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?

youare
Many academies do the same
they wish
they did at the start, then a couple of years back the formula was changed - they could only permanently exclude if they permanently paid ....
FWIW I'm totally in favour of well used exclusion
near me is a massive PRU that is genuinely working miracles
kids come out of there different and better people
if they had stayed in mainstream school they would have trashed themselves and the other 29 in their class

but (and I know the head) her funding comes from the schools that have kicked them out and only by paying full whack to her do those kids stay off the original roll
a neat trick

Private schools just kick out and leave State to pick up the pieces

Talkin - completely agree about the driving licence and drinking ages (and don't get me started on gun licences!). Personally I like religion having no place in schools, though I am a bit sad that there is literally no recognition of any of the major festivals throughout the year. Heck, they don't even "do" Halloween at my DC's school, as it's a Wiccan festival!

I was genuinely surprised to find myself liking big schools: I had previously thought that both my DC, for different reasons, would thrive better in a small school but I was wrong. I suspect the key is the small class sizes: nurturing and secure, but with the economies of scale that come from a large establishment. (Is this the secret of the success of many independent schools??)

Olennas
Big schools : its one of the foibles of the "nurture" brigade

I went to a small independent school - limited choices on effing everything

my kids went to a 300 / year comp
so there was a dyslexia specialist, a dyspraxia specialist, a mobility specialist, a G&T Unis link specialist etc etc
their 6th form is 2000 per year - like mega west coast high school - 8 labs per science, 400 computer terminals ....
and the economies of scale that when I sent one, slightly worried email, they had the resources to pounce and deal right away

Eton is 1300 pupils after all

Academies use managed moves. Ds' academy made he papers for the number of exclusions when HT took over. She left - but new HT is continuing the trend of MM. All for pupils who require their share of their finding which they then can't use elsewhere.
Same school told me even if DS gets EHCP and funding for 1:1 he'd only be given the share of an LSA already employed on 1:3 - because that's what they do.
Eg - they'll take the funding but won't use it for what they have to megalith provide.
They are also so open about their blatant intentions to please themselves that parents end up with no choice but to move their children as they wont win. It's a all talk no action school.

All schools use managed moves in an attempt to avert exclusion.

This one uses it as a way to get rid of pupils they don't want. My DS wasn't at risk of exclusion. He has sen and they didn't want to put in the support. Then the ed psych said he needed more than previous ed pysch and they cetrainky didn't want to do that so they suggested managed move.

Well they're hardly going to use it on pupils they want to keep are they?

I still think any school wishing to get new grammar school status should be situated in deprived areas. The rich kids get driven in or can afford transport. Selection should be 50% examination 30% postcode and 20% interview. The rich parents will be up in arms! Your'e rich middle class goto your leafy comprehensive school or pay to go private. The only misgiving I have of private is that they cull the not so academic before the exams. This has to stop I think if your asked to move on. Then the school should repay a third of fees you had paid. They taught your child they should take responsibility.

As for rich parents using grammar schools as a free private school. If you can afford to tutor them you can afford to send them private.

OlennasWimple

So if you live in a rich area you have a better school for your child to access, or at lest a better funded one.

In the US governors can choose text books, so if you get a creationist govenor your kids could be learning from 'of pandas and people' instead of an actual science text book.

Once a teacher has 'tenure' it is virtually impossible to sack them, even if they do something pretty bad, so there are schools in the US with teachers but no pupils. They have to keep their employment but are not fit to teach so they go to work and sit around all day and take home a pay check at the end on the month.

But that's the point t4 they are choosing which pupils to keep or not. This is meant to be a state academy - not a selective grammar or independent. But they are selecting pupils once they are in dependent on their academic ability - or rather ability to make progress with no support despite getting Sen funding for them.

That's not how a managed move works.

If the school identifies a pupil with specific needs is failing to engage with the school despite strategies in place, and that their needs are best met within another environment, they will engage with parents and local authority to look at options.

If a students behaviour and failure to engage with the school places them at risk of permanent exclusion despite strategies deployed they will look to a managed move to prevent permanent exclusion and give the student a fresh start.

A managed move is never used based on academic ability.

In an ideal world t4 but I can assure you schools use it for other purposes.
They obviously don't say "we don't want your child!" But they go to great lengths to make it clear and get the end result they want.

Most of the population is not subjected to and doesn't have the knowledge of some of the things that go on in schools.

sassh - the US courts have repeatedly upheld that teaching creationism in a public school is illegal. It might happen from time to time (as it does in the UK...) but it's not a wide-spread problem - the law against religion in schools provides protection against that

I agree that the strong unionisation of teaching is far from ideal here, but I think you could have some of the key features of the system without everything, and the teachers' employment status is one of those that need not be replicated. I would be interested to learn about these ghost schools, though - Google hasn't helped me find any?

My point about local taxes was more that, on the whole, people are prepared to invest in education. I can't begin to conceive of a situation in the UK where a council could say to its population that they were putting council tax up by a hundred quid a month for the next three years specifically to pay for the renovation of one of the schools. It just wouldn't happen (much less be voted through).

US schools are very much a state by state, county by county affair. It's dangerous to generalise, but where people pay high property taxes for schools, private secondaries are not widely used, and parents paying these high taxes get a lot of what they want. Most academic classes are set. Troublesome DC get chucked out sharpish to "challenge schools" and specialist units.

Basically, if you are of the professional classes in the USA, living in a nice neighbourhood and paying high taxes. Your children may go to a huge school, but there will be so much streaming, setting and partitioning going on both formally and "accidentally" that your high flying, university bound DC will hardly rub elbows with DC who are struggling, disadvantaged, or poorly behaved. If this were not the case, people would be voted off the school board, and taxes would dry up.

US education model is not one to aspire to.

We don't need a tax increase to invest in education and health. We merely need them to be properly funded, rather than tax breaks for tory doners and vanity projects like HS2. Education and health are knowingly and deliberately underfunded to createca privatisation environment.

If parents are able to tutor their children they will do well in their leafy comprehensive. If they can afford tutors again the child will do well in a leafy comprehensive. A grammar school should be made to help the poor an opportunity for social mobility. It should not be used as free private education for the middle class...

Well let's put it this way Grammar schools are meant to admit the more academic and bright children. This is so there is a atmosphere of academic excellence. So children will learn. This is no different to most selective private schools. The emphasis on most there are some very dodgy private schools out there. There is the connection between it being a free private school for those who can afford to tutor their children to get in. This is not what a grammar school is for. It is more to help the poor bright academic child fill his potential. Thus enabling him to get a foothold on upward social mobility.

What is middle class? I would say if you can afford a new car every two years, go on holidays once a year, able to hit the pubs and clubs or restaurants every weekend. Then have a nice 500K property. O yes and afford the fees to pay your kids tutors.

If you can afford to tutor (or use the services say 10 hours or so) you can afford private education What a load of misguided 'nonsense'.

I Suppose if you can afford to buy a pre- used 11+ practice book you become middle class!

The point being is that you are able to tutor your child. So it won't make any difference if they get into a grammar or a comprehensive. A bright child who has no access to these things would invariably do better in a grammar than comprehensive. If you can afford the tutors then why take up a grammar place? Your tutoring anyway...