V.A.T, in school fees

The other point about admission to grammar schools whic hasn't been mentioned is that 'passing' the 11+ still didn't guarantee you a place if more children 'passed' tgan were available places. And if you were female your chances of getting a place were also affected by the fact that boys were given a lower 'pass' mark. To have kept the 'pass' level the same for boys and girls would have meant more girls than boys attending grammar school. So a girl could be brighter than the boy she sat next to in primary school but not get a place while he did.

I wonder if it still works that way today?

DD how will a school offer equal opportunities if the issue is more around the home/family environment? I should say I'm not disputing what you say just asking what can be done by the school which has real, positive effect?

Yes, it is true in modern comps Fitzy, which suggests that the solution is not to be found in the organisation and structure of schools. With some exceptions, family background is likely to be the most important factor in a child's success. A good comp knows that and can, at least, offer more equal opportunities.

The 1944 Education Act (enacted in 1947) was designed for political reasons to solve the problem of an increasing number of workers needed for white collar jobs. Before 1947, most children received only an elementary education (the so-called 3 Rs),but it was becoming increasingly obvious that the need for factory workers was declining. Before 1947, there were only two ways for children to receive an education beyond elementary - most paid for it and a handful had scholarships based on exceptional ability.

The 1944 Education Act enabled a number of current "baby boomers" from poor backgrounds to have a level of education which they wouldn't have had before the Act.Many have been successful (although the booming world economy helped), which is why so many look back to the old days with nostalgia.

However, the world has changed. Manufacturing jobs have disappeared to countries with cheaper labour costs. All pupils have an opportunity for higher level education, so there is no longer a pool of pupils with no chance at all of a higher level of education. Higher education doesn't depend solely on wealth, although we seem to be regressing. The country needs people at all levels to have higher skills.

People seem to forget that comprehensive schools came about, because aspirational middle class parents couldn't get their children into grammar schools. In addition, wealthy parents couldn't buy their way into grammar schools. Unless they were very wealthy their children had to go to secondary moderns, so they preferred comprehensive schools.

Eloethan is right. Children from working class backgrounds who ended up in grammar schools often faced cultural tension between a family which didn't value a liberal education and the aims of the school. To this day, children from professional backgrounds do better than those from working class familes, no matter what the educational achievements or proven IQ of the child is. The former head of Wellington described it as "oiling" ie social skills, networks, etc.

Eloethan, that certainly reflects my recollection of grammar school. You could pretty well guess how well kids did academically by reference to their parents' jobs. Some exceptions of course, but that rule of thumb generally seemed to hold up. But to be honest I would think the same is true in modern comps?

gillybob I believe your experience of grammar schools is borne out in research. Children from less well off backgrounds who did manage to get into grammar schools often did not thrive in the environment and tended to get poor results or leave early. So the argument that grammar schools enable bright "working class" children to progress appears not to be true for the majority of young people.

Spot on! That's why competition and the market doesn't work for schools. Failing, inefficient business will end up going bankrupt. With schools, many of the failing ones will end up closing or be given a smart new uniform and a new name, but they'll still be the same school. In the meantime, pupils have to attend the sink schools, which isn't fair, because they only get one chance.

It's also why successful schools are extremely reluctant to increase their admission numbers. Once they do, they are in danger of having to accept pupils other schools have excluded.

To return to 'what is a sink school' it's quite simple. A school with empty places has to take children who have been excluded from another school- it has no choice. Once there are a good few of these difficult children in the school the 'nice' parents begin to move their children out, which means there are more empty places and more room for excluded children. The school becomes difficult to run, staff begin to leave and standards slip.
Years ago many of the children would have been sent to residential or approved schools and wouldn't have been in the secondary moderns

Just been listening to the radio programme with Toby Young talking about meritocracy, a term his father invented. I think the link was on this thread, but I couldn't find it. The link is here:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08lgq9n

I think it's the first time I've heard Toby Young talking sense and is well worth listening to for the questions it asks.

McDonald is probely planning to get shot of Corbyn and Diane is still loved up poor woman

Flip flop? worn with socks.

What, even though most of the media and on here have rubbished his VAT on private fees to pay for school meals idea?

McDonnell swings from one side to the other - wonder what's going on now?

Not sccirdung to Diane Abbott who has written - Jeremy Corbyn is indespensable to forging new politics , he is our best hope of delivering a clear alternative to to the tories.

McDonald has expressed regret for claiming there is a soft coup being carried out by the centre left labour MP's.

He also said Corbyn has the potential to become the most transformative Labour PM since Attlee

Oh deary me

Gosh " politics of envy" there's a blast from the past
But that is what Corbyn is, isn't he?
a blast from the past

7% of UK children go to private schools. My guess is that few of the remaining 93% care very much about the "suffering" of the 7%. One of the selling points of the Leave campaign was that it would be a victory against the élite.

I think singling out a small section of people is wrong , if they were forced to pay I do believe some would see it as a victory against a class of people.

Gosh " politics of envy" there's a blast from the past

I agree, if free school meals for all primary age children is a good idea ( not sure about it though) then it should be funded but not on the back of VAT charged to parents who pay fees for their children.Sounds like the politics of envy.

All that Fitzy54.

The sums it up very neatly Fitzy

In any event, charging vat on school fees and using the money to pay for free meals for all state school children is a quite ridiculous idea, whether or not either or both have merit in themselves, and I've not seen one post which makes any serious attempt at explaining why it might be sensible to link these policies.

I agree that most 11 year olds really don't know enough to chose their secondary school and that should be left to their parents.

Living in a rural area, we sent ours to the small local community comprehensive and although it was short of funds and various resources, they did well and some of their classmates did spectacularly well. This was a school which had just been changed from a secondary modern to an 11-16 comprehensive.

Someone I know actually did chose his school at the age of eleven. He sat and passed the exam for a highly selective fee-paying school which his brother attended but insisted on going to his local state school. He sailed through university and ended up with a PhD.

Clever, motivated children with supportive parents will always do well. Perhaps we should just select the others for extra help.

This school is genuinely non-selective. All children from a numerous villages are bused in.

The school close to my DGD calls itself "non-selective" whitewave but really couldn't be any more selective if it tried. It only has places for the children from it's "seleced" feeders, which just so happen to be situated in the most affluent areas of the borough. 2 of which are miles away from the school.

Treat all children with respect and care

Couldn't agree more.

I also think that in an ideal world the child would be able to chose the type of school he wishes to attend, but quite honestly it is far too young at 12 to decide ones future. Children change tremendously between 12 and 18 and to force them along a particular path at 12 is ridiculous.