V.A.T, in school fees

What strange logic...

I would have given anything to have gone to a grammar school. When I went to one of the top universities in the country, all the other girls were from private schools or grammar schools. I was from a London comprehensive. They were all wearing cardigans and pearls, and court shoes, whereas I turned up in jeans and canvas trainers. I can't say I really enjoyed my time at university, but I was jolly sure I wasn't going to let my educational background hold me back from achieving higher marks than the lot of them.
I certainly have the ability to empathise with those who are not as fortunate as others and never forget my humble beginnings. I too find it hard to comprehend why some people are against the very schools which have given them such an advance in life.

What!!
Why is it strange? I had a good education. I know others didn't. I know that this was pure chance and that some of the people who didn't have a good education would benefit from a better one. Therefore I would like to see everyone have an excellent education like mine.
What's strange are those people who clearly imagine they are entitled to a good education but others aren't and that this is something that should be permitted to continue into the 21st century.

There will never be a world where everyone has the same chances , Jen has a grandson who is dyslectic , she said teaching of children with dyslexia hss been cut, not every dyslexic child has a grandmother with such high academic success to give them home tutoring. If there was a vat charge fir private schools I would want the money used to teach chikdren with learning difficulties not feed obese children in state schools , any parent can put a meal on a plate, not every parent or grandparent can give home tutoring. So I think this is a fantasy dragged up by Corbyn to hold onto votes come May, there are far more children in state schools than children who hive learning difficulties

No, Annie. You've got dyslexia. My grandson has autism.

Sorry Jen, my error, well autism , still all children with learning difficulties need support more than obese children need a meal

Hardly anyone is pro-grammar schools these days, because there is no evidence that children progress better in them, or that they give a better chance in life to a child for going there.
The whole educational scene has changed drastically since the 1950s and 60s.
Back then the options were grammar schools for a small percentage of children , secondary moderns for the majority and private for the remainder.
The secondary moderns provided a very poor standard of secondary education and most were leaving school at 15 before there was even an opportunity to sit and o level.
Grammar schools selected their pupils, put everyone through o levels and tended to recruit better qualified teachers. So of course the outcomes were better for the grammar school pupils. Even so, over half of the girls in my grammar school left without going on to the 6th form.
Our of those who did do A levels, I think about half went to university.
Today nearly half of all children go to university. Comprehensive schools are incomparably better than the secondary moderns of 50-60 years ago - in terms of staffing, facilities and standard of teaching.
It makes no sense to bring back grammars now. It is a ludicrous policy that the PM has lighted on to appeal to voters over 60 who regret that they did not have a better education themselves. She is making herself look stupid and dogmatic in the eyes of the teaching profession and all the younger people who have had a good education without going to grammar schools.

I am unclear how my grandsons would have had a better education if their school became a grammar. It is nonsense. It would however have helped if the cuts to the specialist dyslexic support hadn't been made by the Government.

What are the grammars going to offer that our schools can't or don't offer now? What % of our children will be expected to go to these grammars? How will the perceived advantages of a grammar school education fit with a modern democracy?

Why, if the argument goes that those children with an academic bent, can't the same argument be made for children with practical or technical skills. To my mind these children have as much if not more to contribute to a modern economy.

Well said, Jess. I think it was about 20-25% of pupils who took O levels, and I can remember some of them failing all of them.
I also remember Keith Joseph reassuring employers that they would still be able to tell which students had better grades and were grammar school material. That's what has always mattered to some people.
Like trisher says, we don't want to pull up the drawbridge. We want all pupils to have the benefit of a good education.
Was it the 1947 education act that said they should all be taught according to their age, ability and aptitude?
It applied better in private schools because of class size. Why can't all children have that benefit, rather than just those who can pay?

If all those who paid had to send their children to the local community school, you can bet your life there would be some improvements seen.

I'm getting a bit fed up with the assumption that all state schools (except grammar schools) are bad and private schools are wonderful. I'm surprised that more teachers/ex-teachers on here aren't disputing this.

Interestingly some data published a year or two ago showed that when the final degrees of uni students from state and private sector, who had the same A level grades on entry, were compared it was actually the state school ex-pupils who achieved better degrees.

It seems to me that private education is really more about social advantage (knowing the right people, being in the right networks etc.) than actual quality of education.

Mazie it's clearly not the case that all non-grammar state schools are worse than all grammar and private schools. But, on average, kids will do better in public exams if they attend a grammar or private school. Those in comps. who do as well as those in grammar/independent schools are probably more able in the first place, so when they compete on equal terms at the same university, they will probably outperform the grammar/private school kids who failed to outperform at school despite the advantage of being at a selective/fee paying school.

Exactly what I meant Fitzy54 in my own experience.

If I only have the pieces for Thomas the Tank Engine available to me, parents paying £1000s a term cannot expect me to make Henry the Helicopter. You can't buy a brain!

Fitzy
But, on average, kids will do better in public exams if they attend a grammar...
This is a meaningless statement as we have no idea how individuals who attend grammar schools would have fared had they attended a state comprehensive.
Of course, grammar school results are better over all than comprehensives because they select only the children who are going to achieve good results. It's little to do with the quality of the teaching. In fact, it is entirely possible that, given their intake, some grammar schools may not be achieving the results they should be because they are coasting on the fact that their pupils are very intelligent and are easy to teach.
I'm afraid I cannot fathom the rest of your post.

Exactly what I meant Fitzy54 in my own experience.
I'm glad that someone understands what Fitzy is trying to say. I wonder if you could explain it to me because I'm baffled.

Mazie I agree with what you say up to a point. I also agree that the latter part of my post could have been clearer! What I meant was, if two kids from different schools (an independent and a comp) get the same A level grades, go onto the same uni, And the comp kid then does better, that indicates that the comp kid is the brighter and it was only the advantage of going to the (better performing) independent school that allowed the independent kid to get equal A level grades.

I said I agreed with you up to a point. State grammar don't seem to particularly outperform what one would expect given their intake. But a disproportionate number of private schools have quite stunning results.

You're right Maizie that we will never know how a child might have fared at a different school, so we usually base what we do know from our own experience.

I think I understand what Fitzy means. As a child coming from a London comp where the education was average and the expectations somewhat lower, I sailed through exams, got offered unconditional offers at universities and ended up with a better degree than many of the privatel/ grammar school educated children.
A bright child will do well anywhere, anyway.

Maizie I agree with you - the only way to compare schools in any meaningful sense in terms of exam results ( and there's a whole other discussion to have about what else different types of schools offer) is to have a measure of their ability when they started the school. As you say, grammar schools are incredibly selective and of course select across a population from a large area and not just the la in which they are located. And independent schools are incredibly diverse - some again highly selective, others basically just taking anyone whose parents can afford the fees.

hardly anyone is pro grammar schools these days
I think the parents of the 4,500 plus pupils who go to the 4 grammar schools here in Southend might disagree with that statement.

Thanks, Fitzy. That makes it clearer:-)
I actually think there are at least two possible explanations.
1) The comp. child is, indeed, brighter and all that private education has done is push their pupil beyond what is actually achievable by them without continual support
2) Is similar but slightly different. That the privately educated child is unable to achieve without continual support; i.e without being pushed and spoonfed..

But this is a bit of a diversion from the point I was trying to make, which was that state education is not the Bad Thing which seems to be the predominant assumption on this thread. I was using the example of the superior performance of state over private pupils, in this instance, to illustrate my point.

I was also dragged along to the NCDS (survey 1958 - present) at regular intervals and was always told by psychologists that my potential outshone my attainment. Why? Because I wasn't be stretched at the comp, because there was no differentiation in the teaching and because half the class were disinterested or worse still, disrespectful and disruptive.

The good side, however, was that I learnt more about real life at the comp than I would ever have done at a grammar/private school.

Rigby one other way is to compare results on leaving school and then see how those whose school results imply parity measure up against each other on a level playing field at university. Mazie says those from the state comps. outperform. That doesn't surprise me at all. I would be astonished if it were not the case. Hence the age old debate about the advantages of private education and the need to level things up (or down?).

And what about the thousands in Southend whose children don't go to a grammar? Is their education meeting their needs? How does it compare with money per pupil? What are they achieving at the end of their school life. What are the grammar school children contributing to society at the end of their school life?

There are far too many questions over such a system for my liking.

Well they would say that wouldn't they. Petra.
How about the majority whose kids didn't get in?

Mazie we agree on your main point- state education is not a bad thing, and in my view it's much better now than when I was at school, and among other things I put that down to the expansion of comprehensive education.