As a rabid libertarian, and parent of two young children in the catchment area of a truly shit state primary school, I am of course a big fan of vouchers for education. To be redeemable at any school you like, whether it is selective by sex, intelligence, religion*, sporting ability or race. Or not selective at all, for that matter. With no restriction on schools being able to charge top-up fees.
So far so good.
Now, the Lefties always say that private schools get better results because they are more likely to be selective than State schools. This is probably true in the case of secondary schools.
But, we are now sending both kids to private NON-selective primary schools (the fees are roughly the same as spending per State pupil) and the difference is absolutely staggering. So that dispels the myth that private schools only do better because they are selective.
* In theory, one would like to keep an eye on all the Madrassahs that will open up, but what's the point? You just get a load of grief when you shut them down, and they will then just re-open it once the dust has settled.
About That Closet
9 hours ago
16 comments:
Playing devil's advocate
Why not send a white catholic child to a madrassah in fact it should be actively encouraged...
They wouldn't be able to say no now would they?
Now that would be fun :P
AFAIAC, the Madrassah would be able to turn that child down. Besides, what parent in his right mind would send his kids there?
The private schools your kids are at *are* effectively selective, though - the only kids there are kids whose parents are bothered enough about their education and wealthy enough to send them to private schools.
I haven't done any detailed research, but I rather suspect both of those factors correlate quite closely with educational outcomes...
Public schools are the worst
http://www.vidsworld01.blogspot.com
OK, John B, with vouchers, you can rule out wealth as a factor. This would offer a quality education to all parent who are 'bothered enough'.
I think that'd be A Good Thing, and you? Do you have kids?
Personally I put the success of independent schools down to two factors completely unrelated to money:
The first is that the schools are untrammeled by every idiotic directive and edict that emanates from Whitehall. Similarly teachers are not tied down filling in pointless forms whose purpose is simply to justify the existence of yet another mouth on the public payroll.
The second factor is that parents are able to choose a school which offers the most appropriate teaching style for their child's needs instead of having to accept the "one size fits none" orthodoxy of the state sector.
Under a voucher system state schools would enjoy these advantages as well as the independents.
Presumably your non-selective school is able to exclude disruptive pupils at will. By contrast, state schools seem to face court cases to force them to re-admit the kind of odious disruptive little shit who prevents anyone else in the class from getting any work done.
That must make a difference.
Sam, you have taken the words right out of my ....
Of course, under my scheme, each school can select and de-select on any criteria it chooses. One school may have a clear rule that even hair-pulling or swearing leads to instant dismissal. Fine.
Another may allow playground scuffles and teasing of fat kids. Fine.
Another may allow kids to bring knives and drugs to school. Also fine.
I am sure that parents will, on the whole, strike a reasonable balance between protecting their own children and the risk of their own children being expelled.
Restore capital punishment to the schools, that's what I say.
Yeah, capital.
Dearieme, all schools will have their own rules.
If you are happy to send your children to one that has capital punishment*, then also fine, but I certainly wouldn't send my kids there!
* I think that this is would involve slightly more fundamental changes that the ones I was actually suggesting.
One of the reasons that private schools outperform state schools is that richer parents give their children more help with homework.
We are not rich, but we have always spent some time every day doing the Three R's with them, so that is not a factor here.
That was my point, fewer poor parents spend time with their children on the 3 Rs/homework
Your point is perfectly valid, better parents = more time on 3 Rs = more likely to send them private.
My point was that we are still the same parents doing the same things with the same kids. The only thing in the equation that has changed is the school. And the difference is, frankly, amazing.
If we synthesize your point and mine, what we end up with is this:
"The fact that the parents of the other children in my child's class spend time with their own children on the 3 R's, benefits not only their children, but mine too".
Hmmm ....
Post a Comment