Private school vs state school

I would like it pretend I understand all that. But will leave it there. Give me a nudge when we are back on topic.

Mike, from you last sentence sounds like we can all breath a sigh of relief. No need to worry about this school, that school then. There are more important factors to focus on.

+1

teamhurtmore – Member

I would like it pretend I understand all that. But will leave it there. Give me a nudge when we are back on topic.

thm: an hour ago:

So it’s good to see how we sweat on the small stuff!!! It makes a great diversion though as all these pages show!!!

c+ for attention span.

I can summarise the last post but afraid (as in ‘worried’ not false regret) that it won’t come across as polite.

Mike, from you last sentence sounds like we can all breath a sigh of relief. No need to worry about this school, that school then. There are more important factors to focus on.

Somewhere on page 2 or 3, someone mentioned research that showed state schools performed better than private, once other factors are taken into account. So, yes.

There’s a lot of middle class angst over getting you kid into the ‘right’ school. I think it’s entirely misplaced.

Give me a nudge when we are back on topic.

Original post reads:

bernard – Member

Has anyone got kids in a private school , interested in your experiences. Worth the money?

So yes, after pages of interesting experiences of our own or our childrens’ experiences in various schools (and in some cases our experiences as staff), arguing about social mobility, life skills, exclusivity and exciting journeys through stats (disapointing lack of actual clourful graphs this time) THM’s (retracted-though-editing-something-slightly-different) assertion that in our lifetime, fee-paying schools have thrived and yet continue to receive undue and unfair criticism in spite of this is, curiously, rather close to back on topic, ie given the cost, is it worth it?

Phew! Considier yourself nudged, thm 😉 😀

🙂

Somewhere on page 2 or 3, someone mentioned research that showed state schools performed better than private, once other factors are taken into account. So, yes.

It gets better then mike. State schools perform better than private ones. Therefore 95% of the population will do better than the remaining 5%. The gap will narrow, those poor suckers who paid for education will realise the folly of their ways (belatedly) and everyone will be happy. That’s a relief. We don’t have to do anything other than to nudge the parents and the kids to work hard.

In addition to the unnecessary middle class angst we can add the angst about the existence of different types of school as well. People do get so agitated about that…

Job done and relax…..

You’re confusing individual performance with overall performance.

I think that assuming that people will get a job in a particular trade is missing the point of how effective these courses are at providing basic education which is not facilitated elsewhere

I get your point and its a good one but they are not on the course to learn level 1 or 2 key skills and I seriously doubt it equips them with the high level skills required for employment. I would also argue that Level 2 key skills is much simpler than GCSE hence why they pass one and fail the other.

the fact it was framed round music meant that engagement was higher and they were much better able to learn in the more practical and task oriented framing of a college course

I dont doubt they would rather learn this than the causes of WW1 I am questioning whether it is
1) Really that useful to wider society or them
2) Leads to anything much useful as an outcome – I am not denegrating soft outcomes but education is a bloated cash cow that cares about the flow of money rather than long term positive outcomes.
3) I would be surprised, given the low numbers of jobs in this industry if more than 5 % of people who do a qualification in this field get work in this area – I include degrees in this figure as well. Sure some will and they stay in touch but it will be a tiny percentage of those who do the course

IMHO, and I know this is controversial and yes I have seen the stats, low level key skills dont get you jobs – we [society via the work programme and skills conditionality] deliver them to almost all unemployed people – whether they need them or not – does any employer really get excited by Level 2 key Skills – or even know WTF it means? Ever seen it on a job spec?

Your course is likely to be cost effective – ie its probably quite cheap to deliver. 7 years ago a construction NVQ 2 got over 10 k of funding as did motor vehicle and engineering per pupil. It must be higher now and it is not money well spent. I bet about 100k per employee in the industry though, IME no one* who does FT college course gets a job in that industry and those that do used a family connection.

* I am sure some do but it will be in the region of 5 per thousand- no college i ever challenged was able to provide data on this.

It gets better then mike. State schools perform better than private ones.

I thought that you thought (irrespective of rise in cost of stae education in recent years) that fee paying schools were “thriving”? In what way does a non-profit making charitable organisation thrive, apart from the number of people it helps and the quality of help those people get?

You thought wrong then julian – all clarified above with figs
Rising spending (% gdp) separate issue to performance of some/all (you decide) private schools
Makes you wonder doesn’t it. Perhaps they are selling snake oil?

all clarified above with figs

[edit]
Great, you’ve more than made the point that it is a roundabout 50% increase in overall spending not 300% of overall spending budget and no one especially not me is disputing that.

but I don’t know how else to articulate this!

What does %age of gdp spent on state schools have to do with the sucess or otherwise of fee-paying ones? You never made a link with your first statistic and you still haven’t now. You just alluded to fee paying schools “thriving” as a contrast to state ones.

How did your correcting your figures on state schools also make fee-paying ones any less thriving? Are we talking numbers? (fall since 60’s then a rise again according to your last page) or quality of education, results, life experience?

Actually for the sake of clarity I will leave this in for future reference and humbly correct myself: if a “thriving” charity is related to numbers and so financial turnover then yes if overall numbers of UK population has fallen then thm may have been right to correct his initial comment about a thriving sector. On the other hand if his son’s peer group in which a third of his peers are foreign s representative however, then it will be interesting to know what impact that had on overall numbers of students irrespective of country of origin and therefore overall health of the sector. Not to mention success of a charity being the quality and reach of its work as well as financial turnover and numbers of individuals.

To repeat – nothing, two seperate issues
Happy to be shown the allusion – or perhaps it was merely an illusion? Agian two seperate issues
It didn’t, you are confused.

Edit for edit: please avoid misreading some “small part” as being all independent schools. That has been cleared up already. As noted and clarified, some independent schools are doing well, even exporting their services as well as attracting foreign students to the UK. Others are struggling financially and academically. Overall the % of the pop educated in the independent sector is lower (slightly) than in the 60s but off its base – you can decide the reasons for that yourself.

thm: crossed posts -please see humble correction above.

Would be interesting to know if

Over the period, percentage of student in private education fell from 8% to 5% and then recovered (excuse the choice of phrase) to 7%.

means “uk students” or “students carrying out their studies in the UK” and if this drop in numbers was offset by large rise in numbers of foreign students coming to uk in more recent years.

Good question – honest answer, I am not sure. I think it’s UK students. I will check.

Thank you for the correction. Nice to get back to the specifics.

Looks like domestic – interestingly number jumps to 14% post 16 (guessing numerator and denominator change)
To be specific it is 33.7% who receive financial assistance!!!
Value of bursaries has risen at approx 2x increase in fees
Since 2010 value of means-tested bursaries up almost 20%, scholarships flat.
The percentage of ethnic minorities is (slightly) higher than in the state sector – 26.1%
Foreign students 5% of total

Thankyou thm for your, er, thanks. Some other folk on here past and present, left and righty, would have acknowledged such a ‘comedy dismount’ as mine by posting a gif of a boxer knocking someone out, or something equally “booom!/kapow!”. Or that bleddy star trek double facepalm photo. so cheers.

On topic now, in terms of op’s “worth it” question, do we know if and by how much school fees have risen relative to disposable income or I suppose average salary? ie is it improving because more money is being spent or money spent more wisely? And how much is it like bikes: law of dimishing returns?

Don’t have exact stats, but picture is easy. Real incomes flat to down, real fees up every year 🙁 can’t quantify exactly without too much effort. But trend is clear.

Don’t know, don’t know

Anecdotally, there seems to be some frivolous expenditure among the sensible stuff. Increased competition of facilities that can only be described as (unnecessary) luxuries/follies. One friend has her daughter’s horse stabled at school – I kid you not!!!!

You’d hope that the more sensible parents would be sold on class sizes or smaller houses/better pastoral care than a stabling/livery facility! A cbeebies puppet opened my kids’ refurbished school library which also features an indoor treehouse, but i don’t think that was quite as much of an ‘investment’ as stables…

To add to the shock factor

The facilities comprise:
• Stabling for 53 horses combining accommodation in American style barns and traditional stables.
• Indoor arena 55m x 25m.
• All weather outdoor arena 50m x 70m and a new outdoor arena 35m x 50m.
• 2 sets of BSJA standard show jumps and portable X-C jumps.
• Cross-country schooling fences and Derby jumping course.
• Off road canter track and access to gallops.
• All weather horse walker and round pen.
• Polo pitch.
• Resident yard staff.

The mind boggles!!! I won’t mention the school concerned, but with SPORTS (hint) facilities like this, it is not hard to narrow down.

In thm’s favourite currency 😀

Blimey, its another world! I would at least be insisting the kids worked the yard themselves not the live-in yard staff (as is the way at nearby Duchy and Bicton colleges, where the horses are for learning not for fun. Having done equine/businessy things at Duchy, my sister worked near Chequers in a high end similarly specced stable as live-in yard manager. The fees just for the horse livery were huge, never mind what it would have been for keeping your child there too!

It’s not Staines Grammar (above), but doing triathlons at Dorney Lake and realising that it’s a school facility and an Olympic venue takes your breath away!

Nice mirrors on the € note there deadly, just missing the smoke!!!

I dont doubt they would rather learn this than the causes of WW1 I am questioning whether it is
1) Really that useful to wider society or them
2) Leads to anything much useful as an outcome
3) I would be surprised, given the low numbers of jobs in this industry

How many people learning the cause of WWI will then go on to use that knowledge in their career? Both my history-studying uni friends went on to work in banking.

My guess would be Millfield for the over the top stables, it’s got a reputation for that kind of thing. The pupils were always so arrogant about their wealth when we played them. That’s kind of interesting in itself looking back and considering the snobberies between such schools when they’re all privileged.

How many people learning the cause of WWI will then go on to use that knowledge in their career? Both my history-studying uni friends went on to work in banking.

WWI goes to explaining why Germany and France are so heavily invested in everyone being in the Euro when economic logic suggests they might walk away or kick others out. WW1 means Versailles means reparations means 1930s Germany means rise of fascism means WW2 means Marshall plan means Coal and Steel treaty means EEC means EU means ECU means Euro.

Understanding the causes of WWI also means you have to engage with complex, overlapping and contentious issues.

Private schools are unfair, but life is unfair, some people just get born into richer families.
I think it’d be foolish to lower the average standard of education by getting rid of them, and much more worthwhile making them redundant by improving the standard of state education.
Much better to bring the bar up, then down if you want social equality.
I was privately educated at a prep school, then moved onto a grammar and loved both!
It really annoys me when people are judged by their education.

Why are the politically influential going to bother raising the bar for other people’s kids when their own kids are well educated?

How many people learning the cause of WWI will then go on to use that knowledge in their career? Both my history-studying uni friends went on to work in banking.

I think a degree shows a higher level of analytical thinking than a level 2 qualification in a practical skill with level 1 or level 2 Key skills – ie below GCSE level [ yes its technically the same though Universities wont accept it for say teaching courses]

My main point was about vocational courses that dont lead to work in that area and give low level skills that are not really going to get you a job. Having a degree, when they were rarer, would get you a multitude of jobs whatever the subject.

but life is unfair,

No one is arguing otherwise – the issue is do you wish to entrench this unfairness by goibing further advantages ot the rich or if you wish to attempt tp level the playing field to give each child an equal opportunity

Given the funding rates per pupil the only way ot bring them up is to massively increase education spending which is highly unlikely to happen and then private schools – for the business charities would not go out of business stop helping the unfortunate they would just charge even more and still do more and the [ very or super rich] could still afford it
This advantage cannot be eradicated by improving state education

Levelling the playing field doesn’t improve the quality of education for anyone, it just lowers the quality of education for private school pupils, the only advantage is that people who resent private school pupils have peace of mind.

or that all people have an equal chance in life.
If you think that is the only reason can we ask which system schooled you as you seem to lack imagination with your straw man 😛

People are never all going to have an equal chance in life in a capitalist country,sounds like communism, but that doesn’t really work very well.
I went to prep school and then grammar, don’t have any regrets about not going to a private secondary school at all.

konabunny – Member
Why are the politically influential going to bother raising the bar for other people’s kids when their own kids are well educated?

For the obvious reason that, above all else, they crave power. The independent sector represents a tiny proportion of the population. Ignoring the needs of the majority would be political suicide.

PP – you are perfectly correct. Examine the augments against grammar schools – the acknowledged ADVANTAGES of the grammar schools were offset by the disadvantages of the secondary modern. Was the solutions to address the disadvantages? Not it was to take away the bit that was working, albeit only partially.

A bad solution universally applied trumps a good solution partially applied. An odd vision of utopia. In other contexts, that gets referred to as a “race to the bottom.”

My main point was about vocational courses that dont lead to work in that area and give low level skills that are not really going to get you a job.

Depends what level of work you’re looking for, surely?

Levelling the playing field doesn’t improve the quality of education for anyone, it just lowers the quality of education for private school pupils, the only advantage is that people who resent private school pupils have peace of mind.

This works if you assume that private schools provide a better education. This is not necessarily true.

We were all angsty about the PISA league tables the other week. Finland tops those tables, and there are no fee-paying schools.

Private schools, despite their material and educational advantages, don’t seem to be able to prevent producing large numbers of complete and utter tw**s with entitlement complexes, no idea how “normal” people live, and a tendency to look down on anyone with an inferior background or level of education. And that appears to continue throughout life it seems, even long after they leave those places. I found it rather amusing to be asked by a clique of these idiots upon starting a new job in IT consulting where I went to school, and I asked “why, does that make a difference as to how you treat me?” by the looks on their faces, the answer was a resounding yes.

The only private schools I’ve known who don’t turn out these a**pipes in spades seem to be the Quaker ones (OK, I’m a Quaker, probably I’m a bit biased) which seem to focus as much on social and emotional education as much as they focus on achievement. And they tend to discourage elitism and being a total wazzock.

As a Quaker you will still, I assume, believe that there is still a God in all these “tw**s” and “a**pipes”?

Imagine that argument the other way round, and someone says that state schools only produce X and Y or heaven forbid that someone is alleged to have called someone a pleb. They might lose their job for that….

Stripped away the veneer is pretty thin – Flashy nailed it early on.

Interesting use of stereotypes in this thread. It seems it’s ok to stereotype all ex public school pupils, and their parents as very unpleasant people. In other threads, mention the word chav, and council estates, and you’re close to a ban.

^^^^ straw man

Depends what level of work you’re looking for, surely?

Depends on whether you can get work in the area you have just studied surely? that is the goal of doing a vocational course.
I dont think you do bricklaying to use your low level key skills as transferable skills for low paid menial work. I doubt it is that successful either even if you do try.

I am not saying all education is useless just that some is money not well spent, raises expectations [ of employment in the sector, and delivers very little in terms of the students ideal outcome at great expense.

Stripped away the veneer is pretty thin

as this as your exclusivity claim for state schools?
as thin as your unevidenced 30 % claim?

Comprehensive schools, despite their free entitlement to education, don’t seem to be able to prevent producing large numbers of complete and utter tw**s with entitlement complexes, no idea how “working” people live, and a tendency to hate anyone with an superior background or level of education. And that appears to continue throughout life it seems, even long after they leave those places.

Works both ways, like richmars says.

As a Quaker you will still, I assume, believe that there is still a God in all these “tw**s” and “a**pipes”?

It is much easier to believe that now I no longer have to work with this particular breed of them. I’m a Quaker, but human too, and the way I was treated in my last work place because I didn’t fit in with those people made it rather difficult to feel very Quakerly about them. We all have our Achilles heels. Snobbery and elitism make me pretty angry – an unfortunate by-product of a Quaker background, and quite a lot of us struggle with it.

Unfortunately, many private schools encourage elitism and superiority complexes, and this is borne out by people who are educated by them and swallow it all hook line and sinker, going through life thinking they are better than others who didn’t have their privileges.

Comprehensive schools, despite their free entitlement to education, don’t seem to be able to prevent producing large numbers of complete and utter tw**s with entitlement complexes, no idea how “working” people live, and a tendency to hate anyone with an superior background or level of education.

So you are admitting that you think that a private education is superior to a comprehensive one then – no wonder you don’t seem to get on with people who come from comprehensives.

Goodness me, how dare people think they are on a par with their superiors and betters.

It seems it’s ok to stereotype all ex public school pupils, and their parents as very unpleasant people.

A fairly large proportion of them do seem to be, and that’s unfortunate.