[Closed] Private school vs state school

My eldest was a bit bored in Y1. We found out because she wrote "I'm bored" on the classroom wall 🙂

She met her Y6 target at the end of Y5...

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?

Because the poor kids are more representative of the 'real world'?

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

So my son's current friends and close peers range from a guy whose dad is currently enjoying HM's pleasure and pays no fees to a guy whose dad could probably pay the fees for the whole school without blinking. How do I explain to him that his peers do not represent a broad-section of society. How would it be broader if I took him out and he went to the the local state school?

But the position you're trying to maintain is patent nonsense to everyone who hasn't got blinkers on

I will let him know your views and apologise to him appropriately.

Mike, since food is included in the fees then the percentage of the bursary - true not all are 100% - will apply to breakfast, lunch and supper. In some cases that will be free in others 30% in some (2/3) lunches will be paid in full.

So these awful institutions who exclude in the basis on ability to pay, have 1/3 of the pupils who fail to meet this exclusive criteria. What would be that same percentage of pupils at a grammar school who failed the entrance test, at a catholic school who were not Catholics, at a school that uses location and live outside the catchment areas.

Which are more/less exclusive than the others?

Because the poor kids are more representative of the 'real world'?

What benefit is being representative of the "real world" if you fancy a career at the Bar?

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.

Absolutely! The best post on this thread so far, I reckon. Sounds very similar to my own education. And that mix is the healthiest state of affairs for everyone involved. But one that successive governments have tried to make all but impossible to happen.

In my class at school I had real extremes, from an absolutely terrifying psychopath who was sent to a young offenders institute at 15 for dealing heroine, to fund his own habit - and at the other end - someone who went on to be a cabinet minister, and who I firmly believe will end up (if there is any merit at all left in society) being Prime Minister

Which are more/less exclusive than the others?

The Catholic school and the private school are the most exclusive. HTH.

You're really flogging a dead horse by continuing with this silly claim.

What benefit is being representative of the "real world" if you fancy a career at the Bar?

Would being a rounded person with experience of the real world not help with that? Maybe not with getting there....

Plenty of people send their kids to private school and then realise that it is not providing a better education for THEIR child and respond accordingly. Different schools suit different individuals. Assuming that paying more guarantees a better education or a higher set % of A*s is a flawed assumption.

grum - Member
Which are more/less exclusive than the others?
The Catholic school and the private school are the most exclusive

Actually I would go with the grammar, but there you go.

You're really flogging a dead horse by continuing with this silly claim.

Looking forward to specific reasons. As your sidekick would say, including data and sources.

How do what seem like normal, not exceptionally gifted (sorry to anyone else who hates that word too), sometimes exit "bad" schools with excellent grades?

I've met plenty. And that's just from my local "underperforming" secondary school. I assume it's not some kind of special exception.

How do I explain to him that his peers do not represent a broad-section of society

Simple. Just tell him the truth. They don't. One bloke in prison doesn't make a cross section of society*. You're deluding yourself again. They represent a tiny section of society that can afford what to 'normal' people are absolutely enormous fees. With the odd token gesture thrown in as a fig leaf

*I was going to ask if he was one of the corrupt bankers who bankrupted the country? But everyone knows none of those went to prison 😆

deadlydarcy - Member
How do what seem like normal, not exceptionally gifted (sorry to anyone else who hates that word too), sometimes exit "bad" schools with excellent grades?

Like most people who get good grades, the most important factor would be hard work. It's the normal common denominator. To suggest otherwise might be construed as "patronising."

Simple. Just tell him the truth. They don't. One bloke in prison doesn't make a cross section of society*. You're deluding yourself again. They represent a tiny section of society that can afford what to 'normal' people are absolutely enormous fees. With the odd token gesture thrown in as a fig leaf

This is the problem - we now have a political class who almost all went to private schools (mainly the most expensive/exclusive ones). They, like THM have convinced themselves that this is just 'normal' and not a hallmark of privilege.

Hence how they can convince themselves they are 'self-made' and anyone can enjoy the same level of privilege if they just pull their socks up.

Ok Binners, he has 12 direct peers - four are foreign, one's dad is doing time, one's mum is a librarian, one is a teacher, and one has more money that he probably knows what to do with. Among the twelve that he eats, sleeps and socialises with every day, I would suggest that is is a pretty broad spectrum.

But I will certainly let him know that such a view is delusional silliness. The poor kid suffers from a big enough disadvantage with his father!

In my class at school I had real extremes, from an absolutely terrifying psychopath who was sent to a young offenders institute at 15 for dealing heroine, to fund his own habit - and at the other end - someone who went on to be a cabinet minister, and who I firmly believe will end up (if there is any merit at all left in society) being Prime Minister

Assuming that paying more guarantees a better education or a higher set % of A*s is a flawed assumption.

Ok Binners, he has 12 direct peers - four are foreign, one's dad is doing time, one's mum is a librarian, one is a teacher, and one has more money that he probably knows what to do with.

I see maths isn't a strong point at his school. 😉

'Foreign', librarian, teacher, convict, billionaire. Yep, I think that covers every aspect of society.

I don't think any have convinced themselves that it is normal. In fact, quite the opposite. Turn your arguments on their heads and they are anything but normal.

But what is normal to most people? It is [b]their [/b]experience. So look back at the posts here, compare those whose opening posts conclude with advice to keep an open mind and pick what education suits their child - with the caveat that there is no easy answer- to those who immediately dismiss certain types of school that may well be more suited to Bernard's childs need. Which behaviour is more normal? Which is "prejudiced" and suffering from "confirmation bias"?

Like most people who get good grades, the most important factor would be hard work. It's the normal common denominator. To suggest otherwise might be construed as "patronising."

Jeez, leave i'owww bruv.

Anyway, where would they get this work ethic?

For me education is mostly about luck. Being lucky and getting a good teacher. Being lucky and having good rather than nuisance classmates.

You're more likely, while not guaranteed, to get both those things in a private school.

My daughter goes to private school.

What does surprise me is how it seems acceptable to deride people who send their kids to private school while the converse would be shouted down as snobbery.

I get the point about social mobility but my job is to get the best education I can for my daughter, not change the world.

Mike, since food is included in the fees then the percentage of the bursary - true not all are 100% - will apply to breakfast, lunch and supper. In some cases that will be free in others 30% in some (2/3) lunches will be paid in full.

Someone else said they were in addition, and they are at our local private school. Which still doesn't answer the question of eligibility for free school meals, using the DFEE criteria listed earlier.

This is the problem - we now have a political class who almost all went to private schools (mainly the most expensive/exclusive ones). They, like THM have convinced themselves that this is just 'normal' and not a hallmark of privilege.

Nail on head there. There's nothing to add to that. Other tun to say that the unhealthiest aspect of this is the utter absence of empathy it creates. And thus the likes of IDS bangs on about when he was unemployed, and compares himself with all the other 2.5 million, while omitting to mention the £2 million house his in laws gave him, and his wives vast inherited wealth. This education system separates people so completely, that they actually believe that everyone has enjoyed the same opportunities. Thus they deserve to be punished for not taking full advantage and fulfilling their potential

THM - I understand fully your choices. You are paying large sums of money so that when your children reach school leaving age, they have a huge inbuilt advantage over 95% of their peers. A massive advantage available exclusively to those who can afford it. You can try and kid yourself that this isn't a ridiculously unfair form of educational apartheid for a supposed modern democracy, but it is.

And you say librarian? Librarian married to who? A city banker perhaps? Stating the odd persons earthy, non-elite credentials proves absolutely nothing

What benefit is being representative of the "real world" if you fancy a career at the Bar?

Well given that most of your clients are likely to come from the "real world" (there are simply more of them so it makes it a statiticaly inevitability), I'd say that the benefit would be quite high.

So these awful institutions who exclude in the basis on ability to pay, have 1/3 of the pupils who fail to meet this exclusive criteria. What would be that same percentage of pupils at a grammar school who failed the entrance test, at a catholic school who were not Catholics, at a school that uses location and live outside the catchment areas.

I think that horse is dead, yet you insist on flogging it.

There are 7 secondaries in our local authority area. Only one of them is entirely unavailable to us.

What does surprise me is how it seems acceptable to deride people who send their kids to private school while the converse would be shouted down as snobbery.

I get the point about social mobility but my job is to get the best education I can for my daughter, not change the world.

Yeah because it's completely socially unacceptable to deride the poor isn't it. I mean, sneering at 'chavs' is always 'shouted down as snobbery'. Programs like Benefits Street or Jeremy Kyle tend to provoke a very sympathetic reaction.

'I just want the best for my kids' seems to be missing 'and bollocks to everyone else's'. It's perhaps an understandable biological motivation but it's not what we should be basing our society on.

To quote the great bard, re exclusivity of whose world is real etc and with apologies to Shylock

If you prick us with a pin, don’t we bleed? If you tickle us, don’t we laugh? If you poison us, don’t we die?

Those poor kids in private schools - do they not bleed, do they not laugh, will they not die? How unreal their existence must be....

Just reading back...

Saw this...

teamhurtmore...

...sidekick...

Just can't stop yourself. You didn't go to a private school by any chance did you?

There are 7 secondaries in our local authority area. Only one of them is entirely unavailable to us.

May I ask if you applied to the one? Did you also apply to any grammar schools with entrance exams, or any schools that required a particular faith?

For me education is mostly about luck. Being lucky and getting a good teacher. Being lucky and having good rather than nuisance classmates.

You're more likely, while not guaranteed, to get both those things in a private school.

My daughter goes to private school.

What does surprise me is how it seems acceptable to deride people who send their kids to private school while the converse would be shouted down as snobbery.

I get the point about social mobility but my job is to get the best education I can for my daughter, not change the world.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

My primary concern is getting my kids a good start in life. If my primary concern was changing the world and trying to invert the pyramid, I'd join the socialist party.

Great THM - instead of actually debating the point come back with a Shakespeare quote and a giant straw man. Well played.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

My primary concern is getting my kids a good start in life. If my primary concern was changing the world and trying to invert the pyramid, I'd join the socialist party.

Believe it or not there is a middle ground between selfish 'I'm all right jack' attitudes and wanting a worldwide socialist revolution.

What does surprise me is how it seems acceptable to deride people who send their kids to private school while the converse would be shouted down as snobbery.

Poshism is the last 'acceptable' ism, it would seem.

Poshism is the last 'acceptable' ism, it would seem.

Please tell me this is meant to be a joke. 😕

The discriminated against posh people who only make up the majority of the cabinet you mean?

This would appear to be another good example of the gaping lack of perspective engendered by a public school education if you really believe that.

Believe it or not there is a middle ground between selfish 'I'm all right jack' attitudes and wanting a worldwide socialist revolution.

Indeed there is but it will not be achieved - tragedy of the commons.

May I ask if you applied to the one? Did you also apply to any grammar schools with entrance exams, or any schools that required a particular faith?

No, no, no.

Well given that most of your clients are likely to come from the "real world" (there are simply more of them so it makes it a statiticaly inevitability), I'd say that the benefit would be quite high.

Nope.

Only about a third do any criminal work at all. I assume that's what you're referring to when you talk about the "real world". In fact, it's not the "real world" of those clients at all anway. Perhaps we should propose opening up the bar to those with a long history of criminal activity to make it more "real world"?

Also, you're trying to convince a judge/jury, not your client. The judge won't care how "real world" you are.

From the Bar council stats, almost half went to fee paying schools and a third went to Oxbridge.

The reality is, that while it may not matter what school you went to and how much your education cost in terms of your ability to be a good barrister, you'll struggle to get a foot in the door of a good set when you're up against competition from tried and tested schools/universities.

(at my old firm, partners were openly critical/rude about trainees who had attended universities with poorer reps/old poly. Most of it was in jest, but the "how did we let that slip through the net" comments surely indicates that school prejudices are alive and well. I'm all for trying to change that, but I'd rather not use my own kid to make the point. Vicious circle.)

THM - I understand fully your choices. You are paying large sums of money so that when your children reach school leaving age, they have a huge inbuilt advantage over 95% of their peers.

The older one is at the same Uni, doing the same courses, eating the same food, living in the same house, competing for the same jobs as other with different educational backgrounds. Whether he has any advantage or not, we shall see. At the moment, he bleeds and laughs like the rest of them

A massive advantage (possible true) available exclusively (false) to those who can afford it.

odd when 1/3 of those attending clearly cannot.

You can try and kid yourself that this isn't a ridiculously unfair form of educational apartheid for a supposed modern democracy, but it is.

I do not kid myself. Education is a mess in this country. There are various forms of apartheid not helped by muppets including Gove who screw things up. A narrow focus on a small segment of the supply of education does not solve most if these issues. It's is a distraction and not a very helpful one at that. A wager that I would have with you is that simply banning different types of school will not improve the situation.

No they are proper discriminated against in society and we need to look after them - its all they talk about in the men only millionaires clubs the Cpt frequents Wot wot 😉
Anyway remember THM is telling us all why they are not post so that cannot be factor here can it

What does surprise me is how it seems acceptable to deride people who send their kids to private school while the converse would be shouted down as snobbery.

I get the point about social mobility but my job is to get the best education I can for my daughter, not change the world.

Would you not just want you child to have the same opportunities as everyone else children? I dont want a better education for my kids or better roads or better health care than your daughter gets. I want us both to have access to high quality services not based on which one of us is the most wealthy

The older one is at the same Uni, doing the same courses, eating the same food, living in the same house, competing for the same jobs as other with different educational backgrounds. Whether he has any advantage or not, we shall see. At the moment, he bleeds and laughs like the rest of them

odd when 1/3 of those attending clearly cannot.

If money was not an issue my kids would be more than likely going private. It is a good school and that is not just based on exam results (I understand this is not representative due to the selective nature) it is also the extracurricular opportunities and the value they place on them (for my kids sport, which they both love). It would also be part due to the selective nature with respect to 'behaviour' .

odd when 1/3 of those attending clearly cannot.

What percentage pay no fees at all THM? You keep quoting this 1/3 figure as if they all pay no fees but that's not the case is it?

Poshism is the last 'acceptable' ism, it would seem.

There's very few of the genuinely (i.e. landed aristocratic) 'posh' left. There is, however, a large number of vainglorious monied berks who think it's something you can buy.

How about 'Made-in-Chelsea-ism'? 😉

CaptainFlashheart - Member

What does surprise me is how it seems acceptable to deride people who send their kids to private school while the converse would be shouted down as snobbery.

Poshism is the last 'acceptable' ism, it would seem.

[img] [/img]

If "no" mike, how can you argue that only one is "entirely unavailable." Perhaps you missed a trick?

Grum - Shylock was making the point that Jews are no less real that Christians in the famous court scene. Given the arguments that some peoples's experiences are unreal, then I would suggest that the quote is highly relevant here.

Grum - I don't know the answer to the % who pay no fees at all. It is clearly much less that 1/3. Typically 10-30% of total, if my memory is correct. So if the fees were 12k say, then that is broadly the same as a new MTB a year. Which is the better investment?

Blimey that coffee break went on a bit. Better get back to work now. Idle hands and all that....

So if the fees were 12k say, then that is broadly the same as a new MTB a year.

Can you start paying for my bikes please? 😯

Nah, I haven't treated myself to one for 7 years!!!

If "no" mike, how can you argue that only one is "entirely unavailable." Perhaps you missed a trick?

We can't afford the fees, so why apply?

I also don't think she'd benefit from going there.

Well unfortunately it would appear this thread has taken it's predictable course. Thanks to those who contributed a view/opinion/experience whilst respecting other peoples views/experiences/opinions without the need to try to prove them wrong.

You're welcome comrade 😀

[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_cpLMfs3snsuJgZ2C9W8wdasb0R52P5feW3qlBwyxBLPn4B3g [/img]

THM's point about exclusion was very neat because it is so often used as an "attack" line but its effect has been rather watered down with the inane arguing of the point. I used "ideological" for similar reasons, but sadly no one picked me up on it!

Clearly you are unlikely to come across kids from extreme poverty at a private school, although there are exceptions. A friend of mine's child was at boarding school with a child who had been saved from living on the streets of Kolkota/Calcutta. He probably knows more about extreme poverty than anyone on here. That is without doubt an exception. However, there are plenty of state schools in affluent areas where you are unlikely to encounter it too. Is that wrong as well?

As I noted earlier, I went to a boarding school many years ago. Whilst clearly all the kids came from relatively affluent homes, I was at school with black, indian and chinese kids which I certainly wouldn't have been if I had gone to the local state school in rural Hampshire. The point being some state schools are just as sheltered as private ones.

When talking about the standards of teaching in private schools, you have to remember that there is no statutory requirement for those who teach there to be qualified teachers, unlike in state schools. Also all the research that has ever been done shows clearly that once all factors (e.g. wealth, background) have been allowed for that the state education system provides the better education than does the private.

Of course none of that is actually of that much relevance as it is well known that the biggest single influence on an childs eductional achievement is the attitude of the parents.

Oh and CFH, have a word with yourself!

Of course none of that is actually of that much relevance as it is well known that the biggest single influence on an childs eductional achievement is the attitude of the parents.

And that of the childs peer group.

mefty - Member
THM's point about exclusion was very neat

Why thank you..

mefty - Member
but sadly no one picked me up on it!

"They" are very selective! 😉 keep trying and you may be included with time and effort!!

the point being that some state schools are just as sheltered

+1

Of course none of that is actually of that much relevance as it is well known that the biggest single influence on an childs eductional achievement is the attitude of the parents.

+ 100

There are two level at which we can look at this:

At an individual level, the decision to apply to a particular school will depend upon many factors. For some kids, private will be a benefit and cost won't be an issue. Personally, I suspect that many people overestimate the benefits of a private education; as gonefishin says, research shows this.

At a society level, we have a multi-tier education system and it would almost certainly be better for society as a whole if we didn't.

it would almost certainly be better for society as a whole if we didn't.

^^This, although the problem being that those who benefit see no reason to change.

They may be on the continuum of sheltered or exclusive but, as they do not select on ability [ generally] or wealth, they can never be as exclusive
How can fee charging aptitude testing schools not have less of a cross section of society than non fee paying non aptitude testing schools? { attempting to pick outliers is not helpful IMHO}
It is clearly a skewed sample of the bright and the able to pay .

So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?

I'm trying to think of backgrounds of our ex-students: I don't think we've had a billionaire's child, but we have had millionaires' kids.

So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25639442 ]Cambridge[/url]

That is without doubt an exception. However, there are plenty of state schools in affluent areas where you are
unlikely to encounter it too. Is that wrong as well?

My school was in an affluent area but there was still a few local council estates, poorer tenant farmers, and kids from local towns etc.

As I noted earlier, I went to a boarding school many years ago. Whilst clearly all the kids came from relatively affluent homes, I was at school with black, indian and chinese kids which I certainly wouldn't have been if I had gone to the local state school in rural Hampshire. The point being some state schools are just as sheltered as private ones.

This is a fair point. My school was very white. Although I'm not sure the kind of kids who get sent to foreign boarding school are massively representative of life for most people in India or China either. 😉

jam bo - Member

So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?

[img] [/img]

In the Cabinet, berating people who didn't enjoy your feather-bedded upbringing and marriage into the landed gentry for not pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, like you did.

Many private schools, and I imagine increasingly more as time goes on, are not really academically selective.

miketually - Member
So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?
Cambridge

😆

One of the many private schools that cater for that demographic...

So where do you end up if you are thick with rich parents?

35 years ago, the kids from my junior/prep school who went to the schools with the lowest entry requirements went to Blundell's, Gordonstoun (although the kids who went there were very bright but went for family reasons) and Bloxham. I'm sure there were others with lower entrance requirements at the time and certainly things will have changed in the intervening years, but that is what I recall from a small and very old sample.

miketually - Member
There are two level at which we can look at this:

At an individual level, the decision to apply to a particular school will depend upon many factors. For some kids, private will be a benefit and cost won't be an issue. Personally, I suspect that many people overestimate the benefits of a private education; as gonefishin says, research shows this.

At a society level, we have a multi-tier education system and it would almost certainly be better for society as a whole if we didn't.

+1 on that (with a slight caveat on the benefits bit unless you mean purely academic)

Thing is as a parent, given the opportunity (eg the money or if are academic enough to get scholarships) to send my kids to good private schools I probably would, at least assuming that I reckoned it was right for them. Largely though based on my own experiences of having gone through the state system until early in secondary school, being bored out of my brains a lot of the time (despite my secondary supposedly being a good one) and then finding the private school that I was lucky enough to go to later on was brilliant and I loved it.

Maybe things have got better. I really hope so as my kids will probably being going the state route but we're in the process of moving somewhere that has good state secondary schools. We're lucky to be able to afford to do that but fundamentally it's no different to paying for private education isn't it - eg it's unfair.

But then I'm not the type who has strong convictions meaning that I won't send my kids to private school even though I'd rather that there was no need for them.

I think as a parent, you always want the best for your kid, or at least you should.

If a parent can afford (either by wealth or by sacrifice) to send their kid to private school as they feel it will give their kid a better chance, why shouldn't they?

And if as has been said on here, one person has made sacrifices to send their kid to a better school, why don't others do the same rather than complaining about a tiered system? You aren't going to invert the pyramid in your lifetime so work it.

why don't others do the same rather than complaining about a tiered system

That's a bit of a silly statement given that a large part of the population could never even dream of affording the fees.

I think as a parent, you always want the best for your kid, or at least you should.

I think that's how most people think. Others live by their convictions and are willing to stick to that even if it maybe impacts negatively on their kids (and I appreciate that's a VERY subjective statement but as most people we're affected by our own experiences and I'm pretty sure I would have been negatively affected by staying in the state system compared to not). In many ways I do admire people with that level of conviction.

lapierrelady - Member
Many private schools, and I imagine increasingly more as time goes on, are not really academically selective.

I am not really sure about that. In addition to Common Entrance, an increasing number of schools are adding their own pre-selection exams. They then are happy to kick weak performers out in order to maintain league table status with A levels. You can spend £30-90k and then be told that you son/daughter needs to consider "other options."

Don't trust the league tables for the full picture!

Why should multi-tier needs not be met by a multi-tier supply? I can see reason why a single tier system would create a better or more equatable result. Kids (and parents) have different needs that should be met in different ways IMO.

On the other hand, some private schools are very good at getting the best results possible for kids that aren't so academic and there are plenty of people who will pay for Tarquin to get 3 Cs at A-level rather than three Ds.

THM - I think that is very much a South East problem, where they is a very large pool of affluent parents in their local area. Schools in less affluent areas have to offer something different to appeal to parents outside their region to survive.

I would guess that the number eligible fir free meals cannot be quantified and probably few care. The possible situations where kids might be eligible as as Dar ranging as: on full bursary as academically gifted but from a background that would make them eligible. To parents have good accountants so technically no money or assests but in order to put them through school they pay the full wack.

On the other hand, some private schools are very good at getting the best results possible for kids that aren't so academic and there are plenty of people who will pay for Tarquin to get 3 Cs at A-level rather than three Ds

State schools are also good at doing this, but it leads to accusations of dumbing down and Michael Gove changes the goal posts.

I think as a parent, you always want the best for your kid, or at least you should.

If a parent can afford (either by wealth or by sacrifice) to send their kid to private school as they feel it will give their kid a better chance, why shouldn't they?

And if as has been said on here, one person has made sacrifices to send their kid to a better school, why don't others do the same rather than complaining about a tiered system?

So, anyone who could send their kids private but don't doesn't want the best for them?

I would guess that the number eligible fir free meals cannot be quantified and probably few care. The possible situations where kids might be eligible as as Dar ranging as: on full bursary as academically gifted but from a background that would make them eligible. To parents have good accountants so technically no money or assests but in order to put them through school they pay the full wack.

Presumably schools check financial status before doling out bursaries? If they do, and we assume anyone paying fees wouldn't be eligible, it wouldn't be hard to put a figure to FSM eligibility.

yes they do and well beyond current income....

State schools are also good at doing this, but it leads to accusations of dumbing down and Michael Gove changes the goal posts.

True enough no doubt but given the choice of a good teacher trying to improve the results of 30 kids or the same one trying to do the same for 15, I can see which is likely to be more successful.

I went to private school.

We smoked a lot of weed and liked to take LSD whenever anyones 'rents went away.

I liked meeting kids from all over manchester of all different races. I didn't like not knowing many kids locally.

My grades were ok. The teaching can't make that much difference. I've got mates from private schools that are decorators and mates from the comp that run their own businesses.

I think by separating your kids from society at large you take away the need for them to learn to deal with a broad spectrum of people. Sure, They might learn some more latin without the local dickheads firing elastic bands at them but I think they miss some valuable life lessons.

I won't be sending my kids to private school.

That seems like a very generalised view of it though.

Some private schools are horrendous for insulating kids from the real world and worse, for giving them a sense of superiority. IME it's not the stereotypical Eton that's bad for that (in fact, I'd say that a few high profile Etonians give the majority a very bad and undeserved name) but rather many of the other very expensive and desirable but not-quite-Eton ones that are the worst examples.

given the choice of a good teacher trying to improve the results of 30 kids or the same one trying to do the same for 15, I can see which is likely to be more successful.

The one who gains twice the experience every year of the other? 🙂

it's not the stereotypical Eton that's bad for that (in fact, I'd say that a few high profile Etonians give the majority a very bad and undeserved name) but rather many of the other very expensive and desirable but not-quite-Eton ones that are the worst examples.

Could well be a strange, compensatory inferior-superiority complex. I went to Durham Uni, so met some Oxbridge rejects who were particularly unpleasant in a chip-on-their-shoulder kind of way.

And I was at Bristol which in that respect was no doubt very similar (and I was a Cambridge reject as it goes. Twice 😉 )

Some private schools are horrendous for insulating kids from the real world and worse, for giving them a sense of superiority.

What no-one is willing to admit here (though I have heard others admit it) is that that sense of superiority is actually seen as a desirable trait by some and is part of the point of sending kids to private school. Teach kids that they are special and superior and to some extent that confidence becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.