Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

We must end free education for the middle classes

267 replies

outofteabags · 31/03/2008 19:24

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.

OP posts:
TheFallenMadonna · 01/04/2008 14:24

Is the 11+ a good way of choosing who goes to a grammar and who goes to a secondary modern? I feel it's rather presented as two distinct subgroups - grammar school material and non-grammar school material. But is that how it works? Can you discriminate on the basis of a percentage point in a couple of tests who should receive which kind of education?

TheHonEnid · 01/04/2008 14:25

yup anna sounds good - thast about where she is now

Anna8888 · 01/04/2008 14:25

"whatever happened to children being children. What on earth happened that made parents think they should be getting their children to practise exams at 6 so they would pass the 11+ and have less liklihood of being a smoker"

Globalisation, and the resulting intense competition among humans on this earth. No stopping it.

Anna8888 · 01/04/2008 14:27

Enid -

You'd probably rather like the school system here - I think it suits your kind of child. Teachers seem to teach very much to the middle ground here.

Swedes · 01/04/2008 14:31

UQD - People's real objection is that they have already worked the system to their advantage and they don't want a level playing field, not now. This is normally done by house price or God.

Anybody who thinks a lottery is unfair is in an advantageous position and has nothing to gain by gambling.

Half an hour on a bus or a 45 minute walk won't do children (11 - 18) any harm whatsoever, quite the reverse I think.

Remotew · 01/04/2008 14:33

Our areas is comprehesive for a radius of 40 miles. So, unless you have lots of spare money approx £17,000 per year for the one private school, the only option is the comps.

There is a very good mix of children from all backgrounds, no stressing re 11+, catchment areas, etc, and it works.

Most kids get a good education. Agree that the ones who's parents take a real interest tend to do better but there are many exceptions to this.

I'm happpy the grammar options wasnt there, but know that DD would have got in anyway .

Going back to the OP. This suggestion is ridiculous. Perhaps they should do away with state grammar, make it all comprehensive and leave the rich to fund their childrens education if the wish to.

UnquietDad · 01/04/2008 14:35

But surely the idea of a lottery is that nobody should have anything to "gain"?

What would the sink-estate child gain by being bussed to our local good comp on the edge of the city, given that it would no longer be the "good" one under a lottery system? I bet parents there would be as lukewarm about it as I am, frankly. They'd rather their local school was a good one.

Anna8888 · 01/04/2008 14:37

The lottery/bus system is social engineering of the crudest kind IMO. How do you make a school into a community when there is no geographical relationship between it and its pupils, or between pupils?

Swedes · 01/04/2008 14:37

I'd like a return to the grammar school system with a safety net for the 11+ failures. Maybe two further intakes at 12 and 13 so that late starters were less likely to slip through the net?

sitdownpleasegeorge · 01/04/2008 14:39

I read the Times article and thought what a load of narrow minded baloney and from someone in the private school sector too.

If middle class parents couldn't get what they wanted in the state sector more of them would go private and hey presto the private sector benefits from increased demand. Any vested interest here I wonder at a time when school fees have risen astonishingly in excess of actual rates of inflation causing those who might have gone private to try and get what they need out of the state system.

Firstly, the middle classes do not get free education, they pay for it through taxes, at the same time being "taxed" for a donation to cover the schooling of children who have parents who do not pay any tax. People who do not have children also pay tax at the same rate as those who do not, because our taxes pay to educate the nation as a whole but no-one should be under the misguided impression that education is free, except that it is "free at the point of delivery" just as basic healthcare is in the UK too.

The middle classes pay tax for the education of their children in a state school which they then do not use if they choose to pay again, for whatever reason, to have their child educated in a non-state school.

Don't forget the higher taxes paying middle class parent is also paying the additional taxes to cover the costs of educating the children of parents who have much lower income therefore insufficient total tax deductions to cover the actual cost of educating their own children.

If we want to bring down the standard of education overall we should subscribe to the lottery method of allocating school places. Utopia, I don't think so ! But it costs nothing so I can see it being adopted almost nationwide as a cure-all approach just as comprehensives were hailed as being the solution to the "unfair" method of selection by accademic ability using the 11+ exams

If we want to free up the places in "good" schools for the children of of non-middle class parents then perhaps we could consider issuing vouchers to all parents and giving them choice of state (voucher covers all the usual costs) or private where they would have to make up the difference in "price" but would effectively be subsidised for their choice of a private school. Either that or we try and bring all schools up to a decent level of education by having a zero tolerance policy on poor behaviour, perhaps "secure" schools for those with a history of truanting (to ensure that they remain in the education system) and grammar schools with the alternative being the old fashioned secondary moderns with a state of the art facilities for proving practical training to give school leavers additional skills to render them desirable employees in whatever sector they choose to train in.

This second option for trying to raise the quality and suitability of education for the UK as a whole is much more expensive and could benefit all children but lets not forget who would be disproportionately taxed more heavily to fund such a scheme, yep that's right those wicked middle class free "good school" place grabbers.

Doh ! Forget sending your kids private if the writer of the article is an example of the quality of educational thought processes they would be exposed to - utter waste of money.

Anna8888 · 01/04/2008 14:39

Or just change the system to make primary school longer / have middle schools and have a 13+ entry?

UnquietDad · 01/04/2008 14:40

That's an interesting idea, swedes, one I've not seen before. Might take some thinking through but it could work. Of course it could go the other way too...

Swedes · 01/04/2008 14:42

UQD - I think the whole point of a lottery is that everybody has an equal chance of getting their child into a good school - isn't that a gain?

TheFallenMadonna · 01/04/2008 14:48

I went to a school with a massive catchment area (Catholic) and community feel was one of the best things about it. Not sure if the Catholic thing had anything to do with it - we weren't awfully devout...

Re the 13+, is it a late starter thing? Or a preparing for the exam thing? My stepdad's grandson has just passed his 11+. He needed to be taught over and above the primary curriculum to be able to do the test, according to his mother.

TheHonEnid · 01/04/2008 14:50

I think annas idea about primary being longer is a really good one

UnquietDad · 01/04/2008 14:50

swedes - no, everyone has an equal chance of getting their child into a mediocre school, surely?

UnquietDad · 01/04/2008 14:52

I'm trying to work out what would happen if we got vouchers. (Presumably everyone gets them, not just those who pass some kind of supper/avocado/grandma/Waitrose MC test. You fail if you say tea, burger, nan, Lidl.)

So "voucher parents" start going to their local private school - which, if our city is typical, isn't likely to be within a convenient area/ travelling distance for anybody but the middle classes anyway - to beg a place.

Assuming supply and demand boosts the necessary growth in the private sector, places start to be freed up in Desirable State School - let's call it St Cuthbertina's. Parents who would otherwise be sending kinds to less desirable but "OKish" Bash Street start to find places available at St Cuthbertina's and fill 'em up.

Those even lower down the food chain, at Bogstandard Hill Comp, suddenly find there's less competition for places at Bash Street, and start sending kids there instead (assuming they can get there in the morning). So, does Bogstandard Hill start to lose places and face closure?...

ScienceTeacher · 01/04/2008 14:53

The public school tradition is for boys to transfer at 13+ and girls at 11+.

Anna8888 · 01/04/2008 14:54

For Cranbrook School in Kent (state grammar, mixed) the children take a 13+ entrance exam.

blueshoes · 01/04/2008 14:55

Swedes: "Anybody who thinks a lottery is unfair is in an advantageous position and has nothing to gain by gambling."

Not really. I could think that a lottery is unfair precisely because there is nothing I can do to put my dcs in an advantageous position. And we all want the best for our dcs.

I think taking away choice (and convenience) makes almost everyone unhappy.

ScienceTeacher · 01/04/2008 14:55

UQD, I don't think you can have social engineering while allowing schools to be selective. I'm assuming that a voucher system would work within a selective/individualised system only.

TheFallenMadonna · 01/04/2008 14:57

Whereas choice for those who can afford it makes only those who can't afford it unhappy.

You have a point

UnquietDad · 01/04/2008 14:59

Let's be clear (lest there should be any doubt.)

I don't want sodding vouchers.

I don't want sodding lotteries.

I don't want sodding "choice".

I just want to send my children to my local school (note, LOCAL) and for that school to be a good one.

I'd quite like it if everyone else were able to do the same.

Not rocket science, and yet it eludes successive governments.

chopchopbusybusy · 01/04/2008 14:59

Some areas in the UK still have First(4-9), Middle(9-13) and Upper schools(13+).

Fennel · 01/04/2008 14:59

Until recently the schools in our area had middle school system and entry to secondary at 12. It was unpopular with the parents who tended to send their children private or out of the catchment area at 11. So it's been changed. Partly to avoid the middle classes exiting the system.

Swipe left for the next trending thread