A politically acceptable proposal?

[heritager]

Educationally, we seem to be stuck, in this country. Lots (not all) people feel the comprehensive system doesn't work well enough. Lots (not all) people like grammar schools as an alternative - sometimes because it seems to be the only alternative on offer, see recent thread. Lots (not all) people hate that idea. Lots (not all) people go private, or wish to go private, to avoid perceived deficiencies.

Any solution has to be politically acceptable, as well as rational.

Here's a proposal I might call pupil premium on steroids.

Every pupil has an "educational cost" attached to them. This cost is higher if the pupil lives in a historically deprived post code (perhaps in several bands). It is higher if the pupil has diagnosed SEN (definitely in several bands). Add your own criteria here (discuss).

State school places are allocated more or less as now, with the modification: the school's funding is the sum of the funding allocated to all its pupils (perhaps plus a basic allocation for stability: discuss). The money doesn't have to be spent specifically on the child who brings it (optionally, we also keep PP: discuss). The effect is that schools with more deprived intake are automatically better funded, and so middle-class parents have an incentive to choose mixed-intake schools, thus discouraging segregation.

To make this acceptable to Tory voters: you can also take your child's educational cost to an independent school, topping up to the fee level from your own purse to what the school charges - but what you can take is discounted by say 20% (discuss), eg if your child's educational cost is £5k per annum, you get £4k pa off the school fees, and the state saves £1k compared to having to educate your child. At the same time, independent schools are encouraged to take more deprived pupils (topping up with bursaries) because they take less bursary funding than middle-class bursary recipients. For particular combinations of SEN and deprivation, the educational cost might fully meet the independent school fees: that is, the state might outsource the education of this pupil, as occasionally happens now, but more systematically.

Do you vote for that? Why, or why not? What would need to be changed to make it work?

Banning private schools , sounds like a Jeremy Corbyn 'wet dream'. While we at it why not ban a family of four living in a 5 bedroom house!

I want 'able' children to get the same education that is typical of an selective academic private school for free !

If the local area is not able to 'provide' a 95% GCSE pass or 230 points @ A level B+ average school. The Government should help by using grants (assisted ) and made available for parents whose children should be in that type of school.

I think banning private schools is not a goer - AIUI it wouldn't be legal at least while the UK remains in the EU, and I don't see it being politically acceptable ever (lots more people support the idea of private schools than actually send their children there). I also think it would be pointless: as others have said, parents with resources would find other ways to devote their resources to their children, e.g. full or partial home education, tutoring, books... We can't solve educational inequality by keeping the best educated children down: we have to raise the worst educated up.

Not sure about lottery school allocation. It might be an element of a solution, but it won't achieve anything on its own, I fear, and would be logistically complex especially outside cities.

SisterViktorine's idea of resource centres in primary schools is interesting. Doing whatever we can at primary level to ensure that children enter secondary schools with the skills (academic and personal) to succeed there is surely key. I also agree about needing plenty of teachers especially at primary level, not to reduce class size but to reduce the stress of the teaching job and give teachers the breathing space to actually use their skills to work out what individual children need and arrange for them to get it.

Along the same lines, another thing I'd do if I were in charge is ban homework in primary school (at least the stuff that has to be written and later marked). The research doesn't support the idea that it's useful to the children and it's a colossal time-sink for teachers.

Going back to private schools, I'm coming round to the idea that removing charitable status might be a good idea, even though it would require special legislation (so that the schools wouldn't be forced to sell up and give their assets to another charity with similar aims, which is what happens when a charity ceases to be one now) and be a pain. The public assumption that private schools are subsidised seems to be so entrenched - even though as haybott points out they actually save the taxpayer money - that I see no other way to take the heat out of that argument. Let's just remove the charitable status and hope not too many schools go to the wall and hope not too many bursaries are removed as a consequence.

I don't think there is overwhelming desire amongst the voting public to remove charitable status from private schools - removing charitable status would be what a fraction of the left want. Nor is there a public assumption that private schools are subsidised imo.

We seem to see that assumption a lot on MN, but maybe MN isn't representative!

Why do something, if there is no actually benefit other than to seek cheap 'thrills' it bit like sitting on the floor !

You have to ask yourself , by removing charitable status, will it suddenly mean every state school in England/Wales magically brilliant overnight ?

'Stupid' incoherent ideas from the left, that are designed to hide the fact that they have no 'new' ideas how to improve education. When those on the left have no ideas they start bringing out the '1974' NEC motions from Blackpool.

Howard Wilson cheerfully puffing away

Why do anything that makes private schools more 'exclusive' or less attainable ,if the idea is to educate 'all' children as well as possible.

I would much prefer to hear a policy allowing 'selective' independent schools to join the state sector and keep their current admissions policy.

This possibly could happen under the proposed legislation .

We also have to acknowledge that some children fail at school because they are not academically able. Genetics plays some (a lot?) of part in this. Non-academically able people tend to be poorer.

I must have been the 'poor' sod in my academic and high achieving family. The one who inherited the 'Autistic' gene while my sister avoided that bullet.

The interesting thing is there seems to be a link between high achieving families and 'High Functioning Autism' !

It Is uncanny how many families that are high achieving ,whether that be academically , sport or in business have at least one member of the family with a form of HFA.

So carol yes 'Genes' are the predominate reason influencing intelligence , but in most high achieving families at least one member draws the 'BLANK' this seems to run concurrent with high intellect.

"failing" at school is merely a question of definitions.
Not passing academic exams does not mean that a child has failed.
It just means that they are not academic.

If the school looks at education in a comprehensive and holistic way, teaching kids to be

• socially responsible
• polite
• vaguely financially aware
• good at time keeping
• observant
• articulate
• curious

will set them up for life in many of the jobs that need doing that the academic brigade like to ignore.

I have illiterate clients who earn above the national average wage
they have other skills
narrow minded focus on academe is why such skills have been dissed by politicians
and why we have hundreds of thousands of immigrants doing the jobs we are unable to train our kids to do.

In no way should private education be subsidised by the state. However it should be subject to the same oversight.

What sort of oversight are you thinking of?

The DC are taking all the same exams, so this stops the schools from larking off in some sort of eccentric direction.

t4nut Why? Surely private schooling is the same as home schooling, ie opting out of the state provided scheme.
The only reason state schools are overseen is that the parents have little choice in the school, so the state is responsible for ensuring a level of quality.
Same as the NHS - where the state provides, it demands evidence that treatments work and are value for money. If you choose to pay your own money for a shaman to balance your shakras, no-one else gets involved.

It should fall under OFSTED. Any organisation wishing to call itself a school should.

So why are home educators not examined by OFSTED?

The DoE is responsible for covering private schools, some are OFSTED inspected, other by organisations in agreement with the DoE.

Why should private schools fall under OFSTED? Do you think there is a generalised problem in the private sector that students need to be protected from?

It would just cost us more money to OFSTED inspect an additional 7% of schools and private school parents wouldn't care about OFSTED judgements anyway. They judge by GCSE, A level, and leavers' destination results.

Why should private schools fall under OFSTED? Do you think there is a generalised problem in the private sector that students need to be protected from?

the word safeguarding springs to mind
ensuring that staff are appropriately checked to be safe to be around children for example

Talkin Why is that the govt's responsibility and not the parents? Again, state schools have to be because parent's cannot choose, but why should the govt get involved in a private arrangement?

carol
So parents should each individually have the right to check the CRB / DBS status of all teachers and support staff ?

Ampleforth are the current case that springs to mind ....
or that MN perennial favourite the former head of QE

Requiring teachers and support staff at independent schools to be CRB checked, doesn't really require OFSTED involvement.

There is a great deal of compulsion when it comes to state schools. In practical terms, most families have no choice but to send their children to the local state school. In practical terms, the costs of not complying are too great in terms of time, money and other resources. When an overweening state demands direct control over children, must sane people would expect some safe guards and done oversight.

Independent schools are different. Parents are making an active and expensive choice to send their children to them. There is no element of compulsion beyond the legal requirement to educate one's children.

Ugh, typing on s phone. Apologies!

That should be most sane people

And some oversight

I don't think OFSTED should go anywhere near private schools. Private schools should be left well alone. Although any child that is enrolled should be allowed to continue to the end of A level. Yes even if they may fail or get a low mark. No cull is to be permitted.

grammar schools should be reorganized so that they are placed in the middle of deprived areas. These schools should then choice on postcode. So say your post code is in the wrong end of town and your child is bright then yes you will have a higher chance of admission. If your from the leafy suburb and you tutor your child to get in then maybe not so. Those that don't get in are usually savvy enough to find and alternative. They can even opt for the leafy comprehensive.

I used to live in a deprived area of London. The local primary has a special needs unit and is requires improvement by OFSTED benchmarks. My kids went there and I can vouch for the excellent staff and pastoral care.
I know a mum who had a younger child in the primary and an older one at secondary. The problem was that the nearest secondary was nearly 2 hours away. It's not surprising that the secondary school aged child didn't go to school regularly. Even for an academically driven neuro-typical child, that's an outrageous commute.

Surely it's common sense that if primary school A has 20 kids in a special needs unit then those children will need to secondary school within a reasonable distance (say 30 minutes) ?

It's always intrigued me why nobody has proposed the opposite to grammar schools. You'd take the bottom 10% and invest in them rather than the top 10% who would do fine in private or a good comp. The bottom 10% are the most likely to need small classes and after school clubs in order to avoid poverty, benefits and jail. (I'm not saying that other groups of children will not come from poverty, benefits and jail)

The government raised the school leaving age to 18. Does anyone know if this coincides with more investment or improved quality of vocational courses?

grikes private school is a contract between parents and school with a terms notice on either side. No reason why children should not be excluded for any reason within the contract. if that includes GCSE achievement, so be it.

Ampleforth are the current case that springs to mind ....

The issues at Ampleforth were not dissimilar to issues that occurred in many Catholic schools around the world, fee paying and not fee paying. There's no reason to believe that Ofsted type inspections would have helped. In fact, in some European countries, all schools (religious, not religious, private, state) are inspected and have been inspected for decades. The inspections did not pick up child abuse or, if they did, it was hushed up just as it was for Ampleforth.

Carol I am aware of the contract between private schools and parents. I just think schools that have admitted students from year 7 should have an obligation to allow the child to take their GCSE at their school. Even if they may fail. That is a more true reflection of the school. It does happen where schools ask parents to leave. It has happen to a friend of mine. Which isn't very pleasant .