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

My experience of living in Cheshire was that the parents at my local school were very well educated professionals who cared a lot about their children's education. I only knew one footballer's wife and she helped at play group. Yes, intelligent people do live north of Thames/Watford Gap/Birmingham ...

I haven't actually met any footballer's wives though I understand the next village to me is a popular spot for them (A.E).

There are, however, far more yummy mummies here than I ever saw in Surrey! Cheshire women always seem so incredibly well-groomed.

Harpsi, sorry, forgot about this thread. Swedes and I live in a small town that has a fast commute to London and very good schools. So I was amused by her guinea pig comment - using the local schools is hardly a sacrifice, it's the reason people move here!

Swedes, not sure what you mean about the whole experience but I'm sure I'll find out when ds reaches high school age...

oooooh

If parents pay they have more power and then all the benefits of capitalism flow from that direct payment system.

(There's a kind of "appearances are all" thing about some vacuuous women in Cheshire. I've been there a lot but obviously you cannot entirely generalise about everyone there. Non working woman as appendage of man whose principal role is to look good in a very showy designer brands hair dresser every week kind of way.)

mrsruffallo - The private schools to which I was referring take appx. 50% from state schools because they pass the entrance exam. These are schools in areas with a lower demand for private school and a lot of the parents are happy to use state for primary and use the independent school for secondary. The private primaries, aren't that in demand so it is easy to get into. It stands to reason that a lot of the state primary children could be brighter than the children who have got into the private primary at aged 4, facing no competition.

What is the answer then? [Somewhere on this thread which I left on Friday and have just come back?]

I'm very anti private sector but I take on board points made on here by pple involved on both sides of the education system.

But you can't say its working as it is. I can not for the life of me get over this business of moving/renting to get into a 'better' state schl (just as bad as going private). What do you think is going to happen to the shcl you leave behind? Why can't pple support a local schl and do what they would for another schl to that perhaps less good schl. Why direct those resources to an already better off schl? By resources I mean time, support, skills, not just money. I'm sorry but I find that selfish although understandable. Its just a never ending recipe for the advantaged getting more advantaged and the less well to do left to well, get on with it.

Perhaps the answer is that it is not just down to supportive parents to take responsibility for all of tomorrows adults. Perhaps the elderly and child-free and the rest of society ought to take some responsibility for how the adults of tomorrow turn out. Why must it come down solely to middle class parents.

Parents don't even want the same things out of school. My dd goes to a primary in a polarised catchment area. There's only so much the PTA can do when other parents sneer at their efforts or disagree with what the money is being spent on.

Also, there are sinking schools which have supportive parents using them because they have no other choice and although they are living in. Maybe ask them what they would like to have happen. Do you think they want the school to be overrun with a new influx of pupil? Would they rather have more say in how the school is run and help it to serve the pupils who currently use the school, rather than half of them having to move to a different school, to make room for the ex-private school pupils.

But it hasn't resulted in continuing advantage. We have more social mobility than most countries and plenty of state school children do fine so I don't see what's the problem.

What is the answer? One answer is just have independent schools and give parents vouchers to spend where they choose. The market usually does better than the state.

On the 50% from state schools etc that is the same with most academic good private schools at 11+ I am sure Habs and North London where my daughters went are like that - most children come from state primaries. Most who sit from any type of school fail and there are many applicants for many places and quite a few get help with fees. It's a bit like the old grammar school system. Although there is plenty of competition at 4+ too around here.

"We have more social mobility than most countries" - really? I don't think the UK has more social mobility that most developed countries - quite the contrary. Everything I read about social mobility in the UK says that it is much harder to rise socially/economically than in the past.

I don't think I ever hinted that its just down to m/c parents, I think its just that its the topic of the thread. I appreciate all parents play a role, and yes, I have come across parents who would resist any attempt at improvement. Buy then there are other issues at play there. You can't forget that schools exist within a society, and they aren't interested for a reason.

But not buy.

If you look at the number of first time paying parents in the state school system you see the social mobility in action. We don't have very formal caste systems like India still practises and which keeps huge numbers down. We may have slightly fewer going to good univerisites from poor homes since we abolished the grammar schools but people move class. My mother did it extremely well in one generation. It's fascinating.

I have been musing on this today, particularly the suggestion that if you can pay, you should, and otherwise you are using your child as a guinea pig, and not allowing them access to facilities, opportunities, etc. The situation for my daughter is quite interesting:

There are 4 families, all with girls the same age, in our village who we're good friends with. We're all planning on sending the girls to the local state primary and secondary schools. Assuming things don't change drastically, these 4 girls will have access to the expertise and assistance of: a chemistry professor, history lecturer, 2 teachers, biology and English PhDs and a GP. My daughter will have access to lending rights at at least 2 good universities, sports facilities which will have been used by teams training for the 2012 Olympics and 2014 Commonwealth Games. She has enthusiastic and committed parents who are both education professionals.

I really don't think that by sending her to state school we're denying her much at all, apart from access to an old girls network, which I do find morally suspect. I think her education in manners are our responsibility, and one we take very seriously. She will speak with her local accent, and will learn, with our help, to express herself in a clear and articulate manner.

This is just one example, but it's true at present for these 4 little girls, all of whose parents could pay for private education, but are choosing not to. Yes, we all think the local schools are fine, and so it is easier for us, but I do think that it illustrates that the issues are not as black and white as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread.

Now, this is also at a tangent to the question of whether private schools should be banned, but I thought it pertinent, as there's clearly a lot more to education than school.

Excellent post habbibu

Alfie'sbabe but what you are suggesting is not about building or improving the education system. What you are suggesting is abolishing private schools to make education worse for those who value it most.

Believe me I would have a lot more respect for your arguments if you'd suggested a coherent solution that realistically and effectively dealt with the catchment area problem.

Habbibu - I quite understand your reasons for sending your daughter to your local state school.

However, I do not understand "apart from access to an old girls network, which I do find morally suspect" - why? Can you explain?

Quattrocento - there isn't a solution to the catchment area problem. The same problems exist all over the world, wherever there are catchment areas.

quattrocentro, is it your belief that those who pay for education are the ones who "value it most"?

So, I'm just going to play devil's advocate a bit here here and ask some questions because I would like to understand other people's POV .

Thinking about the lottery system. There are schools that don't get very high results most probably because the bulk of the catchment is made up of pupils whose parents do not value education - is that fair to say?

Within that less desirable catchment area there will be a percentage of disgruntled parents who do value education but haven't been able to move or do not wish to move. Won't it only be the parents who care about education who apply to the lottery? So won't you just be swapping 20% of the hard-working intake from the undesirable area with another 20% of hard-working intake from a different area? How does that help the poorly performing school?

Please explain how it works that mixing up school populations has an impact on the lowest performing students and doesn't improve solely on the basis of the higher performing pupils getting better results for the school.

Is there some research or evidence that shows that upping the percentage of pupils from families who value education improves the results of those originally in the school who come from families who do not value education? And if so, what percentage is required?

If I were in charge (haha) I would make schools smaller, especially poor performing schools. It seems obvious to me that children who are struggling at school need smaller classes and smaller school sizes and a more innovative, freer curriculum. There will always be some parents who live in the poor performing areas who do value education. Empower them to make decisions and make changes and that's likely to have a greater effect on the apathetic population of that school than moving in a group of children who have had radically different upbringings and aren't likely to mix anyway.

Since it is poor housing that creates these kinds of divisions in the first place wouldn't it be better for the government to start at the source and knock down large council estates and redistribute the people in social housing scattered sporadically?? (honest question, rather than a suggestion)

I do not know where my dd's will go to school at secondary level. They are currently at a state primary with a mixed population. Regardless of that though I care greatly about the state of education in this country. I'm utterly appalled that only something like 40% of boys leave school with 5 GCSEs inclusive of Maths and English. What a chronic waste of their time and potential and the country's money that we send 60% of boys and appx 50% of girls out into the world without even the most basic qualifications. Something is very wrong.

Oh dear! I have argued throughout this thread at my right to pay for my child's education but I think suggesting that only those who pay 'value education' is the sort of statement that makes people think parents like me are elitist.

Habbibu, I haven't seen anyone suggest that if you can, you should. There are many parents on this thread who disagree with opting out yet could afford it themselves.

Parents make their choices based on their own needs, expectations and conscience. Of course budget is a factor but it's not the sole reason why parents choose to send their children to the state school.

My children are primary age. I outlined earlier why I chose an independent school but if you had to pin me down on one factor, it would be class sizes. Teaching in a state school, I have seen first hand the dramatic difference in both attainment and enjoyment (theirs and mine) when teaching a class of under 24 compared with a class of 30 or more.

Have come to this quite late but anyhow, here's my tuppenceworth.

Banning things never solves anything - it's quite a ridiculous idea.

Trying to create equality is in my opinion a nonsense. There can never be true equality and the sooner people (and this government) realise this the better. Then we can focus on providing the right opportunities for all and raising the general standard to some degree across the board, rather than the current thinking which seems to be some misguided attempt to force people to be the same despite the fact that this would be counterproductive and only result in generally lowering standards.

Anna, I guess my problem with the old girls network is that it mean that people, say, get interviews/jobs that they might not have otherwise, if they applied with everybody else - the best person for the job isn't the person that gets it, simply because they didn't go to the same school, etc etc. Now, the best possible interpretation of this would say that it can be better to hire someone you know, or know of, because you're fairly sure they're not bonkers, and you do have an idea that they have had a good education, and yes, that can be true, but you have to be aware that there may well be somebody whose background you don't know, who may be much better at doing the job.

I'm not naive enough to think that there could ever be a true meritocracy, but it's like many other things - worth striving for, even if it's impossible to fully attain. At its worst (or even average), an old girls network can, in my opinion, work against that, and deny others chances which they may well deserve on merit. That, I think, is what I meant by morally suspect.

Cushioncover, I was really musing on a comment Xenia made on this thread about children being guinea pigs for a socialist ideal, but also to the thread alfiesbabe started about whether you would pay for a private school if there was good state provision - this was much discussed there, but I hadn't gathered my thoughts at that time (!) and so didn't want to resurrect the thread.

Habbibu - OK

I don't, personally, find human beings' natural inclination to form tribes with like-minded/like-experienced human beings morally suspect - I would rather we were all encouraged to infiltrate the networks that advantage each one of us rather than dilute the networks IYSWIM.