V.A.T, in school fees

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 strange logic...

Possibly because they have the ability to empathise with those who were not as fortunate as them and want a fairer world where everyone has the same chances. It's obvious from some posts that this isn't an ability shared by everyone.

I'd just be interested to know really.

Me too Jalima. I'm also struggling to understand how Rigby can say that she "benefitted enormously from her grammar school education, but is absolutely against grammar schools for a whole raft of reasons which doesn't make her a hypocrite at all". I'd be interested to know why, when one has personally benefitted from a grammar school education, how is it not hypocritical to want to deny that benefit to others? Sounds a bit like pulling the drawbridge up to me.

I am curious as to why djen who presumably benefited from a scholarship to a private school and went on to get good qualifications and Jeremy Corbyn who may also have benefited from a private education (no qualifications to speak of but leader of his party now) and whose mother taught in a Girls' High School are so against these types of school for other people's children.

A levels were by letter for some reason.

DH did Oxford and Cambridge board O levels, mid 60s. He was graded by numbers.
I did Cambridge Board early 60s and yes, it was numbers. 1-6 was a pass, 7-9 a fail I think.

But as roses said, it's not really on to brag about one's amazing scholarly achievements and private school education, however come by. Not sure Corbyn would approve...
Perhaps he might if he had something to brag about.

Although he is perhaps an inspiration for all those who leave school with few qualifications

The information wasn't relevant. That's the point. Have you actually read the thread, Rigsby?

Good post rig

I don't understand why giving relevant information about one's educational achievements or private school education is 'bragging'. They are matters of fact which have contributed to who we are and the lives we have llived, as have the professions( if any) we trained for and had careers within. I passed the 11plus and went to an excellent girls' grammar school. I benefitted enormously from that education ( but it was all because my mother realised that education was a way to escape the poverty into which I had been born). In that sense it wasn't my choice and I am absolutely against grammar schools for a whole raft of reasons which doesn't make me a hypocrite in any way at all. I think it's interesting to hear the views of people educated in a whole variety of ways and if someone educated at Oxbridge for example, contributes something relevant to a thread based on her time there, I don't regard this as 'bragging'

We have different memories of our O level grades because the system changed several times between 1951-75 and varied somewhat between the different exam boards. Until 75 all O levels were pass/fail and only pass was recorded on the certificate against the subject. However, usually the actual grade was given separately to the student. % were given until 1960, then for several years grades 1-9 with 1-6 being passes, then from about 64, letters A-G with A-E being passes were used until1975. At least one board for some reason no one seems to know used A,C,E as passes and F, H as fails from the late 60s to 75.

But as roses said, it's not really on to brag about one's amazing scholarly achievements and private school education, however come by. Not sure Corbyn would approvve...

In my experience the scholarships and bursaries are often used to maintain children who otherwise might have to drop out of the school. So mum and dad get divorced and there is a long legal fight, fees are paid until things resolve. Daddy's business loses a lot of money, fees are covered by a scholarship whilst he sorts things out. Sometimes children from outside get help but often it is the ones they know who do best.

I think scholarships are available to all based on academic or other (musical, sporting) achievement, and bursaries would be means tested help for parents who cannot afford the fees.