Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 4

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

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

What are you on about?

You’ve linked to a paper discussing grammar schools and you’re waffling on about the Scottish Highlands which doesn’t have a selective state education system?

Not in the context of the outcomes of a selective state education system, no.

I thought that would be obvious.

I did read your post. It didn’t make a lot of sense because setting and streaming are quite different things.

My DC’s schools most definitely set (as did mine).

But in the context of outcomes from educational choices for UK children, yes.

Where your 'giving a damn' ends is very obvious.

teens are most influenced by their peers so if your aim is to not have your child exposed to antisocial behavior then you need to move them by 12.
state schools should be able to have children seen by educational psychologists/psychiatrists and treatment initiated long before year 6.

Nope, you’re projecting.

A discussion about the merits of a selective state system excludes independent schools by definition.

@SabrinaThwaite the link is to an academic paper which states that grammars do lead to slightly higher grades, equally it's a similarly recent study like the one you posted that said there were negative impacts to students attending grammar schools.

BUT it goes on to say that it varies by region.
the uk is a large diverse region.

It makes perfect sense. They are sometimes considered different things, but some schools do one or the other, some do both (eg. have streams overall, but also sets in some subjects, which may be different to the stream a child is in - so that they might be in the top stream but in the second set for maths, for example). And some schools stream but call it setting (because it’s a term more parents are familiar with) — so in practice the difference between them is not that clear cut, and they aren’t always that different in practice.

I hope that helps you understand.

The UK is a diverse region - half the countries within it don’t have a selective state system. Hence your use of ‘Scottish Highlands’ being quite amusing.

I don’t need help understanding. They are not ‘sometimes considered different things’ - they ARE different things.

except the entire region has state schools to even within the category of "state schools" there is a massive difference.

How do you account for the fact that it’s routine practice in many schools to refer to streaming as setting?

Is it ‘routine practice’? Streaming and setting have quite different definitions, I’d be wondering why those schools are being unclear.

There are plenty of big comprehensives that stream as well as set… it’s just not openly talked about or admitted.

But accidentally clicking the wrong zoom link for the parents meeting for your child’s fixed-for-5-years tutor group can be most illuminating…

Then there are sets for English, Maths, Sciences and MFL,

“Each child goes to school for their OWN education. They are not a tool to improve other children's experience/education.”

@strawberrybubblegum - this is the crux of the matter. In addition, we parents know our children best and should be given a choice to choose what is best for them.

The Human Rights Act considers the rights of the individual child. That is why it is so important to have that bit of legislation. It is the defence of the vulnerable individual who is otherwise a pawn in society/political games.

Labour and society (including academics researching educational outcomes) seem to view Education as a whole, with not enough emphasis on “choice” or the individual.

I think where parents and children are given a choice, they are more invested in the education, and that leads to better outcomes (not just academic outcomes, social integration and mental health too). I have witnessed this so many times in real life. Outcomes need to be defined as including all of those elements.

And these threads always go the same way:

• tax private schools
• abolish/limit grammar
• abolish/limit church schools etc (Phillipson herself wears the cross and went to an RC school, so that one will not happen)

Reality is all the above typically perform well and it is because the parents and child are invested in their choice and that community, which goes far beyond academic results.

@SabrinaThwaite is invested in their comp model, which is their choice and they are happy with it and their child will likely do well in that model too.

However, taking away choice is what is detrimental. It will have long term negative effects on the education system as a whole. I have tried to explain it. I have also tried to explain why it is a breach of an individual child’s human rights to do so.

Each child goes to school for their OWN education. They are not a tool to improve other children's experience/education.

Yes this is exactly the point. Our local comprehensive is a good school. Two of DS2’s friends go there and are happy and doing well. Our LA wanted to place DS1 there but it would have been profoundly inappropriate for him. That’s not remotely the school’s fault - it was just completely the wrong setting for our child. And yet others - including DS2’s friends - thrive there.

“Each child goes to school for their OWN education. They are not a tool to improve other children's experience/education.”

Those regular-ish threads where a parent is annoyed that a well-behaved/doing well child (usually a girl) is deliberately placed between/with disruptive children to improve their behaviour or act as a buffer or to "teach". It's like that, but on a national scale where the government is doing it to them.

Some childrem do well in comprehensives but lots don't due to disruption, cover teachers, recruitment crisis, lack of SEN provision, lack of parental support, wrong peer group.
More likely to do well-girls, EAL students, middle class kids.
Less likely to do well- white working class boys, SEN.
So if you have a popular working class boy who is into football, he may underachieve in a comprehensive even if he is clever. Put that boy in a grammar or private and he is likely to do better.

@AirwaterfireHow do you account for the fact that it’s routine practice in many schools to refer to streaming as setting?”

I have honestly never heard of this-and if schools are doing this they are wrong. They really are completely different things.

@Runemum”So if you have a popular working class boy who is into football, he may underachieve in a comprehensive even if he is clever. Put that boy in a grammar or private and he is likely to do better.”

But he’s not going to get into a grammar or a private, is he?

Why not?

The poster said even if he is clever

This reminds me of something another poster said on a different thread, which I thought was insightful:

"The left typically sees education as a collectivist endeavour, a competition that requires equal conditions for everyone - a race. The right typically sees education as an individual endeavour, a means to develop personal talents and skills. Most mass education systems are somewhere on a left-right spectrum. Very left of spectrum systems (eg France) demonstrate the manifest hypocrisy of such systems because parental education/wealth is in fact a huge performance driver for individual children in France - parents buy extra opportunity on the open market when school doesn't develop individual talent."

Why would a working class clever boy not get into a grammar or a private school at 11 years old if he got a bursary or did well in the 11+?

Yes this. You get people saying that’s what they want on this thread.