Alan Bennett: Ban Public Schools

[DaDaDa]

Have we done this one yet?

In an ideal world, I agree with him.

lights blue touch paper, retires to safe distance with nice cup of tea and digestive biscuit

Yes, part of the problem with the comp system is that it forces children who are not, by nature, academic to sit "academic" exams and thereby feel like failures for not getting GCSEs, when there might well be something more suited to their talents at which they could be a success. Successive governments, not just this one, are responsible for not waking up to the fact that we have a real lack of trained skilled workers out there.

I agree that it does seem rather odd to run scared of a state system through which 93% of people have to go. It can't be that bad. Nearly everyone we know is putting their children through it, and they share our background and values, so there can't be much wrong with it.

By and large it doesn't turn out feral children lacking in graces and qualifications. If the state system were totally failing I could understand it. Individual schools may be, but I don't believe the system is. It's imperfect, but that's something else altogether.

(UQD have you heard of the new diplomas?)

here

harpsi, do you have a child at school? are you on the board of governors and/or pta? genuine question. i have been a school governor and am active in my ds's school. with the benefit of that experience, i think it would be very hard for parent power alone to turn around a poor school. imho, the most significant factor in determining the success or otherwise of a school will be the head.

i mean the calibre of the head.

i had to give up being a school governor as i simply couldn't do it justice while working f/t and all the rest.

HC - I do not know how many parents get involved as governors or whatever, but it has to be a tiny fraction of the proportion of a whole.

The idea I was taking issue with is the idea that swathes of middle class parents are going to gallop up on white chargers and rescue the schools ...

(i) Proportionally, only a very few are going to get involved, and proportionally, the difference they make would be tiny.

(ii) And I really don't believe that the private school parents are any different from state school parents. Just a bit wealthier generally.

i agree with you, qc. as someone mentioned further down, i think banning private schools would simply result in further competition for the "best schools" which the middle classes already dominate...

yes, I have a child at school, I am on the PTA but not on the board of governors.
although FWIW I was a pupil governor for three years when I was at school
I have spent a lot of time in (several) schools over the last few years.
yes the calibre of the head is important (but that is not unrelated to the other aspects, in terms of attracting a good head, keeping him/her, the right support being in place for his/her policies.
but the single most significant aspect is (imo) intake.

the power of school governors is in theory great but in practice...

just sending their children there would make a difference.

lol at 'swathes middle class parents are going to gallop up on white chargers and rescue the schools'

how self-important that sounds.

would cut down on the amount of traffic we have round here to, buses/coaches dropping the little darlinks all over london.

quattro raises an interesting point about the HE thing, actually. Because I'm not really seeing the difference between a parent paying for a private education and a HE parent in the specific argument that 'if paid-for education was banned, those parents would have to invest in the system more'.

Because I still pay tax, and I wouldn't put the money we invest in education into a school if we weren't HEing. And as it happens, we do try and support our local school as much as anyone else does anyway (I give them my tesco vouchers because they're no use to me).

I think you are perhaps oversimplifying my point.
it is clearly not as simple as - some new parents will come and join the board of governors.
parental involvement is not just in the running of the school but the education of the children - increased expectations.

let me list my thoughts again:
"I think that it is very hard to make generalisations, all schools are different (tritely).
but:
an investment in infrastructure - some school buildings are appalling and can be a barrier to learning e.g. portacabin shitholes.
more parental support for reducing disruptive behaviour.
higher expectations for pupils in terms of academic and other success.
more support for and status for teachers.
fewer behavioural issues for teachers to deal with.
abolition of SATS and the National Curriculum "

speaking very very generally, the introduction of ex-private school pupils into the state system would mean the influx of a group who are, as a general rule, much more likely to be strongly committed to education and supportive of schools and teachers. which is not to say that state school educated children/parents aren't of course.

let me put it another way - if ex-private school children began to be educated in the state system, their parents would (As a general rule) be likely to expend energy in ensuring their children succeeded.
and that would have the effect - imo - of increasing standards and expectations for all pupils.
perhaps not a gigantic effect but a significant one imo.
talk to teachers about teaching in schools where parents are not engaged.

i don't think i am oversimplifying particularly. and i don't see 6% as an influx - that's my problem with this theory really - even if the 6% were distributed evenly (which of course they wouldn't be) is that really enough to make the kind of changes envisaged?

x-posted.

of course there would also be the extra money from additional taxation

what additional taxation? was that lower down the thread? i missed it if so.

everyone other than the super rich is paying plenty of tax.

I don't know about that tbh bossykate.
I went to the sinkiest comp you could imagine.
there was one boy in our sixth form (year above) who applied to Oxford, his parents were very supportive and pushed him to apply and had very high expectations of him.
his dad cdame in at lunchtimes to teach us Latin
and yes I did think, oh what the heck maybe I'll apply too.
I thnk one or two people would make a difference,
but as I said before, it isn't just at the school level, but at the local level and national level where the influx would make a difference.
it isn't just any old 6%, but the most affluent and influential. it would be great to have that influence driving change and improvement in the state sector
(NOT THAT IT IS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN you understand)

What do you class as super rich?

I think we've already said tax would have to be ringfenced.

Southeastastra wrote that the abolition of public schools
"would cut down on the amount of traffic we have round here to, buses/coaches dropping the little darlinks all over london."
Ah, but that wouldn't happen if we then had lotteries for pupils attending state schools. In our semi rural area I could imagine pupils in our village being bussed 20 miles to a school whilst others were being bussed a similar distance to our local school (fortunately in my area most of the schools are very good, but it wouldn't do much for carbon emissions).
I read (or dreamt) that there was a suggestion this week that universities should take the top percentage from every school so that middle class parents would then want to send their children to the worst schools to guarantee places at university.
The answer to the problem surely is that we need a lot more investment in education - smaller classes, better facilites, better fed children, parenting classes etc etc but the government (of whatever colour) will or can't do this, so we end up with daft schemes to try to paper over the cracks.

sorry bk it was a joke I forgot the

private equity fund managers, russian oligarchs in exile from putin...

local schools to serve the local population.
that's it, really.