Private Schools proposal for up to 10,000 free places each year

[Aussiejazz]

What do you think of this idea to offer up to 10,000 free places to lower income families each year?

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/12/09/government-serious-schools-work-everyone-will-jump-proposal/

noble, yes, because just like your classrooms, independent school classrooms were built for the intended number of pupils, not for more.

Surely, surely some government must actually provide a route for independent schools to give up charitable status without closing. (For anyone who hasn't been in this conversation before, no, there isn't one at present.)

I am really, really fed up with being expected to pay the same tax as my colleagues who use state education, and then, because I choose to spend my money on education instead of on holidays or whatever, being expected to pay more than my colleagues to support state education*. Fine, if people on incomes like mine need to pay more towards state education, so be it, but let it be ALL people on such incomes!

*because yes, almost all these ways in which independent schools support state schools cost some money, somehow.

The comments about uniform above i totally agree with.
Dd school has a basic black and white that can be bought anywhere, there are 2 compulsory school purchases, the jumper @£20 tops/ biggest size and a PE sweatshirt @15, everything else you can buy anywhere you like.

There are no differences between those that have and those that haven't, and you'd also never know who paid a significant amount towards fees and who was totally supported by government.
All parents pay on a sliding scale dependant on income. Those earning less than 20k pay very little, those less than this are free and also get travel and uniform.

Ito selection, it can only be fair if there are enough of the schools for all those who are good at a particular subject/ subjects to attend.
I can't see how it would be possible for every town or city to have enough and expect some would be required to board.

For me, the devil is in the selection details. Last time, the private schools used the assisted places scheme to cream of the brightest. These are the kids who arguably least need assisted places.

Perhaps this time the selection criteria should follow that of the local comp. - looked after children first and any who have that school named on their individual education plan. Any places left (unlikely to be many) can go to sibs etc. Not sure that would be plateable to them, but if the independent school genuinely are doing this for altruistic reasons or the benefit of society they should have no objections. Right?

The brightest needed the assisted places because state schools couldn't cater to their needs.

A different slant on the proposals

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/independent-schools-council-10000-places-state-school-cost?CMP=soc_3156

Suspect the private schools won't be so keen when its no longer a question of cherrypicking easy pupils and leaving the state sector with the rest

UKsounding I would argue that it may well be the brightest who are one of the groups not well catered for locally. Obviously, it depends on the local schools, but I do think that catering for a child who is in the top 1% academically (or top 0.1% or even top 0.01%) is very, very hard in a mixed ability class. And by 'catering' I mean, 'actually teaching them something, stretching them intellectually, and providing a social environment which they find supportive and happy' not 'getting them an A* at A level'. But that is what (some) private schools do very well indeed.

In the same way as specialist music, dance etc schools provide an environment which most children would hate and find too pressured, but which is absolutely ideal for some children, who would not thrive elsewhere.

In fact, one of the things I like about this idea is that children with a particular talent at performing arts or sport, as well as those who excel academically, could be given a chance to access opportunities that they would never otherwise have.

"The brightest needed the assisted places because state schools couldn't cater to their needs."

Where, and if, this is true, then the government should make bloody sure that state schools can cater to the needs of our brightest students! There is no reason in the world why comprehensives can't educate bright children.

Much better to make sure that schools can do a good job for all children than send in an expensive rescue helicopter in the form of school fees to educate a random small sample.

The government itself is undermining comprehensive schools' incentive to educate top performers to the full extent of ability because the league tables depend on getting middle performers the crucial Grade C pass. Resource schools so that they can prioritise all ability bands.

Progress 8 and the new Grade 9 have not had a chance to make an impact.

Near me is a school which regularly features in the 11+ threads, it is a London super-selective, and the pass rate is often harder to achieve than the grammars a little further away. This school does have a 'super selective' stream of 70 kids. Everyone else is on distance. It is to all intents and purposes a comp, with the complete and full range of the S London demography.

So, comprehensives can cater for the highest achievers.

Let schools get on with it!

Children with real musical or sporting talent can already get scholarships to private schools.

It's a terrible idea for many of the reasons above. Also rising fees and improvements in the state sector mean many private schools are struggling for numbers. This is a way of getting more pupils and money in. Costs aren't going to rise for the school if they're already undersubscribed. They're better off getting £5k for a place than having it completely empty.

The government questionnaire on this is extremely presumptive. It covers independent schools, universities and faith schools.

Personally I am of the view that excellent state schools are best qualified to help other state schools become excellent. Independent schools might be excellent at doing what they do, but they are not used to having to keep pupils who don't meet their requirements for staying - whether academic attainment or behaviour. There might be a small number of private schools that feel they have the resources, experience and interest to help in the state sector, but coercing all schools into doing so is a certain way of not reaching their stated aim of reaching those children who are currently disadvantaged by the state schooling on offer in their area, but who have not yet been identified as needing support.

Similarly, I think universities already have great outreach programmes, including events focussed on schools in deprived areas. However, if we want our universities to be recognised internationally for excellence as universities, it is a mistake to create a massive side show by making them run schools. They will only end up employing people from the school-level education sector.

The whole thing stinks of offloading both educational and financial responsibility so the Department for Education's gets a free ride.

I think the gov has missed a small point. Some parents choose private schools for the facilities and small classes. But many choose to go private because they want something elite for their family and want their offspring to mingle with similarly privileged children. They're happy to accept the occasional scholar or bursary student, but world not want a substantial number of government subsidized pupils in the school simply because it would defeat the object of why they chose that school in the first place. Uncomfortable... but I think quite true 😄

I suspect it is true Molly.

And just think, it is a Tory government suggesting that those very schools might lose their tax breaks for the privilege!

Sixthsenseless
The amazing school near you is only "comp" because of Free bus travel for children in London
Outside London, bus fares and train fares are a significant financial impediment to school choice
one that selective schooling (by god, gonads or questions) just exacerbates

Many hundreds of pounds a year on bus fares means that distant schools are not an option outside London

There are lots of reasons why comprehensives cannot cater to the brightest children and there are threads that have gone into this issue in great detail.

Let Independent schools support bright kids (who boost school's results, which school then use as a recruitment tool) on their own dime aka bursaries.
If independent schools want tax breaks, let them work for them by taking students who aren't the cherries.

And I write this as a mum of a 0.1% kid who doesn't manage in a typical state school classroom.

Slightly related;

everythingenglisheducation.co.uk/english-examinations-state-100-gcse/

Apparently private schools will be allowed to offer an English IGCSE with 40% coursework whilst state schools will not. Because presumably private school parents would not think of "helping" their children with this whereas state school parents have no morals.

@HPFA private schools can offer anything they like (and parents will pay for.) The government can only legislate state-funded schools.

Bobochic
You talk of comprehensive schools like they are identikit- they vary enormously.
Some do very significant streaming from year 7 in all subjects-some do setting for Maths, English, Science and MFL. Some have no setting until GCSE years.
Some focus on a narrowly academic curriculum (like Michaela School), very facts based teaching. Some get loads of children to top universities. Others offer a much wider range of academic, cultural and/or technical subjects.Some select on gender, religion or geographic location. Some are very inclusive towards students with disabilities or SENs; others less so. Some have a strong sporting, musical or drama offer. Others less so.

What they have in common is they are more inclusive than all the existing Grammar Schools (even the most over subscribed in the richest areas have higher rates of students with pupil premium ) in the country.

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with anything the schools do or don't do. It's about the Bell Curve and normal distribution of intelligence.

I still don't see why independent schools should financially benefit by taking kids from the right hand side of the bell curve rather than the middle or the left?

TalkinPeace, are you saying that is an argument in favour of selective schools?

I agree that in theory both free bus passes and the sheer density of schools in London (they are close enough to walk or cycle to!) offer a wider choice. However in practice catchments are very tight.

Do you think selective schools are more necessary in less dense or rural areas?

The point I was intending to make is that within one school it is possible to deliver a high quality education to a wide range of abilities, including 'super selective'.

I have seen no evidence which proves the contrary.

I dare say there are a tiny number of extraordinarily high achievers, especially in Maths, but the government are proposing grammars, not small hot house units for geniuses.

But the bright, top set high achievers, including those with Oxbridge potential, can be well catered for in the top sets of comprehensive schools.

If families need a wider choice of school in rural areas wouldn't it be better to offer children throughout the country free travel to school rather than spend millions on schools which sub divide small communities?

Uksounding, I think the schools have to make up the difference between the government contribution and the amount the child's place really costs. Despite a few Daily Mail stories suggesting private schools are struggling, in fact many are doing very nicely thank you. The good ones have lengthy waiting lists and parents are advised to apply a few years ahead of the schools starting. These schools would not benefit financially from taking state subsidized pupils. It will cost them a lot of money to give out the cheaper places. As a result, anyone paying full fees would probably find their trendy hills riding rapidly.

Trendy hills... good grief... I meant termly bills rising rapidly

@mollyHuaCha Independent schools stand to GAIN by taking subsidized students because the alternative is to lose their charitable status and have to pay full tax etc. on their assets, investments and incomes.
They aren't suggesting re-introduction of assisted-places type scheme because they feel charitable. Imagine what the tax-liability would be for the Etons, Westminsters etc.

It will save a number of private schools money as in the future, they will simply bill the Govt for part of the fees for the few very clever pupils that they are currently taking on high value bursaries. It is very often the children of the clergy or single parent teachers - low paid but with high levels of cultural capital .

Whether it is a good use of state funding is highly questionable. Often these children are used as a form of marketing as they do very well in exams and make the school look good in academic terms to prospective fee paying parents