Just up there ^

Better education – No
Better chances in life through relationships built – yes
Better chances in work based on which school they went to – yes
Segregation from the poorer in society – yes

[/quote]

Er, that’s not me you’re quoting, and in fact my question was targeted at that ^ particular post as much as it was any other, i.e. if it’s not about the education, but is about networking, having the “right” school on your CV / UCAS application and avoiding poor people, then people wouldn’t be queuing up to get their kids into the state grammars. But they are.

Because they get a slightly better education at the expense of a poorer one for the many. Obvious really.

Okay, assume for a minute I’m an idiot and explain to me how a state grammar school negatively impacts on the quality of education of “the many”?

Okay, assume for a minute I’m an idiot and explain to me how a state grammar school negatively impacts on the quality of education of “the many”?

Well the evidence clearly shows they do. Showing how is trickier. It seems clear to me in the area I live that jobs come up far less frequently at grammar schools. I’ve not seen a biology job advertised in years for example. The grammars have more settled and more experienced staff compared to all the nearby comps. These more experienced staff are then not available to the many. Good teachers will often want jobs at grammars whilst struggling comps on sink estates will struggle to get any science teachers.

Yeah, that does make sense.

Damn you! 😉

Yeah, that does make sense.

A stw first…I shall have to retire this username!

Lots of talk about networking and entitlement, but in my experience (fairly ropey comp myself but quite a few friends who were boarding school boys), it’s more subtle than that. By a thousand subtle cues, they were imbued with the notion that they were the movers and shakers of tomorrow. Our guidance was more “get yourself a career”. I didn’t know anyone going to Oxbridge, it just wasn’t a thing. They were coached for the interviews.
Also, it’s tempting to characterise parents of boarding school kids as sheikhs/toffs/oligarchs, but the reality is most are middle-class folk making sacrifices to meet the fees, so as some have said the law of unintended consequences should be borne in mind by anyone messing with the system!

Because it perpetuates gross inequality of opportunity in society, in a rigged system.

Fair comment. However unfortunately utopia will never exist. [/quote]

As usual, Scandinavian countries show that things that are considered impossible in the UK are very possible.

In Norway the only private schools are international schools where the parents want their children to be taught in English as well as some religious schools. The vast majority go to public schools.

So many people in the UK have been conditioned to believe that anything that levels the playing field is a naive pipe-dream.

As usual, Scandinavian countries show that things that are considered impossible in the UK are very possible.

Certainly an unintended consequence could be making the country nicer with better social mobility. Wouldnt want that!

4% of Norwegians attend private schools
4% of Scots attend private schools

Not that facts are that relevant when easy political headlines are involved.

John Swinney, the Education Secretary, said: “This will give more young people an equal chance to obtain the qualifications they need to succeed.”

And this bloke is in charge of education! No wonder it’s such a mess. But must be a miracle worker with the £5m that will be raised (while potentially jeopardising the £48m of assisted places and the possible £10m cost)

Education is our top priority – no really

Chakaping – sorry to me your reasoning suggests that you shouldn’t aspire to do better in life.

Don’t apologise for your lack of comprehension skills, please.

The significant drawbacks of private education have been explained by myself and (more eloquently) by others on here.

Calling this intelligent and socially conscious criticism “the politics of envy” says much more about your own mindset than about the points you’re trying to dismiss.

I think we all “aspire to do better in life” but I fear your definition of that phrase is horribly narrow and materialistic.

So funky gets it for choosing to spend his and his wife’s hard-earned money on making one of the best investments a parent can make. And people talk about moralising 😯

😆 @ chapa

Bandying around daft insulting phrases like ‘politics of envy’ to describe people’s sincere desire for a more meritocratic society is never likely to elicit a particularly positive response is it.

I see THM still hasn’t progressed beyond smugly telling everyone else they’re wrong without actually offering any real opinions of his own. *sigh*

By a thousand subtle cues, they were imbued with the notion that they were the movers and shakers of tomorrow.

AKA entitlement.

4% of Norwegians attend private schools
4% of Scots attend private schools

Not that facts are that relevant when easy political headlines are involved.

As I said above, Norwegian private schools and Scottish private schools are very different.

Norwegian private schools provide a different education (international and religious) whereas in Scotland it’s about providing the same education but without having to mix with the riff-raff.

However unfortunately utopia will never exist.

So let’s not bother trying to make society even slightly fairer?

Sorry if facts are inconvenient for you grum. One thing for certain this is no solution. Just a headline grab. SNP politics at is best (sic).

(But isn’t it time for some of your winter photos BTW? Miss them)

why are so many parents desperate to get their kids into academically selective state grammar schools?

Jesus **** Christ. If you’re on the titanic and it’s sinking you do your damndest to get your family onto the liferafts.

That doesn’t mean you support the original decision to only supply life rafts for 1/3 of the passengers.

edlong: Okay, assume for a minute I’m an idiot

We don’t need to assume. The evidence is right there for all to see.

Apologies people. Letting myself get really grumpy. I despise grammar schools.

Wouldn’t mind so much if the proponents just told the truth and said “i support them because it makes life better for me and my ilk; and i dont gove a **** about anyone else”

But to cling to this bullshit that it’s a better fairer system just boils my piss

I’m still waiting for someone to show me their working out on how they know this policy would be a financial disaster.

Making education “fairer”

If you ban private schools wealthier parents will move to catchment area of better schools and pay for private after school tuition. It will never be “fair” and in any case if yournoarents are nit supportive of education and the wchool system the deck is heavily stacked against you re social mobility

Academically selective schools will always outperform for those kids who get in.

A Levels and University entry are academically selective. The argument is when in the process does the selection begin, A levels (and gcse/streaming) select within an instiution and Uni you must reach the standard to get in.

Because they get a slightly better education at the expense of a poorer one for the many. Obvious really.

@aa there is no reason that the existence of selective grammers in itself means other schools are automatically disadvantaged. However it is clear under the old Comp/Grammer system governments of all colours did spend less on the Comps

@aa it’s hard to argue it will be a financial disaster, what it will be is counter productive with more pressure on the state system which will imho almost certainly outweigh the tiny amount of extra money collected. The policy will be less damaging than say putting VAT on school fees would be.

It’s got nothing to do with the finances as they won’t get all the £5m forecast and anyway in real terms that’s next to nothing. Instead it’s all about the SNP trying to shore up the left wing, working class vote. The interesting thing to watch is whether as a result their middle class voters start to look elsewhere.

Are you guys suggesting that this £5m is not going to deliver what Swinney promises?? Surely not?

It’s amazing the convoluted arguments people will go to to try and make out that having a level playing field is somehow a terrible thing.

Academically selective schools will always outperform for those kids who get in.

You do know this is a discussion about Scotland where there are no state provided academically selective schools?

The attitudes to the people of Scotland towards education are usually a bit different to those south of the border. By and large children go to their nearest school, we don’t have the same competition and anxiety to get off spring into the right school that happens down south. It does mean that address is a key determinant in the school you go to, and thus potentially the effectiveness of the schooling. As a result house prices are affected by catchment areas, but generally not to the extremes in some areas of England.

It’s amazing the convoluted arguments people will go to to try and make out that having a level playing field is somehow a terrible thing.

I don’t think many people aren’t in favour of a more level playing field, however it’s whether you achieve it by dragging the lower end upwards, or the upper end downwards.

Seems an excellent “litmus test” to see those who can spot “something that hangs between a bull’s hind legs” and those who cannot.

Without the option of sending their children to private schools, the option of spending more on state education (and raising the taxes to pay for this) would suddenly become a lot more important.

Without the option of sending their children to private schools, the option of spending more on state education (and raising the taxes to pay for this) would suddenly become a lot more important.

I think this is hopeful thinking as the incremental effect on their local school would be minimal. I live in an affluent area of London, and what happens here is the local state schools raise serious money every year from the PTA, far more than the private schools, parents want to put their money where it directly impacts their kids.

So thm, what exactly has John Swinney promised to achieve with the 5 million saved? You allude to it above. Or are you lying again and he hasn’t promised to achieve anything with it?

To be fair, no money has been saved. The question is how much will be raised as a result.

Mefty same happens in the area of Scotland I’m in. We have two local private schools and then a couple of local state schools, and the PTA for the state schools raises some serious money. I can’t see that happening in the schools situated in the less affluent areas of the city.

£5 million is peanuts, he will do nothing of note with it. Whole thing is pure politics, you just have to decide whether philosophically you agree or don’t. An actually real improvements with those tiny sums are likely to be sweet FA.

The interesting thing to watch is whether as a result their middle class voters start to look elsewhere.

Most middle class voters don’t send their kids to private school. Only about 4% of Scottish kids go to private school, though oddly in Edinburgh it’s about 25%.

Looks like a good idea really, for a lot of reasons many organisations have held advantages that are not needed now, if the private schools simply raise prices to maintain a profit then they’re a business, if they keep fee’s lower then they might be slightly charitable.
If they put VAT on fees then if 1 in 6 or 7 take their kids back to the public system the VAT should easily cover them.

As for tax rebates for sending your kids to private school, get in line behind those who don’t have kids – state owes me for your kids being born, medical care and many other things like the annoying child benefit that they can’t work out how to means test…

Again the role of charities and charitable status seem to be very different. The whole system needs looking at where various organisations have a nice status for tax but have a wealth of assets and money making abilities that do not match their giving/doing.

Ah, sorry jamba I misunderstood you, I was being dim. So it’s one of these:

dragon – Member
…£5 million is peanuts, he will do nothing of note with it. Whole thing is pure politics…

Nah, it’s commonsense.

Money is tight, so where should it be saved?

Stopping subsidies for a wealthy sector of the community is a good start.

Isn’t Austerity a bitch when it bites the bourgeois?

It’s not an SNP idea of course despite all the SNP BAAAAD stuff, they’ve more or less pinched it from Labour. Anyway- lots of very confident predictions of the effects of this, and none of them are based in anything but total guesswork and most seem to come from vested interests so let’s treat them with the appropriate level of seriousness. We’ll see if it actually leads to the fall in private school rolls that has been claimed.

I do find it interesting that people can fit in their head “it’s too small an amount of money to be worth saving” and “It’s a huge amount of money and it’ll destroy the school sector”. Too small an amount? It’d run LEAPS for a decade and help out more disadvantaged kids that way than there are students in the entire private school system. Or buy about 5% of a F35B

Too small an amount? St Leonards says it’ll stop them supporting “as many” poorer kids. St Leonards it turns out give out one full bursary every 2 years on average, maybe we should be talking about a different too small number? Think of the .55% of a children!

And that’s after the OSCR forced them to increase their support tenfold. Oh, you thought they do it out of the kindness of their hearts? One in three of feepaying schools tested by the OSCR failed and were forced to increase their support for poorer kids or be removed entirely from the charities register. And the SCVO says categorically that private schools shouldn’t be considered charities unless they drastically improve access and support.

So no, private schools, you will not be reducing your support for poorer students, unless you want to lose all charitable benefits. And you all know this, so when you say it in the same breath as your predictions for school numbers, let’s take it with a pinch of salt.

Now me, I’m not sure. Maybe the numbers will work out, maybe they won’t, it really has to be tested and I think if it proves counterproductive it should be reversed. But if trusting the regulator and the charities commissioners is the politics of envy then I guess that’s me.

This is a shocking idea.
All the rich people I know are now not sending their kids to private schools and are being forced to move.
It’s preposterous.

Importantly for this type of discussion where no ordinary small violin will do this is one of the smallest stradivarius made…
https://tarisio.com/cozio-archive/property/?ID=40113
Of course we will need somebody with a good private education to play it….

A good move both for its practicality and its symbology. Why should the general taxpayer subsidise privilege?