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.

Swedes , I went to a grammar school and "late starters" ie those who blossomed slightly later academically (sp?) joined us from various secondary moderns at each stage up to about the age of 14 IIRC.

Some joined us in the sixth form to do A levels having done really well in their GSE's, instead of going to the local FE college to do a limited choice of A levels or vocational qualifications so the bad old days weren't that bad in some areas.

UQD - Eventually, yes, I suspect all schools would become mediocre. But you surely understand that medicore is very much more desirable than absolutely dire. There are therefore as many people gaining from the lottery as there are losing out. You can't have a weighted vote just because you can string a good sentence together.

LOL UQD - say it like it is!

I agree, this is the ideal system. I am lucky, I have sent DDs to the local schools (First, Middle and Upper) and overall I have been very pleased with them.

I lived in an area that had selection at 14 (like the 11+ only later). Children left primary at 11 and everyone went to Junior High until they were 14, then sat the test for grammar school. I think that is fairer than selection at 11.

I'm still not convinced those who currently send kids to dire schools on sink estates (or other suburbs) would see it as a "gain" that they had to put their kids on a bus in the morning (all in different directions) to go to schools which would now be no better than the one they had on their doorstep.

If they could do that, surely they'd be sending them out of catchment already? We have quite a few good schools with places taken by out-of-catchment pupils in our city.

It's surely fairer to work towards making the school on their doorstep as good as the others.

What would a voucher scheme cost... anyone ?

Total number of children in private education x the amount allocated per child under the current eductaion budgets.

Clapping and cheering UQD.

Agree with peppamum, too.

I can't rid myself of the notion (clearly regarded as stupid by some on this thread) that we owe some sort of social responsibility to all children, not just our own.

I would love to be able to send my children to the local school. But I know they would be miserable there, and would not achieve their potential.

I do feel I owe some responsibility to all children, not just our own. I work in secondary school and dh is Chair of Govs at a primary and at the 6th form college.

We work our socks off for the children in the town, but my principles do not stretch so far as to sacrific my children's happiness on the altar of good intentions, just to prove a point.

Ds1 is going to the school in the next town along with many of his friends.

I realise what I want is not easy, but we shouldn't just take options because they are easy.

We could start with people not going out of catchment, because they then become part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Then let's have an investment programme in schools which actually gives parents what they generally want - more classrooms, better resources - rather than "initiatives" and stupid specialisations which don't mean anything.

Roisin

"I do feel I owe some responsibility to all children, not just our own. I work in secondary school and dh is Chair of Govs at a primary and at the 6th form college."

I think that is an appropriate form of social responsibility. Like paying taxes for the common good is an appropriate form of social responsibility.

I don't think anyone should be asked to sacrifice their childs happiness and quality of education just to prove a point.

Let's face our M.P.s don't and they are actually in a position to actually do something substntial about the ridiculous postcode lottery education system in this country.

I'm sorry but education and lottery are two words that simply should not be in the same sentence.

UQD - Are you calling on everyone to embrace their inner nimby?

nimby? in what way?

Oh well, I could be wrong. (It has been known.) I just sometimes feel like throwing my hands up in the air (like Candy Statton) and asking how we got into this mess? I'm sure our parents weren't stressing over schools in quite this way.

I blame league tables. And "choice".

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

Not necessarily. I think a lottery system would be unfair, and my youngest child has less than 3 months to go in the school system.

Not so UQD,

My non believing mother was happy to play the religion card and transport me 30 minutes there and back each day to avoid the local primary school where no-one had passed the 11+ in five years.

If I had failed the 11+ she said she would have insisted I went to the Roman Catholic secondary modern rather than the dire local one too.

This was over 30 years ago !

The whole debate misses the point entirely, it is like schools are seen as this microcosm where societal problems are supposed to be solved through very complicated measures of social engineering.

Whatever is done in schools will fail unless the more serious issues of getting rid of "sink estates" and the conditions which perpetuate poverty in a wealthy country like the UK are addressed.

IMO all children should be able to access quality education whether they are middle class or otherwise - but schools should not be seen as the main venue for solving the ills of our society.

I think you are right Bluebutterfly in that the division between "good" and "bad" schools often reflects deep rooted social segregation, and it is that which we should really be addressing. The sad thing is that as long as the majority of us remain sufficiently isolated from the problems of the very disadvantaged there is very little political will to do anything about it.

It is only when we find ourselves faced with the possibility that our children may have to share in some of that disadvantage through the state school system that we become motivated to do anything about it. Unfortunately, what most people are motivated to do is to get as far away from the disadvantaged communities as possible, moving house to avoid the "sink school" etc, thus increasing the divide ever further.

Agree with UQD that "choice" and league tables are to blame in fuelling this process. We would all be better off in the long run with better social integration, but it is much easier said than done when your immediate concern is the wellbeing of your child.

Sitdownpleasegeorge - interesting that your mother did this 30 years ago. I would think that at that time it was relatively unusual compared to today though.

Iorek is right. We do this because we think short-term - our children will be at school for 13 years at most, and it can take 20 to turn a school around. I'm not saying I have any answers! And yes, I think sitdownpleasegeorge's mum must be quite the exception.

The problem in state schools is not all due to kids from sink estates. There are an awful lot of kids from reasonably respectable families who behave badly at school. These kids can really distrupt the learning in many classes - not just the bottom sets, but also the middle sets.

It is too simplistic to blame poverty. You have to tackle a parenting across a wide social spectrum. You get screwed up kids in the private sector too, but they are usually dealt with pretty quickly (either through some kind of 'counselling' or by getting the boot). Blaming poverty just means saying that it is not our problem, whereas an awful lot of our kids are causing others to have a miserable learning experience.

As a society, we are overly tolerant of bad bahaviour and precociousness (there are countless threads on mumsnet that confirm this), and we pay the price in our schools.

There seem to be double standards running through this whole debate. Those opting for independent education are sneered at by the parents who opt for the state system - "what's wrong with mixing with our kids?" But they don't want their children mixing with children from really rough schools.

I actually think the outright purchase of an education is morally superior to buying a house in the right catchment in order to get free selective schooling from the state. The former is a clean bargain the second is a drain on the state and you get to keep the profits from the house.

Perhaps Gordon Brown should place a school catchment levy for houses in the right area - paid like stamp duty when you purchase a house. This money could then be spent on schooling in disadvantaged areas.

"As a society, we are overly tolerant of bad bahaviour and precociousness (there are countless threads on mumsnet that confirm this), and we pay the price in our schools."

ScienceTeacher - I think that you are very right about this. I also think that in France people are less tolerant of adolescent-type bad behaviour (I think adults are often very rude, however, so there are other issues IMO) and so schools/teachers don't suffer quite as badly as in the UK.

A teacher friend (works in a sink school in the 19th arrondissement) told me how horrified by behaviour some of her colleagues had been when they spent time on exchange in an inner London comprehensive.

swedes - catchment area levy would be madness, as it's so subjective. The most sought-after and over-subscribed schools in our city are not those in the "best" areas,but those where people try to avoid the worst.

e.g. those in the postcode area where A, a very new, bright, shiny, "nice", re-invented school sits cheek-by-jowl with B, a really rough one that nobody wants to send their kids to. Both A and B are, to look at from the lofty heights of the leafy suburbs, "bad", as they both languish in the lower reaches of the league table.

And what about people who buy in the "nice" areas with no interest in, or awareness of, schools? e.g. the childless, DINKYs, gay couples, retired people...

Swedes I think the double standard is between what people think is right for society as a whole and what they do when faced with the immediate problem of how to educate their child. I haven't seen anyone say "private schools are wrong but it's fine to play the state system".

ScienceTeacher - I see your point (but have no experience to be able to agree or disagree). Do you have any ideas about the causes of this decline in parenting standards and how it might be tackled?

Is it also a problem of seeing "society" and "us" as two separate things?

Reminds me of that scene in a Martin Amis novel where the wife is driving and moaning about about "the traffic" and her husband says "how many times do I have to say it? You are the traffic!"