Forum menu
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.
Yes
Good job I can confidently say you bugger all about what you are talking about on this issue then. You don't come across as a judgemental prick. At all.
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
Cool story bro. Can you now tell me the difference between a grammar school (what I was talking about) and a private school (what you are talking about). Let's not let reading comprehension get in the way of a smart arsed reply.
anagallis_arvensis
Member
Are you suggesting that people who send their kids to boarding school don’t like them?Yes.
Stay classy.
I'm another one who paid for his two sons to go to a private school (ages 7-16). Why? Class sizes was one of those, the fact that the school celebrated success and achievement - and that was based on a pupils ability. Plus access to sports facilities and music. Yes we could have done all teh extra curricular activities, but having all it in one place made it easy. We also worked, so having after school clubs was one less hassle.
I went through the state school - mainly comprehensive - and ended up in a University when less that 5% of people went to Uni. In an ideal world I would have liked my boys to go through the state system, but reality does set it. My lads got full value out of the school DoE, CCF, Music Bands, Rugby, Cricket, Chess plus good GCSEs. They both choose to move to a very good local 6th Form college for A levels and did well.
We talk about if we got rid of private schools all those passionate parents would drive up standards on the state schools. This is at best a dream. While there were plenty of parents like us, prepared to sacrifice lots of stuff for their education, I am not sure that many of them would have tried to drive up standards at the local schools. To do that you need the majority of parents prepared to be involved and support the school. It does not happen at the moment, a handful of extra parents will not change it - sad but true.
anagallis_arvensis
Member
Are you suggesting that people who send their kids to boarding school don’t like them?Yes.
Stay classy.
Never been classy in the first place!!
Was it just at our uni that whenever someone mentioned that they went to a boarding school everyone used to say "so your parents didnt like you either then"?
We talk about if we got rid of private schools all those passionate parents would drive up standards on the state schools.
I think just having more motivated kids would help drive up standards of the others tbh.