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...)

You put that really well, Boffinmum.

I've been sitting here thinking of something about Research and Development costs/risks and the private sector - and it wasn't nearly so cogent. And also something about the potential downsides of having no areas outside the state provision, however limited in scope those areas may currently be.

Well, you've done that, so off to work for me.

Cherryblossoms

The only problem with risk taking, of course, is when things go pear-shaped.

Our council-run secondary was performing very well and had high parent-pupil satisfaction and good exam results until last year when it was made an academy and taken over by a group coming in from outside.

In the last year they have had riots, 19 staff including the headteacher left during the course of one week, and all parents I have spoken to agree that their children are learning absolutely diddle squat.

Though one child did say there had been an improvement since last term: "the teachers are turning up now, I just can't hear what they're saying"

But the management in question made a big thing about their holistic thinking when they came in. I think most parents would have been happy with somewhat lower ambitions and rather more achievement.

Not saying that all academies are like this: only that making a school an academy is not the same as waving a magic wand. It's going to be about who gets to run it.

Well this thread is still going well. Cherryblossoms and ReachforSky have made most of the points I planned too. Senua made a great point too!

To pick up on one point. Bagsforlife - I agree that the current private / state two tier system is unfair. But, interestingly, that view is not the one given in the Fiona Millar, New Statesman article. I think she was claiming that state schools were in the main fine and middle class parents decision making was being effected by bias in the media. So the problem lies in the media and the ignorance of the middle classes!!!

Imo, this argument doesn't really move us towards any constructive improvement in state education.

I like the generous tone on here too..
senua, wanted to argue back, but just because something is state run, doesn't mean it has to be slow and bad. You give a good example, but I could counter that with several examples of how useless privatisation can be. Look at what's happened to the utilities since they were privatised. Costs have gone up massively and there's even talk of renationalising the railways because the current system is so daftly chaotic. So though your example I'm sure is true, I can't quite see how you can use it to dismiss the state sector's ability to innovate.
Logically if you take any amount of brain/ investment/ interest in education out of the state sector - by which I'm talking about those parents who educate their kids privately - then that investment and any innovation which may stem from those parents' interest and investment is lost from the state sector. So therefore it is a loss to the state sector to have private education. Got to be hasn't it?

It's all very well bemoaning the loss of parental interest and involvement but what do State schools do to retain this goodwill? They are not very embracing see here. Sorry to bring up an anecdote but I remember hearing a story about a school which had a line drawn on its playground which the parents were not allowed to cross.. It's not surprising that parents get disaffected and drift away with attitudes like that.

The trouble is that the likes of FM berate parents for 'deserting' the State sector. Think about it logically: who on earth wants to pay thousands of pounds a term for something that they could get for free? There must be something very desirable about Private education to make them shell out that sort of money. Shouldn't FM be focussing her attention on enticing Private parents back, making State education a more desirable option for them. Parents should be sending their kids to State schools because they want to, not because they ought to.
The question is: who is at fault? - the parents for deserting, or the system for not providing the goods?

But not all state schools are like that, Senua. I was one of the parents posting on that thread, but note that my post involved one headteacher at one of the three schools (infants, juniors and secondary) my dcs have attended, and that once he left, that school, too, changed. No reflection on the lovely cuddly infants they attended, nor on the pleasant welcoming place the juniors has now become, nor on dd's wonderfully supportive secondary school.

It is also possible to trawl through mumsnet posts and find people who are dissatisfied with private schools (they just tend to get less sympathy).

Oops. I hope that you don't think that I was misrepresenting you, Cory. The thread, to which I had contributed this morning so it was fresh in my mind, seemed apposite.
I agree that there are some excellent, welcoming State schools (which are oversubscribed, natch) but there are also some schools who still see parents almost as the enemy.

It's only poor people who moan about private schools, have you noticed?

really hullygully?!

Well, have you ever heard a rich person complain about them? Think about it.

Hullygully, I'm not poor. I do hope you are joking....

we have had threads where the children of people able to afford paying fees are still having problems with their independent schools. why ever not, hully?

I think it's important to remember that since the 1988 Act I mentioned earlier, schools are supposed to consider themselves part of a quasi-market competing for pupils. You may have views on the legitimacy of a market structure in the provision of state services, but the fact is that we have got one and have to work within it, at least until a future education act changes the status quo (which should be around 2025-ish if history is anything to go by).

If a school exists within a marketplace, then by definition it also has customers. Some valid points have been raised in this thread about how aware some schools are of this fact. Reducing parents to the superficial role of stall attendants and coat holders does nothing to raise standards, nor does confining parents to menial roles like washing paint pots and hearing infants read, and little else.

Treating them as valued participants in the educational process does raise standards, on the other hand, yet this can be uncomfortable or time consuming for schools at times. It is far easier for head teachers to decree rules (such as the line across the playground) and treat parents as sources of PTA money and little else, and much more difficult to take the time to debate educational matters with them in any forthright sense. Another factor is the socio-democratic makeup of the parent body - some parents have had poor experiences of schools as pupils themselves, and are reluctant to engage, which brings a whole other set of problems.

One thing that does seem clear is that the home-school relationship needs more thought than it sometimes receives, and that this probably needs to be as tailored as the teacher-pupil relationship should be when working at its best.

Meant to say socio-demographic in the last post - currently placating a seven year old whilst trying to type.

Blimey hullygully, sorry but that's a bit naive isn't it? Lots and lots of people who could afford private choose state for all sorts of reasons, from political to social, and yes even down to the fact that their local state school actually provides a great education.
On a slightly other tack I've noticed private schools/ parents, are often scared of state schools. For example, my SIL went to a private school, teaches in a private school and now sends her children to a private school. She is totally horrified that my son's going to a state school, as to her they're all sub standard. I did in a moment of devilment remind her that my brother was completely state educated and still somehow managed to get a first class degree. Still though, even though he was quite anti private education, she insisted and it was an almost primal fear of state schooling and what might become of her kids within it. I don't think she's all that uncommon either, though feel free to tell me I'm wrong.

How rich is she?

OK hullygully, can see you are deliberately being silly.

But in case anyone else is reading this thread and actually believes you, the statement 'have you ever heard a rich person complain about them' may be true, but it doesn't mean that those who do 'complain' are poor. So try another argument will you.

Who, my SIL? Well rich enough to afford private obviously, though she'd be a lot richer if she didn't..!

Smee - I have met parents like that at my children's prep school but not all by a long way.
I was educated in a comp, yet still choose private, as do a lot of my mates. In DD's class there's a girl who's Mum actually works in our local outstanding state school yet still wants an indie education for her own kids. So we're not all frightened.

If for a moment we do accept FM criticism of media people who send their children to private school and then seek to justify it I think she might also have levelled the same criticism at the numerous Labour politicians who have sent their children to private schools.

Surely the sme criticism could be raised against that even more select and influential group of people who have even more power to change the eductation system?

Litchick, of course you're right. I wasn't saying all are like that. Was just mentioning it as an interesting aside really, as I do seem to hear about a lot of people who would rather die than state educate. It's not universal of course it's not, but it is rather common.

ABetaDad, you're right of course, but I think they do come in for quite a lot of flak over it. Diane Abbott lost a lot of standing for sending her son to City of London and Tony Blair had acres of criticism for sending his sons to the Oratory, as though state it was seen as selective. I think a fair few do actually send their kids to the local state school though. Gordon Brown for one.

There certainly are people like that Smee - I can think of several at my dc's prep.

But I also know that amongst my closest friends we were all state educated but all bar one of us has chosen private education for our children.

Yep Metella, of course, though human nature dictates that we tend to group as friends like with like. By which I mean people mostly make friends with people who think the same as they do. So in contrast to you, not one of my friends has chosen private so far, though a few were privately educated themselves. It's so intriguing all of this, though it's bedtime for the small person, so had better stop dipping in..