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'd agree with heated that small classes all round would be better. But do well supported, M/C children really fail by going to OKish (not sinking) comprehensives?

Whilst you can't give exact opportunities to all, there could be a system where those from less supportive backgrounds at least get an opportunity to advance academically from seeing the life that others are being moved towards from their families. And I really don't think it's best for a country that the adult talent is essentially taken from only a proportion of the population.

"But do well supported, M/C children really fail by going to OKish (not sinking) comprehensives?"

Parisian parents seem to think so. Hence the huge recent trend towards private education.

I travelled 9 miles by public bus and then a 1.25 mile walk to my state grammar (and then the same distance home again). Quite a few of us did this journey and nobody complained. Lots of siblings were split up. My best friend's sister failed the 11+ (the year before we went). Her mum didn't complain to the education authority. Distance (within reason) and sibling arguments create objections of convenience and the fact that it's now trendy to be green is convenient too.

Most may not fail, but they probably are not fulfilling their potential either. That is a big problem for the country - to be denied top scientists etc.

Small class sizes = same number of pupils in school, but more classrooms and teachers. Yes, it would cost ££ but they are pumping money into academies and not getting the results, ditto specialist status... the real appreciable difference you could make to a pupil is not giving them a laptop but making their class size smaller.

My GCSE class which had 23 pupils had a predicted range of A-D but all achieved A-B, mostly A*/A, because they just about get enough individual attention.

I also travelled a long distance to secondary school, both in England (state grammar) and abroad.

I am determined that our children should not have to do this, if possible. Such a waste of time and energy. But of course, if truly unavoidable to receive a good education, they will do.

swedes, if they are "objections of convenience" then what do you think people's real objections (which they don't voice) are?

I actually travelled 15 miles to my grammar school, but there wasn't one any nearer. (And yes, it was my choice and my parents' to apply for a grammar and my good fortune to get into one.) That's not to say I'd want the same journey for my children.

But those top scientists could be going to a sink school and just don't have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, so as a country we could well be being denied them anyway.

The problem is not as simple as you make it appear.

My cousin lives in Skipton, Yorkshire. The houses are very expensive for a market town but the prices have been forced up by the existence of two first rate grammar schools.

Faced with the choice between poor quality state schools, paying school fees or borrowing an extra £200k to move to Skipton, she chose the latter. She figured she (or her children) would at least get to keep the money when it came to selling the house, whereas school fees would truly be money wasted.

So no, she doesn't pay fees, but how many people can afford to live in those sorts of catchment areas? It's a complete swizz.

I commuted for school. It took an hour to get home. What did I miss out on when I was standing on a bus - Grange Hill, so not exactly a big deal.

My kids commute - they don't seem fazed by it.

The imbalance Quattro points out is totally unfair, and shows how wrong "selection by mortgage" is. It doesn't necessarily mean any of the proposed solutions are any better...

And keeping the school a sink school, or worse, making more sink schools, is not helpful. You have to address the root cause, and it does not mean subjecting children to worse education than they currently receive.

Quattro - the problem you identify, of being able to afford to live in the catchment area of a good school, exists the world over.

All you can (maybe should) do about it is re-jig the catchment areas (redraw the lines or bus children around) from time to time, at huge expense and protest. But that will only ever be pretty imperfect.

Nice houses, lovely town or countryside = higher house prices = more aspirational MCs = better local schools.

I suppose we could destroy the housing stock and make everyone live in identical apartment blocks?

i quite like the voucher system idea because it seems fair to me.

I used to fall asleep, regularly, in afternoon classes, so exhausted did the commute to school render me....

I'm tempted to think a lot of people actually want bad schools in their LA, because they are comfortable knowing which ones to demonise and avoid - and because they make averagely-good ones look great.

I'd go so far as to say this is an unofficial position of some town and city councils.

UD - but in your case, you have a personal interest (don't you? In that you have chosen a house largely on the basis that it's in the catchment for a good school, and this choice would possibly be scuppered by a lottery system). I'm not saying that you don't also object to the lottery for more general reasons, but I do think the transport argument is a red herring.

Agree peppa about the waste of potential. This is an ongoing but hidden cost.

ST - I just think that schools can have a huge impact, even on the children of feckless parents. As I said below, i accept that there is a need to deal better with children who are so disruptive that normal teaching cannot carry on around them - possibly by putting them in special schools built for the purpose (but of course this is an expensive option).

nappy - please tell me why. Not being sarcastic, I genuinely don't get how it is fair.

The idea isn't to keep schools as sink schools or create more, but to raise the standards by having a mix in each school, as far as you could.

I accept that some people don't belive that is what would happen, but I think it would. Otherwise what are you going to do about the children who are at sink schools through no fault of their own?

We all have a "personal interest" because we have all, in our own ways, tried to get the best education available for our children in an imperfect system - haven't we?

If you address the problem by building a special block for the most difficult children, you have just gone round in circles (meanwhile experimenting with lives of very nice children who don't deserve to be experimented with).

Absolutely UD (I've said before that a lottery would suit my personal circs very well). I'm just saying that I think this is what Swedes is referring to when she talks about 'reasons of convenience'.

How does having a mix raise standards for everyone?

The problem is that all the solutions are imperfect. Having a lottery and then bussing children around as they do in Brighton now must be a bit of a nightmare ...

Why can't they just have grammar schools everywhere? It'd tempt some people (me?) back into the state system ...

"The idea isn't to keep schools as sink schools or create more, but to raise the standards by having a mix in each school, as far as you could. I accept that some people don't believe that is what would happen, but I think it would."

Why do you think that peppamum?

It doesn't happen here in France, where the attachment to an identical curriculum and schooling for all, and a good social mix, is still great.

In France, lots of children regularly repeat a school year because they have failed it, or are chucked out of school because of inadequate results. That is the other side of an inclusive system - otherwise the inclusive system becomes totally unworkable.