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.

I haven't read all of this thread yet but just wanted to say: How will they define who is middle-class & therefore not allowed to go a state school? Whether or not they eat avocados??

A pile of shite. Verily. What about 'middle-class' parents who prefer their children simply to have a more mixed experience socially & ethnically? Or who would rather their children went to a local school instead of being ferried to a private one miles away? (In a 4x4, obviously, because that's what all middle-class people drive, isn't it?)

I am sick & tired of the middle-classes - a huge slice of society - being depicted as a homogenous [sorry, spelling] lump of pushy, braying, 4x4 driving, Tarquin-naming horrors. Some of us are quite nice, you know!!!

UQD - I share your confusion re vouchers.

A lottery system would be the fairest way to distribute school places. I have yet to see a coherent argument against a lottery.

Policywonk- "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." But would state education really be better? Wouldn't that just be dumbing down?

Anna/Castille/Irisha - thanks for the info about other Euro systems - I'm sure that you can tell that I'm no expert . I'm not sure whether the experiences you describe favour either side of the private/public debate, tbh.

Re. dumbing down - I accept that it would probably result in less stellar results for some of the more privileged children, but I also believe that it would produce better results for the less privileged, and they are the ones who need the help more.

Swedes - I think the argument against a lottery is that you then don't have kids going to their 'local' school. If every local school is a good school (or a 'good enough' school), or parents and teachers together work to make it better, then there is value in the social cohesion fostered by most kids going to their local school, more are able to walk there etc.

And UQD - yes, I think that most people who are in favour of vouchers are people who are already paying for private school and resent paying twice (never mind that it is their choice to do that).

Actually I think lotteries to decide a child's education are A Bad Thing.

Often parents select a school most appropriate for their child's needs, which of course a lottery would negate. Nor would sending siblings to different schools be helpful, and having to use public transport to cross the other side of town when there is a perfectly adequate school within walking distance is daft.

Fine with it all as long as I get a tax rebate of the amount I have to spend on educating my kids and of course I would expect one for using private healthcare not the NHS - and will the lower classes have to pay top up fees?

What a load of crap this is!

Policy - I agree that the underprivileged need more help but not at the expense of educational excellence for everybody else.

Swedes, of course there are arguments against a lottery system. Transporting children is one. What would you do about siblings? Unfair if siblings are made to attend different schools against parents wishes - could also be said to be unfair if siblings are automatically offered a place as the lottery would only have to be 'won' once.

Not all state secondaries offer the same GCSE/A level choices, so in that respect there is some student/parental choice.

"Re. dumbing down - I accept that it would probably result in less stellar results for some of the more privileged children, but I also believe that it would produce better results for the less privileged, and they are the ones who need the help more."

policywonk - we cannot afford this course of action. It is absolutely necessary that we allow those who are able (academically and/or materially) to get to the very limits of their abilities and to develop as many talents as possible.

Competition in the world is heating up at an extraordinarily rapid pace. We must not let ourselves be sidetracked by the feelings of the less able into thinking that we are doing anyone in our society a favour by holding anybody back (even in a small way).

But are we getting the best in the divided system we have now? You could argue that we are losing the talent and abilty that must be present in some of the children who go to failing schools, and so a fairer school system for all would mean that the talented of all classes were able to succeed, not just the talented from the better schools.

peppamum - there is no perfect educational system - no economy can support through taxation a system where every possible educational opportunity is offered to every child, according to his/her individual talents.

At least in the UK there are schools, and universities, that are among the very best on the planet, and that children and students from all over the world compete to enter. Of that we should be proud . It gives everyone a benchmark to work towards.

But the school system has to raise expectations, not lower them, peppamum

swedes - my argument against a lottery comes from having lived in a small city, in the country and now in a large city. In the latter (assuming a citywide lottery) it would be total traffic chaos, as well as undermining communities.

I can't imagine trying to get DD and DS to schools halfway across the city - when travel times could be 90 minutes or more - and having the 7 children near to each other on this street, who have all grown up in the same primary school class, going to 7 different secondary schools. It would be madness.

I'd s/heay that we can't afford to consign so many thousands of children to substandard educations in bad schools. Apart from anything else, it has a significant impact further down the line in terms of social behaviour, criminality, tax revenue and so on. I think this is more of a priority than cossetting those who are already privileged. I child from a well-off, educationally-motivated background is unlikely to sink without trace because s/he attends a school that is truly comprehensive.

How would a lottery system work?

UD, we've spoken about the lottery business before . If
school transport is organised alongside lottery systems, school-run traffic could be significantly reduced.

I think the UK would be crazy to take the risk of abolishing private schools with the short and medium term educational losses to the country that would inevitably entail when the potential long-term gain is so uncertain, as demonstrated by what has happened/is happening in other European countries.

Oh come on, policywonk, like heck it would. Buses going to all different parts of the city, from all different parts of the city?... We already have a situation in our area where buses pass one another taking children from estate in area A to school in area B and from estate in area A to school in area B!

Anyway, the transport issue is only part of it. What about the undermining of communities?

The present system is mad, but a lottery is not he answer. The answer is no "choice" or allocation of any sort - who really wants it? The answer is for all schools to be "desirable" in their own different ways.

"Apart from anything else, it has a significant impact further down the line in terms of social behaviour, criminality, tax revenue and so on."

Poor education does not cause these problems - these are due to poor parenting despite the efforts of the school. Nothing that has been suggested on this thread would be effective at addressing the root cause of the problems.

If the government wanted to throw money at the problem, they could do a lot worse than to give the money to local churches who are effective at raising parenting standards and taking 'youths' of the streets.

Even if you had a truly comprehensive system, there would always be one or two better schools than the others because of the area the school was in, such was the case in the London borough I went to school in: 2 excellent comps, 4 okish ones and 3 dreadful and the housing that surrounded it was a good indicator of which was which.

The way forward imo is to have smaller class sizes for all. Forget about the millions poured in to give schools specialist status & other 'initiatives' blah blah blah, give me a class of 20-22 and students will do amazing things.

I'd be inclined to give cautious agreement to that, Heated. So that means.... more schools?... or bigger?

ScienceTeacher - I agree with you that poor parenting is the root cause of a lot of problems that are wrongly attributed to the educational system.

But parenting actually means lifestyle choices in a lot of instances. How do we persuade people to lead better lifestyles in a culture of "tolerance" where we are not supposed to "judge" and where "fairness" boils down to the LCD?

How do we move to a culture that aspires to better (non-material) things?

"4 okish ones"

I read that as 'oikish' Heated, and thought 'steady on.'