[Closed] Private school vs state school

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

miketually - Member

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[img] [/img]

😆

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.