A meritocratic private school system

Laurence Hodge

The Assisted Places Scheme?

Sarah

And do you fancy being a poor talented kid surrounded by rich *****?

We just need the grammars, chum.

john miller

Well, banning private schools would seriously upset Dianne Abbott, so maybe I am in favour of it...

Steve

Just to correct you slightly on the first line... NI is not trying to decommission its grammar school system - it is being pushed through the assembly against the wishes of the vast majority of the population. Here in Northern Ireland our GCSE and A Level results consistently have outperformed those on the mainland for years - I see this as a sign of a system that works, not one to be abolished.

David

This is a common misconception. The position of the NI grammar schools is enshrined in primary legislation which the Sinn Fein Education has no hope of repealing, so she has resort to harrassment which the schools should be able to resist.

Jeremy

Natural variation -> Natural selection -> Evolution.

"Such selection is part of the daily reality..." of life. Everywhere. At every level. You cannot ban "selection" from human affairs. Even socialists select on the basis of their own political prejudice. If you're left-wing, you get in. If you're not, you don't.

And what is a grammar school if not "meritocratic"? Why ban grammar schools for already being what you argue public schools should become?

And where is the merit in forcing the brightest to learn at the pace of the slowest?

And what is wrong with "selecting" the brightest to learn with others of a similar aptitude at their own pace?

And what exactly does an examination (or a scholarship) measure if absolutely everybody can pass it? It becomes a measure of nothing...a measure of No Achievement.

DM

The point about the private schools is that there is an open market, a wide choice (in some parts of the country), and they can suit different kinds of children. If your child is not academic, there are private schools decent enough to draw out other talents and help create a rounded individual who will thrive. The problem with the state dividing children into academic achievers and non academic achievers is that those who non a a are effectively written off.
Rather than write off private schools, I would argue that the state could LEARN from the private schools and should provide a broader choice of education than it currently does. This, unfortunately is easier said than done, as provision of choice depends on loads of children taking it up. Therefore cities are more likely to be able to provide it than small country areas. epends on

paracelsus

What a ridiculous argument. The whole point of the private/public school system is that it offers an alternative to those who do not wish to send their children to a state school. It offers excellence through selection, and does not pander to the lowest denominator in society.

If we start dictating that those schools must accept 50% or so on state funded scholarships, we will inevitably dilute the very standards of those schools. The government would naturally want a greater say in how they are run etc. We would end up with a hodge podge state system by the back door, and we all know how well the state system is currently run.

Also, how do we determine who gains a state sponsored scholarship? Means testing yet again? The point should surely be to improve and promote the state system through selection, not merely shift the best to the private sector.

We need Grammar Schools again, and selection with 11+ exams. Selection is a natural occurrence throughout life, and we simply can't shield children from this inevitable process.

http://faustiesblog.blogspot.com

"Half of all places, at all high-performing private schools, should be state-funded scholarships."

Should that happen the government will meddle in the running of private schools.

I prefer the Tories' idea of the money following the pupil, regardless of where that might be.

Rob C

Just because a child fails the 11+ doesn't mean they are second-grade, but merely that their abilities lie elsewhere and thus demand an alternative, less-academically focused choice.

I have no objection to public schools being paid by the state to offer scholarships to capable children, but surely a voucher based, 100% independent education system would be fairer? The state does nothing well and education is no exception. The state's role should be to fund, inspect and if necessary regulate education and no more.

Life and all it's choices however, are based on ability so why should education be different? You wouldn't get a plumber to fit a new roof nor a builder to repair your computer, so why do we insist that all children be educated together irrespective of their needs and skills? As a child I wanted to be a test pilot, but as a short-sighted asthmatic that was never going to happen - I had to figure that out an move on! I had friends who hated school because they were being forced to be 'academic' when they were clearly not - some of these have since shone in business and proved beyond doubt that academic qualifications are NOT necessary to success. Every child is different and each should be encouraged to expand on their own skills not stereotyped. Abolition of our grammar schools would be a crime against our children and a retrograde step for education. Some children are very academic and others are not, some are athletic and others aren't. We MUST have a diverse education system and stop kidding ourselves that one size fits all - IT DOES NOT! Abolition of the best will only serve to dumb-down our standards and hold back those children that could achieve more. It also breeds resentment and bullying of those that can achieve high results. This is a betrayal of our children and politicians need to wake up to this and stop meddling. The children are far more important than a politicians ego - whoever they are. A ban on private schools would also punish the poor and middle classes not the rich who would send their children abroad.

Primary schools should be used to provide basic skills and a chance for children to try a wealth of opportunities. This then provides a chance for them to show their skills and strengths prior to selection of secondary education. Private schools do this far better because they are smaller and children get more individual attention. This is essential at this age and no primary school should have a class of more than 18-20 children, and ideally a target size of 12-14. I've never taught children, but have trained adults and even then anything over 20 ceases to be training and becomes a lecture - thus clearly not appropriate for young children.

We pay for our son to go to a private school purely because the state sector is so poor. We are not rich and have a joint income well under £20,000 and no material assets other than a mortgaged home. We both work in excess of 50 hours per week in relays around school hours/holidays etc. It is our choice to go without holidays, luxury's and pretty much all else in order to do the best for our son. To our surprise, many of the parents of children in his class are in similar circumstances. Our son is at primary (year 0) and if there are no Grammar schools remaining when he reaches 11, we will have to seek a private secondary school or emigrate! Although his school has a 80%+ pass rate for 11+, not all those who pass go on to Grammar. Some want to pursue other skills that are better served elsewhere. The fact that the pass rate is so high however proves that the independent sector usually provides better results and his school has no selection criteria. The cost is also no different to that claimed by the state sector despite smaller classes and better standards! Generally, the state schools instill no manners or respect either. Classes are too large and many of the staff too militant to be described as teachers. The contrasting attitudes of parents, teachers and pupils are worlds apart between State and the Private/Grammar sectors. The state sector needs to learn from the private sector not replace it and investment in more teachers and smaller classes at primary age would be a good start. Nobody likes to think their child isn't getting the same opportunities as others, but depriving everyone of a good education solves nothing and will ultimately increase crime and social deprivation. In addition to every capable child having a good primary education and access to Grammar school, I'd like to see a whole raft of new specialist schools that offer business, trade skills, arts, drama and sports - and any others that may be demanded. We already have many such schools and these can and should be funded but not run by the state until the age of 16 or 18.

Education should be about opportunity NOT petty resentment!

Roderick Blyth

Isn't the lesson of the last 40 years that, when it comes to education, governments, unions and experts have the reverse of the Midas touch?

Anything in which they interfere turns not to gold, as they constantly predict, but inescapably to lead.

And yet there's always someone (usually Tony Benn) who says primly, in the face of failure, that the failure results not from mucking things about, but but from not mucking them about enough.

Why not leave it all alone, Theo, and resign yourself to the fact that nearly everyone except the go-grabbing middle class are absolutely indifferent to educational attainment, and that the go-grabbers themselves are only interested in education as a means of perpetuating their weird systems of speech, dress, and social presumption by maximising the next generation's income generating potential?

And maybe, in a Machievellian sense, they're just the kind of acquisitive philistines that we want running this horrid little island with its seerthing of spite, malice, greed and envy.

To try and wrench this God-forsaken blog back to its original purport you might reflect on the Saviour's statement that His kingdom is not of this world, and that the rich and the poor will have a reversed status in all to early a course of time.

So let's leave the rich in posssession - at least they know how to get what they want, which is more than all the high minded meddlers do: the devil is the best person to run hell, so make way for Placebo Dave!

Simon Denis

More coercive "solutions" from the left. You have no right to tell private institutions of any kind how to allocate their resources; nor do you have the right to co-opt them - least of all because you're too pusillanimous and inconsistent to supply their function in the state sector. You accept that nobody believes the argument of the egalitarians and yet you are prepared to give way to it! I marvel that anyone can cherish so broken backed and compromised a vision of anything - let alone education. Just look at the facts, as Mr Jaggers says. Graham Brady has established beyond doubt that selection benefits everyone. His findings are backed up by the many studies which support streamed and setted classes and the general discredit into which the mixed ability principle has fallen. The mixed ability ideal is the heart of the comprehensive. Once comprehensives start streaming or setting - why not go back to selection proper? That being so, we should oppose the repulsive and bone headed vandalism being visited upon Ulster's schools and peel away the same from the mainland. Bring back selection now!

Ian C

You're promoting the idea of a state funded quota at independent schools and asking for legislation to make it so. This is a nanny statist proposal.

Far better to let all have a voucher and for scholarships to be provided by various sources e.g. charities, local authorities, companies, churches etc. to top up those who seek them.

Your solution is an invitation to the very social engineering we need to get away from. What is needed is flexibility in achieving the fairness you seek rather than the statist straightjacket.

Oh God, spare us!

Lisa Hilton was hounded off these pages for lesser crimes against journalism.... Poor research, flawed analysis, illogical conclusion - and an unbearable tone. After repeat offences, I'm afraid to say, Mr Hobson, please (please!) cease and desist.

Stepney

"Maybe in time these schools would become entirely meritocratic"

You mean they'd be grammar schools?

What an astonishing piece of tautological garbage this piece is.

Grammar schools work and they offer kids form poor backgrounds the only chance of true social mobility going.

Don't make the grade? Tough. I tried for the England fast bowler squad and didn't make it. Tough for me. Thousands apply for Drama school and don't make it. Tough.

You know what? Life's tough. But we need grammars and we need them desperately now.

Pat

A voucher scheme would allow parents to apply to any school of their chosing, and should permit the vouchers to be used in private schools. Grammer school education (under whatever name)will be supplied for those who want it- and with no rigid cutoff as under the 44 education act, there will once the system is mature be a range of overlapping school curricula for the whole range of educational needs and desires. After all, we are quite relaxed about letting people chose where to buy their food, and what to eat- far more critical than education. You could even extend the flexibility of a voucher scheme to allow those not wanting to stay on either after sixteen or after passing a school leavers exam to convert their vouchers into cash. Sounds better than imprisoning youngsters who have no interest in education and only disrupt the schools they're in.

John Moss

Vouchers, plus an explicit right for schools to choose pupils by academic selection if they wish, but perhaps with a cap of 50% of the intake?

The first hurdle to getting in to a selective private school, the cost, is removed by the voucher, the academic hurdle them becomes meaningful.

John Moss

And isn't it funny that all those children who go through the stress of sitting four or five entrance exams for private schools and the odd grammar if they are lucky, turn out to be generally well balanced and high acheiving, despite all that harmful stress?

CS

***a system that allows an 11-year-old child to fail a test and be branded second-rate is retrograde - This seems to be the official line of all the main political parties in mainland Britain.***

I should hope that that is the position of all the parties in a civilised society.

Now, whether grammar school selection actually is such a system is another question entirely.

Balaams Ass

The idea of giving more power to the state to decide what is best for our children is appalling.

BA

Cardinal Richelieu's mole

You cite the wrong objection inm saying - " a system that allows an 11-year-old child to fail a test and be branded second-rate is retrograde".

What was so bad about the old 11 plus exam was its finality - there was no redemption from its pervasive consequences. Not all children develop at the same rate, some may be ill-prepared for the exam etc. - a more flexible system is demanded by equity and decency, not to say compassion.

2trueblue

We all have the right to decise hpw we want our children to be educated, and schooling is just part of it. If private/public schools were disbanned they would simply move abroad. Choice is what it should all be about, and excellence should always admired and sought in life.

Moraymint

"Half of all places, at all high-performing private schools, should be state-funded scholarships".

Nice idea if/when you can find a political party that accepts the fact that life is inherently unfair and that communities are heterogeneous.

For years, perhaps decades, in the UK we've been on the receiving end of political elites who believed that the only way to organise society was on the basis that we're all equal, life had to be uniformly fair and everything had to be dumbed down to the lowest common demoninator.

Consequently, our state education system is now slithering towards being one of the worst performing on the planet.

We need to get back to an education system that recognises varying academic abilities and responds to that fact (instead of pretending it didn't exist).

WerdnaRetral

But parents don't just make huge sacrifices to be able to afford to send their kids to fee paying schools for the education....it is the people and contacts that your kids make too that makes it all worth while and sets them up for life. I personally would hesitate to hand over my hard earned cash to a school who had a large percentage of kids in who's parents wern't prepared to make the same financial sacrifices that I was making. If they want it then they have to pay like the rest of us, otherwise what is the point of me flogging my guts out to pay the fees ...

Irvine

Like it or hate it, selection happens at every single stage in life. If Darwin is right, and he seems to be, it happens all the time,for all living things, everywhere. It is a fact of life and death. Socialist educationalists want to "ban" it as "immoral" because it does not accord with their bovine prejudices, as it it could be banned. It happens anyway, whether at 11, GCSE, A level or university and indeed after, as it must and will, hence the shocking performance of the non-grammar state system, and hence the fiddling of the exam results/grade inflation to attempt to cover up a massive betrayal of state educated pupils; betrayed by the flat earthers/heliocentarist obscurantists of our times. Look at Ed Balls; would you invite that man into your house?

Minnie Ovens

Od dear oh dear.
I'm sick of people advocating "legislating" which means "social engineering" which means "let's screw up something that works"
I'm sick of all these "educational consultant lefties" who pooh pooh the old 11+, Secondary Modern/ Grammar school system, the guild school system and the Public School system.
What have they devised which has improved education over the pre Butler system?
The only thing I have seen for well over thirty years is aspirations blown and everything deadened into the lowest common denominator; parents so scared of the comprehensives in certain areas that they will move house or lie about their actual location; politicians, specifically New Labour ones, who proclaim their strategies for schools are winners while placing their own kids in private education.
For over thirty years the left wing has had its way and played havok with education while denying blame for it descending into the gutter.
No one picks up the pieces of broken children with deprived minds left behind because it is important the great educational scam continues

John

Never mind the detail. My parents had no means but I had a fine education at a state grammar. I spend money I do not have to give my child the education which the state, spending much more than 40 years ago, will not.

David Bouvier

To answer your questions Theo:

No, private education and private selection tests should not be banned. What kind of nut would ban parents from spending money on education, but not ban them from spending money on booze, fags, holidays, or porn.

If the language of socialism is the language of priorities, it has some very weird ones.

As others point out private schools are diverse in their approach to selection and vary in ethos. No one size fits all, and no simple one-dimensional selection.

A system of state funded bursaries sure fine but so long as there is no attempt to interfere with the schools ethos and admissions.

As for the state sector, the question to ask any ethical person is: why do people seem so keen to use children as means and not respect them as ends. The children of the middle classes are pushed and shoved around for the benefit of others. Shame.

Colin Foster

"Some public schools are trying to move in this direction, but we need legislation to shift the paradigm."

Ah yes more legislation what a good idea.

Colin Foster

"Some public schools are trying to move in this direction, but we need legislation to shift the paradigm."

More social engineering legislation - what a great idea

Sasquatch

Whoa, hold on there! You're not suggesting that Labour politicians' children should be forced to be educated with the offspring of the great unwashed, are you?
How can you suggest such a thing? Labour want their children to have a good education, not one of those one-size-fits-all state edyoukayshunz, that belong to the hoi polloi. They want their children to be educated alongside the rich and famous, not the intelligent and POOR! God forbid!

Arthur

This is not the only way of breaking down educational apartheid. That is ultimately impossible in a free country. There will always be those that aspire and achieve and those that do not.

The problem with this proposal is that along with the scholarship money you know that governments will use it as a stick to beat the schools inot accepting their social and cultural edicts or they will not get the money.

The only way to end the apartheid is to first acknowledge that there will always be a variation in aspiration, standards and achievement. Second, it is to model all schools on the independent model and attach per capita funding to each pupil and leave it to the parents and schools to sort out where the children are educated.

If you like, you could look at it like this. With funding following the pupil, all pupils are in a sense the recipient of a scholarship.

Fergus Pickering

But Cardinal Richelieu's Mole, here in Kent where we have Grammar Schools we have just the system you want. Puils can, and do, move from the High Schools (Seconday Mods) to the grammear schools and some move in the opposite direction. Does that mean the number of pupils in each year increases as the children grow older. Indeed it does. It is designed to do so. About 30% of children finish up in Grammar Schools. And some of the High Schools aren't bad at all. Their results are equal to those of many comprehensives. At least all this was true five or six years ago when my daughters attended their Grammar School. I imagine it still is, but I don't know. If the Tory front bench weren't so bloody public school they would support the reintroduction of Grammar Schools in other parts of the country. But they know nothing about it and they know that their children will not have to know anything about it. Cant and hypocrisy. Hypocrisy and cant.

F.U. Qatar

"Of course this sector chiefly selects on grounds of parents’ wealth rather than children’s aptitude"

The usual bigoted clap-trap. No private school takes a child without their passing an entry exam - all the money in the world won't help if Freddy is as thick as two short planks or a disruptive little oik.

The only thing that a private school has to sell are its standards. These have to match the buyers (parents) expectations, whether they tend towards the academic or the liberal.

Bright kids get in with bursaries, largely funded through charitable donations from ex-pupils. If the state start handing over money, they will soon be dictating the number of thickies and disruptives to be taken and the school will go downhill rapidly as paying parents simply vote with their feet.

As a product of the grammar system, which I bitterly resent the destruction of, I paid to educate both my kids. I didn't want them in the state sector with its low standards, tolerance of bad behaviour and politically correct attitudes.

And I didn't want them subjected to peer pressure from terminal failures, aliens and those who should be denied the right to draw breath. Funny how egalitarian Socialists like Harm-man, Abbot and all the others seem to agree where their own are concerned.

Rosemary Martin

A good idea, Theo, but how are you going to police the means tested element ? The incentive to fraud would be even higher than it was with the assisted places scheme.

HJ

"Half of all places, at all high-performing private schools, should be state-funded scholarships. Maybe in time these schools would become entirely meritocratic, like all universities are. Some public schools are trying to move in this direction, but we need legislation to shift the paradigm.

This is the only way of breaking down the educational apartheid that mars our society. "

What a ridiculous argument. Arbitrary targets set by the state for state-funded places will entrench inequality. Why 'half' the places. Why not 60% or 40% or 100% - it's all arbitrary. And why shouldn't the less academic have the choice too?

The point about independent schools is that there is no "system" - just schools (many of which aren't academically selective) that have to satisfy their client. The only problem is that most pupils don't have the choice, because the state takes our money and mandates how it will be spent on schooling.

Simon too

The selection system for public schools is rather different from the harsh one used in the state sector. The prep school will attempt to guide the parents' choice to a limited number of schools that suit the particular child, academeically and otherwise. When the child comes to sit exams they are for only a very few suitable schools where the child is likely to be accepted and thrive.

The state system is harsher and suited to state planning rather than the potential of the child. I recall Lord Kinnock in a documentary describing the three groupings at his grammar school as the bright and diligent; the bright but idle; and the thick but diligent. The grammar schools exist(ed) to ensure the development of the bright and diligent, but as any test at 11 will be only partially succesful in identifying that group the grammar schools needed to take in some of the other two (larger) groups to allow for different paces of development, let alone those that just went off the boil.

But then, that is the very nature of state systems. They may cater for the needs of individuals by serendipity and possibly by intention, but never by design.