Essentially you suggested something absurd.

See previous page

No they didn’t charge, my grandparents would not have been able to afford it.

Thanks. They streamed kids didn’t they?

Anyway, I’ll download that doc from Beeb4 and have a look. Now, being honest here thm, is it an objective documentary or the views of those who mourn their loss looking back to halcyon days? 🙂 ❓

Andrew Neill’s is heartfelt whether it is objective I will leave you to judge.

You make that sound like fact, deadly

Only because mefty appears to have admitted that. Apologies if I misunderstood your justification for the question.

@mefty, see grum’s post at the top of this page.

See my response

Andrew Neil?!?!?

Hmmm… 😆

See my response

Ok, if we’re down to that level, I’ll leave it there. We’re clearly neither of us getting anywhere.

I’ve expressed it as best as I can – I do try and think before I post – but English wasn’t one of my strongest subjects.

PS: Give it a chance, if it was on the BBC it must be impartial – joking apart – it never does any harm to understand an argument in prose rather than soundbite.

I’ve expressed it as best as I can – I do try and think before I post – but English wasn’t one of my strongest subjects.

Fair enough.

I haven’t seen it deadly. It’s a repeat and the original crits suggest that it was positively biased (even on the BBC) but then again the critic was Immanual somebody, if I recall correctly.

I was fortunate to go to a Catholic boarding school on a scholarship, but being poor and dislocated wasn’t ideal either.

During the school holidays I couldn’t afford to hang out with the Chelsea and Home Counties set. I couldn’t let anyone know that I lived in a council house with an unemployed, hoarding, single parent. I definitely missed not having local friends, like I had when I was at a local state primary school. The social set and gentlemans’ club opportunities were largely irrelevant to me therefore.

In the long run the scholarship was counter productive because by the time I came to A levels and additional Oxbridge studies I was so tired of studying and mock exam sitting that I eventually flunked, relatively speaking.

There was a lot that was good about the experience though. My school set high store in its pastoral care, and this was generally well recognised externally as to how well adjusted the pupils were, so it definitely wasn’t all about results. They didn’t invite anyone to leave on academic performance. I can’t imagine monks ever suggesting such a thing. Sport was great, and the facilities were good, albeit old. I was never bored academically like I had been in primary school where I wasn’t even aware that I might be clever. It was actually rather a shock to discover myself at the top of the prep school class.

As an aside, for some reason I don’t remember ever getting taught grammar properly when I was schooled mostly in the 80’s.

I couldn’t and wouldn’t choose boarding school for my daughter. Mainly because I’d want to see her every day and for her to have local friends she’s grown up with. I doubt I’d be able to afford private schooling either, but we’ll see if the opportunity arises. We are fortunate though that if she does fall behind my sister-in-law is a tutor, and treats her as her own. She’s too young at 4.5 to tell yet whether she’s bright or not, and I’m keen that she should get to enjoy being a kid at this point anyway.

Btw, that question about Grammar Schools. Did they charge fees? I really must go and find out why they were all closed. All I ever hear these days is hyperbole from those with whom I’m fairly sure I’m going to disagree. There must have been real reasons for such a dramatic change to the education system.

Grammar schools were not all closed. Many areas still have them and they do a really really bad job at improving social mobility.

. Now, being honest here thm, is it an objective documentary or the views of those who mourn their loss looking back to halcyon days? 

nail on head imo. It was heavy on ideals and very light on any facts. It was straight out of the “I went to a grammar and did well so they must be good” school of thought. Very little in the way of logic.

Far better to follow the wonderfully twisted logic of Sir Michael Wilshaw – grammar schools do not assist social mobility in the UK because that are stuffed full of “middle-class” kids and only 3% get free lunches. Leaving the obvious question unanswered – why?

Grammar school numbers have fallen from 1300 to 164. There is a great deal of competition to get in, fuelling demand for private tuition. Why bother? Because as Wilshaw points out, 10% of the population might do well because of the grammars but everyone else does “really badly.” Hmmmm…quite an admission, but not the one in the headlines. Actually the academic literature on performance is mixed TBF. *

So let’s get his right. Pupils who attend grammars might do better and vv. As the learned one concludes, serving 10% of the population well. Hence demand remains strong (wonder why?). In the face of strong demand, we cut, yes cut, supply from 1300 to 164. Therefore competition for places intensifies – there is a shortage of places. Who wins in this situation? Those who can play the game and afford the private tuition to ensure entry. Result, “stuffed full of middle class pupils” who do well. And the solution to this excess demand, is reduce supply even further.

Incredible…..so the conclusion is grammar schools do not improve social mobility. No wonder UK education is in such a mess.

* the general argument eg national child development studies etc conclude that the accepted benefits from grammar schools are “cancelled out by the hindrance suffered by those who attended secondary modern.” So the solution, do not improve the bit that wasn’t working, abolish the bit that was. Brilliant.

And the graceful slide continues…..

Grammar Schools still operate quite extensively in Northern Ireland don’t they?

How are they doing over there?

You know the answer deadly…..I wonder why they perform differently to the UK?

So left to a free choice, what do informed parents decide……???

Is there ckear evidence that grammar school kids do better than comp kids when compared like for like?

You know the answer deadly…..I wonder why they perform differently to the UK?

I didn’t know for sure, I’d only heard anecdotally that they were a bit shit. Why is that then?

At the moment, AA the evidence between current grammars and non-selective schools is mixed as I noted.

However, there seems to be two known, knowns (to coin a phrase) – better education delivers better social mobility and lower income inequality (different things); and parents are the biggest differentiating factor in educational success. The debate is, or should be, how to deliver the former and encourage the latter. IMHO, the solution is multi-tiered and complex not one size fits all.

Looking at results data, grammar schools dominate the top results, but you’d expect them to. You’d also expect comprehensives near to grammars to underperform, once their high ability students have been taken away from them.

Is there evidence to show that those children selected for grammar schools would do any worse in a good comprehensive? I’m inclined to say no, given that there are comprehensive schools in areas without grammars getting comparable results.

The best education system for the UK could well be multi-tiered and complex, not one size fits all. However, denying a huge portion of the population access to one the tiers doesn’t seem like a solution for the whole country.

Most comprehensives are multi-tiered internally and local authorities could work to provide different styles at different schools, or within schools. One local comp uses a project-based approach with their high ability pupils, which seems to be working well, for example.

We also need to move away from the obsession with GCSEs and give the opportunity for sitting a variety of qualifications.

The most bonkers thing about the whole system is the ‘charitable’ status of private schools. They’re not charities. They’re businesses. Highly successful ones.

The rest of us are subsidising a system that perpetuates inequality in our society, and gives massively improved opportunity, and life chances to a select few, based purely on the wealth of their parents

There is absolutely no argument for this system being sustained.

You want to privately educate your kids? Fine. Good luck to you! But don’t expect the rest of us to pay a percentage of your fees for you

The problem IMO is not so much the existence of the grammar school as the mode of selection. It’s just a more overt method of streaming the top 20%. However,selection testing is dominated and rigged by knowledgeable, more determined, and better-off families.

Aside from that, it places incredible pressure on kids who are not always able to handle it in exam conditions. My daughter sat four hours of tests on high-level maths, much of which she hadn’t been taught at all in school. Girls were apparently bursting into tears in the hall, the year before I was told that a couple had vomited.

The boy’s test around here wasn’t a marker of intelligence, more a marker of pre-training and composure on the day.

At the very least, a combination of testing and consultation with primary schools would help push forward able kids whose parents simply couldn’t afford tutors or who weren’t engaged with the whole process.

The best education system for the UK could well be multi-tiered and complex, not one size fits all. However, denying a huge portion of the population access to one the tiers doesn’t seem like a solution for the whole country.

Indeed Mike (we’ve battered the denying access bit to death, I will let you have it this time 😉 . So we end up with the dilemma between the right solutions partially applied and the wrong solutions universally applied. Unless of course….

Most comprehensives are multi-tiered internally and local authorities could work to provide different styles at different schools, or within schools. One local comp uses a project-based approach with their high ability pupils, which seems to be working well, for example*.

Where some/many comprehensive schools do indeed provide effective multi-tiered solutions. And arguably better than other schools in the private sector. It’s a veritable jumble out there.

* So the one local comp identifies the high ability pupils and targets their education accordingly. That sounds strikingly familiar …….!!

Another solution Martin might be to increase supply to alleviate the excess demand and the need to tutor in the first place? Just a thought….

So the one local comp identifies the high ability pupils and targets their education accordingly. That sounds strikingly familiar …….!!

It’s similar to grammar schools, but leaves the option to move between tiers and makes the high achievers visible to everyone. “If I work hard I can move to that group” vs “I failed my 11+ so I’m stuck here”.

Another solution Martin might be to increase supply to alleviate the excess demand and the need to tutor in the first place? Just a thought….

By making all schools good schools?

You want to privately educate your kids? Fine. Good luck to you! But don’t expect the rest of us to pay a percentage of your fees for you

You’re not. Those schools that are charities, which is by no means all, don’t make a profit as the income is used to fund the expenditure of the school – so there would be no tax take as there is no profit. All removing charitable status would do is make their lives more difficult as they would have to plan their finances more precisely so any surplus and deficits can be set off which would create work for some accountants but no tax.

Estimated cost of charitable status – £100m
Estimated cost of educating private school pupils in the state system – £2.5billion

So the proposed trade is: give up a £2.5bn saving in return for £100m. That would be a fun hedge fund strategy to market????

a well articulated argument in favour of a multi-tiered system. Parents and kids have different needs and should have the ability to make those choices as they see fit.

Indeed they should what a shame these choices are only open to the wealthy – are you able to provide a source for your 30% claim yet? Google suggest it is not true FWIW as does your lack of even an attempt to substantiate it – though of course you are happy to repeat it.

It’s a personal choice above all.

For the rich yes – its nto we cannot all choose it can we – its an ability to pay thing and then a choice

Banning certain schools does little to achieve that.

I love the way proponents of an exclusive system based on wealth that excludes about 90 % of the population from accessing them present banning them as curtailment of freedom and choice- delicious irony…its a shame you are not as worried by all those, lets call them the vast majority for that is what they are, who do not get this choice. What a shame your concern is not for them but the for rich folk to be able to entrench advantage to their progeny under the term “choice”

As for grammar schools i have no personal issue with them, I believe in meritocracy as long as it is based on ability and
1. there is a suitable alternative to those who fail the entrance exam – we need to educate all citizens to the fullness of their potential not just the bright ones [ or the rich ones ]
2. It is managed in a careful and systematic way to improve social mobility rather than to create a “middle class” school with no riff raff

I wonder why they perform differently to the UK?

Is it because they select their pupils based on ability…not the hardest question we will face today.

I think most would accept a tiered educational system [ it is what comps do anyway and primary schools]that has equal opportunity of access
i cant really see how you can argue about social mobility and support private schools. Do you not think , given the high % of their pupils that go to University and in particular the Russell group and Oxbridge that their existence is a major bar to social mobility? I am not even sure that is a point that can be debated tbh the facts are pretty clear on how they hinder access to poor folk and get a disproportionate number of places and massively so. They clearly impact on social mobility by hindering social mobility and entrenching the best opportunities for the richest rather than the most able.
This is the crux of the issue tbh at least with grammar schools everyone [ though of course socio economic factors mean the rich would still be more likely to get in] are at least open to all

Estimated cost of charitable status – £100m
Estimated cost of educating private school pupils in the state system – £2.5billion

Did you discount for the four out of twelve foreign students in your son’s peer group? 😉

btw I would be interested to hear what helps abuot being a charity rather than a business: from the posts above it would seem its about how much easier it is to manage your finances rather than any tax/profit reasons. Mrs was the (unpaid!) treasurer of a non-profit-but-with-employees charity-statused preschool for a few years: that was certainly the case for them: they were able to offer lowest fees locally for non-funded sessions but were by no means the best equipped or swankiest-looking!

For the rich yes – its nto we cannot all choose it can we – its an ability to pay thing and then a choice

I used to think like that too, but I no longer believe it is true.
For example, I know a family on slightly above average earnings who send both children to private school because they believe it is the best thing for their children and education is the priority in their lives.
They live in a very modest semi, haven’t had a foreign holiday in 4 or 5 years, don’t have a big telly or computer games or ipads for all (like many “poor” families).

So, it can be choices first, then you have the money.

like many “poor” families

Many of which have it all on hire and couldn’t get the money together to pay for school fees even if they didn’t spend a penny of their disoosable income.

Does anyone have figures for what even the cheapest private schools charge?

Did you discount for the four out of twelve foreign students in your son’s peer group?

No they were classified as being “unreal”, unrepresentative and too narrow to be included in the sample!! 😉

Remove charitable status, fees go up by approx £200 per pupil, ability to pay declines, schools abandon bursaries (no need) and replace with full paying pupils. Social mobility/inclusiveness……..you decide.

Recent figures showed that average annual day school fees rose by around £450 to £12,153 last year.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10342677/Rising-private-school-fees-pricing-out-the-middle-classes.html

£12k is what? 18k of actual salary? So for two kids that’s £36k per year of salary

What’s the average UK salary? £27k ish, isn’t it? So two parents working = £54k

54k – 36k = 18k which is £12k take home which is £1k per month which is unlikely to be enough to pay rent, bills, travel, etc for a family of four. that’s even before you consider child care and so on.

I expect that your idea of average salary and slightly more than average salary is some way off.

jy, alas a state “middle class school with no riff-raff” is still possible to an extent without academic selection given the right circumstances and availability of middle class fami1lies.

Our 2 catholic schools are certainly less riff-raffy in terms of the demographics of the families of their students. Plymouth is certainly not Liverpool in terms numbers/percentage of RC families and churches. I wonder if secular “riff-raff” families old me can be bothered with the rigmarole of catholicising a child just because these two schools happen to be slighty above average grades-wise and have significantly less trouble with illicit drugs and weapons.

Being in a very expensive and middle class area and being very fussy about catchment areas also works to an extent as long as you are oversubscribed by your very middle class feeder schools, but thankfully recent planning regulations about housing estates (full ownership, part ownership and social housing proprtions) have mitigated a little against this.

A friend also went to a hugely middle class state school in Buckinghamshire whose ‘selection’ at the time (late 80’s early 90’s) was based on some fantastic stipulations about uniforms which effectively made ‘fees’ for the schoolsince it was literally thousands more (over 5 years) than other schools to kit your child out properly. (think eton/repton permutations of blazers, hats, bags, multiple sports kits etc, and which few terribly expensive suppliers you had to purchase them from. And hand-me-downs allowed only between siblings!)

thm – its as much the principle as the sums involved. The taxpayer is being asked to subsidise a system which actively disadvantages 95% of them, and entrenches social inequality.

Any defence you’re trying to use that somehow removing this subsidy would reduce social mobility is absolutely laughable!

Ultimately having the richest 5% of the countries population (who, lets be honest, wield all the power in a capitalist system such as ours) opt out of the state system, and thus have no interest in its standards is absolutely corrosive to any idea of social mobility

I have a question with regard access to private education , two scenarios…..

A family with a income of 40 k who own there own home (mortgaged) that have modest savings and some equity in their property….I assume they would fall into what some describe as middle class etc

A family on benefits or min wage, no savings, rented house etc

Which scenario provides the more realistic access to private education? Assuming 2 kids, fees of 10k a year for each child

THM re: removing charitable status making fees rise -is that £200 per term, week, year?

-edit -and assuming whether week/term/year this figure is for day-boy fees rather than full board (which i can only assume would also rise proportionally)

Sounds like several different forms of exclusion going on there Juilian!

Any defence you’re trying to use that somehow removing this subsidy would reduce social mobility is absolutely laughable!

I’m afraid it is thm. Why can’t they just increase the fees for the wealthier kids and keep the bursaries? It’s already an exclusive system as it is, just make it a little bit more for Tarquin and Charlotte, so that Tyler and Chardonnay can still spend a bit of time seeing how the other half live.

I used to think like that too, but I no longer believe it is true…….So, it can be choices first, then you have the money.

Without the money you cannot have the choice.

Yes its true some folk make sacrifices that others on a similar income dont to send their kids to private school and sacrifice the foreign holidays but you still need an income level that gives you the ability to make the choice

As it is fee paying it is by definition not open to all.

Re charitable status – they are not “real” charities – then again lots of others are not either
The choice is to tax them or not tax them not close them down so its get £100 million or not get it not the false choice you present.

Neatly falsifying the idea that there is only one form of exclusivity.

There you go twisting his post again. The argument about different forms of exclusion has been done to death earlier in the thread. Why do you keep going back to it?

Are you saying that exclusion on grounds of location in a state school is as unfair as exclusion on grounds of wealth in the whole of the private schooling sector?