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?
I am not sure what your point is here tbh could you be explicit?
It seems weak to suggest that the selection and elitism of private schools is somehow the same as what happens in the state sector who select almost entirely on geography [ or geography + religion for faith schools- I assume the fee schools do this and then add ability to pay and aptitude.
Its obvious private schools confer an advantage [ more pounds per pupil will do that] or no one would pay to send their kids there.
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
* religionTheir fees per term are about the same as we get per student per year.
This is very anti-choice. Why shouldn't parents with religious beliefs be able to send their children to a school which matches those beliefs and pay for that school, especially if unless it was privately funded it wouldn't exist.
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 - MemberThe '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.
If you're asking what percentage of children at private schools get free meals, I'd say 0% - school meals are compulsory and charged extra on top of term fees.
