New Statesman article on schools

[UnquietDad]

very interesting

Shows how the perception of state schools is skewed in the media, sometimes deliberately, by journalists and writers anxious to reinforce their own "choice".

(Who are all these writers who send their children private? None I know can afford it...)

But Scmuumymummy, only 7% of children go to private schools. I really don't think 7% is a "significant number".

Interestingly private health care in the UK accounts for 21% of workers in the overallhealthcare sector and yet it isn't perceived to be a threat to the NHS in the way that many people see private education as a threat to state education. And of course in the areas where the worst performing schools are, in general between only 1 - 4% of the local population attend private schools. Hardly enough to make a difference.

I don't see how the private sector has much of an impact on the state sector apart from providing a stark contrast.

But it's still unfair reach4. + deeply so if you look at the establishment and how entrenched the public school/ oxbridge route is. I know things have changed a bit, but it's still very much an elitist world, where which school you went to leaps you up the ladder and divides society hugely. I can't see how you can say it doesn't have an impact.

Agree smee. It's all very well having a 'choice' and 'choosing' to send your child to a private school, but it is still a 'choice' that most (i.e 90% of the population) don't have, and the end product of it is that there are a disproportionate amount of privately educated people in the top jobs, top universities etc because they can afford to pay for a 'better' education (which includes getting some very average pupils up to high grades and then into 'top' universities).

OK, you can argue everyone has a right to choice etc but no-one will convince me it is actually fair.....yes, and I know 'life isn't fair etc, but it's just shoving those children without money, parental support, other advantages even further down the pile.

I meant that I can't see how the private sector makes the state school worse. How can it when in areas where the worst schools are, only 1 - 4% of the population attend private schools (and in some cases, its 0%). Conversely, areas which have the best state schools also have the highest proportion at private schools (often 30%). So it's clearly socio-economic background that matters not the existence of private schools.

It may well be unfair but the brightest will always tend to succeed just like the fastest will win the must running medals.

"the brightest will always tend to succeed just like the fastest will win the must running medals"

The brightest have the same potential, but the current school system is like a sports day in which you have to pay a certain amount to enter each race.

I believe no government is going to remove private education. It just isn't going to happen. It's a huge big deal that the Conservatives have said they aren't going to offer tax breaks on private education.

Given that, the real world question becomes what to do about the existing situation, surely? There's no point in saying that the answer lies in getting rid of private education, because no-one is going to do that.

Fwiw I do think that private education has provided innovation in the past. I have no real idea about the present, but it certainly has provided space for some really interesting experiments in learning; Montessori, Summerhill, even Dartington Hall. Many elements here have been successfully incorporated into the mainstream, to great effect; though quite possibly to the detriment of the private suppliers.

I'm very curious about the effect of the private 7%. Part of me thinks it is quite a small number, but I was very, very interested in Boffinmum's view. This seemed to suggest it was a small, but very significant, number.

I was also fascinated by the idea of "aspiration". That's just a huge question; not at all simple.

I've found this thread fascinating because I think for the first time I understand that Fiona Millar isn't really addressing me. I've always read her in much the same way as Amey - "I've managed to extract a great education from the state - if you don't, you're letting the side down." I think I now realise she is addressing her nomenklatura, not me at all. Like you, Amey, that used to wind me up no end.

Boffinmum - I'm off to get the book today. I had trouble with the download (numpty me) but will try again.

So Bagsforlife, does that mean you'd prefer it if those "very average" pupils got less good marks?

And where does that leave the many parts of the country where are no private schools? Figures show this is precisely where the weaker academic results are recorded.

UQD, again the question is though whether the private sector makes the state sector worse? The statistics don't bear that out.

I would like to see the 'very average' pupils in state schools to receive the kind of individual help and tuition that those in the private sector receive to get their grades up to the highest grade. That's all, why is that unreasonable? I can't see why anyone would disagree with that.

Then they can all compete at an equal level for those 'top' university places and then be in with an equal chance of a decent job at the end of it. And note the equal chance, not particularly an advantage just an equal chance.

There is a two tier education system going on in this country.

Agree that no government is EVER going to scrap private education.

Absolutely bagsforlife, but that's nothing to do with the private sector is it?

We would all like to see the state sector achieving more. As I say, areas where private schools have little or nor presence also have the worst performing schools so it clearly isn't the private sector that is preventing the state sector achieving better results.

'areas where private schools have little or nor presence also have the worst performing schools' - this is exactly what one would expect, surely? People don't tend to set up private schools in areas of social deprivation.

Can't comment further because I don't know which stats you're talking about, but I don't think this particular stat shows what you think it shows.

I think that's fascinating too, reach4sky, but I'd love to see some figures on that. Why no private education? What exactly is the source of the correlation? which areas?

My guess would be that to remedy that, you come back to that strange word "aspiration" - which may, and only may, mean here something like "reproducing a middle class experience in an area/individuals experiencing deprivation".

I've seen, as a parent in London, some fascinating experiments in this area. What I mean is, I've visited some of the new academies, which I tend to regard as experiments, not necessarily systematic (but then, how could they be systematic, there'd be outrage) experiments in addressing just that.

Their approaches are very different. though they do have one thing in common; funding.

I do feel very grim about what the next few years will bring, with a change in government and a huge drop in financing the state sector.

Hartlepool is an example.

Policywonk, that's my point. Social deprivation / socio economic background accounts for the fact that the state sector underperforms. It's not the fault of the private sector and there's no evidence to suggest that abolishing the private sector would lead to a meaningful improvement amongst under performing schools in the state sector.

I think you're quite right that socio-economic circumstances have a huge effect on school performance.

I don't agree that the abolition of private schools wouldn't have an overall positive effect on the state sector though. At the moment, the most powerful people in our society (with a very few exceptions) have no direct stake in the state sector. If everyone, from the Prince of Wales 'downwards', had to send their children to the local comp, the local comp would be a damned sight better.

But surely it would just mean brilliant state schools in places like South Kensington, Cobham, Virgina Water and so on and underperforming ones in Wakefield, Middlesborough, Dewsbury etc? Whcih actually wouldn't be hugely different to the current situation.

True enough, PW. however, given that that isn't an option, we're left with the game we have to play, with the pieces in the positions they occupy.

Private education is with us, for the foreseeable future. Though, interestingly, the current economic situation may be having some effect on the numbers involved, or at least on the form it currently takes.

We're then left with the issue of how to manage a state sector that has this missing 7%. Should we try and reproduce some of the elements of the type of education these 7% are opting out in pursuit of? How would we do that? What are those elements?

It's interesting, because if the private sector exists in principle, you are always limited in what you can do with the state sector. for example, bring in anything wildly unpopular and you will increase demand for the private sector. Probably subtly transformed to accommodate those who are just below the threshold of use at the moment.

Reach4sky - this is pure anecdote, so sorry.

But I have seen academies that have set up strong discipline, aspiration and supervised homework, within the school. It really is interesting. Results-wise, it's working. Their intake is "difficult" but the outcome, in terms of academic results, are very good.

Thing is, the pay-off is that discipline is very high, which is a bit of a no-no as far as mc parents go, who tend to look for ephemeral add-ons in their dc education, such as "autonomy".

What would be interesting, is to see, whether the experiment survives lower funding/change of staff; whether the intake changes/attracts more mc parents and if so, whether the ethos changes and the effects of that.

I do find I am so interested! there are so many variables ivolved, I find it astonishing that anyone can ever draw any conclusions at all. Yet people do.

Well, if private schools were abolished, which I agree they won't be but let's say for the sake of argument they were, and EVERYONE received the same education, there would still be underachievers, still be bright, still be not very bright, but they would all have the same OPPORTUNITY to start with. And by opportunity, I don't mean everyone should go to university. I think a university education should be elitist, for the most intelligent only. What I really object to is the private sector giving such an advantage to those already advantaged members of society. I realise it's completely ideological but what really is fundamentally wrong with that idea?

This isn't about personal jealousy. My DCs go/went to highly selective grammar school, are at 'top' university (and we could have paid for private education had we wanted to)

It would be a whole different world of education.

At the moment, children don't get an equal chance from the very first point. It isn't right and it isn't fair.

I agree that there would still be disparities related to local economic circumstances. But I do believe that the standard overall would improve, and that state education would become a proper political priority (ie, one that the government was prepared to pump serious money into) in a way that it isn't at the moment.

I think you have a good point though - that tackling just one sort of social inequality in isolation is going to have a limited effect.

That's interesting about the effects of zero-tolerance discipline in schools, CB. I have read things to similar effect. You can see how, for some children who have had very few boundaries at home (whatever the social circumstances), very strict discipline at school might well work.

I know that at one of our local schools, which has an excellent reputation, the head is renowned for being absolutely intolerant of the smallest infraction WRT things like school uniform.

Just wanted to say what an interesting discussion this is - a real pleasure to talk to such polite and interesting posters.

Cherryblossom, you are right. There is a local academy to us which is achieving great things in a deprived area and it's fantastic. Policywonk, I agere about the political priority aspect too.

"BoffinMum, am liking the debating, but "There's basically nothing wrong with having alternatives to a state model for education, as it's here that real innovation often occurs." Surely if there were no private education, innovation would be all within the state sector. As Unquiet Dad says it's a bit "well d'h" isn't it?"

I don't follow this argument at all. I am old enough to remember when the telephone system was not run by the GPO. It took weeks to get a line installed, was a major operation to call abroad etc etc. Then telephony went to BT which was privatised and we had the 'third wave' and the new industrial revolution (or whatever they called it) and here we are now with the brave new world of broadband which, to someone my age who hasn't grown up with it, is astonishing.
Would all this innovation have happened if telephony was still run by the Government ? we all know how slowly they and their committees work (look at the planning consultation for Heathrow!).
I am not all at convinced that the State sector in Education would necessarily innovate at the same rate as the private sector.

reach - it does make a change to have a good-tempered discussion about this! I'm usually tossing insults around and flouncing by this stage.

I am with you on the joy at the politeness thing - I have usually flounced by now, PolicyWonk!

The thing I really, really like about having the independent sector there is that it is not so tightly regulated, and so it is able to take bigger risks (I am including Academies in this, by the way, because they are technically independent schools but not able to charge fees). Independent schools can try avoiding the teaching of reading until the age of 6/7, or mixed age groupings, or abandoning standardised teacher payscales and contracts, or offering completely different subjects to the National Curriculum, to see if this works. The successful outcomes can then be disseminated more widely if it is thought they would be helpful to others.

Another big advantage to the presence of the independent sector is that it usefully reminds politicians and teachers of what is possible when taking different approaches to education, rather than the prevailing view in many schools, which is to ensure the biggest number of children achieve at roughly average levels, without always making sufficient reference to their individual potential (despite the best efforts of policymakers in this regard). It's good that the consistency of education has improved since the 1988 Education Reform Act, but we still need to hang on to the idea that teachers are also there to help children achieve their extraordinary dreams, not just plod through the curriculum. (I think many teachers try to do this, but almost get ground down by the system in some cases). So it's about looking beyond one fixed model of education and towards something more holistic, perhaps.