Do you feel you are *entitled* to the "best" school for your children?

[UnquietDad]

If so, why?

and just a few other questions/points.

Define "best"

and

Does this apply also to people up the road?

and

Does this apply also to people in different social classes?

i.e if you're entitled to the "best" school why isn't everyone else?

Is there a middle-class sense of "entitlement" to the "best schools" in this country?
Is the problem that we have such a variation in standards of schools across a supposedly comprehensive system?
Is it people playing the system, moving out of catchment, "getting faith" etc, and making themselves part of the problem and not part of the solution?
Or is the issue simply one of being too obsessed by the schools that do well in the league tables and/or have a nice uniform?

(It's a quiet Saturday... Walks away whistling, hands in pockets... Gas Mark 6, set to simmer. I'll be back...)

The way I see it, I have no control over how the government spends the money that is rightfully deducted from my income to provide schooling for all children regardless of parental interest therein.

This means I have no control over the quality of local school options and postcode lottery seems to be rife in education so regardless of paying the same as a parent in a different part of the UK, my child's school options may be vastly better or indeed vastly less attractive.

For this reason I do consider that I am entitled to make the best of the local choices by trying to get my child into the school of my choice but what may be best for my child may not be the same as what is best for my neighbour's child, all children are different.

Please note that I'm not saying that those who pay no tax for whatever reason are not entitled to make the same choice as I do, I'm just commenting on why I would be livid at a lottery allocation system or no applications allowed from outside of catchment area.

only of some SN scaryteacher though, certainly true for the more severe ones, but my ds3 has dyslexia, in the state system he wouldn't qualify for any extra help (possibly at little three years ago when the school diagnosed him at Y3), whereas at his private school he has each week(reduced to this this year because he's making good progress) 3 x 20mins 1:1 with specialist lsa, and 1x30 mins with qualified teacher (with extra quals in dyslexia) and 2X 30 mins in small group (3-4) literacy booster. Coupled with his exisiting class size of 18.

education.guardian.co.uk/old/schools/story/0,,144446,00.html

One link for UQD

education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2255681,00.html

Second one.

I don't think you've answered your own question yet UQD. What are your feelings on the matter?

I have never understood why private schools are classed as a charity because most of them offer absolutely no charitable benefit to their surrounding community (unless you count entrenching social apartheid as a benefit). There are 4 private schools in my area and everyone knows they are exclusive rather than inclusive.

Not all private schools do have charitable status. Its not automatic. For some it was given when they were first set up (usually by the church) aoens ago, to provide an education (usually for boys).

I did say that Cornwall's provision was excellent Loshad, as that's where I taught and was impressed by the SENCO and the provision made for the sn students at Launceston. I can't speak for anywhere else. We also took physically disabled children and had ramps and lifts around the school to help them. I didn't see any of that type of provision at ds's prep.

Haha, Camellia- my younger daughter will be going to one of the original girls' bluecoat schools next term. Founded 1648 or something, by a prominent Cromwellian businessman who believed in educating girls.

Scaryteacher- the second paragraph of your most recent post completely sums it up for me too.

Duchesse, ds went to prep in Tavistock - where did yours go?

Mine go/ went to a truly lovely little independent school in E Devon. I can't think of many people who wouldn't be won over by it. Was your son at school with a set of boy/girl twins whose 4 letter surname began with C by any chance?

ok, sorry scary teacher. the dss' school does have ramps/lifts for physically disable children too, as it has a few wheelchair bound pupils.

Don't know about that, but the 'F'ng Fulford' children went there. He didn't go to Kelly, he went to the other one.

I should point out that most middle class children do in fact go to state schools. Private schools only educate a small proportion of children in the UK.

If you want th elegal point it's because charity used to mean a number of thing - relief of poverty, advancement of education etc. Therefore any education veen if to millionaires fell under that heading. It is a good to educate people even if they are wealthy. The Labour new Charities Act changes the test. It means that things like opera houses may not qualify or private schools because they've added a new bit into the law, a bit like they did when they changed the law on hunting, purely for jealous class reasons. We help the poor by taking the burden of education 10% of children or whatever it is outside the state system already but that won't count. Winchester I think are adding £1,300 to each bill from September to cover this. In some cases it might be better just to charge parents 17.5% VAT and abolish all scholarships and bursaies help for the poor

I'm fairly confident that if it's financially beneficial to the schools to charge the parents 17.5% and abolish all bursaries and help for the poor that's what they'll do. It's not as if they're charities, after all.

Xenia - Under the charities Act all registered charities will have to meet the public benefit test (in education too) means is what is offered of benefit to the public at large? You could not open a school for millionaires' children and satisfy the public benefit test. The fact that independent school places are mainly taken up by wealthy families does not preclude satisfaction of a public benefit so long as the education is on offer to the public at large (eg a reaonable bursary system for low wage earners).

I believe Opera Houses will meet the public benefit criteria so long as they offer some reasonably priced seats accessible to the public at large. The fact that the public at large don't buy them is not an issue that needs addressing.

If independent schools lose their charitable status, their fees will go up. This will make them even more exclusive. I think it would be better to make them more accessible to everyone - perhaps with a voucher system. And it would need to be illegal to refuse the voucher as part payment.

Do you feel you are entitled to the 'best' school and If so, why?
'best' is so subjective what's best for one child may not be for another. I believe that my child along with all others is entitled to be happy at school and receive an education that allows her to fulfil her potential and that along with every child in this country that should be state funded.

and just a few other questions/points.

Define "best"

A school where every child is happy and able to reach their full potential.

Does this apply also to people up the road?

Yes absolutely.
Does this apply also to people in different social classes?
Yes

i.e if you're entitled to the "best" school why isn't everyone else?
Every child should be entitled to be happy and receive an education that allows them to reach their full potential.

Is there a middle-class sense of "entitlement" to the "best schools" in this country?

Yes I think so

Is the problem that we have such a variation in standards of schools across a supposedly comprehensive system?
Yes definately but I do believe that part of that variation is unfortunately down to parents. In a class of 30 it will be difficult for a lot of children to thrive without parental support at home.
Is it people playing the system, moving out of catchment, "getting faith" etc, and making themselves part of the problem and not part of the solution?
The 'best' schools will often be oversubscribed meaning the classes will be full with 30 children. With class sizes of 30 a school may then loose it's position a the 'best'.
Or is the issue simply one of being too obsessed by the schools that do well in the league tables and/or have a nice uniform?
Yes I think league tables and uniforms may be focused on too much because for me the key issue is class size, how can every child without a great deal of parental support achieve their full potential when they are 1 of 30.

I went to a standard comprehensive school and my husband went to a private day school. Both my boys now go to private schools for the following reasons:

1. The government is messing about with state education. Labour MPs want equality and then send their children to the grammer school or worse a private school. They cannot have it both ways.

1. We have grammer schools in Bucks, however unless you pay for 'private tutition' you are unlikely to pass the 11 plus. Grammer schools should be for everyone who can pass the 11 plus not just people who can pay for the tutition.

1. We do not class ourselves as rich. You would be surprised at the range of people at my sons school. Sure there are people to whom school fees are just a rounding error but the majority are doing the things that we are doing and cutting down on other things to get a reasonable education for our children - something I think should be a right in the state system but isnt.

1. My mother has recently retired as a teacher working in the state system. The paperwork and the lack of responsibility from the parents for their childrens actions has worn her down.

1. The variety of sports, other actitivites in my sons school is fantastic. State schools have sold off a lot of land so sport is no longer a priority. Of course they say they are running out of money but is that all there is to it? Is it just bad management by the school and government meddling?

1. Like a number of people we have some equity in our house. We would have no hestiation in releasing this to ensure that our sons get the best start in life. The alternative is that Gordon Brown grabs it when we die!

1. At 16 plus I would like them to show us how they are going to earn money. I had a Saturday job in Boots and worked during school holidays. I would like to see the boys doing the same. Doesnt matter what sort of job as long as they see the value of money.

1. There is a view that parents paying for private education can afford any fees. In fact there is talk about taxing this element. Well - we have already paid for state education for our children. Do we get a refund if we dont take the place up?

1. Both my husband and I work full time. There are times when we have to miss school plays, sports days etc but the boys are beginning to realise that that something has to give when they get the education they are currently receiving.

There is something we can try to do to change things and that is to write to your local MP.
How many people moan and say they can't change things? If more people did this, the Govt would have to.

Actually, my efforts have not changed one bloodything around here - But at least I try to make myself heard!!!

Swedes, yes, that is what I was saying. Under the old test educating anyone was charitable. Under the new you have to show public benefit and I think even that the poor could or will benefit (not just old Etonians who have fallen on hard times for example).

I don't think most private schools want to become more exclusive so would probably prefer not to charge 17.5% VAT and instead continue to offer bursaries etc. I think it remains to be seen how tough Susie Leather I think she's called at the Charities commission will be and it will probably depend on the school and its endowment as to who many places for the poor it has to make available or if it could satisfy the test in other ways - letting people in a weekends to use the sports fields may be enough for some smaller schools.

Xenia - The places need only be available to the public at large - they need not be aimed at poor people. The Charity Commission are not able to change the law! Here is a report by Peter Luxton (Prof of Law, Cardiff University) it's worth reading This apparent overhaul for inependent schools is vastly over-hyped by both the government and the press. They should be concentrating on improving schools that are within their control and failing their pupils miserably. Because some independent schools are so good at what they do, it increases the divide between good and bad. The Labour party make the ridiculous mistake of seeking to bridge the divide by attempting to stop independent schools being so successful.

Very interesting Swedes!