Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 4

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Continuing the discussion about the impact of VAT on independent schools…

@FairMindedMaiden”Reality is the best lefty filter.”
Why not join in a civilized conversation in a civilized manner? Worth a try!

I don’t think your DD’s comprehensive, being a specialist performing arts and sport school, is representative of the state school system. It’s had a huge amount of investment since being in special measures in the late 90s.

why does my local comp manage to be so poor in terms of provision compared with the comp we choose?

Maybe because you’re also benefitting from the extra £1000 of funding for scholarship children?

ETA: reply to @OhCrumbsWhereNow

Is it really possible to have a civilised conversation with someone who thinks taxing education and closing down schools is a good idea? Maybe, but it’s not worth the effort.

If you want to avoid any effort, just don't engage. Surely there's no need to insult.

Fair enough, @Fairmindedmaiden.But how about not sniping from the sideline?

They don't get that extra £1k of provision funded by government though.

So the funding per student remains the same - it's just how they choose to spend it.

You’re also benefitting from a school that is more than twice the size of an average comprehensive - hence the broader range of subjects available.

It's a similar size to my local one, so I am not comparing apples and oranges.

Similar FSM rates, and much higher EAL.

Fair enough.

How about not volunteering other peoples children for nutty social engineering experiments and concentrate on your own dcs.

I think the point above (about the grammar schools getting less £ than many comps that do worse academically) shows this is about unpalatable social constraints more than £ spent per pupil in the school. Those kids at grammar who mostly get tutoring that isn't taxed.

Can you agree that that should also be labelled as private education when their kids get 1:1, which is even better than most kids in private and independent schools, even with smaller class sizes? Really those grammar kids should be beating the private sector hands down on exam results.

The added benefits are what makes me the most sad though; as expressed by @CurlewKate . These are not things that need money to buy (confidence, willingness to give things a go) but socially constructed - largely about attitude. It is why many PE teachers in comps can get boys to engage in their lessons but isn't seen by society as important for more "intellectual" subjects like science as it is in the private sector.

If you can see the good points to private education, why would you want to make that less attainable to more children? Why force these schools to close and all of those kids into schools that provide worse exam results and less life chances because the social aspect doesn't support confidence at even a basic level?

The UK state system is broken, but not learning from the schools which get it right and closing them down is idiocy.

the answer to the state independent problem should have been to improve the state sector. and that may have meant a location dependent approach where by in some area's the school size be limited for more personal 1-1 and subject options more in tune to the community. the send and mh challenges needed to be sorted first and as a priority.

"where would the money come from" well the government does seem to magic up money all the time (the tariff conundrum and steel mill for instance).
imho bigger schools with more options equally means more disruptive pupils which to me equates to poorer outcomes. ideally you want communities that experience poverty and antisocial behavior to have small nurturing flexible schools and specialist schools for the students for whom mainstream is inappropriate with a decreasing student number and schools closing due to falling numbers it would be a perfect opportunity to reconfigure settings.
the approach to the vat private schools is very similar to trump's tariffs to countries and businesses poorly executed.
getting a teen through secondary without mental health issues should be seen as a priority.

I think the point above (about the grammar schools getting less £ than many comps that do worse academically) shows this is about unpalatable social constraints more than £ spent per pupil in the school. Those kids at grammar who mostly get tutoring that isn't taxed.

Grammar schools get less funding because they have lower numbers of children on pupil premium.

Really those grammar kids should be beating the private sector hands down on exam results.

Children that are heavily tutored to get into grammar schools, and then need tutoring throughout secondary just to keep their heads above water - poor kids, that’s an awful experience. They are the children that would do better in a fully comprehensive system.

You are making a good case for abolishing grammar schools though.

‘Abolish’. People seem to want to take away anything that gets dc good outcomes instead of improving other options.

@TRexHamsteragree on the idiocy of this policy.

Why is it unreasonable to point out the contradictions in mumsnet views on education?

There’s plenty of evidence to show that the grammar school system is detrimental to many children.

So I’m happy with using the word ‘abolish’.

@SabrinaThwaite from what i've read grammar schools are detrimental to those students NOT admitted to grammar schools (the loss of the cohort within the larger school setting) but not to those students admitted and studying at them.

You’ll get rid of anything that is useful to some dc.

There’s a reason grammar schools are in high demand.

I get the impression some will be happy when everything is the same low level.

This research shows that tgrammar school students may well do better in a fully comprehensive system.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2023/aug/no-evidence-grammar-school-systems-are-best-brightest

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2023.2240977

Can you agree that that should also be labelled as private education when their kids get 1:1, which is even better than most kids in private and independent schools, even with smaller class sizes? Really those grammar kids should be beating the private sector hands down on exam results.

This is a very strange view of the situation. Why do you think grammar school DC are tutored through their schooling? The majority won't need it. The teaching is generally good and the pace of learning fast. Tutoring is much more likely to be happening in comps where there are more gaps and variation. Also, why do you assume that private school DC are not tutored. They are. Just because parents are paying fees doesn't mean they don't want a belt and braces approach? What do you mean by private AND independent schools? They are just different words for the same thing.

High demand? Only because a tiny minority of English counties have kept a two tier system - who wants to be relegated to ‘secondary moderns’?

I think you’ll find that the majority of England and all of Wales and Scotland manage very well without grammar schools.

Let them stay then. For some reason posters who use comprehensives feel the need to take away anything that’s not that.

If the evidence shows that the grammar system is detrimental to both high achievers and low achievers, what’s your justification for retaining it?

’Comprehensive users’ make up about 96% of children in England, Scotland and Wales.

How are grammars detrimental to high achievers?

If parents thought they were detrimental they wouldn’t go to great lengths to access them.

If you don’t want to, don’t. Same with private.