we are reassured once we visit the schools - and part of me would LIKE for him to have the opportunity to be exposed to other cultures and languages - as long as it doesn't compromise the rest of his education. Even the "good" school would have an extremely high ethnic population - so that in itself is not an issue for me. I've now seen its "prospectus" and it talks about how they explore the various religions and ceremonies - which I think is great, even from my perspective as an atheist, as I think he needs to understand the society within which he lives, and religion, for better or worse, is an important part of our society and the world we live in. That to me is one of the arguments in favour of state education.

I am however, also prepared to be totally pragmatically hypocritical and move to an area which does have a good state system - following the example of my parents, who made damn sure to live in an area of excellent state provision. According to my dad though, despite this, he was still told by his (medical) colleagues that he was doing irrepareable damage to his children's education by sending us (over 30 years ago!) to the local schools. Bearsden Primary, for goodness sake (for those of you who know Glasgow)!! It still amuses my dad that my year at Bearsden Academy got the best results in Strathclyde - 5 or 6 of us got 6 "As" for our Highers (Sottish sort of equivelent to A levels, but borader and done a year earlier)! Despite the name, it was a comprehensive and we DID mix, certainly in the early years. We were streamed/setted for certain subjects from 2nd year - and we were always pushed to achieve.

Having said that, I would argue that my Mum's "old" school was a "better" school, as it catered for ALL the kids. She tought in Clydebank (Marti Pellow apparently once mentioned her as his "favourite teacher) At my school, if you weren't clever/academic, they didn't really put much effort in to you.

That's what schooling SHOULD be about, making sure that ALL kids fulfill their potential to the fullest - regardless of ability to pay.

Utopian perhaps - and difficult to follow through the principle when you see that your own child MIGHT be damaged by holding to those principles.

The sad thing is, we'll probably end up putting ds's name down for the local private school, in case we don't manage to get him into the preferred school. Under the Scottish (or Glasgow) system, you still have to register your child at the catchemnt primary, the January before the August they start, and then put in a placing request for the primary you REALLY want - and why. I won't even be able to put down the "real" reason (98% English as an additianl language) and will need to come up with some reason like "he would benefit from the (much) smaller school". I'll then find out my March or so if his placement request has been accepted. All of this is my agony later this year, when he will have to go through "selection" for the private school (as a back up) and for early next year when we have to register him and make the placement request. As far as we can make out, the school itself as no say in which placement requests it accepts - it's all done by the Education Authority - so we will be in the lap of the gods.

janz, you've mentioned something that nobody has really got to grips with here yet. suppose private schools, grammars and faith schools were abolished at a stroke - with only true comprehensives left, and the rules said you could go to your local one full stop. surely all that would happen is that those with the means would move to "better" areas with "better" schools, thereby exacerbating the ghettoisation of education. people do it now of course - yet it is never mentioned with the same opprobrium by those of fm's ilk as grammars (boo!), faith schools (the devil's work!) et al.

fm is seeking to regulate the demand - why not tackle the supply side?

BK - you're right. And I acknowledge my own hypocricy in being prepared to move, albeit with the vastly increased cost of housing (which you'd get back anyway in years to come, when the kids fly the nest and you can sell).

I don't know that there is an answer until Utopia exists.

The "no hope" estates will still have challenges with their catchment schools - not because the school is at fault, but that there may not be an culture conducive to learning at home. There are exceptions: the really good schools - and head teachers - can overcome this, but it must be an uphill struggle for them.

janz, i wasn't specifically having a go at you - i think people will be forced to find "alternatives" under the current system. that's why i think standard raising is the way to go. plenty of good state primaries around... why is it so hard with the secondary sector? genuine question.

Interesting feature in today's Standard - a teacher writing about trying to teach in a truly terrible inner-city school - then officially the worst secondary school in teh country. The school was full of very, very poor Bengali pupils (88per cent), rife with violent gangs and just grim. He taught Shakespeare by drawing strip cartoons because their English (not to mention their ability/willingness to concentrate) was so poor. Uncontrollable children, violent classrooms etc. It would NOT have helped those pupils to have a nice, bookish child from a middle class family sitting in there, and it would certainly not have helped the middle class child. HOWEVER, what did help is when the management of the school was changed, including a new headmaster, it was designated a language college and the whole ethos changes. This seems to me to be the whole point. Parents and children cannot save failing, chaotic, disastrous schools. The school has to improve from the top down. Otherwise it's like saying that if more middle class people went to Macdonald's the food would be healthier. NO! But if the food is Mcdonald's was healthier and the surroundings nicer, then more middle class people would go to McDonalds. It seems so obvious!

bossykate

i somehow doubt that the extra lessons I had before I took the Oxford entrance exam are quite on a par, cramming-wise, with what's on offer at top fee-paying schools

if they were, there are a lot of parents out there being ripped off (not that I mind that)

Haven't read the whole thread I'm afraid, but it is true that houses near our local primary are up to £40,000 more expensive than those further away. So people are buying into the 'better' state education. We may not get into that primary, and we live 0.4 miles away, because people have moved so close to it. So from my point of view, I'd rather the £40,000 was spent on private education, if they can afford that. Then we could get into our local school. Because of the system here, if we don't get in, we might be given a place at a failing school 3 or 4 miles away.

Agree with everything you said about oxford dino. Not sure how you'd get round it though. In fact I think by aboloshing the seperate entrance exam it is now harder for state pupils to shine. The old entrance exam questions were bizarre but a real chance to show that you had read around. Now you're just one of many many people with good A levels - except that the private school kids have generally had more chance to do extra curricular activities at school.

I taught at a very expensive crammer for several years. We specialised in getting people into medical school. I seriously worry about the standard of some of the future doctors we sent there. 17,000 to spare? Fine have intensve coaching and off you go to medical school (not quite that simple but you had a far better chance of getting in if you could afford our fees rather than retakes at the local cfe).

Here , for what they're worth, are the views of a fellow state school product I knew at Oxford

just a quick raincheck, if your child goes to a faith school, are you opting out of the state system as much as if your child goes to a private school? my son's faith school still follows the national curriculum and does not coach for the 11+ or private school entrance exams, in line with state schools in our borough. Also each faith school has an individual selection criteria.
Some expect you to practice the religion of the school much more than others. So where do faith schools stand in this - another choice open to all in a practical sense ( not based on income or where you live) or an utter evil?

I see myself as opting out of the state system, sort of, but inhabiting a strange limbo land - despised by both private and state school supporters

Aloha, I agree that it is obvious that sending one middleclass child to a failing school is never going to be the answer on its own. Is that really what Fiona Millar (Miller? spelling?) was suggesting (I didn't see the programme).

I didn't see the programme, but did read a feature she'd written and saw reviews of the programme, and yes, I do think it is her view. And I think it's nuts.
On one hand 'middle class' is a term of abuse (a la Christina Odone and her 'middle class' autistic children) and on the other hand middle class people are modern day messiahs, able to cure failing schools merely by being in their midst.

not from what i have seen, tigermoth. they follow the national curriculum for example and certainly are not as well funded as private schools.

we have a catholic primary school near us that is recognised nationally for being a fantastic school. I know of at least 3 people who have had their children christened catholic specifically so they can attend that school (they themselves were also christened catholic but have never been to church).

Faith schools are state schools. My argument with them is that non-believers fund them but can't go to them (certainly in our area), even if it is the school next door to your house. Why would I want ds to go to a faith school if I'm an atheist? Well, actually I don't. But I don't want the choice of state schools (which I pay for as much as anyone else) limited for children because their parents don't believe in God. As it happens, the local primaries are non-denominational so it isn't a practical issue for me, but I strongly object to children whose parents happen to be believing Christians etc having more choice of primary school than children like my son. If people want selective, divisive faith schools, then IMO they (or the Church) should pay for them. I have said it before and nobody has ever answered me, but would you think it OK if a local school suddenly decided it was a Conservative school, to be state funded, but run by the Conservative party, and open only to children whose parents voted Conservative?

Well, clearly that is nuts, Aloha. I would love to be able to say that by dint of getting into Oxford myself I single-handedly transformed my mediocre comprehensive into a streamlined exam-coaching machine, but sadly it didn't happen. In fact, they closed down the sixth form bit of it altogether a couple of years later.

what is a 'voluntary aided' school?

I did see the programme and that wasn't what I got from it.

The programme was pro equal opportunity in education and argued against the way in which wealthier parents monopolise places in the best state schools while struggling schools are left to cope with the most difficult pupils.
Nearly a third of children go to selective, paying or faith schools - surely it's obvious that the top state schools are creaming off the easiest pupils to teach, leaving neighbouring schools overburdened with disadvantaged pupils.

Her argument was that there should be one fair national system to decide where children go to school. Parents would be able to express a preference - but chosen according to the distance they live from school, or by which 'feeder' primary school their child went to. I guess a by-product of this approach should be more mixed ability schools where raising standards should be an easier task.

That all sounds great, but it does presuppose - again - that just putting certain children (ie middle class) into failing schools, this will automatically make the schools better. Yet she seems to have failed to demonstrate how this would work. And as the school in the Standard feature showed, schools improve from the top down, not the bottom up. A failing school doesn't need more middle class kids sacrificed to it, it needs (probably) a new head, more funding, and a thorough examination of where it is going wrong. The school (Sir John Cass in London) didn't change its catchment to become the most improved school in London, it got a new head, a new status and more money.

Well, that sounds sensible to me, and very different to just saying that one middle class child can transform a "sink" school.

Thanks Jimmychoos. I wish I'd seen the programme now.

Lots of views here agreeing with Fiona miller but not a single answer as to HOW abolishing private education (which is basically what we are talking about) would help state schools. Yes it would create a level playing field with no children having advantages but in what practical ways would state education improve?
Fiona miller didnt actually address this issue either, simply saying something is a good thing isnt enough really.
Just had scary thought that if private schools were banned, govt would then introduce means tested tuition fees from reception onwards. Thats the only way I can see any advantage to the state education system in having more middle class pupils.

Miggy, I think it depends on whether you believe that removing 7 per cent of the school age population from the society of their peers and educating them in fee-paying schools is damaging to the education of the other 93 per cent. I tend to believe that it is damaging. I agree that abolishing fee-paying schools wouldn't automatically and overnight transform the quality of education in failing state schools.

I disagree (though obviously I think that all schools should be secular). I think a state school should be non-discriminatory. They wouldn't be allowed to shun children because of their parent's political beliefs, so why should they be able to shun children for their parent's religious beliefs?

Dinosaur, why do you think it is damaging? I can see the argument that it is damaging to society and promotes inequality, but I cannot see why 93% have a worse education because 7% get educated elsewhere?