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?

I'm afraid your links there don't support your argument at all or, rather, they don't counter mine.

THey simply confirm that grammar schools provide a good education and the students who go to them benefit from being there (especially if they would otherwise go to a poorly performing school). Big wow. This is really what I've been saying. It's about as surprising as saying the same things about private schools.

So, yeah, it's great if you went to one or can get your kids into one. Fantastic. Not so good for the MAJORITY who don't

I can't imagine there's anyone who would deny that grammar schools were great for those who were fortunate enough to go to them. I certainly never have. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE REST?

I found this interesting but not surprising too, 'Areas with academic selection appear to benefit ethnic minorities, and Chinese and Bangladeshi children most'

Which again tallies with what I've been saying. Grammar schools do nothing for working class kids who live in a culture with a lack of aspiration and parental support.

'You come across as someone who has had a bad experience of the 11-plus system and it still rankles. I'm sorry about that, but I'm not going to be held responsible for it.'

I find this really quite insulting because my arguments have very little to do with my personal experience of schooling as a student. I went to school the year after grammar schools were abolished in my area. I was sent to the nearest non-faith comp (which has been a secondary modern and it's interesting how school's reputation of having been grammar or non-grammar persists so that I guarantee that the schools that were once grammars continue to perform better than the secondary moderns). Not a great school then; even worse now (even though it's since been in special measures and then closed and re-opened)
and came out with 9 GCSEs and a load of As. So really the 11+ or lack of it didn't affect me personally at all.

Perhaps you cannot comprheend that someone can argue something out of principle and speak up for the disadvantaged (and largely voiceless esp in this particular debate) rahter than simply bemoan the fact that my own kids (who are doing fine and would do fine wherever they went) are not getting an exclusive and free education.

My vehemence in arguing with you is because your attitude is all about giving middle-class kids yet another boost at the expense of everyone else. I have said that there's nothing wrong with wanting the best for your kids but it is wrong to pretend that what benefits middle-class kids (or even if you want to argue in spite of the evidence that great droves of working class kids did or would get into grammar schools) a minority of kids has benefits for everyone. It does not. And, when it is everyone's taxes that are contributing to the education system then everyone's kids should be able to benefit from the best schools it has to offer.

I also argue as a teacher with over 10 years experience working in all sorts of different schools in various roles and now a 6th form college with about 15 feeder schools ranging from the nearest private school to the worst performing state). I have taught 100s of kids. My dp works in a school for kids with severe behavioural and emotional difficulties. These are kids who have been unable to cope or the schools have been unable to cope with them, even the very worst performing state schools and many will leave school with few if any qualifications. Almost all are white working class boys with very difficult home lives.

When people argue for grammar schools or any other sort of exclusive education they are always making the assumption that their kids would benefit from them. If you knew that your own children would not benefit from them and, in fact, by siphoned off into some sort of vocational school at the age of 11 while their neighbours or cousins or even siblings went to the grammar school with a clear route to university I really, really don't think that you'd be so much in favour.

And, for the record, I am not 'bashing' you or your arguments. If you come on a site like this and express a particular viewpoint I think you should be able to justify it (with a little bit more than speculation and me, me, me). I don't know you as a person and am not particularly interested in you (no offense). I am merely taking on your very common misconceptions and poorly thought out line of arguing.

Oh, you should also ask teachers what it's like to teach in a non grammar school in an area with grammar shools which I have also done (Redbridge). The fact that the well motivated, middle-class (and lots of ethnic minority) kids get creamed often leaving schools without the sort of role models that would help raise aspirations for all.

See? Just as predicted.

I try to play your game and I still get a mouthful, which to be honest I can't be arsed to read.

I have work to do. I think I'm done here.

To sum up. Your argument stems from the fact that a grammar school education was good for you and would be good for your kids but now (curses) you have to settle for a comp. Mine are a little more complex and all encompassing than that.

To sum up. You have a chip on your shoulder, are talking out of your arse and paraphrasing me left, right and centre.

That would be about right. When you find you can no longer argue your case dismiss my arguments as a 'mouthful' that 'you cant be arsed to read'. The sort of pathetic response I get from some of my students who can't be bothered to think. Not one I'd expect from an intelligent (grammar school, indeed) adult.

Have you read a word I've said. I haven't got a chip on my shoulder. Why would I have? I did great out of comprehensive education thanks. I have a string of A grades at GCSE and A Level, a degree, MA and 2 diplomas and a PGCE. I have a rewarding career that I enjoy. My kids are doing great too. Every now and again and daily when I'm at work I like to spare a thought for those less fortunate. You should try it some time.

Have you read a word I've said. I haven't got a chip on my shoulder. Why would I have? I did great out of comprehensive education thanks. I have a string of A grades at GCSE and A Level, a degree, MA and 2 diplomas and a PGCE. I have a rewarding career that I enjoy. My kids are doing great too. Every now and again and daily when I'm at work I like to spare a thought for those less fortunate. You should try it some time.

I've argued my case. It's not my fault if you don't happen to like the arguments. I've seen this kind of passive-aggressive style of arguing before and it isn't helpful.

Yeah, riiight. It's ME that's passive-aggressive!! You're the one who has resorted to cheap insults matey. I think I've been as sweet as pie.

Odd that "beyond stupid" and everything else I have been called on here are not classed as "cheap insults", not to mention the "grammar-school educated" pot-shots. Remove the plank from your eye before pointing out the mote in others'.

There is a big difference between being "unable" to argue my case and putting a case you don't agree with, which is what I have done.

Won't you be glad when the holidays are over and you don't have time to do this any more?

True Swedes. But what DP experienced is presumably what many/most secondary-modern children experienced in cities and towns, where there were grammar schools.

"Perhaps you cannot comprehend that someone can argue something out of principle and speak up for the disadvantaged (and largely voiceless esp in this particular debate)"

Why are they voiceless? Perhaps it is because they are not interested.
Why do you want to foist your MC education system onto those that are not interested?
This seems to be a silly argument about the way things used to be. It would be better to discuss the way things should be:
an 11+ test: if you are academically inclined, then you pass and choose to attend a Grammar
a dexterity test: if you would suit a vocational occupation, then you pass and choose to attend a sec mod/comp/whateveryoucallit

There, everyone passes a test and everyone feels happy & special in their chosen path. How difficult is that?

Great argument fivecandles, well researched, backed up, and fair A joy to read really

No, no, no.
It is a one-sze-fits-all policy that ends up fitting nobody.

Onebatmother - I think the vast majority of people who didn't get to grammar school had no expectation of ever going in the first place. I assume your DP was badly affected by the experience precisely because he had expectations and aspirations. Why otherwise would he feel dogged? It (the Sec Mod) clearly wasn't the right school for him.

There were people on boths sides of the divide (grammar pupils who struggled, secondary modern pupils who narrowly failed to make the grade/were late starters or who had a bad day on the day of the test) who were failed by the system but there was far more social mobility when grammar schools were in existence. There is nothing remotely comprehensive about most comprehensive schools.

I think Grammars should be reintroduced with an 11+ test then a further test at 13+ to try and catch anyone who was missed.

Once again, UQD, it's your arguments or rather the lack of them that I'm taking issue with, not you as a person (I don't know you remember) and you chose to express your POV on here for debate so to then feel 'hectored' 'vexed' and that you 'can't be arsed' when you are challenged about it is a bit odd to say the least. And I have no problem with you disagreeing with me (debate, different viewpoints and interpretations is my job), it's not personal at all, it's just that your views are so easy to challenge and so poorly supported by yourself. At college we teach students the PEA system - Point Evidence Analysis. In fact, if they want to have a C or above grade they have to do this. Assertion = D-

You have still not been able to put forward a reasonable argument for using taxpayers money to fund a 2 tier education system which provides better schooling (for the mainly privileged who are mainly doing ok academically) for a minority and excludes the majority (including those who most need and would most benefit from good schooling). There is a reason why you cannot justify this system and the reason is because it is not ethical any more than it would be ethical to divide NHS hospitals along ability or faith or anything else (imagine a scenario where there were some hospitals for the Catholics, some for the Muslims, some for those who don't smoke etc).
Clearly we're never going to agree on the grammar school issue.

One of the excruciating things about the idea of grammar schools is that those who pass the 11+ or whatever exam you choose to set for them in so doing prove that they're doing well academically and it's those kids who fail (some of whom may be struggling with basic literacy and numeracy and may end up as burdens on the state for the rest of their lives if their schooling doesn't work) who most need support. Not to mention the life-long and devastating impact of having your options limited and your self-esteem damaged at the age of 11 (and the way you dismiss the importance and effects of this is deeply insulting. Although it never affected me personally, my understanding of the link between self-esteem and academic success, gained partly through seeing it demonstrated every minute of every day of my working life, together with my hearing from and about the people who failed the 11+, together with just a little bit of human empathy means I can at least partly understand it).

By the way, I'm not for a second saying that middle-class and bright kids don't deserve support, challenge and resources too (and much more of them) but they do not deserve them at the expense of others. They always will get more resources etc anyway because of their ability to shout loudest and exploit the system.

Thanks, Summat.

Competitive you said, 'It would be better to discuss the way things should be'

And I agree, I know exactly how the education system for all our kids could be improved (reduced class sizes, more teachers, specialist training, banish league tables etc) it's just that UQD seems stuck in some sort of golden age that never really existed and that almost everyone else (except, of course, from those parents who are benefiting from it) including the Tories discarded years ago for 2 reasons - 1)it excludes the majority and benefits a minority (who are doing ok anyway by definition because they're able to pass the 11+) and 2) uses everybody's money to do so.

Again, this proves my point. Without doubt one of your success stories UQD. Exceptional in every way but IN SPITE OF and in no way BECAUSE of the grammar school system. Shame and shock and feeling like a failure are emotions I never, ever want my own kids (or anybody's kids) to experience at the age of 11 on failing an exam. It's vile.

'"I think the White Paper needs to be clearer about that," he said. "We have to put on the face of the [education] Bill those factors which do not lead us back to the old days."

Lord Carey rose from humble origins to become the Church of England's most senior bishop despite failing his 11-plus in 1946 and leaving school at 15.

He later passed three A-levels and six O-levels, and in 1991 became the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yesterday he spoke of his "tremendous sense of shock, for me, the sense of shame" at failing the 11-plus. Although he admitted that the White Paper did not propose a return to the 11-plus, he added: "I would not want others to go through that kind of pain.".

Lord Stevens said failing the test in 1953 had left him with a doubt that however hard he worked, he would not succeed. He later went on to get a law degree at Leicester University and a master of philosophy qualification at Southampton University'

Sorry, here's the link and it's from The Telegraph!!

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1506151/Spare-children-pain-of-11-plus,-says-Carey.html#continue

And another one which says,

'Children who scrape into grammar schools are the only ones to benefit from a selective system.

Children of average ability make better progress in grammar schools than in comprehensives, but the wider impact of selection is overwhelmingly negative, according to a new report from the National Foundation for Educational Research.'

www.ngsa.org.uk/news/2002/03-02.htm

eloquent and well argued as your posts are, fivecandles, i can't help remembering you got involved in this thread because your children are at private schools. for me, that fact hovers over every impassioned post on the "unfairness" of the grammar school system.

has anyone posted that link to the article that was on here about that woman who took her child out of private school and went to state school for a bit (it was AGES ago)? She was horrified lol.

We looked at this at one point. We would still need...

1. A nanny (even if kids at private school, both work)..so £20-£24k (london full time live out)
2. School fees approx £10k per child per year so £20k

so we would need to use £40-44k of NET income before the mortgage and bills. Once we'd taken the mortgage and all the bills, it was nearer £110k to £120k just to break even.

We wanted our kids to go to state school anyway but even if we didn't, we couldn't send them private!

So right, bossykate. I don't think some posters who are slapping fivecandles on the back have read that she in fact sends her dcs to private school.

Fivecandles' posts just reek of various Labour MPs' stance that comprehensive education is great for everybody... except their own kids.

Comprehensives, with some notable exceptions, don't seem to be as good at pushing very bright kids. Where's the Latin? The Greek? The International GCSEs in Maths and Sciences, which stretch the more able? Our local comp, well-regarded, doesn't do any of the above.

If you have cancer you want to see the BEST oncologist, don't you? If you have a tricky legal problem, you want the sharpest barrister.

So I'd argue that grammar schools and intellectually rigorous private schools are doing something vital: encouraging children to perform at top level.

They're not fair, no. But they do produce the goods. I can't see why comprehensives couldn't do this, too, but they'd have to accept that academic elitism has a place.

I don't see why paying for your children's education denies you an opinion on state education. That's irrational.