State -v- Private

[aim1ee]

Having experienced both I feel in a position to comment. Our views - the assumption that because you are paying independent school fees that the education and care must be better, is an absolute myth. State education is excellent; provided by qualified teachers often with teaching assistants/trainee teachers in the class together, after school clubs and sport, breakfast clubs, regular sight of books, pastoral care and parental involvement. Especially good advice on internet safety and how numeracy and literacy are taught - even parents' lessons! Most special needs and disabled children are integrated into a happy community. On the other hand we found private schools are elitest, one or two really rude and nasty parents, inadequate leadership by Heads, only one class teacher (sometimes unqualified), short staffed, absent pastoral support, inadequate school reports downloaded from the internet with a few chosen phrases slotted in, school's own policies not adhered to, expensive uniform some of which went missing, overlong holidays. Without doubt State is best.

Because that makes sense for your children. I would too.

But apparently that's selfish elitism. You should send your kid to the underperforming school just down the road because your kid is so "wonderful" that all the other kids will benefit.

That's what Minifinger's ideology is based on and, in my opinion, it rubbish.

The school system won't improve by shuffling kids from one school to another like sacrificial lambs relieving socialist guilt. It will improve with a larger budget for teachers and facilities. Moaning about admission policies and selection is classic and irrelevant.

I don't just care about my children and of course I want all children to achieve their potential. Not least because it's good for the country as a whole. I have taught in some very challenging schools in deprived areas and I have always given my absolute best to those kids. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't care about my children more than I cared about other children.

If educating without setting resulted in both my child and all others reaching their absolute potential then I'd be all for it. But to advocate that it's ok that my child would get an A instead of an A* because another child would get a C instead of an E is unacceptable to me.

I will never believe that it's ok to limit the possibilities of the most able and suggest they should be grateful because they'll still do all right. And only 2 of my 3 boys are very able with the other being academically average or thereabouts. I believe in an education that will allow them all to reach their potential. I also have a young daughter showing signs of developmental delay. Of course she would benefit from being in a class full of NT children but should their absolute potential be curtailed for her benefit? Absolutely not!

Are your DC in a school that is failing them at the moment mini ? and would you keep them there for the sake of ideology? (Assuming of course that haf the option of moving them/paying if it where the case)

I felt like you did, until I started realising that that DS's school (although well rated) is not allowing him to achieve what he can.

A system where every DC goes to his/her nearest school promotes parochialism which is very bad for society as a whole.

bonsoir, don't we have that already, in a way, with catchments?

I live close to a very good state school (80-90% get 5a-c) where I work part time. I might get DC in, despite it not being our catchment school.

I was fool enough to tell a friend who lives in the catchment. She was outraged and said it was not fair ifmy DC could get in, as she paid fir an exoensive house in the expensive catchment so therefore catchment kids should come first (people DO move there for the school) . I could reassure her that I 'd onlyget a place after catchment kids and siblings are placed. But I was surprised hiw she felt she owned that school, because of having "paid" for it via houseprice.

Nancy - that bit about setting only being the best for the most able is what my DDs school believes.

Therefore they just have a top set and the other classes are mixed ability.

I think it's an interesting solution and seems to work from my DDs point of view. Certainly she's making very good progress.

killasandra- how does that work for very low ability children?

And- sorry, it's making my head go round and round a bit- doesn't that mean that the "best of the rest" are at the top of the remaining class and therefore suffer from being in a mixed ability class? High ability is to some extent relative...........

It works better for the very low ability children then putting them in a bottom set would.

The top of the mixed ability class do better than they would if they were in a middle set.

According to the research / school. I haven't seen the data myself. But I think a lot of pupils would do better if they were top of the class rather than in a middle set.

being top of the class is not a disadvantage.

The concept of school catchments in England is very loose (this is a good thing).

Catchments usually imply carving a country up into pieces with DC being rigidly allocated to the school for all DC in their little patch.

mini I really don't understand your 'ideology'.

You constantly complain that your own DS doesn't have enough like ability peers and he tried for a place at a super selective school, no?

So why are you soap boxing about what others should or should t do. Holding yourself up as selfless, morally superior?

Odd!

"being top of the class is not a disadvantage."

But aren't people saying it is for high ability children?

If you want the best for all, look no further than South Korea.

"In the 2009 PISA assessments, South Korea ranked second in reading, fourth in mathematics and sixth in science. This is a remarkable achievement. "

"Students from low-income families have access to vouchers for extracurricular activity fees and special university scholarships. "

"Admission to senior high school differs across school systems. Some systems are designated “equalization areas” (these include the major metropolitan areas of Seoul, Busan, Daegu and Gwangju), and use a computer lottery system to place students. Schools in other regions admit students based on their academic records and school-administered and -developed entrance examinations."

The only "fair" way to allocate urban school places is by lottery. They use this in S.K. Take choice away from parents and that's considered fair. It is the only logical conclusion for those with a wider social conscience.

Personally, I prefer to have choice and liberty.

I do actually think the best way to allocate school places is by lottery. I don't think that means adopting all South Korea's other social and political mores!

It could only be fair if all schools were of the same standard and so parents would be relatively indifferent about which school their kids ended up in.

However, in the UK, as we all know, all schools are not of the same type or standard.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. The selection system is not the way to make schooling better or to increase social mobility. Increasing the budget for schools, teachers and facilities will make schools better for everyone. Anything that reduces the budget per child will make it worse.

That "anything" includes, for instance, private school fees rising above inflation and more families choosing to "come back" to the state system leading to more pupils in the state system whilst the budget per child is being cut.

The selection system is irrelevant .....

The single biggest contributor to how "good" a school is is the number of committed, engaged parents. That's why over subscribed faith schools tend to do well, nothing to do with God. A system of comprehensive schools with lottery admissions would distribute those families round the schools. With the result that your South Korea example shows.

I cannot understand the difference between paying a bigger lump sum up front (in terms of mortgage) and paying in set amounts per year.

We will be sending out dc to private as the only place we could afford to buy the type of house we wanted was in an area with the lowest performing state school in the country.

A house similar to ours but with an excellent state school near by is £200k more expensive than what we bought. This is less than the fees for two dc at the local private. It is however more affordable as I didn't have to have the increased deposit or salary right now but can offset it year by year. Honestly I don't get the difference.

County not country! Sorry tgat made it sound very dramatic.

Moreis that is exactly what i think.

hak that is one factor.

But not the only one.

Other factors that affect a school include the management team, the facilities, the teaching staff, the ability spread of the pupils...

But, Hak, is the state sector not already full if such parents? The tiny minority who opt out don't make much statistical difference, surely?

"But, Hak, is the state sector not already full if such parents? The tiny minority who opt out don't make much statistical difference, surely?"

Yes of course it is. My reasons for wanting to abolish private schools are different for my reasons for wanting to introduce a lottery for admissions.

But on the subject, the God issue was another reason I was keen to opt out. It's a national disgrace that parents have no real choice to say no to a faith school. The sooner we ban faith schools the better imo

Don't worry, that's on my agenda for when I'm Dictator too.

Ok, fair enough. Do we have data on the traffic impact of a lottery system? Would the LA pay for transport to the (theoretical) other side of town? Or would that be down to parents?

Teachers, heads, facilities need more time, investment and autonomy. That would make a difference. Why is this such a hard point to agree wholeheartedly with? It obvious isn't it? Campaign for money for education and let the teachers decide how to improve student outcomes.

The idea that sprinkling some "motivated" parents and students around the system will improve things for all is both false and highly offensive to the parents and students that, by implication, you think aren't already at those schools.