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'm talking about the real hardcore ST, not large numbers of children. And... 'nice children'?? (or was that a joke?)

The thing is, it is perfectly possible to get a good education (or at least, good exam results - the two are not necessarily synonymous) from a not-particularly-good school. But it's more of a gamble, I think, than sending your child to a very highly selective grammar or fee-paying school. It depends not only on your child being clever but also being having a certain independent and bloody-minded attitude (ime).

It seems to me that what people are really doing when they opt for selective schooling is trying to take that uncertainty out of the equation.

Gosh Quattro we agree on something . I also think that grammar schools are, on balance, the best way forward to create excellence in the state system.

In my family and in my generation my cousins, my sister and I went to a mixture of private, international and state grammar secondary schools. I really don't think that the choice of school made much difference to our educational outcomes. But that's because they were all good academic schools.

Yes, SSB, people pay large sums of money to lower their risks . Like life assurance.

Another vote for grammar schools here, although in the context of a more flexible system than the old 11-plus dichotomy.

Quattrocento, grammar schools only ever educated a tiny minority of pupils - I can't remember the details but I think it was as low as about 5-10 %. So although they might help some bright children, I don't see how their reintroduction could ever be compatible with raising education standards across all schools. And presumably you'd still have lots of disgruntled parents.

SSB - but it would be perfectly possible to reintroduce grammar schools across the country for the top 10%, 20% or 30% of pupils. The percentage of children educated in grammar schools in the past has absolutely no bearing on any future political decision on the percentage of children to attend grammar schools.

lol issy

As league tables results seem to be one of the main judges of how good a school is, than having a mix of children would bring schools up the league tables. Wasn't there a study recently that showed that M/C supported children did just as well whatever school they went to (haven't read it so don't know much about it).

By raising standards, I don't mean that every school will achieve the results that the best schools, as they have to some degree cherry picked the pupils (by house prices/ effort taken to get in school) so if those pupils were dispersed then their high achivementrs would be dispoeresd amongst different schools too.

Truthfully, there probably is no benefit (certainly academic)to the pupils who are at the good school, but I'm looking at it as the school system as a whole for the benefit of all. And that really is the nub. Its wholly understandable for people want the best for their child, and that seems to be seen as keeping the good schools for those who are generally rich enough to get into them. But it does mean that genuinely intelligent and talented people who aren't lucky enough to be born into such a family have little chance to reach their potential.

I also think there seems to be so much more emphasis on children's education nowadays. I went to an Okish comp and I don't remember my parents fussing over it the way I have with my kids. I think it has to do with the policy of 'choice'. The onus has moved from the government having to provide decent schools to the parents having to get their child the 'best' - it becomes a personal responsibility rather than a comunal one, and that encourages parents (myself included) to make more selfish decisions.

god please no more grammar schools

not all children of middle class parents are clever enough to get into them

the STRESS

Agree with SSB post of 13:56

"The onus has moved from the government having to provide decent schools to the parents having to get their child the 'best' - it becomes a personal responsibility rather than a comunal one, and that encourages parents (myself included) to make more selfish decisions."

As parents, it is critical that we take self-interested decisions on our children's behalf. It is a good thing and progress if more parents realise this.

Enid - well, yes, this is the crux of the matter.

For parents who are fairly sure that their children would be able to get into a grammar school (and that includes me, in completely hypothetical sort of way), grammar schools are a good thing.

For parents who are not so sure, comprehensives are far less anxiety-making.

We will never reconcile the two, will we?

But what about the children who don't have parents who do this? You can try and encourage them to, but in the meantime you have a generation left behind? Don't we as a country have some responsiblity to all children?

dd1 is certainly not bright enough to get into a grammar

she still deserves a fab education though

Issy. No, I think home edders would be exempt. I realise that some terrified parents would remove children to home ed them, but I doubt that it's a practicable option for most people. And the odd bit of extra-curricular tutoring wouldn't cancel out the benefits of a system that was, broadly, fairer.

Enid - I do think it is possible to have grammar schools and a fair allocation of educational resources.

"Secondary moderns" or whatever their present day equivalent would be called could be well endowed and give an excellent education, couldn't they? Surely one of the things that was wrong about the old grammar school system was that it diverted too great a proportion of educational resources to the academically more able. But this is not a given, and today we do have a lot more money to devote to education than in the past.

When I took the 11+ there were a couple of comprehensives (CofE and Catholic IIRC) that parents could choose instead. Those children didn't take the 11+.

This did mean that the sec mods were irredeemably rubbish though.

but I WANT my not so bright kid to be with bright kids [stamps foot]

Enid - so you want your child to be, say, 23rd brightest in a class of 30, with a good spread of abilities?

i already have

we have two choices

a) ok state comp
b) high flying private schools at £8 grand a term