[Closed] The abolition of private schools

AA I quoted TJ, how you choose to interpret that is up to you but that's how I see it. I could wade through 8 pages of this to grab every quote but frankly I have better things to do and bigger things to worry about.

I agree that smaller classes are better as a whole, I'm not going to argue about your personal experience in the matter. What I will say is that anecdote is not necessarily fact. I have seen first hand what effect a disruptive pupil can have on a class and the learning experience as a whole. Smaller classes mean nothing when a teacher is focused on one pupil or a group thereof.

The wealthy are looking for the best education not an advantage over others

That’s a tad naive. Gaining an education which is ‘better’ than that available to others is an advantage. Thats is what the majority of public schools market themselves on (Getting kids through exams who wouldn’t otherwise pass them). The ‘top’ public schools market themselves on buying into a network of friends from families who run/own the country (It's not what you know, it's who you know).

Smaller classes mean nothing when a teacher is focused on one pupil or a group thereof.

Smaller classes where the parents have bought into the system are far easier than ones where some of the parents have no interest in the system.

What I will say is that anecdote is not necessarily fact.

True but I would suggest 15 years experience has given more than a few anecdotes

I have seen first hand what effect a disruptive pupil can have on a class and the learning experience as a whole. Smaller classes mean nothing when a teacher is focused on one pupil or a group thereof.

Nice anecdote!
As I said given appropriate funding a disruptive pupil can be easily removed from the situation as other staff and rooms would be available.

AA I quoted TJ,

You did and then said something like, so what you are basically saying is and then said something he didnt say.

People who pay for private sector education know they're buying advantage for their kids. That's why they spend their money. Me I chose the most expensive postcode going to be able to pretend to myself l wasn't doing very similar. But still, comprehensive to me means that all the kids from a locale go there. A mix is a good thing.

Anyway re

doctors generally come out of university having funded their own education through loans

It costs north of £225k to train a doctor to F1. Typically up to a scary £65k will be borne by the student/their family meaning the state contributes £160k from the taxpayer. Private sector contributes nowt. I could Google this for teachers to find similar but less so I d guess.

Anyway, we can afford to educate our kids in the UK. We choose to go about it in a way that divides our country. It needn't be a zero sum game, but the haves know full well that mobility means down as well as up. And who wants that?

If it's all the same I'll leave TJ to defend his words rather than arguing with someone else trying to do it for him.

Smaller classes where the parents have bought into the system are far easier than ones where some of the parents have no interest in the system.

Absolutely, which is why the present system of pushing for proscribed results instead of nurturing talent sucks. At all levels. Getting rid of one tier isn't going to fix that. Schools shouldn't be about getting everyone A's, it should be about putting people on a route that works for them. Obviously results are great if you are in that percentile (of ability) but there is a lot more to life.

It costs north of £225k to train a doctor to F1. Typically up to a scary £65k will be borne by the student/their family meaning the state contributes £160k from the taxpayer

Doubt teachers cost that much but once you have a degree the state pays for you to do the PGCE in a great many cases

So what you (and at least one other) are saying here is that only middle class and above parents are capable of being role models or being committed to the education of their child.

it’s just the lazy work shy progeny of the rich may have an additional safety net to fall back on

So you criticise someone for apparently stereotyping and then do exactly the same yourself in reverse a few posts later.

I'm not a big fan of private schools personally, but they appear to work well for some kids. I've known families who have split their kids between private and state education simply to suit the individual child's needs. To me it's all about finding the best match for your children. For some that may well be a good state school, a grammar school or a private school (if you can afford that option)

So you criticise someone for apparently stereotyping and then do exactly the same yourself in reverse a few posts later.

Or he says anecdote is not evidence and then backs up his point with a lovely anecdote!

For some that may well be a good state school, a grammar school or a private school (if you can afford that option)

For the very few who can afford the fees or the coaching for the 11+.

squirrelking - the beneficial effect of having a broad range of pupils backgrounds and abilities in the one school is well documented, its my own personal experience and its the view of several senor educational professionals I know. Did you bother to read the big post I wrote about my school? One of the best schools in the area when truely comprehensive. Once all the middle class kids deserted it under the tory choice agenda it turned into a sink school.

The best education from a population perspective is a truely comprehensive one

AA an experienced teacher also agreed with the point.

the faults with state school are not because they are mixed ability, its because they are underfunded

All classes are mixed ability and ability is not a constant. I was at a grammar school that became comprehensive and a good number of kids who came in from the secondary modern school got into serious universities, that would not have happened without the comprehensive system.
Bear in mind it's not uncommon for 'Outstanding' schools and colleges to achieve their status by chucking out anyone they consider to be wavering at Yrs 11 and 12, I've seen lives wrecked by that plus it puts unnecessary pressure and fear on all the kids.
Being able to sit an AS exam and re-sit it was a good way of getting struggling kids up to standard. Gove abolished the AS feeding into A2 but allowed it to continue with the Cambridge International exams which only private schools are allowed to administer. The overall effect of Gove's changes has meant, given that A level grades are norm-referenced, a reduction in the level of achievement at A level as well as grade inflation. All he did was damage.

tj

the beneficial effect of having a broad range of pupils backgrounds and abilities in the one school is well documented, its my own personal experience and its the view of several senor educational professionals I know

Benefit for whom?

john

People who pay for private sector education know they’re buying advantage for their kids. That’s why they spend their money.

Me I chose the most expensive postcode going to be able to pretend to myself l wasn’t doing very similar.

You can look at this entirely differently ... you are trying to buy the least dis-advantage.

I'm in the process of applying for the secondary school now...
Talking with other parents from the large primary I'm dismayed by the numbers that don't actually care about the schools results or classroom environment...

steve - for the population as a whole. Its no detriment to the smart kids bar in my case I was limited to 5 highers not 6 as the private schools did

Its of benefit to the middle and lower ability to pupils.

the better educated the population as a whole is the better for the country

another aspect to this is that kids who would be in the middle of the ability range in a comprehensive school system would be at the bottom of the range in a selective school - they actually do worse in a selective school system because they either struggle to keep up in the grammer / private school or are in a secondary modern where there is no 6th form

again I am looking at populations not individuals. There is no doubt that across the population as a whole comprehensive systems give a better education.

The faults of comprehensive schools are down to underfunding not anything innate.

Benefit for whom?

The vast majority

I’m dismayed by the numbers that don’t actually care about the schools results or classroom environment…

We had open evening at my secondary school last week, I got asked 2 questions all night!

For the very few who can afford the fees or the coaching for the 11+.

What's the 11 plus got to do with private schools?

They are all afraid of you?

They are all afraid of you?

I did set a load on fire!!

There are several different issues being conflated here. Selection in schools and private education and boarding schools.

Its the selection thats an issue and that applies equally to grammar schools and private schools. Selection in schools damages educational attainment across the population

I did set a load on fire!!

There you go then.

TJ you are at risk of recommending that people disadvantage their children so others can benefit. As someone up top mentioned perhaps all kids could be taken away from Mums and Dads at birth and trained equally in sterile institutions so no parental advantage can be bestowed upon them? You can be minister for education in this fascist utopia.

No 5plus 8 - read what I wrote - the disadvantage to the top pupils is minimal, the advantages to everyone else including those who just pass the 11 plus or go to selective schools to sit at the bottom of ability there is large.

so a small detriment perhaps to the top pupils in academic results combined with a large improvement in wider education ( and its also proven that with the same school exam results state school pupils do better at university than selective school pupils so that slight disadvantage is not long lasting ie the post university results are the same)

Those in the middle and bottom have only advantages from comprehensive education.

so no - your point is completely invalid

also as I kept on emphasizing I am looking at populations - over the population comprehensive schools have a beneficial effect.

Its good for the country to have a well educated population. So comprehensive education is good for the country.

For the very few who can afford the fees or the coaching for the 11+.

Yeah I already mentioned the fees for the private option. Abolishing private schools simply on the basis that it isn't fair for those who cannot afford it would be a bit like banning large houses, expensive cars or even private healthcare. Unless you want to live in a socialist state then money will always give you additional options in life. That's the whole point in earning money, so you can live better and have more choices. State schools are what you get for free and some of them are actually very good, although I do realise that depends on where you live (again a life choice)

For the grammar school option, expensive 11+ coaching is not really required. You can do it yourself quite effectively. Maybe borderline students might have a slightly better chance of scraping through with a dedicated tutor, but then they might well struggle once at the school. I know one mother (a tutor herself) who actually took her son out of grammar school because he was struggling with the pace and he did much better in the local state school. His sister on the other hand thrived at the grammar school. Grammar schools are definitely not for everyone who can pass the 11+

For the grammar school option, expensive 11+ coaching is not really required. You can do it yourself quite effectively.

I could yes and I expect you could too but this sentence shows a massive black hole in you understanding of what life is like for a huge number of children. But then reading things like this helps me understand why some people have the views they do.

Grammar schools are definitely not for everyone who can pass the 11+

This is true on a very basic level as our local boys and girls grammar selects from such a massive catchment that you have to do much, much more than pass it to get a place.

You said:

so a small detriment perhaps to the top pupils in academic results combined with a large improvement in wider education

Which is exactly my point, followed by you telling me:

so no – your point is completely invalid

I think I have learned an important lesson here.

yes - try reading and being honest rather than partial quoting.- the disadvantage is small and fleeting - ie it does not impact in any way on future chances. So overall their is no detriment. You might drop a grade or two in school - but you will do as well if not better at university

so its clear - to give a tiny and short lasting advantage to a few of the richest, most advantaged and most academic pupils you are happy to throw the rest under a bus to the detriment of society as a whole.

Admit it - you want to retain as much privilege as you can to those already privileged. To those who have, give more that is taken from those who have not.

greatest good of the greatest number? Or retain the privilege for the few?
An extra grade at school for a few or a well educated country?

The other point you miss 5plus8 is that I am not advocating parents taking their children out of private schools as individuals. I am proposing that we need a proper comprehensive education system for the simple reason that gives us as a whole a better educated population and this is good for everyone. enlightened self interest rather than selfishness. Equality of opportunity rather than entrenching wealth and privilege

I'll bite once, then you carry on and do what you like.
I've been reading the thread with interest, I am open minded about the solutions to the countries education issues (though I still argue that all that this is irrelevant if all the big companies and individuals paid their tax, the solution would be found in the vast sums of money for all public services) .
However, and I am sorry that I feel the need to say this, but reading all of your responses it appears that nobody can have a discussion with you TJ. You just pick up on any disagreement with your position and argue black is white until everyone gets tired. Its boring. There is no give and take, you never concede anything of substance, I think you have an issue with needing to be seen to be correct, and have zero self awareness. Or at least convincing yourself you are right and deluding yourself that everyone else can see how right you are. I have realised this evening that I do not want to engage with you. You are a bully. Say what you like, I won't respond I am afraid.

Being wealthy has nothing to do with class. Plenty of wealthy people are from working class backgrounds.
It’s the usual Labour lefty bolax frankly and is insulting to private schools that provide balanced education and support large numbers of bursary pupils.

Sorry you feel like that 5 plus 8. I get very angry at being called totalitarian and with being grossly misquoted

Nothing yo have said counters the points I have made - only the ones you want me to have made.!

A bully? I am not the one comparing me to totalitarian regime

Calling folk names ad misquoting shows you have lost the argument - and I do have self awareness and believe it or not am aware of my limitations debating by text. I try to overcome this but clearly not to everyones satisfaction or even mine. Believe it or not reaching this sort of point upsets me as well.

What am I supposed to do but argue my position? When shown I am wrong I will happily apologies or change my view - as I did over the tax thing earlier on this very thread. However nothing you have said counters my position here in any way. Is it you do not understand my position or do not agree?

Its not about needing to be seen to be right. Its about wanting to pursuade people of the merits of my view.

This is a topic I feel very strongly about - because I have seen the damage done to the life chances of people by selection in schools

I'll try to sum up my argument briefly - then counter the points if you want.

Comprehensive education improves or has no effect on the life chances of the population
Yes the most academic might end school with a lower grade or two or in my case 5 highers not 6. However this is counterbalanced by the fact that those at the top will do as well at uni as those who went to private school and got higher grades or numbers of exams. So to those at the top it has no effect on their life choices so no detriment post university

For those in the middle ( because they are not struggling at the bottom of the class) they do better in a comprehensive system

#for those at the bottom they do better in a comprehensive system because they have access to the best teachers ( not being creamed off into the private system) and access to mentors and role models that they would not have in a selective system

so for the pupils everyone gains or stays the same bar perhaps a sightly lower set of exam results for the most able which is no detriment to their chances at uni

comprehensive education also is broadening in outlook something many could do with.

So thats from the educational side

My other gripe is that the general taxpayer subsidises private schools and private schools reinforce privilege

I could yes and I expect you could too but this sentence shows a massive black hole in you understanding of what life is like for a huge number of children. But then reading things like this helps me understand why some people have the views they do.

I grew up in Oldham and went to one of the local comps there. So I think I do have a reasonable idea of what life is like for a fairly wide variety of children. But I'm not even sure what your point was in bringing that up?

Being wealthy has nothing to do with class.

Er, er... Nah.

But I’m not even sure what your point was in bringing that up?

Which proves my point.
Many kids have illiterate parents for example, can they help with 11+?
Many have no parents to help at all.
A lot have parents who couldnt give a toss enough to help, a lot of parents may not be educated enough to help.

Interesting article on beeb today apparently 41% of kids in London have extra tutoring outside school.

A lot have parents who couldnt give a toss enough to help, a lot of parents may not be educated enough to help.

You must also have come across some who actively want to **** their kids (and other kids) education up ? I have.

You must also have come across some who actively want to **** their kids (and other kids) education up ? I have.

Nice work. 🙂

I spent 15 mins crafting that prose.

Which proves my point.
Many kids have illiterate parents for example, can they help with 11+?
Many have no parents to help at all.
A lot have parents who couldnt give a toss enough to help, a lot of parents may not be educated enough to help.

Interesting article on beeb today apparently 41% of kids in London have extra tutoring outside school.

Of course I understand that not all parents are going to help tutor their kids with the 11+ or be there for them in any way at all. I just wasn't sure how that relates to the cost of 11+ tutoring or the abolition of private schools? It might not be "fair" on the children, but having poor illiterate parents is never going to be a great start to their education under any system short of unlimited budget free state tutoring. I was merely suggesting that you don't have to be super rich to put your kids through the 11+ if they are inherently capable of passing it. And no amount of cash will get them through it anyway if they are below the intelligence threshold required.

It's the definition of middle class which gets me in this debate. I’ve never had illusions that I’m anything other than middle class, although financial my life is simple (Upper rate tax bands, ISAs, and employer contribution pension schemes are something that happen to other people), and yet every time this debate happens I get lumped in with people with family incomes with 1, 2, or 3 more zeros at the end than ours.

I pretty sure my views on public schools does come from envy of people who can afford to believe its a choice. It also comes from having come up against the nepotism that exists in society because of the public school system

You must also have come across some who actively want to **** their kids (and other kids) education up ? I have.

Believe me when I say I've seen some things you wouldnt believe!

Kids who come to parents evening on their own because the parents can't be bothered was a particular lowlight.

For the grammar school option, expensive 11+ coaching is not really required. You can do it yourself quite effectively.

Of course I understand that not all parents are going to help tutor their kids with the 11+

Seem at odds with each other?

I just wasn’t sure how that relates to the cost of 11+ tutoring or the abolition of private schools?

The conversation moved on as grammar school systems are a fairly good way of seeing how selection affects the majority.

I pretty sure my views on public schools does come from envy of people who can afford to believe its a choice.

You dont become blinkered to what lifes like for the majority just because you are rich.

The one that grips my shit is the classic ""my parents worked really hard and gave up a lot to send me to private school". Yes I'm sure they did Tabatha but did they work harder than my mum and give up as much as she did buying my school uniform?

Seem at odds with each other?

I guess it does if you read it in black and white, but I was just meaning that relatively poor parents who are keen to put their kids through the 11+ don't have to be rich to do so (in response to someone else implying that you need "money" to put your kids through grammar school). Being totally illiterate, abusive or simply uncaring parents is always going to be somewhat of a barrier.

Obviously parents need a LOT more money to put their kids through a private education and I don't see any merit in taking that choice away from those parents unless you are committed to a socialist state.

...I'd say "Stalinist state" not socialist.
You can have a socialist "high tax - high spend" approach without the need for totalitarianist approach like abolition.

Like Finland?

Of those that send their children to private school. What are your main reasons; better grades, better sports facilities, access to a network?
Also, does anyone know the stats for better grades, earning potential etc. Interesting to quantify the outlay.

Personally I’d put the money into investments for the kids house deposits

Interesting to read today that 1/4 of state school parents put their kids through private tuition, rising to 41% in London.

Are they going to be banned from doing that too?

Personally I’d put the money into investments for the kids house deposits

I'd send my son private if I could afford it.

Of those that send their children to private school. What are your main reasons; better grades, better sports facilities, access to a network?

None of the above, and all linked to each other:

1) smaller class sizes (and therein lies a can of worms!)
2) work ethic vs state system (creating a more challenging and stimulating environment)
3) less disruption in the classroom

I find it difficult to find common ground with many of the other parents at the school gate, who perhaps do fall into some of the stereotypes described in this thread. As a result, I am not interested in the network.

We want solarider jnr to be the best that he can be within his natural capabilities and grades are not the true measure of that to me. The attitude, courtesy and respect that are the bedrock of his school reflect our own personal values and are not mirrored widely in the state system. To us that is worth just as much as his grades. We don't want him educating in a pressure cooker.

Growing up in the state system myself in a different era I got so much out of the extracurricular activity, and thanks to cuts in the state subsidy (which some have incorrectly argued is because of people like us putting our children through the independent system) that just doesn't exist to the same extent these days. Or at least it is more readily available in the fee paying sector.

We raise solarider jnr to be humble, kind, generous, caring and not some superior, entitled toff. He gets his guidance and education both from us at home and from his education, and that regards he gets it more from his current school than he would from the local state alternative.

Whilst it clearly isn't palatable to some, unfortunately money does inherently grant certain choices in life. That is an inconvenient truth and I am only too aware of that privileged and fortunate position. Solarider jnr is also similarly aware of that and grateful for the position he is in. We only have 1 child and naturally want the best for him. In our considered opinion, investing in his education is one of the best gifts that we can give.

If we believed that all of the above could be delivered through the state system, we would happily save £15k+ a year and spend the money on the things that we currently don't instead such as holidays or a savings pot for solarider jnr. The decision to outlay so much of my income is not taken lightly or without significant opportunity cost and does not have anything like the negative or selfish justification that has been a common theme in this thread. We certainly don't stick 2 fingers up to the rest of the world and intentionally fund a private education in order to gain some unfair advantage or to drain money away from the state system.

I said this:

So what you (and at least one other) are saying here is that only middle class and above parents are capable of being role models or being committed to the education of their child.

it’s just the lazy work shy progeny of the rich may have an additional safety net to fall back on

Moshimonster replied:

So you criticise someone for apparently stereotyping and then do exactly the same yourself in reverse a few posts later.

Just to clarify, I wasn't meaning that all progeny of the rich are lazy and work shy, I was just referencing those that are as opposed to the lazy work shy progeny of the middle or working class.

AA I never said my experience was absolute and yes it is entirely anecdotal. What I actually meant to say was that the plural of anecdote is not data. We all have our anecdotes and they mean different things to different people.

TJ:

squirrelking – the beneficial effect of having a broad range of pupils backgrounds and abilities in the one school is well documented, its my own personal experience and its the view of several senor educational professionals I know. Did you bother to read the big post I wrote about my school? One of the best schools in the area when truely comprehensive. Once all the middle class kids deserted it under the tory choice agenda it turned into a sink school.

The best education from a population perspective is a truely comprehensive one

AA an experienced teacher also agreed with the point.

the faults with state school are not because they are mixed ability, its because they are underfunded

I did read your post, yes, and still don't see where class comes into it. As you (and AA) said, the problem isn't down to the mix of ability as opposed to funding. With proper funding you can remove disruptive pupils, attend to needs etc. How does abolishing private schools achieve this with the minimal (in the grand scheme) budget savings such a move would bring?

How does abolishing private schools achieve this with the minimal (in the grand scheme) budget savings such a move would bring?

Because it would actually give those that can afford it an incentive to try and improve things, as things stand the reverse is true. Although abolishing these schools seems an overreaction.

Solarider; that all sounds very good, I certainly would do the same if I could. Isnt it such a shame that successive governments have led state education down a path so far away from the one you are taking and isnt it ironic that I would like to remove my son from state education to avoid the grade/assessment pressure cooker. The current state system is beyond ****ed and in ways that so many seem totally unaware of even when there kids are in it!

squirrelking - I never mentioned class apart from as a way of distinguishing the types of kids. I was not pejoritive about the class.

NOthing you have said actually addresses the points I have made.

I'm also intrigued.
Are they going to ban private nurseries?
How about those private educational "charities" that are sat on hundreds of millions of pounds and still are not taxed fully, known as universities?

The current state system is beyond **** and in ways that so many seem totally unaware of even when there kids are in it!

Please can we separate out the wierd semi privatised system that focuses so much on academia that England has?
The rest of us (NI, Wales and Scotland) are still state schools and different curriculum and values.

Imo, it's only England education that is properly odd ball and heading the wrong way...

NOthing you have said actually addresses the points I have made.

I actually have. You say the main problem is a lack of funding, I agreed with you and illustrated where that mixed ability would work as per AA's previous post. But your original point that:

you remove role models and committed parents from the state system which entrenches the difference between state and private education.

is still absolute nonsense. The role models and committed parents are still in the state system.

Because it would actually give those that can afford it an incentive to try and improve things, as things stand the reverse is true.

Ah right, so use the folk with money to try and put some pressure on the government to get their house in order? I mean, it's a nice idea, but frankly I see better odds of the haves packing their kids off to an international school and the have not's being left to get on with it.

The role models and committed parents are still in the state system.

How can they be when the kids are being privately educated, at grammer schools or all concentrated into specific state schools

Look what happened to my old school. As it lost all the kids of committed and interested parents to an inferior school but with the "name" the school became a sink school

this happens.

grammer schools

😂

this happens

It happens. I spent the day in one yesterday.

The reasons for this though are much more complex than one set of parents leaving state system and heading to private.

And our challenge, and aim, is to therefore support all schools and all children to achieve the best they can.

grammer schools

Damn those comprehensive schools.

Imo, it’s only England education that is properly odd ball and heading the wrong way…

I'll have to take your word for that!

I see better odds of the haves packing their kids off to an international school

The very rich will do different whatever happens, I suspect people like solarider who actually like their kids might not see that as a great option.

Look what happened to my old school. As it lost all the kids of committed and interested parents to an inferior school but with the “name” the school became a sink school

Our local state high school had a very good reputation and I spoke to a good mate whose two boys went there. He said that its success was nothing to do with the school or teachers, but the highly motivated parents who pushed their kids and paid for extra private tuition.
Moving on a few years and the schools reputation has fallen because those children (and their motivated parents) have finished school, and gone to university, to be replaced by much less motivated children/parents.
This change was absolutely nothing to do with private schools.

This happens.

He said that its success was nothing to do with the school or teachers

Obviously!!

Moving on a few years and the schools reputation has fallen

and this would have nothing to do with rising class sizes, teacher shortages and funding cuts....obviously!

Obviously!!

This person was also a governor at the school!

and this would have nothing to do with rising class sizes, teacher shortages and funding cuts….obviously!

He just said it was because of the change in children/parents in this case.

This person was also a governor at the school!

He just said it was because of the change in children/parents in this case.

He sounds all kinds of awesome!! Glad he's not a governor at my school, kind of helps explain why teachers are leaving in droves though doesnt it.

So what about state funded private schools, should the state pay for kids to go places like The Royal Ballet School, Elmhurst, Tring or Hammond, should they be abolished, made mixed ability (entrance criteria is based on dance not academic potential)?

if they are state funded they are not private

~sharkbait - you make my point. removing the children of committed parents by selection in any form leads to a less effective school

The key thing here is do you want whats best for the country or do you want a tiny and short lived advantage for your children while seriously disadvantaging other children?

Ie enlightened self interest - the better educated the population the better for the country

Or Selfishness - I want my children to have the small and shortlived advantage at the expense of others

~sharkbait – you make my point. removing the children of committed parents by selection in any form leads to a less effective school

Which is done by house prices in catchments

Do we need to send kids 10 miles away to demographically balance schools or do you fundamentally accept that no system can achieve what you want?

The best policy to even up the system is arguably the pupil premium, not perfect but provides a incentive to educate kids from poor families, the quantum per pupil is the issue and there will always be winners and losers

So what about state funded private schools, should the state pay for kids to go places like The Royal Ballet School, Elmhurst, Tring or Hammond, should they be abolished, made mixed ability (entrance criteria is based on dance not academic potential)?

State support for extremely gifted mathematics kids has been knocked about a bit recently, mainly because Dominic Cummings has written about them - Kolmogorov schools after the Soviet tradition.
It seems reasonable as you're not talking about your usual bright kids here, you're talking about people who are 1 in 10000s of ability who effectively have special needs that cannot be met in mainstream education.
Whether you can make the same argument for other things like ballet I'm not sure - perhaps. It's an easy argument for maths as it's the God of all subjects and sacred language of the universe - but it's usually wrong to take anything to do with teaching mathematics as a basis for generalisation as it's very atypical.

I want my children to have the small and shortlived advantage at the expense of others

Is the advantage short-lived, or does it persist for the lifetime of the child? Could one argue that the private school educated child gets better results (perhaps marginally) than they may otherwise have earned, gaining them, potentially, a place at a more prestigious university than they otherwise might have attended? Further, they have a potentially greater number of 'valuable' contacts - their peers, their fellow alumni and the parents of their peers - than they would in a state school.

OK, I'll bite comrade TJ. People clearly have different views and never the twain shall meet. You are entitled to your opinion, but the vitriolic and offensive way that you have gone about the discussion has not lent any weight or impact to your point. It smacks a little of jealousy and entitlement, whether that was your intention or not.

The key thing here is do you want whats best for the country or do you want a tiny and short lived advantage for your children while seriously disadvantaging other children?

Do you want what's best for the country - yep, absolutely. The greater good is sure to be served by a highly educated and morally upstanding next generation. I wish every child could receive the education that solarider jnr does, but sadly not every body attending a state school can either through nature, nurture or the school that they attend. Me paying fees cannot be blamed for every child in the country being somehow deprived of their chance. Here's another inconvenient truth - abilities and opportunities vary regardless of wealth, background or educational system. There are good and bad people in this world. There are haves and have nots. And the credit and blame for either is a far more complicated set of circumstances in combination than whether parents who are fortunate enough to send their children to fee paying schools do so through some machiavellian desire to disadvantage others.

Tiny - nope, we consider it worth making the £15k a year investment. I accept that you might not. I certainly wouldn't make the investment for a tiny reward - the opportunity cost is too great for that. And if by being well educated he ends up in a better job, he will like me pay more in taxes to fund the greater good. I certainly give an awful lot more to the state coffers than I take out and do so without bearing a grudge.

Short lived - nope, an education lasts their whole life and is one of the greatest gifts that a parent can give along with a loving, supportive and diverse environment in which to grow up. The point here is an education, not some mythical other advantage beyond that such as a ready made network that you seem to think is bestowed on every child leaving the fee paying sector. I know as many successful people that were state educated as I do less successful people who were independently educated. Sure at the very elite level of the country there is an old school tie network, just as there is in any political system. I can tell you having lived and worked in some of the biggest communist countries in the world (China and Russia), the same exists everywhere. In fact there is a very high concentration of overseas pupils from both of those utopian communist states paying fees into the UK independent education system. Your argument fails to acknowledge the number of overseas students in the fee paying system that would not otherwise attend a UK state school, but pay into the system. China is the largest overseas contributor to the fee paying education system, followed closely by Russia.

While seriously disadvantaging other children - nope. Firstly there is no evidence for your opinion stated as fact. Secondly disadvantaging other children could not be further from the motivation of any parent sending their kids to a fee paying school.

Your far left arguments just seem outdated. If communism worked we would all be doing it!

sorry if I came across as vitriolic - I would prefer "passionate" 😉

Correct we will not agree. But the points I made are well known and well researched and generally accepted in the education establishment. Removal of motivated parents and kids from state schools diminish the chances of those who are in the state schools and the brain drain to the private sector does also

I understand your desire to do the best for your kids. It just upsets me that by doing so you diminish the life chances of others.

Egalitarianism is something I am very passionate about. My parents, myself and my other half have spent our entire working lives attempting to stand up for those less fortunate. Its my life.

thats why I am so passionate about equality of opportunity and again I apologise if this comes across as vitriolic.

Egalitarianism seems to be something that we do share. I guess we go about it in different ways. Granting equal rights does not however mean that everybody will grasp the opportunity with the same vigour. The divergence in people's life chances from birth is a very complicated set of interconnecting factors and not the single dimensional outcome of parents chosing to send their kids to fee paying schools.

but the vitriolic and offensive way that you have gone about the discussion

I have not seen this from him.

Solarider you need to separate the "greater good" or whatever from your desire to do the best by your kid. TJ isnt saying, you are responsible, no one individual is, but fee paying schools and grammar schools do seem to make things worse for the majority.

I dont agree with the concept of fee paying schools, not sure I'd go as far as banning them though, and yet my partner works at one and if we had the money I'd send my son to one. I dont think that makes me a hypocrite anymore than driving a car but wanting the system to change to reduce climate change. In just the same way you or other friends of mine who send kids private are not in anyway bad people but the game pushes them that way to get whats best for there kids. I'd like to see the rules of the game changed to see those less fortunate get a fair crack thats all.

Ta AA

How can they be when the kids are being privately educated, at grammer schools or all concentrated into specific state schools

How many grammar schools are in Edinburgh?

How about Scotland?

As matt pointed out this is a decidedly English problem.

And you are repeating the same nonsense argument that parents committed to their children's education seemingly don't exist outside the private and streamed schools. Which is shite.

I suspect people like solarider who actually like their kids might not see that as a great option.

Are you suggesting that people who send their kids to boarding school don't like them?

He said that its success was nothing to do with the school or teachers, but the highly motivated parents who pushed their kids and paid for extra private tuition.

Our kids attend a school that academically / exam results is pretty much top school in Scotland most years. I would say 70% of pupils are tutored on top. 'Hot-housing' is what it's called. The school does influence, bit it's only part of a picture.

Makes me even more proud that eldest_oab won the Dux medal - and would have won it last year as well as highest exam results overall, but wasn't graduating. He has had no tutoring at all, and rides a bike fast. 😎😎😎

Here's a thought. If all these "rich toffs" weren't paying all that money for school fees, they could pay more tax without being out of pocket! Then us state school scum might get a better education and they'd have nothing to moan about! 🙂 Win/win

Are you suggesting that people who send their kids to boarding school don’t like them?

Yes.

Some thoughts (and a bit of proud parent stuff).
When I went to school, there was - from memory - only one of my peers that went off to private school (Glenalmond I think). It might have helped him, might not - I met him again much later and he was pretty arrogant and rude. Of the folk I know here (I'm back in same town) there is a to of children - perfectly able - going to the local private school. Patronised by royalty.

We would definitely not be going down that route. Happy that both our children did pretty well within the state system. Son joint dux. Neither sporty (I guess there are more sports options available, maybe). The parents seem OK with sending their offspring off 6 miles away - some of them seem to board FFS - but for the cash they're spending, stuff like additional support (dyslexia, autism support) is either extra cost or not provided at all.

How many grammar schools are in Edinburgh?

How about Scotland?

As matt pointed out this is a decidedly English problem.

Yes really, 25% of kids in secondary education in Edinburgh are in private schools

Probably the highest concentration for a large city in the UK

But don't let the facts get in the way of tartan sanctimony

I would like to remove my son from state education to avoid the grade/assessment pressure cooker.

Potentially out of the frying pan into the fire, there are plenty of schools in the private sector who don't manage this well. We had an interesting experience with my daughter at her new school. They set very difficult exams to introduce the concept of failure to them - it is a pretty selective school so the kids are used to excelling in exams - it seems to have worked very well but that was because it was well managed.

Grammar Schools are only relevant in a few counties, they are not a England wide thing.