[Closed] Private school vs state school

But, by definition, all schools are going to be exclusive in some way or another.

But, by definition, all schools are going to be exclusive in some way or another.

Sorry, I should have said "all schools which are only available to those able to pay are exclusively available only to those able to pay".

Better?

Things which should not influence school entry:
* parental income
* religion

Loving the expert's opinion throughout this thread.

Up until July I taught a one of Edinburgh's top day schools (independent) and am now at a Border's state school which is on the lowest rung of the poverty index.

This thread made me take a look at the website of a local private school. I was surprised at just how expensive it was, and at how unimpressive its results seem to be.

Their fees per term are about the same as we get per student per year.

So on what basis do other schools exclude others? Where you live perhaps? What happens if you live outside the catchment area?

Loving the expert's opinion throughout this thread.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

So on what basis do other schools exclude others? Where you live perhaps? What happens if you live outside the catchment area?

We don't have catchment areas. Schools have criteria by which they prioritise places and ability to buy a house in a certain area will influence ability to get into a school, but it shouldn't, and all schools should be good enough that that are no 'good' schools.

But how are the places prioritised and allocated ?

It might be worth considering like for like. a lot will depend on the state school you might send your kids to. Some are pure dumping grounds of kids who do not want to learn. I have taught 4 different classes this week at an inner city junior. Every class has a couple of kids who despite every strategy known to all sorts of experts, will not settle to work. I spent at least 15 minutes with one kid, ie 25% of a lesson when by rights he should have had 4%. this meant that the other kids education suffered. I would go a long way to put kids in a place that didn't have these.

Private schools entrench divisions and elitism

I have no problem with this. My experience and that of many of my family & friends is that our state schools practically encouraged mediocrity and I don't want that for my kids. I want them to have a better start than I did, so if a private school is the way to achieve that, bring on the division and elitism. I can only be responsible for my own dependents' education - and I'll give them the best I can afford without apology.

Very sad selfish attitude andyrm.

Truly one of Thatcher's children. 😉

But how are the places prioritised and allocated ?

That varies from school to school, and could easily be engineered to make it fairer than currently, but doesn't include the ability to fork out £12k per year per child.

I'll give them the best I can afford without apology.

Can't see them making many friends along the way if they inherit your attitude. They'll be lonely souls won't they? Probably end up hating you and wishing you'd sent them to the local comp so that everybody doesn't hate them.

Ok, mike but basically state schools may exclude pupils based on where they live, religion, ability etc depending on the type so school and pupils who do not fit whatever criteria will be excluded, correct?

The Soks offspring all went to a (good) state secondary school.
SFO1 has a 1st in both her BSc and MSc and is currently studying for a PhD.
SFO2 is currently a senior retail manager (not bad for a 23yr old, by all accounts).
SMO is in his final year at Uni and predicted a 1st.
All of them are born leaders - private edukashun? Pft!!!

Ok, mike but basically state schools may exclude pupils based on where they live, religion, ability etc depending on the type so school and pupils who do not fit whatever criteria will be excluded, correct?

Exclusion on account of location is inevitable. But there should be no exclusion based on ability, religion, etc if everything was running well and all schools were "good". If they were all "good", then location wouldn't matter either of course. Unless you're the type of person who is aghast at any changes to the status quo.

My old school which was and is private was in a very dire state ten years after I left as parents wanted to see there kids more especially at weekends. It had had a few mediocre headmasters and was struggling to fill its roll despite being a "name" school and having 600 years of history. The governing body had to react and made major structural changes, recruited two exceptional headmasters and it is now thriving and fully deserves the reputation that is assumed by many. 10% of the pupils are on fully funded bursaries, half of which have been funded in the last ten years from fund raising. The bursaries are awarded to pupils of state schools in deprived areas with whom it has developed partnerships on the recommendation of the staff of those schools based on who would most benefit from a [u]boarding[/u] education not on academic criteria.

It would be a great shame to see an institution capable of such transformation being banned for ideological reasons. Far better to learn from its experience.

Indeed, a good headmaster has never turned a badly performing state school around. It's a good job there are independent schools to lead the way when it comes to that kind of thing.

Actually the structural change of going fully co-ed was more important as it allowed it to increase its pool of potential pupils. The key is that it had the ability to adapt - a centralized system in London does not provide that to the state sector.

The last I heard, state schools in London were streets ahead of state schools in the rest of the country.

Hmmm...I'll see if I can dig our where I heard/read it. Probably won't be tonight though.

So on what basis do other schools exclude others? Where you live perhaps? What happens if you live outside the catchment area?

state schools may exclude pupils based on where they live, religion, ability etc depending on the type so school and pupils who do not fit whatever criteria will be excluded, correct?

DD - London as the centre of government not as a place where there are schools.

[b]miketually[/b]
Things which should not influence school entry:
* parental income
* religion

Their fees per term are about the same as we get per student per year.

I am assuming your state payment per head doesn't have to fund the buildings perhaps not even staff salaries ? As I posted before I would like to see state education much better funded as it is Germany and France.

@grum as for your divise and elitist comment that is just how you see it and you are associating it with the private school. Those kids would still come from "wealthy" families if they went to state school and in your head woukd still be "the elite". In France if you go to a private school everyone thinks you must be a bit thick and need special help. It's you who are making the school elitist in your own mind.

So if you are against discriminating on the basis of wealth and /or religion you oppose choice ?
To make these things a criteria you remove the choice from many.
Neither can be presented as pro choice argument.

IMHO they should not be able to do it as it is unfair on other children who do not get the opportunity to attend these schools as they are either too poor or the wrong religion.

@junkyard poor people cannot afford to buy a car so do you ban everyone from owning one ? The solution is to better fund state education not try and ban choice.

I personally know 5 people who went to boarding schools if thats any help.

All of them have had failed or extremely difficult personal relationships. Only 1 of them got as far as managing to marry someone (they divorced, now on 2nd attempt).
4 out of 5 of them have no children.
4 of them are quite unhappy people disappointed in how their lives have turned out.
4 of them believe boarding school and separation from parental families caused social difficulties for them when it came to future partners etc.

They age in range from late 40's to mid 60's
They all went to different boarding schools, not the same one.

What shocked me most was the way that the schools solidly discoraged any independent thinking or self motivation. Also the lack of day to day common sense that is missing as they were never exposed to such things in a way people living at home would be.

There is actually a society called 'Boarding School Survivors' that provide advice and support for people who find life/relationships after boarding school devastating to deal with.

I think the parents should have been jailed for child cruelty, having personally seen the consequences to the kids even in later life.

The'best'state school where I live is a catholic school. The fact that only children of catholic parents can go there is wrong, and anti-choice.

(I don't think many people care about choice. I think they want their local school/hospital/whatever to be good.)

Apart from occasional special bids, the £4k we get per student is our only income. (This is a much lower figure than it was a few years ago.) We do very well with it.

How do people feel with regard staying at the same school to a levels vs school to gcse then college for a levels? Any benefits in either scenario?

@grum as for your divise and elitist comment that is just how you see it and you are associating it with the private school. Those kids would still come from "wealthy" families if they went to state school and in your head woukd still be "the elite". In France if you go to a private school everyone thinks you must be a bit thick and need special help. It's you who are making the school elitist in your own mind.

I think that's a bit of a stretch TBH. Yes they would still come from the same background if they went to a state school but they would be mixing more with people across the economic spectrum. Of course there are plenty of people who don't want that for their kids - those people are called snobs.

FWIW I think religious schools entrench division too and shouldn't exist. They certainly shouldn't be state funded.

In my experience (10 years teaching private v's 2 months (now) at state).

The kids are the same ability and raw talent, what might be called the tail is longer as there are more kids with issues inhereted from the lifestyle of the parents (anything from feotal drug/drinks issues to extreme long term poverty, attitude to education/society). For these kids school is a stable environment, OK they may not be the best kids and may hate education but they are safe while there.

THe main differences comes from home and the ambition, at private school everyone is expected to go to Higher education and that is not an expectation that is instilled in school as they are more than aware that not all of the kids have the ability, in the school I'm at at the moment, I would say that 10% of the pupils expect to try for Higher education, although some are trying for a bursary to spend the last two years of school at Rugby.

At private schools the kids and parents are scared of failure (perhaps due to the money spent) but that fear is not in state pupils, I'm not saying they are happy with it they just are not driven to work as hard by the fear, perhaps their world is insular too and the opportunities they see are limited.

The behaviour is very different and though much more of an issue at state school it is much more niave, in private there is a real subtleness and in some cases real nasty intent to the bad behaviour.

Lots of other similarities and differences. But I've gotta go to work I have a class of 20 this morning which are working to three different exam levels, which is tough and not something you get in teh independent sector.

What shocked me most was the way that the schools solidly discoraged any independent thinking or self motivation. Also the lack of day to day common sense that is missing as they were never exposed to such things in a way people living at home would be

They must have been v unlucky then. To counter the anecdote there are more than 4 ex-boarding school pupils on here who (apart form a bizarre fetish for wearing odd clothes and riding bikes down steep slopes) seem perfectly happy, well-adjusted and capable of independent thought. Then this is the week that my son has the agree initial essay topics for independent research to be carried out in the summer holiday. Needs to be outside the curriculum, academically challenging and independently researched. Compare that with the comments from one state sector teacher on here that it is pointless to read around the topic or use text books that extend beyond the syllabus. Does the argument still hold? That (preparing the independent essay) is on top of having to (without parental input) do his own homework, organise his own room, keep clothes tidy, sew a button on, organise his own music practice, work out how that fits in with sport etc. Clearly actively discouraged from any kind of independent thinking or need to use common sense????. I must be an evil parent to let him stay in such a hell-hole. As an employer, the one thing that has always struck me about ex-boarding school pupils is that they are generally (though not exclusively) more capable of independent thought/action.

So we have agreed that all schools exclude pupils on some basis - it's no longer [b]just [/b]private schools that are exclusive. These range from ability to pay, location, academic ability, religious belief etc. So of these [b]which is the most exclusive [/b]or least flexible? Well, since 30-33% of pupils in the independent sector are there because of bursary support perhaps it is fair to say that ability to pay is not more exclusive than the other factors! Indeed arguably less so. What it is, is simply more emotive......which is generally a bad starting point for objective analysis.

As an employer, the one thing that has always struck me about ex-boarding school pupils is that they are generally (though not exclusively) more capable of independent thought/action.

Prejudice/confirmation bias.

So we have agreed that all schools exclude pupils on some basis - it's no longer just private schools that are exclusive.

This is a particularly poor line of argument, I'm really not sure why you're persisting with it.

bernard - Member
How do people feel with regard staying at the same school to a levels vs school to gcse then college for a levels? Any benefits in either scenario?

Bernard, as I (and others) said before, there are pros and cons to each choice. I have friends who have made the choice you mention and it has worked. Slightly bizarrely at the moment, one of the sad motivations for that choice is to counter the perceived bias that some Unis may (or may not) have towards applications from privately educated students.

The only criteria that is important is to make YOUR choice on the basis of what is correct for YOUR children. Other people's views are interesting for sure and you have seen the range that this topic creates. But ultimately they are irrelevant since all kids are unique, with their own needs etc. "Comprehensive" (ooops) answers seldom work for that reason alone.

Do your own research, visit a range of schools and decide what is right for your child. Good luck, it can be daunting IMO.

It is exactly confirmation bias Grum. EXACTLY. There was a hidden motive for positing it, which you got Immediately. Why bother? For exactly the next point.

Much of the stuff written about exclusivity falls for the same trap. When you step away and look at the facts, the result is actually quite different from the knee jerk biases ([i]exactly like the one I made[/i]) that frequent these arguments. Little more than anecdotes that may serve to entrench prejudice or confirm bias.

QED

Private schools aren't any more exclusive than state schools? Is that really what you're claiming?

If that were the case I think you'd find numbers attending would drop off pretty quickly. Exclusivity is part of the appeal.

Teamhurtmore... This is part of my research, if you cut through some of the arguments there are some decent points made/advice. I have my own opinions and to some degree predjudices. Before I had kids I would never have considered sending them private....my feelings have changed to some degree based upon my experiences so far. At the end of the day I just want to give my kids the best opportunity I can.

Exclusivity played no part in the sacrifice I make to invest in my children's' education. The available choices simply fitted them better and I was prepared to make other sacrifices. For me personally, there is no better investment that I can make than in my children's education and I will give up other things to ensure that.

"Exclusivity is part of the appeal" - did someone mention prejudice and confirmation bias earlier? QED II

Bernard, x-post. I appreciate that and they are lucky that you are doing the required homework. Too often parents allow pre-concteptions to affect their choices. The result? Potentially bad choices FOR THE CHILD in both directions.

They are all kinds of more important aspects beyond the simple state v private eg, mixed v single sex, type of exams taken, style of teaching, culture of the school, quality of the head and senior staff and the BIG unknown your child's peer group. The latter cannot be known before you arrive and yet can have a major impact on your child's enjoyment and success.

the knee jerk biases

"Comprehensive" (ooops)

Do you ever wonder why you get accused of patronising thm? Honestly, these passive aggressive comments and (mostly mild albeit) ad hominems embedded within your posts do nothing to sway opinions. Let me just clarify it for you - not every opinion which contradicts yours is a "knee jerk bias". You really have to stop taking this tack - if, according to your stringent defences, this isn't deliberate, then you need to work on your tone.

Exclusivity is part of the appeal.

I wouldn't say it's "exclusivity" that's the appeal - it's the fact that there are less disruptive elements, less disenfranchised teachers (that are pretty much impossible to sack in public sector schools) and a more rounded approach to education and preparing them for work and higher ed rather than passing exams by numbers.

For me personally, there is no better investment that I can make than in my children's education and I will give up other things to ensure that.

My thoughts exactly. As a parent, my role is to provide for my children to the best of my ability to ensure they do better than I did. If that means paying for their education to ensure they get a better head start relative to their competition, then so be it.

Nice irony DD - I assume the neighbour said no?

The knee-jerk reaction referred to my own point, including the italics for emphasis. Did you (intentionally) miss that in the desperation to use the ad hom that you accuse me off? Re tone and the rest of the accusations, look in the mirror first. Then think about the accusations you like to make.

Of course, comprehensive was a deliberate choice. One fits all is a very poor way of satisfying the varying and unique needs of children. The best schools be they private/state/religious/non-religious etc and the best teachers understand that. That is where the research comes in, they need to be identified. Money/fees is not always the answer.

THM - all you're doing is declaring your own opinions to be facts and opinions you disagree with to be biased. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.

We have already seen in this thread people saying they want to send their kids to private school to avoid them having to mix with certain types. Next are you going to claim that black is actually white

THM/Grum/insert name of choice - all you're doing is declaring your own opinions to be facts and opinions you disagree with to be biased. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.

FTFY -actually that's unfair on at least two of the above. Refer to the the use of the word bias above. I have acknowledged others experiences and merely countered them with different ones for balance. And then unlike you, stressed that all of this is interesting at best, irrelevant at worst. I have recommended that Bernard does his own research and makes his own choice. Have you?

We have already seen in this thread people saying they want to send their kids to private school to avoid them having to mix with certain types. Next are you going to claim that black is actually white

My son has to mix with a very wide range of people. From those whose parents make significant sacrifices, arrive at school in clapped out cars (mine included) to sons of oligarchs with bodyguards etc. When the cars have gone, none of that matters. They all have to get on irrespective of their backgrounds. One of the first things that goes is bragging about money and branded clothing. Those types get squashed by peer group pressure pretty quickly. Mixing with different types of people is key especially if you are boarding and living in close proximity.

Mixing with different types of people is key especially if you are boarding and living in close proximity.

The one thing that all that absolutely enormous social mix of people will all have in common is that they can all afford the fees? So what percentage of the population does that account for then?

So when you state 'mixing with different types of people is key' , what you really mean is 'mixing with different types of people - as long as their parents are in the top 5% demographic of the countries income scale - is key'

Hardly an advert for some all-inclusive, multi-cultural, egalitarian utopian meritocracy, where empathy with ones fellow man rules, is it? 😆

How do people feel with regard staying at the same school to a levels vs school to gcse then college for a levels? Any benefits in either scenario?

It depends upon your child and what your local sixth form/FE college is like.

We get a lot of former-private students, because we get results that are as good as private but for free. Some struggle with the new-found freedom relative to private school, while others cope fine. The ones who struggle will probably have struggled at uni, so at least they struggle while still at home.

The one thing that all that absolutely enormous social mix of people will all have in common is that they can all afford the fees?

Which makes you wonder why 30-33% require bursary support?

It would be interesting to explore the range of backgrounds between different schools for sure. Just because on type happens to extend into oligarchs and royalty at ONE end does not mean that the overall range of background (be it income, race, religion etc) is any more or any less.

My son has to mix with a very wide range of people. From those whose parents make significant sacrifices, arrive at school in clapped out cars (mine included) to sons of oligarchs with bodyguards etc.

Wow, that's a huge variety of people who can afford £20k+ per year.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of the population's take home pay is less than your school fees and they're mixing with each other in state schools.

Which makes you wonder why 30-33% require bursary support?

*cynical*
Creaming off the brightest kids from the state sector to improve results?
*/cynical*

miketually - Member

The 'best' state school where I live is a catholic school. The fact that only children of catholic parents can go there is wrong, and anti-choice.

I think you'll find Michael, that Catholics are just inherently superior creatures to you other heathens, particularly intellectually. Thats just the way it is. Don't blame us. Blame God! It may be unfair, but we didn't ask for it. It just happened

😉

Just because on type happens to extend into oligarchs and royalty at ONE end does not mean that the overall range of background (be it income, race, religion etc) is any more or any less.

Yes it does. Quite obviously. To try and maintain anything otherwise is frankly preposterous

I think you'll find Michael, that Catholics are just inherently superior creatures to you other heathens, particularly intellectually. Thats just the way it is. Don't blame us. Blame God! It may be unfair, but we didn't ask for it. It just happened

Part of me wishes we were sending our eldest to the Catholic school across town, just to see the effect that a bright, cynical, sarcastic, atheist* has on the place 🙂

*I have no idea where she gets it from

I haven't read the whole thread so this may well be repitition but:

I want what is best for my kids. Private schools, especially at secondary level, have superb facilities, smaller class ratios and seem to invest much more importance on sport etc. If there was a private school closer to our home, we would send our kids there.

Obvious caveat is that not all private schools are great!

When I lived in Edinburgh I helped run a local Cadet unit and our main catchment was one of the big fee paying schools. The kids from there were engaging, motivated, polite and a credit to their school and families, exactly how I would hope my kids turn out.

I want what is best for my kids. Private schools, especially at secondary level, have superb facilities, smaller class ratios and seem to invest much more importance on sport etc. If there was a private school closer to our home, we would send our kids there.

Obvious caveat is that not all private schools are great!

When I lived in Edinburgh I helped run a local Cadet unit and our main catchment was one of the big fee paying schools. The kids from there were engaging, motivated, polite and a credit to their school and families, exactly how I would hope my kids turn out.

^^Nail. Head.

Just because on type happens to extend into oligarchs and royalty at ONE end does not mean that the overall range of background (be it income, race, religion etc) is any more or any less.

What proportion of the kids would be entitled to free school meals?

If you get any of the following support payments your child may be entitled to receive free school meals:

* Income Support
* Income-based Jobseekers Allowance
* Income-related Employment and Support Allowance
* Support under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
* the guaranteed element of State Pension Credit
* Child Tax Credit (provided you’re not also entitled to Working Tax Credit and have an annual gross income of no more than £16,190)
* Working Tax Credit run-on - paid for 4 weeks after you stop qualifying for Working Tax Credit
* Universal Credit

- https://www.gov.uk/apply-free-school-meals

When I lived in Edinburgh I helped run a local Cadet unit and our main catchment was one of the big fee paying schools. The kids from there were engaging, motivated, polite and a credit to their school and families, exactly how I would hope my kids turn out.

That's how my state-educated kids have turned out. It's nothing to do with the school, it's the family.

Yes it does. Quite obviously. To try and maintain anything otherwise is frankly preposterous

If it's as preposterous as you make out, then I assume all schools have a range of backgrounds that extend from unable to pay any fees and on 100% bursary, through partial bursaries and then (some folk here) teachers to royalty and billionaires that have private bodyguards?

Perhaps we are mixing size of population in one segment with breadth of range across different segments?

Part of me wishes we were sending our eldest to the Catholic school across town, just to see the effect that a bright, cynical, sarcastic, atheist* has on the place

Whereas part of me wishes we were sending our eldest to a private school because, IMO, what is best for her is the only factor that matters in this choice.

Perhaps we are mixing size of population in one segment with breadth of range across different segments?

Are you saying a token poor kid in a private school trumps a lack of billionaires in state schools?

I also want what's best for my kids. The only local comprehensive has just been put into special measures, and has some of the worst GCSE results in the country, which although doesn't necessarily mean it's a complete failure, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in a reasonably affluent town in North Yorkshire.

Luckily there are two selective grammars in my town*. So we at least had an option of trying to get them through the exams. If they had failed, and we had the money, I'd be looking at private.

*The success of the comp may or may not be related to the talent-sucking grammars, but I'm not really willing to chance it. 🙁

Perhaps we are mixing size of population in one segment with breadth of range across different segments?

Really, we're not.

If you want to privately educate your kids, thats fine. As a parent I understand you've their best interests at heart. Thats only natural. But please don't try and make out that they'll be mixing with some broad cross-section of society, because they won't. I don't know whether you have to try and delude yourself that this is the case to convince yourself you're not involved in the obvious education apartheid in this country created by the present system. But the position you're trying to maintain is patent nonsense to everyone who hasn't got blinkers on

The parents sending their kids to the local state comp clearly don't want what's best for their kids.

We could have moved the the 'right' part of town to be close to the 'good' school. We could have remortgaged ourselves to the hilt and taken extra jobs to send our kids private. We could have lied about our religion to get into a particular school.

Instead, we made the selfish decision to live within our means, for my wife to give up work, and to be able to spend time with our kids.

I still want to know what percentage of kids at fee-paying schools are eligible for free school meals.

Your choice and your call. I certainly wouldn't question your parenting, or your right to exercise that choice.

Conversely, if I want to exercise a different choice for my kids, the same should apply. Fact is, we're fortunate to have another state-funded option. In some places, there are no alternatives.

Private schools provide a service, same as Mercedes dealers, kitchen fitters and pedigree dog-breeders. I don't see any great moral problem in using any of them.

The parents sending their kids to the local state comp clearly don't want what's best for their kids.

We could have moved the the 'right' part of town to be close to the 'good' school. We could have remortgaged ourselves to the hilt and taken extra jobs to send our kids private. We could have lied about our religion to get into a particular school.

Instead, we made the selfish decision to live within our means, for my wife to give up work, and to be able to spend time with our kids.

This to some degree will play a big part in our choice, it is at present not a viable option for us due to similar life style choices as above. For it to be possible I would have to return to work in a role that enabled me to essentially work school hours whilst providing the lions share of the fees.

I still want to know what percentage of kids at fee-paying schools are eligible for free school meals.

This to some degree will play a big part in our choice, it is at present not a viable option for us due to similar life style choices as above. For it to be possible I would have to return to work in a role that enabled me to essentially work school hours whilst providing the lions share of the fees.

I think, if you looked as a cost:benefit issue, you'd be spending an awful lot of money for a very small potential benefit: academic issues can be countered with private tuition (or parental help); sport can be done out of school; behaviour and attitude come from home. All these are far cheaper.

If you're asking what percentage of children at private schools get free meals, I'd say 0%

I'm not. I'm asking about eligibility.

school meals are compulsory and charged extra on top of term fees.

That just made our local private £15000 more expensive to send our two kids.

My 8 yr old is at the local state primary, which has an "excellent" ofsted rating.
Last year (year 2) was a disaster. Without wanting to boast, my lad is pretty bright and is consistently top of his class in most subjects. Unfortunately year 2 is all about getting as many kids as possible through their Sats exams.
This meant my son was basically ignored all year as he didn't need any teaching to pass his Sats; all the teachers attention was on the less able kids. Having freewheeded for a year he is finding it a bit of a shock having to work again.
This is at one of the best state schools in the area, I dread to think what the inner city state schools are like.
I'm desperately trying to raise the funds for private secondary education.

miketually - Member

I still want to know what percentage of kids at fee-paying schools are eligible for free school meals.

Peobably greater than zero but lower than a state average? I'm assuming greater than zero as you put it "token poor kid in a private school" will be there free and meals are included in the price. Why are you so obsessed by free school meals though? Its difficult to argue against you without sounding like a Tory Prick but why are those kids more important to interact with than the kids of oil tycoons?

If you're asking what percentage of children at private schools get free meals, I'd say 0%

I'm not. I'm asking about eligibility.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and have a wild stab in the dark at the same representative percentage

Peobably greater than zero but lower than a state average? I'm assuming greater than zero as you put it "token poor kid in a private school" will be there free and meals are included in the price. Why are you so obsessed by free school meals though? Its difficult to argue against you without sounding like a Tory Prick but why are those kids more important to interact with than the kids of oil tycoons?

I'm interested in the range of kids in private which, it has been argued above, is the same as in state schools.

My 8 yr old is at the local state primary, which has an "excellent" ofsted rating.
Last year (year 2) was a disaster. Without wanting to boast, my lad is pretty bright and is consistently top of is class in most subjects. Unfortunately year 2 is all about getting as many kids as possible through their Sats exams.
This meant my son was basically ignored all year as he didn't need any teaching to pass his Sats; all the teachers attention was on the less able kids. Having freewheeded for a year he is finding it a bit of a shock having to work again.
This is at one of the best state schools in the area, I dread to think what the inner city state schools are like.
I'm desperately trying to raise the funds for private secondary education.

Someone on this thread commented on being ignored in a private school because they weren't a high flier. It's not a problem exclusive to state education.

Not all state schools cram for SATs: my Y6 daughter's getting virtually no extra work because of SATs, compared to friends' kids at other schools.

State schools should be looking at year-on-year progress, with two sub-levels progress being expected each and every year and most schools aim at exceeding expected progress.

But please don't try and make out that they'll be mixing with some broad cross-section of society, because they won't.

Not necessarily, I went to a school most would consider posh but had a huge range of people. From sons of people in the Forbes richest list, to people who had their school dinners paid for them and wore second hand blazers. The rich kids didn't keep themselves to themselves and the poor kids didn't either. One of my closest friends boarded because his single mum (shock horror) didn't want him to go to the local comp (which was dire). So whilst he was living during the week with sons of millionaires etc, he was spending his weekend in a two up two down terraced house in one of the roughest areas of Preston.

This all boils down people wanting what is best for their kids. You have no right to chastise people for that. Some people I don't think are particularly bothered where their kids go but others, like my mates mum, worked hard to put him in the best place she could so she didn't have to live a life like her. It also brings a better appreciation from the kids as they can see how hard their parents have worked to put them where they are.

Bikemike - I wouldn't panic too much, my two had a 'slow' year with a bad teacher at their primary, and they got back up to speed pretty quick. I'm really not convinced of the value of private primary education - you could probably do more benefit at home.

This may be coloured by the fact my parents sent me to one for two years where I was forced to wear shorts in the middle of winter and a cap.

Following this thread with interest...
Private school educated all through, as was my brother. His name was put down at an early age for the public school my father had been to, but until we were 11, we both went to the same schools, and obviously had the same parental input. Our (summer) birthdays are within 2 weeks of each other.
My parents were worried that he wouldn't get good enough marks in the 13+ to get into his school, so my father coached him in the run-up to the exams. My mother attempted to choose my secondary school based on the colour of the uniform, but in the end I was allowed to choose my own school, and opted for a boarding school (partly on the grounds that they weren't getting away with spending all that money on my brother and sending me to a day school, and partly because I couldn't face the idea of being the only one at home all the time...)
A combination of the fact that my father felt the need to coach my brother so intensively to get in, and the fact that the school was really not that good at the time meant that he didn't do as well as he might have done in A-levels, and never really achieved his full potential, because he didn't have the self-confidence. He did come out of that school with some very good friends, and they have stuck together ever since...
Me? I nearly got laughed out of the room by my teachers when I talked about applying for Cambridge, but was the only one who got in that year - I was lucky to have a couple of good teachers who had given me the self-confidence I needed, as well as a house-mistress who accepted that I only broke the unimportant rules, so let me go my own way. I'm not in touch with many of my school-friends, though...

I think, if you looked as a cost:benefit issue, you'd be spending an awful lot of money for a very small potential benefit: academic issues can be countered with private tuition (or parental help); sport can be done out of school; behaviour and attitude come from home. All these are far cheaper.

I don't disagree with this to be honest, it tends to form a large part of the against discussion. However this....

bikemike1968 - Member
My 8 yr old is at the local state primary, which has an "excellent" ofsted rating.
Last year (year 2) was a disaster. Without wanting to boast, my lad is pretty bright and is consistently top of is class in most subjects. Unfortunately year 2 is all about getting as many kids as possible through their Sats exams.
This meant my son was basically ignored all year as he didn't need any teaching to pass his Sats; all the teachers attention was on the less able kids. Having freewheeded for a year he is finding it a bit of a shock having to work again.
This is at one of the best state schools in the area, I dread to think what the inner city state schools are like.
I'm desperately trying to raise the funds for private secondary education.

Is remarkably like the concerns I described earlier.....

This all boils down people wanting what is best for their kids. You have no right to chastise people for that.

I wasn't chastising anyone, for anything. Like I said: As a parent I understand completely why people opt for private school. Its not a choice I'm likely to face. But if you're going to do it then don't try and fool yourself that what you're doing isn't contributing to a form of educational apartheid, that from the very start engrains a divide that makes a complete mockery of any idea of living in a meritocracy

I'm just saying that if you play your part in making the upper echelons of our society totally unrepresentative of the country as a whole (based purely on wealth), then at least face up to that, and have the honesty to own up to it, instead of this delusional cobblers about inclusion, which is quite frankly tokenism, at best.

Because if you do that, then basically you're one step away from…

[img] [/img]

😆

Its not like the rich or poor are some sub species you need to look on with envy or pity, is it? Neither is it the monty python yorkshiremen sketch where knowing the most number of poor people is some badge of honour.

Whilst private schooling might be the best thing for your kids is it the desirable for society as a whole? Assuming there is such a thing.

Doesn't selective schooling and especially private schooling entrench and widen societal division and inequality? Does the old boy network still count for much? When you look at that Bullingdon Club portrait and look at the Tory front bench, it would appear that it does. it can't harm one's progress to the Bar or the Chartered Institute or the golf club to know that Hugo from prep school's brother Farquhar is already there laying down the welcome mat and proffering a welcoming handshake.

The one-size-fits-all approach of comprehensive education may not work for everyone but it worked for me. I attended a comprehensive school on the edge of Glasgow with a very mixed catchment of deprived inner city and wealthy suburbia. I'd say benefited massively from being around wealthier suburbanite kids who assumed as a matter of course that when school finished they were off to university like their elder siblings and professional parents. You could see that these people weren't superhuman and that pretty much anything they could do, I could do, if I put my mind to it. If I'd gone to a different school with a more limited social mix that assumption may not have been present and my life chances would have been considerably poorer.

When you step away and look at the facts, the result is actually quite different from the knee jerk biases (exactly like the one I made) that frequent these arguments.

The knee-jerk reaction referred to my own point, including the italics for emphasis. Did you (intentionally) miss that in the desperation to use the ad hom that you accuse me off?

I get the elitist bit an your point and I am not sure it is a factor for everyone to keep their kids away from "riff raff". However everyone sends their kids to private schools to get a better education and the kind you can only get from paying more money for it and in that sense it is elitist. It clearly wont have the cross section of society that comprehensive education has so again in that sense it is elitist. [ ability and wealth]. I am not sure it is kneee jerk or confirmation bias rather than just a fact tbh. You can be ok with this or not ok with it but I dont see how you can deny it tbh.
No one send their kids to private school to give them a worse education that the state sector provides.
to argue it is not selective or its selection criteria are comparable with biases in the state sector is not a point worth making nor worthy of debate,

Which makes you wonder why 30-33% require bursary support?

OH binners remember she did it because [b] I'm a West Indian mum and West Indian mums will go to the wall for their children.[/b][b] what an icon of nobility and principles she is eh perhaps only Blair and Mandy come close to this level of asshattery