Private schools, times a changing?

[Louis Balfour]

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

Unquestionably. But it couldn't happen because independent schools have a different cost base, meaning that prices would not be where you suggest, and there is no way whatsoever that any government would allow it to happen. It would result in the "ghettoisation" of schools that dealt with disruptive children.

[numtumfutunch]

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

Are you saying that poor kids are trouble makers and a bit thick?

[Countdown]

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

You'd be faced with exactly the same situation that State schools are faced with. You would need a high volume of student (in order to achieve critical mass), you'd have a high ratio of students/teachers which would affect attainment levels. To look at it another way - why would parents pay £7k per annum to go private when they could get the same results from sending their kids to State school?

[cheesejunkie]

Countdown said:

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

You'd be faced with exactly the same situation that State schools are faced with. You would need a high volume of student (in order to achieve critical mass), you'd have a high ratio of students/teachers which would affect attainment levels. To look at it another way - why would parents pay £7k per annum to go private when they could get the same results from sending their kids to State school?

Yip, tinkering at the edges wouldn't work in my view. You have a single system for all or you don't.

The pros and cons of selective education are well known. It worked for me but having a second tier pretty much guarantees leaving some students behind.

Since the reality is that we don't have a single system and it's not going to go away how to deal with that is a good question. Getting rid of academic selection and grammar schools is a nice idea in theory, in practice it has resulted in post code house inflation in catchment areas near good schools. I don't claim to know the solution but I can see the problems.

[AstonZagato]

Whilst selective education is not well regarded by the education establishment (there are a lot of academic studies that suggest it reduces outcomes overall), it appears to me to have promoted social mobility in the UK.

[NDA]

cheesejunkie said:

Yip, tinkering at the edges wouldn't work in my view. You have a single system for all or you don't.

It's called choice.

I would always prefer to choose providers other than the state choosing for me for most services - but I am happy to contribute to the state coffers for them to fritter away as they see fit.

[cheesejunkie]

NDA said:

It's called choice.

I would always prefer to choose providers other than the state choosing for me for most services - but I am happy to contribute to the state coffers for them to fritter away as they see fit.

It's called a two tier system. Choice implies it's open to all.

Choice implies everyone has the same option. Discrimination is when they don't. Preserving that discrimination for your own benefit doesn't make you a hero. But claiming its choice does make you a hypocrite.

It's life dude, I'm not going to get into a big fight about it. But I won't fall for the egalitarian bks either.

[deckster]

NDA said:

I would always prefer to choose providers other than the state choosing for me for most services - but I am happy to contribute to the state coffers for them to fritter away as they see fit.

The illusion of choice is one of the most pernicious deceptions inflicted on us for decades.

I don't want to choose which school is best for my kids. I don't want to choose which hospital is best for my treatment. I don't want to choose which emergency service I need.

I just want my local school to be great. I want my local hospital to have tremendous outcomes. I want my local police force to be efficient and for my local area to be safe.

Choice is a sop and an excuse. Make it all good and you don't need to choose.

[Francois de La Rochefoucauld]

cheesejunkie said:

NDA said:

It's called choice.

I would always prefer to choose providers other than the state choosing for me for most services - but I am happy to contribute to the state coffers for them to fritter away as they see fit.

It's called a two tier system. Choice implies it's open to all.

Choice implies everyone has the same option. Discrimination is when they don't. Preserving that discrimination for your own benefit doesn't make you a hero. But claiming its choice does make you a hypocrite.

It's life dude, I'm not going to get into a big fight about it. But I won't fall for the egalitarian bks either.

It is open to all provided you can pay. Goods and services are allocated on a discriminatory basis all the time according to ones ability to pay. Why should education be any different.

[deckster]

Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:

It is open to all provided you can pay. Goods and services are allocated on a discriminatory basis all the time according to ones ability to pay. Why should education be any different.

Education is different. Very different. Unfettered access to quality education quite literally determines the future of the country.

It couldn't be more different to other goods and services if it tried.

[CrgT16]

Same can be applied to NHS. It’s a two tier with private.

[Francois de La Rochefoucauld]

deckster said:

Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:

It is open to all provided you can pay. Goods and services are allocated on a discriminatory basis all the time according to ones ability to pay. Why should education be any different.

Education is different. Very different. Unfettered access to quality education quite literally determines the future of the country.

It couldn't be more different to other goods and services if it tried.

Er, the previous poster posited that private education was discriminatory, I was simply pointing out that 'most' goods and services are allocated by ones ability to pay, therefore discriminating agains't those that can't. Education is no different.

[cheesejunkie]

Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:

cheesejunkie said:

NDA said:

It's called choice.

I would always prefer to choose providers other than the state choosing for me for most services - but I am happy to contribute to the state coffers for them to fritter away as they see fit.

It's called a two tier system. Choice implies it's open to all.

Choice implies everyone has the same option. Discrimination is when they don't. Preserving that discrimination for your own benefit doesn't make you a hero. But claiming its choice does make you a hypocrite.

It's life dude, I'm not going to get into a big fight about it. But I won't fall for the egalitarian bks either.

It is open to all provided you can pay. Goods and services are allocated on a discriminatory basis all the time according to ones ability to pay. Why should education be any different.

Why would it or why should it? I'm not a big believer in should but I'm a strong believer in recognising ladder pullers.

"It's open provided you pay". What if you can't afford to but have twice the ability of some privileged fkwit with rich parents? The fkwit gets the position, the one with the ability doesn't. Do you want to be a promoter of that? I think you don't but your arguments mean you do.

[Countdown]

Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:

Er, the previous poster posited that private education was discriminatory, I was simply pointing out that 'most' goods and services are allocated by ones ability to pay, therefore discriminating agains't those that can't. Education is no different.

Unlike other areas buying a better education has the effect of reinforcing systemic discrimination. i.e. Go to private school, get a better education, better job, earn more money, send your kid to private school and repeat.

Universities adjusting for this advantage DOES create the potential for the cycle to be broken.

[okgo]

Bursary/scholarships etc provide for that reason do they not? @cheesjunkie

[deckster]

Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:

deckster said:

Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:

It is open to all provided you can pay. Goods and services are allocated on a discriminatory basis all the time according to ones ability to pay. Why should education be any different.

Education is different. Very different. Unfettered access to quality education quite literally determines the future of the country.

It couldn't be more different to other goods and services if it tried.

Er, the previous poster posited that private education was discriminatory, I was simply pointing out that 'most' goods and services are allocated by ones ability to pay, therefore discriminating agains't those that can't. Education is no different.

I'm not sure what point we're arguing. Yes, private education is discriminatory against those who can't pay, it's sort of hard to argue that it's not.

I guess that your "why should education be any different" was a rhetorical question rather than actually asking - should education be treated differently from other goods and services. I took the question literally and was explaining that yes, education is fundamentally different than, say, buying a car.

[ClaphamGT3]

Louis Balfour said:

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

Unquestionably. But it couldn't happen because independent schools have a different cost base, meaning that prices would not be where you suggest, and there is no way whatsoever that any government would allow it to happen. It would result in the "ghettoisation" of schools that dealt with disruptive children.

This model used to exist until the 1970s/80s. They were called 'minor public schools'.

The reality is that these schools all either attracted investment to improve their performance & facilities to attract new students (often overseas) or closed because they weren't financially viable. Often these schools derived considerable LA funding from the old Direct Grant scheme which finished in the 1970s and the Assisted Place scheme which Blair spitefully canned in 1997

[Francois de La Rochefoucauld]

All I'm hearing is an argument for making all schools private with the state stepping out of the way entirely.

[brickwall]

Francois de La Rochefoucauld said:

All I'm hearing is an argument for making all schools private with the state stepping out of the way entirely.

This was what was originally intended with Academies - they would be subject to only the regulations applied to private schools, and would simply receive per-capita funding for the pupils on the roll. This included what some regarded as pretty eye-popping stuff such as no requirement to abide by the National curriculum, no requirement to employ formally qualified teachers, complete freedom on school days and times, etc.

Unfortunately more and more regulations got added to stop a tiny minority of academies doing dumb stuff, and the end result isn’t far from the LA-maintained schools that they tried to depart from.

[NomduJour]

cheesejunkie said:

"It's open provided you pay". What if you can't afford to but have twice the ability of some privileged fkwit with rich parents? The fkwit gets the position, the one with the ability doesn't. Do you want to be a promoter of that? I think you don't but your arguments mean you do.

Two of the brightest people in my year at school were on assisted places, others on scholarships and bursaries. Grammar schools provided a route for others. You’d have to pass common entrance in any case.