We must end free education for the middle classes

[outofteabags]

Did anyone see Anthony Seldon's article in the Times on this? www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3645129.ece
I am very interested to know what people think about it especially as I happened to hear a particularly heated debate on this at a party.

Haa. If you work there you get a whopping discount. It's the ones that have to work all hours that pay for your children.

who would want to be on holiday with a barrister?
they NEVER stop talking

I think that a lot of the time its not just the teaching and facilities but the atmosphere. If little jonny goes to the local comp with a socially and academically diverse intake he might be more inclined to mess about, play up, he might cruise along being solidly average despite his IQ of 230 and no-one would pick up on it because he's getting Cs/Bs in his tests. There might (only might) be an attitude of it not being cool to try hard or do well amongst some pupils which he could fall into.
However if he goes to the local grammar where every parent assumes their DCs will go to university, there are serious reprocussions if he even murmurs in class and its humiliating not to try and get As then he's going to do better.
I suppose ultimately (and I understand this is a SWEEPING generalisation) children from £1,000,000 houses in suburbia are more likely to have parents who expect/want/can afford for them to go to uni/do A levels/get straight A GCSEs than those in inner city council estates. Making the middle classes pay isn't going to change this, just create a more divisive society with more people thinking, well if Im paying either way I'll just fork out the extra and be done with it.

Personally I really think there needs to be some sort of (flexible) streaming. Comps aren't fair on any child, the least academic children are demotivated and confused by whats going over their head, the brightest children are bored stupid going over everything 10 times and the vast majority of roughly average children get the worst deal of all because they're never going to get the attention given to the to extremes. I think if all children were in classes with their academic contemporaries BUT also had things like PHSE, sports and music clubs with children of all abilities then everyone would do better.

I think we should just ban the middle classes. They're to blame for so much trouble with their pushy encouragement of their children.

The only trouble will be finding some other suckers to pay as much tax as they do.

I think there are many ways to even out school applications, if there is political will.

Lotteries for school places might work if organised well.
More funding for transport to school. (For us the 'good' school is in the next town, which means c.£500 in bus fares over the year. We don't mind paying it, but for many families that is a prohibitive cost, and even if they are on benefits, they don't get money towards that cost if they have chosen to go to that school rather than a local one.)
Ditto for school uniforms. Despite recent advice from government to schools and school governors, many of the 'more desirable' schools still have ridiculously complex and expensive uniforms. This puts off many potential applicants.

Aintnomountain hit the nail on the head
All schools should be good schools.

Besides, if it private school was means tested, who decides where the line is?

According to the child tax people, we are doing ok, but there is no way we could afford private.

I don't agree with children being bussed on long journeys to school. Its bad for the enviromment.

If schools in challenaging areas were given more funding per child than schools in rich areas then they would be able to compete.

By roisin on Mon 31-Mar-08 21:10:39
"More funding for transport to school. (For us the 'good' school is in the next town, which means c.£500 in bus fares over the year. We don't mind paying it, but for many families that is a prohibitive cost, and even if they are on benefits, they don't get money towards that cost if they have chosen to go to that school rather than a local one.)"

If we want our children to still have a world to use their education in, it might be a better idea to try to make it possible for everyone to use their local school. That boring old thing called the environment.

Our only schools, good or bad, are 10 miles away Cory. That's rural England for you!
Dds 1 and 2 are at the local grammar. There is a real class divide which is reflected fairly accurately in outcome in dd1's year (Y9). It's an attitude thing - the kids who don't want to learn are all the ones from less academic backgrounds. I'm not being judgemental, just reporting it as it seems to be.
As a parent, I'm glad dds are middle class. As a teacher, I see that the grammar school is not providing the opportunity it did when my dad was at school - a way out of the mines and on to university. Parental influence/attitude seems to have a big effect on pupil achievement.

there isn't such thing as a catchment area though. it goes on distance after the sibling thing. so the pupils who live nearest to the school get in. seems the most logical way to do it to me.

There are a hell of a lot intelligent wc parents who were let down by the education system themselves and are determined to push their children on, most of those are probably at religious schools tho'
Why are people that value education labelled mc?

Nappyaddict, that's all very well unless you live in between 2 towns like us. No secondary schools within 8 miles of our house. We're bottom on every list on distance. Certainly not fair on our children.

Mrsruffallo, I think it's more about access and confidence. Also in our area, it seems too many schools have v low expectations of wc intake. More like placing them for life rather than using education to broaden their view of education.

but if you got rid of the distance thing then you'd have everyone trying to go to the "best" schools and how would you work out who got in and who didn't? i suppose you could do it first come first served. can't see any other fair way of doing it.

Curious times we live in; almost Victorian amongst the MC.

I think Seldon has a point, but prescribed education is not something that exercises me.

I have only one child. He's three, and he's very bright. I don't want him to go to university. I would not discourage him, but nor will I encourage him. He will do what he wants to do. He's an individual. It is my job to love him and to support him. That's where it ends.

Any way, life is an education. The way I see it, it's my job as a mother, to ensure he doesn't have an ulcer at forty. I despise the modern attachment to status. I will have failed as a mother if my son ever goes to a party and asks ... 'and what do you do?'

So, whatever school you decide upon, or not, never raise a child who says that

Agree Desi, what a healthy attitude!!!

Parents choose private schools for many reasons, and an important one is to avoid the behavioural issues that are endemic in state schools.

If any government wants to seriously level the playing field, it is not simply a matter of altering funding (getting more people to pay is simply putting more money into education).

They have tackle the issues that lead to bad behaviour and also to change the culture so that we do not tolerate it or feel defeated by this. That is a much bigger social issue, and outside the educational field. It has to start with early parenting, and somehow trying to reverse the breakdown in society.

Anthony Seldon likes to be shocking - his articles get people thinking. They are not necessarily realistic. He's a funny guy though - came to Speech Day a few years ago and had us all in stitches.

I cannot stand all these so-called "moral" arguments for and against fee-paying schools.

It's ridiculous. As a developed society, we know, surely, that - for the common good - every child needs to receive a decent basic education and we therefore need to ensure that as a society ie through the mechanisms of the state, that basic education ought to be delivered to all.

If parents wish to offer their children additional or alternative forms of education to the basic provision by the state so be it - they are free to pay for whatever they choose, or free to home educate.

The issue in the UK today is ensuring that all state schools do their job to a decent standard. All other arguments (many of which are spurious, anyway) are miles down the list of priorities compared to the real issue of ensuring state education is doing its job.

"I despise the modern attachment to status."

Desiderata - I think the attachment to status is just basic human nature. Surely it is the particular status symbols (eg Gucci sunglasses, Hermès handbags or perhaps private schooling) that are "modern", not the attachment to status per se?

It's just so ridiculous, this idea that the middle classes are a homogenous bunch with loads of spare cash, and keen to trample on everyone else to get to the top. We are 'middle class', have no money, and worked hard to buy a house in a decent area. That's why the school is good, because of the parents - if you made us pay we couldn't afford it. We have no spare cash at all after the mortgage and council tax etc. And I don't mean no spare cash for skiing, I mean no spare cash for Pizza Hut/ MacDonalds in the school holidays.

The environment is a red herring when people are talking about organised school transport. It might be relevant if everyone currently walked to the local school, but as we all know there are millions of parents who drive their children tiny distances rather than subject them to a bit of walking in slightly blustery weather. Given this, organised school bussing would actually be much better for the environment. Like roisin, I think lotteries are an interesting approach, although they would not work in all areas.

Anna8888 - the moral argument around state/private education is quite valid, IMO. If private school were abolished and all the most privileged children attended their local state schools, and all the attentions and efforts of all parents were focused on said state schools, state education would be a lot better. The division between state and private has a direct knock-on effect on the quality of state schooling, and thus on the life chances of the children who attend state schools.

policywonk - come on, you can do better than that old chestnut

Socialism abolished all kinds of "privileges". Did it work?

FioFio,
Prehaps more special schools should be re opened. I do think its wrong that a lot of children with special needs have to travel stupid distances. There are children at the special school I work at who spend 3 hours a day in travelling to and from school. No child should be stuck in a taxi for so long.

I also think that "inclusion" is the root of a lot of problems in state mainstream schools. Inclusion of bright children with physical disablites is one thing, but inclusions of children with severe emotional and behavioural problems is another.

There needs to be more special schools for children who are distruptive and head teachers of mainstream schools should have the freedom to expel.