Private school fees up 43%

[UnquietDad]

story here

Deliberate, do you think?...

So if only "18 professions" can now afford them, and they don't include teachers, architects or police officers, what are they? Any offers?

So UQD you feel 'hectored' when someone asks you direct questions which are trying to make some kind of sense of your rather nonsensical arguments - aah, poor thing. Good lord, how did you cope in your grammar school if a few questions make you feel 'vexed' and 'hectored'?

Really, if your vision of improving education involves a return to a grammar school system and your only real criticism of private schools is that they're not, well, grammar schools really and your only criticism of comprehensives is that well, they're not grammar schools then there's no point in continuing the debate.

There are few people who believe that grammar schools were, are or would be fair and would offer anything more than a selective education to the children of parents who are already privileged paid for by the taxpayers while excluding the majority of their kids.

And it completely ignores the problems in education which are not the achievement of the middle-class who are doing just fine (either in private education or in faith schools or in schools in leafy suburbs and even in their local poorly performing com when their parents are brave enough to send them there).

Middle-class kids are doing fine academically. Better than they've ever done. They get their 5 A-Cs grades at GCSE (often more As than Cs), they go on to pass their A levels, they go on to university. Grammar schools (in order to be grammar schools would have to select the top 1/3 to 1/2 of students). It doesn't take a genius to realize that the parents who would swoop on these places (by any means possible including making sure their kids were in the right feeder schools, had tutors, were fed a good breakfast on the morning of the exam, got the past papers and made their kids sit them etc, etc) exploiting yet one more advantage available to them for free WHICH THEY DON'T NEED.

I know you have a rather take it or leave it (and probably more likely to leave it) to EVIDENCE but there is plenty of evidence that middle class kids are doing well and would do well academically even if they were sent to poorly performing comps. I went to a comp (after the 11 + was banned)which has since been put in special measures and then closed down and actually did better than my sister who went to what was a grammar school for the first couple of years she was there (I think she was put off by being a small fish in a big pond whereas I was, you get the idea, oh and the Latin). I teach kids all the time who get As at A Level and go on to top universities (including Oxbridge) who have been to really amazingly poor comps but have middle class backgrounds or supportive backgrounds or parents with incredible aspirations or amazing amounts of gumption. Like your kids, no doubt, most kids with supportive parents with some education or aspiration themselves will almost always do well.

Of course, there'd be the exceptional kids (and they would be exceptional) who lived in a council estate whose parents had aspirations for them or who had enough 'gumption' or supportive enough teaching at primary level to go out and get the past papers for themselves who managed to sit and pass the 11+ (because how else would you select?) but they would be rare and their brothers, sisters, cousins and neighbours would go to the 2nd best schools and never recover from the rejection.

And how deeply patronising and yes, stupid, that you suggest that seeing secondary moderns as 2nd best was simply a matter of 'perception'. The students who went there were failures, they knew they were failures, everyone knew they were failures however bright and however much potential they may have had. Of course, the 'best' schools, as now, are going to attract the best teachers, the best resources (and it has been pointed out to you many times that grammar schools were better funded than the alternatives).

I don't blame the parents who chose or choose grammar schools BTW any more than I really blame the parents who adopt a faith or move house. If the system allows the middle classes to exploit it and reap the benefits then you can't blame them for doing just that. And I'll tell you what if there were grammar schools in my area it would be my kids who would be first in the line and getting the extra help (quite easy for my kids since dp and I are both teachers) and getting the place and not my neigbours who have none of our academic advantages.

Again, you adopt an "ad hominem" tone which is not exactly inclined to make me want to answer. If you look, I did address your points in my own way, just not in a rather amusingly pedantic list format.

For the record, it is not "stupid", "patronising", etc. to disagree with you.

I'll say it again - many of the observations one hears criticising grammar schools are based upon the false assumption that any future system is going to replicate the imperfections of the past - including the notion that there would be selection at 11, a simple two-tier system, and a dearth of grammar schools (which is what causes the current issues with empowered and equipped parents "swooping" on the available places).

The reason grammar schools have become so incredibly competitive is that there are now so few of them - much to the joy, no doubt, of bully-boy leftie councillors with chips on their shoulders about having been to the secondary modern.

And who are these "failures" you know who went to secondary modern? For every one, I could cite a success. My wife's hairdresser, who now runs her own successful business. The electrician over the road from us who has never been short of work and has a huge five-bedroomed house. It is patronising of you to decide that one form of state education leads to "failure" and another to "success".

Just one more point which sums up my objection to grammar schools UQD. You say that their advantage is that those allowed entry to grammar schools are not chosen according to their parents' ability to pay and you're right (in theory although it's well known that in practice it would be the wealthiest parents most likely to take up the places) but parents DO pay for grammar schools (through their taxes) even though they can't all use them. This is the worst aspect about them and it's how I feel about church schools too (I think you feel the same about these?).

If you applied the same principles to the NHS or the police service you see just how vile the discrimination is. So you have some hospitals for everybody, some (better) hospitals for card carrying Catholics etc and some hospitals that are only accessible for the very bright but although we ALL pay for ALL of them we can only use SOME of them.

At least, I think about paying for private school (and I do have a conscience about this as you've probably gathered) is that it's ME paying for my kids' education and not the taxpayers as well as contributing to everyone's education through my taxes and through teaching.

UQD - but in these days academic selective does often lead to financially selective - because parents know that they need to ensure their child is in the top 10% of whatever - so they will pay for tutors to make sure their child has the best chance. So, of course it is financially selective as well.

Selective has to mean discriminating too - anything that takes one group of people in preference to another is discriminating to an extent. Whether you agree or not with that concept is another matter.

And I do know of people who simly didn't make the 11+ mark - not because they weren't bright enough, but becasue there wasn't the parental support and backing there to ensure the child was able to do their best and succeed. And secondary moderns v grammars did have so many flaws.

Again, you continue to miss the most obvious points

'For the record, it is not "stupid", "patronising", etc. to disagree with you.'

I'm not saying it is but some of your POINTS are stupid. Sorry it's the only word for them.

'many of the observations one hears criticising grammar schools are based upon the false assumption that any future system is going to replicate the imperfections of the past'

But what 'future system'??????? Do you have some kind of inside knowledge denied to us mere mortals or is this just the 'future system' IN YOUR HEAD which somehow, mysteriously manages to avoid 'imperfections'. How by the way? How is it ever possible to avoid 'imperfections' while having a 2 tier education system which excludes the majority who pay for the education of the privileged minority??

'including the notion that there would be selection at 11, a simple two-tier system, and a dearth of grammar schools (which is what causes the current issues with empowered and equipped parents "swooping" on the available places)'

This is not a 'notion'. This is what did happen when grammar schools existed, continues to happen where grammar schools do exist and would happen if they were replaced which mercifully they're not going to be (except in your bizarre vision).

'The reason grammar schools have become so incredibly competitive is that there are now so few of them'

How can you ignore the facts and history so completely??? Grammar schools were always competitive of course more so now because there are so few of them but the whole point of them is that students (and their parents perhaps more to the point) COMPETE for places.

'And who are these "failures" you know who went to secondary modern? For every one, I could cite a success.'

I've heard many stories of the devastating impact of failing the 11+. And you're absolutely right that no I don't come across many success stories partly because if you didn't pass the 11+ you probably didn't become a professional like a teacher did you????

'It is patronising of you to decide that one form of state education leads to "failure" and another to "success".'

It's not ME. Again there is no other word for this than stupid and again patronising. I'M not saying the people who failed the 11+ were failures. Quite the opposite I'm saying they were no less valuable as human beings than the people who DID PASS the 11+ They had as much potential and probably as much intelligence (especially those who just missed the place because there always has to be a cut off doesn't there?) but the FACT (which is unavoidable though you're doing your best) is that they DID FAIL the exam. Dress it up how you like - they were acutely aware of this as was everyone else. I'm not saying that this failure meant they were failures as people and couldn't make a success of their life but the impact WAS DEVASTATING for many and their options not to mention the education they would have received would have been limited.

You cannot downplay the impact of competition on kids. If you look at the way kids are grouped within a class for example they know exactly what this means even where the tables are called red group and green group rather than group 1 and group 2. and this has a huge impact.

FWIW I actually don't have a problem with having selective grammar schools. I don't have a problem with private schools and oter schools which select - such as faith schools (select on faith) and single sex schools (select on gender). You could even categorise the good state schools here in some ways as most of the good ones are in the more expensive catchment areas - so again the opportunities to get into the school are not equal and fair to everyone.

But at least I accept them for what they are - they are selective, and they do offer a select group of students a different, often percieved to be better (though not in all cases to be true) education. And whenever there is a selective system - no matter how they select or on what criteria, then thee will be people who miss out, who are, in effect discriminated against.

This is not a far system, but then is there any system in the country that is totally fair and just?

God, even the Tories don't believe in grammar schools any more

'The Conservative Party officially severed links with academic selection in the state sector today, accusing grammar schools of entrenching social advantage.

David Willetts, the shadow education secretary, warned grammar school supporters in the party that they cannot harp back to the past.

"We must break free from the belief that academic selection is any longer the way to transform the life chances of bright, poor kids," he said.

"This is a widespread belief but we just have to recognise that there is overwhelming evidence that such academic selection entrenches advantage, it does not spread it."'

What sort of a dinosaur does that make you?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551687/Tories-turn-against-grammar-schools.html#continue

This says it all really:

'Sir: It is no surprise that support for the 1944 Education Act always comes from people who passed the 11-plus (letter, 7 June). If it had really been such a good thing, surely you would be swamped by letters from grateful former secondary modern pupils - who were after all the vast majority.

They would describe the thrill of childhood failure, and the joy this inspired in their families. They would wax lyrical about the second-class teaching and how they were inspired by low expectations. Finally, they would express their gratitude for being made to leave with few if any qualifications, and few aspirations to anything other than menial manual work.'

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20000612/ai_n14302711

And this:

'Rosemary Rainey retired from secondary school teaching three years ago. She spent her 27-year career at one east Belfast school.

She believes the 11-plus creates more problems than it solves.

THE children whom I taught came to the school after they failed the 11-plus - although there were a handful who passed the exam but wanted to be schooled with their friends.

Most of the youngsters arrived at the school with a sense of failure following the exam.

It was most important to get it through to the children that, although they were attending a secondary school, it was not a second rate school and they were not second rate pupils.

The exam had branded them failures at the age of 11 and some of them couldn't cope with that.

So they arrived at their new school believing that they could not achieve in the same way as their peer group who went to gramar school. '

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_19980712/ai_n14481233

I think I'll just let fivecandles go on talking to herself. It's obviously what she wants to do.

Hey fivecandles if you're a teacher how come you're not at work?

Some schools have already broken up for summer already now.

fivecandles - you obviously have big, big issues with the secondary modern and its supposed effects on those who went there. That's fine. Just don't project them on to me. I think you should come and say it to all the successful hairdressers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, joiners, IT consultants and so on who I've met since living here, whose lack of a grammar-school education has obviously thrown them so hard on the mouldering scrap-heap of life that they are now owning their own very nice homes and running their own businesses. (Oh, no doubt you'll claim they had to do this to prove a point and did do despite their education and not because of it?...)

You see - trading anecdotal evidence is useless - it proves nothing.

Stop banging on about the 11-plus. It's like you are obsessed with the 1960s. I can't imagine any future system being so simplistic. Every successful economy needs a skills mix - we need people who are qualified to wire houses, just as much as we need people who can be multilingual UN interpreters, academics and nuclear physicists. The education system should reflect these different needs, without any reference at all to parents' ability to pay. It's not "competition" - it's diversity.

That Telegraph article is a year old. The Tories are still in the process of formulating their policy on academic selection - we won't know what it is until we see their manifesto. They have two more party conferences to go before they are likely to get into power.

I got a bit chopped out there when I was editing. Should say "we need people who are qualified to wire houses, fix cars and mend leaky pipes, just as much" etc.

Holiday. We break up early and go back early.

Well, if you persist in ignoring the evidence and living in your good olde days of yore UQD then I will be talking to myself.

I think I realize now that in your wonderful grammar school system (the one in your head) those kids who did not get into the grammar schools would skip merrily off to the alternative schools (which would be, in your world, not considered worse merely 'different'). They would be quite happy about this and could become very successful hairdressers or plumbers or whatever you envision for them.

Of course, the reality is that they would be no less devastated by going to the 'alternative' non-grammar schools as you or I would have been and their parents would be no less devastated than you or I would be if it was our kids who were going to the 'alternative' schools. But then there are some parents (mainly the educated, the middle class ones) who would never let that happen so they would never have to deal with the fall out would they?

Indeed, why would I be "devastated" if, say, my son wanted to go into a non-academic learning environment where he'd train to be a plumber? He'd be set up for life with a skill that would probably earn him more than being a teacher would. It's all a matter of perception.

'you obviously have big, big issues with the secondary modern and its supposed effects on those who went there.'

Now this DOES make me angry because you are suggesting that the issues with the secondary modern and its 'supposed' (actually well documented see above for examples) effects on those who went there are somehow my 'issues' that perhaps I've invented and not all of our issues and indeed FACTS which is what they are.

And yes the idea of writing off the majority of kids as second best does incense me because these are the kids who need help and need to access the same exams and the same opportunities and the same levels of literacy, numeracy and opportunities etc as the middle class kids (who once again are doing fine) are currently.

A friend of mine is actually training to be a plumber at the moment. That's great. The thing is though he went to a comprehensive and then on to university. So he could also have been a teacher, a lawyer, anything (he currently works in finance).

What you are suggesting is limiting the career choices and academic experience open to the majority of kids (who would mostly be working class) at the AGE of 11 and this a choice which is being made FOR THEM not one that they are making for themselves.

Maybe it wouldn't devastate you if this happened to your kids but it would be. But then again I wouldn't let it happen.

To clarify, I'd be quite happy if my kids made the CHOICE to become plumbers or anything else that made them happy and provided an honest living. I would not be happy if the CHOICE was made for them when they were still too young to really consider their career options and in so doing remove all sorts of other choices and opportunities.

Well, entry to grammars is still decided by 11/13+. And I think you probably would be miffed if your ds wanted to go to grammar school, you wanted him to go to grammar school, and he missed out by a couple of percentage points and instead went to a non-academic environment to learn to be a plumber.

If the population were nicely divided into two discrete groups, the academic and the non-academic, life would be so much easier. But I don't think it's distributed like that.

Not about PERCEPTION. You are talking about taking away real choices from CHILDREN (and probably those children who already have limited opportunities and choices) which could affect their whole lives.

And, yes, I've met people who are successful and happy after going to secondary modern but not met anyone who though they were successful and happy BECAUSE of going to secondary modern and have been anything less than extremely negative about the experience of the 11+ and the fact that they didn't get into grammar school.

And you are (I'll vary my adjectives here) blissfully naive if you think that the kids in the secondary moderns that were (and in whatever alternative would be provided in your world) were/ would be happy to be there. The majority would not be happy to be there because they would want to be in the grammar schools just as the children in my local primary school who are on green table want to be on red table and (almost certainly see themsleves as inferiror because they are not).

You see this sort of thing all the time in schools with setting and streaming (mercifully on a much smaller scale). When kids end up in the bottom sets they often give up. No one wants to teach them. They often get cover teachers etc and expectations for what they'll achieve are reduced and reduced.

Gosh this has moved on a bit. I am state grammar school educated. My educational philosophy is really very simple. I'd like all children to have the sort of education I had courtesy of the state. Sadly, state education has now become a narrow series of worksheets with a pub quiz at the end. I choose to pay for something that I consider to be better - a rounded education in traditional academic subjects that will give them enjoyment throughout their whole lives.

I'd be the first to vote for the return of grammar schools nationwide.

And by the way my DS1 was at a supposedly excellent state comprehensive from age 11 - 13. The state was more than adequate at providing a primary education. I had no intention of switching to the independent sector; it had honestly never crossed my mind. I'm not buying privilege and advantage; I'm buying a proper education.

I keep saying this and I'll say it again. If your children are at primary school and you are knocking people for going to the independent sector at 11+, reserve judgement for when you have direct experience.

What is interesting is that, in my area, it is the children who do not pass the 11+ to go to the grammar schools, who are the ones that go to the independent schools... quite often the children of the self made well off hairdressers, builders etc who would have gone to the secondary moderns in the 70s. As UQD points out in the OP the parents of some 'professions' can't afford the fees now, but many of their offspring DO get into the grammar schools. The rest go to the comprehensives, no secondary moderns round here, but you could argue it is not truely comprehensive as top few % being creamed off by the grammar schools, but some people do choose the comprehensives over independent or grammar. Not sure what point I am trying to make but just thought I would throw that in, just proves you can't really generalise I suppose.