Gove is twat

[AgaPanthers]

What a fucking vacuous prick:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2557584/Simon-Cowell-send-child-British-state-school-says-Michael-Gove-offers-tour-X-Factor-mogul.html

Cowell is incredibly wealthy. He can pay to send his child (still in utero) to any school he wants in the world. What is Gove trying to prove by suggesting that he can show him around 'hundreds' of fantastic state schools? That money buys you access to state schooling too?

Shame for those of us that can't afford to buy our way into Gove's handpicked top schools.

"I don't think he will find a better school to send his child to than the British state schools that I can show him."

So how many parents actually have access to these schools? Or is it just a chummy thing thing for multimillionaires?

Fuck off Gove.

No, Gove is trying to suggest that lots of state schools are as good as independent schools. His stated intention is that all state schools should reach that standard.

Tis bollocks though isn't it, because these schools are good because they are exclusive, and encouraging millionaires to jump the queue doesn't really help that.

agapanthers Sorry, but I really don't understand your comments in relation to this article.

How does an article saying that there are good primary schools in the UK have anything to do with them being ''exclusive'' and how does being a millionaire help ''to jump the queue'' to go to one's local primary school?

My DC are in their local primary school and seem to be doing well and has good ofsted reports etc. We are very definitely not in an ''exclusive'' area either.

So I'm a bit confused about what you are actually trying to say.

Most people are not in a position to tour hundreds of primary schools, because of catchment rules. Obviously Cowell can buy into whatever school he wants by buying another home or whatever.

It would make sense to invite him for a tour of his LOCAL primary school, not cherry-picked 'super-schools' that few normal people are in a position to use.

I don't get the point at all of encouraging rich people to use schools which are already very oversubscribed (and yes, exclusive, if not everybody who applies can get in, that is exclusive), that just takes the place away from someone else.

A state school can never be as good as a private school. By definition, private schools have more money.

Comparing my daughter's school to the private school down the road, the private school has:

Smaller classes
Bigger playing fields
More attractive buildings
White peacocks wandering around the ground

In addition, if you can afford the private school, you are paying for your child to be in company with children whose families are as well off as you.

It is impossible for the state school to compete.

I don't get the point at all of encouraging rich people to use schools which are already very oversubscribed (and yes, exclusive, if not everybody who applies can get in, that is exclusive), that just takes the place away from someone else.

Why do you think that only rich people want to send their children to over subscribed schools?

Your logic is all over the place here. If they apply and there are no places, then no one- rich or poor- can have a place- there aren't any.

There is an argument for persuading middle class and wealthy parents to send their children to state schools because their 'pushiness' is one factor that will help drive up standards.

Of course there aren't 'no places'. There are places every year, but they are oversubscribed. The more oversubscribed a school is the more it favours the rich. Non-rich people also want to go to oversubscribed schools, but the oversubscription criteria favour the rich, who can afford to move, buy in catchment and so on.

And the point about persuading the middle classes to go to state schools works only if they go to their nearest one, not the carefully selected super-exclusive one already full of middle class children.

Anyone living in the catchment area has the same chance.
In my area the two most over subscribed schools whose results are on a par with 2 independent schools in the same area have an intake which is diverse: council estates, 2-bed terraced Victorian semis and yes, larger more expensive houses.

I think you need to wise-up.

The more over-subscribed the school is does not favour the rich: it favours those families who live closest to the school.

At secondary level there is no choice- it comes down to catchment area as you have so clearly stated.

On the same basis Aga- there is absolutely nothing stopping you moving to any part of the country to access all the schools that Gove says are great.

It's called choice.

I suspect from your ranting though that you simply want to pick a fight with Gove on anything no matter what he says.

Had he suggested to Cowell that he sent his child to a private school would that have pleased you? How can you possibly not expect a Minister of Ed not to talk up state schools?

Touch reality now and then, love.

I'm not sure if you really believe that, or if you are kidding yourself.

The families closest to the school are the richest ones!

In London, the average premium to live in catchment of a top school is £173,000.

www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/245-thats-the-postcode-premium-for-living-in-catchment-area-of-top-london-school-8953893.html

Here's an example of a so-called state school which is run (rather haughtily IME) for the rich:

www.gordons.surrey.sch.uk/_files/PDF%20Files/Admissions/073FE4CAA217AA415A74B81DF5273027.pdf

Firstly, it costs £6,483/year for so-called 'day boarding' (i.e. not boarding at all, you go home every evening), you need to pay that to go there at all.

Secondly there are 100 places each year, 32 full-boarding allocated rather opaquely according to 'need', and the other 68 based on straight line distance, which is under half-a-mile.

If you live a couple of miles away, you can forget it. If you want to move, you better have £££ for stamp duty, removals, bloodsucking EA fees, and the higher cost of the house, which again excludes the poor.

And of course if you live under a mile away but don't get in because it wasn't close enough, they'll allocate you a failing school five miles away.

And er, yes there is, something stopping me moving to any part of the country, it's the million quid I don't have that you need to buy near quite a lot of these schools.

How's about I show you some lovely houses on Right Move that cost around £250K right next to the top schools in my area? (SE). 5 GCSE A-C 80+%?

You might not want one though because they are cheek and jowl with the infamous council estate which is also in the catchment area.

The politics of envy won't get you anywhere.

Gove is the only person so far to actually say that he wants state schools to offer the same type of education as private.

I've taught in both: my DCs have been through the state system, selected by post code.

Nowt do with politics of envy, my kids are going private. Just pointing out the realities of 'choice'. If you are Simon Cowell you don't have to choose between a house next to an infamous estate and a nicer area with a worse school, you just buy whatever you like.

And btw, £250k is 10* the average income, still not exactly affordable, keeps plenty of people away....

aga I really don't know what you are talking about.

Let me just give you an example. I've just checked the average house price in our local area and it comes out at £177,000.

I've also checked the percentage getting Level 4 or above in reading, writing and maths at my DCs primary school and it was 89% - this is against 75% nationally and 71% for our LA.

So, I guess that we're in a pretty good school.

I then looked at a nearby area with a worse performing school - it only gets 65% to Level 4. Guess what, house prices are higher there with an average of £191,000.

It sounds as though you have a very particular local problem where you live. Trying to generalise from your specific local issue to a wider matter doesn't really work in my view.

Genuinely what's the problem then? SC has the choice as he's got £££s , I have less choice because I'm poor but willing to graft.

Do you have a problem with Gove or Cowells money? Calling him a twat for bigging up state schools is weird if this is all you have to evidence it.

So you've called an elected MP a twat and a vacuous prick in the space of two lines.

I'm guessing you know him personally to pass those thoughts then?

Did you write rude words on the toilet walls at school?

Far be it from me to defend Michael Gove, but what an odd response! The pre-election grandstanding is a bit irritating, but I think what he's trying to say is that large numbers of state primary schools in England provide an excellent education, and that people shouldn't rule them out just because they can afford to go private.

The argument that state schools benefit from people taking their children out of them is nonsense. Yes it means there's a tiny amount more of the education budget to go round, but the benefit of this is far outweighed by the downside of taking often bright, usually well-supported children out of those schools.

And, camilamoran, I'm pretty sure there's very little correlation between the number of white peacocks a school has and its success in educating children!

"The families closest to the school are the richest ones!"

Not in our area! There are 5 council blocks of flats between us and the two outstanding state primary schools in our area, 3 and 5 streets away respectively. Needless to say, we didn't get a look in. Neither was there a box on the form asking whether we were middle class and "pushy" parents, with potential to improve the schools' standards. The working class parents from the estates seem to be doing that all by themselves. We were, however, offered another primary school, surrounded by expensive Victorian terraces and detached Edwardian houses, but which was and still is under performing and had the most appalling Ofsted report at the time despite the three different heads sent in to rectify matters.

Amber, I suspect the correlation is not all that strong either. I'm really just saying that one of the things you pay for if you go private is a more attractive setting for your kid's education. Something a bit more country house and a bit less office or run down mental hospital. And I don't think that's a bad thing to pay for either - at the same time I don't think it's something the state should try to provide for all children. I don't think Gove should push for 'White Peacocks and Wallabies for every state school' as a manifesto promise for the next election.

I just find it annoying when people say 'We should make state schools as good as private schools. The aim should be that people don't want to go private because state schools are just the same.' You can't make state schools as good as pirvate schools without (a) spending a load of money, which isn't going to happen, and (b ) making state schools socially exclusive, which is illogical.

What I don't get is how Gove expects state schools to provide an identical educational experience to private schools when funding per pupil in the state sector is £4500ish and in the independent sector it is at least 3 times that, up to £30k+.

A state school can never be as good as a private school. By definition, private schools have more money

Not true. Yes, independent schools have more income but some recent research Deloitte found that there is no correlation between funding and education outcomes. And if you look at the league tables you will find that many state schools produce outcomes as good as (or better than) independent schools.

funding per pupil in the state sector is £4500ish and in the independent sector it is at least 3 times that, up to £30k

Funding in the state sector is around £5,800 per pupil in secondary schools, £4,300 per pupil in primary schools. The average independent school charges around £10,000 per year although most offer reduced charges for some pupils so their average income is lower.

£10k a year?? For secondary? None of the ones I've looked at or any that DH has ever worked at.

Thanks for those figures prh47.

What about money aside from the funding per pupil? Do private schools, especially the big, long established ones, have a lot of capital? And how about the money that state schools get from central government for things like building work? What about academies - how much difference does sponsor money make?

I would agree that education outcomes can be as good in a state school (and should be). But it's the other things that you can pay for that make a private education 'better'.

Part of the problem is that nobody has defined what they mean by "as good as". If you mean, getting similar GCSE and A then Gove is right.

If they mean offering a similar experience, similar facilities, the same chances to take part in a wide range of extra-curricular activities, the same chance of being taught music and sports by high ranking specialists- then, no. There is no way an urban Victorian school with a small concrete playground in the middle, a single football pitch and a 40 minute bus journey to the nearest public swimming baths is going to be able rival the provision of the big private schools.

The primaries round here have one hall that doubles as lunch room and gym. That limits the number of children who can eat, prepare a play or do PE at the same time.

Number of GCSE's is another difference. Ds is at a state secondary which I would consider very good: decent results and excellent pastoral care. But they have only ever been able to offer one MFL per student, only 2 languages are taught at all, and one of them only to a small group. And now they are having to cut other subjects to compensate for lower funding. So yes, ds if he works hard has similar chances of getting A's- but not necessarily in the subjects he would have chosen.

And of course people in council housing can't suddenly choose to up sticks and move somewhere else to get into a different catchment.