To feel so fed up that the only way to get a good education seems to be privately?

This and the child's work ethic.

DS1 didn't pass his 11+ but developed an excellent work ethic at his (ok) comprehensive school.
He excelled at exams, went onto get a Masters at a RG uni.

It can be about how much a child is willing to put in.

Still waiting for your explanation of the basis of your 'more millionaires in state schools' soundbite. The silence is deafening 😂

It’s buying privilege that’s all. I don’t think they’re better because they are so limited in experience but lots of fee payers want exactly that - identikit kids churned out who look, think the same, from the same families with money, same accents, handheld through exams, and obstacles moved out of the way, limited competition for everything - smaller pool for picking sports teams, teams that only play other private schools, easier to get the lead in the play etc etc

Exactly. If they’re both paying half their salary toward fees then they’re mugs.

It is all Schrödinger's Schools again.

Independent Schools are simultaneously rubbish, and people who go there do no better in life...and at the same time, they are unfair and limit social mobility.

So which one is it?

Exactly! To me the order of privilege goes:

1. those that can afford private easily and will always take that route.
2. those with an outstanding state offering.
3. those with a not good state offering but can just about afford private.
4. those with a not good state offering and no options other than to take it.

Not a failing one in Special Measures though where knife crime is rife I bet!

So how much does your partner earn? I would imagine it's quite a bit more than 35k.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

Your family could be living on 235k total. Stating half your wage goes on fees is meaningless. A household where there's only one earner earning 35k cannot afford fees.

Oh yes - I’ll admit to 15 in an A level class - but never less than 30 in a class from 4 to 16. I thought that was the norm in the 1970s-80s, and from 2004 when my DC started and yes, my parents (slightly older than yours) were in larger classes.

Look class sizes in the 60’s were significantly bigger…disruptive kids were kicked out or beaten sometimes both school and home. ND children in institutions and anyone unable to read diverted to trade schools asap. No one is going back there…uni lecture hall can hold 100. These numbers have no bearing on teaching today’s children.
Zero clue how mentioning historic class size without mentioning corporal punishment, institutions or lecture halls helps.
The disruptive kids need help which isn’t happening right now.

Of course it is serious. What are the criteria that you use to pass judgement on people

I would also like to know the answer to this but BallyhoBallyhoo isn’t keen on answering.
What about posh children who go to state schools? There are quite a few posters on here who say they’re posh but because they’re decent, moral people would never dream of using private schools.
Please tell us the red flag posh alerts you use when hiring.

My parents are in their mid 70s and say their primary school was 35 or so children per class (state). My secondary school was 28 girls per class for the fourth form, 11-14, 24 for fifth form, 14-16, and max 12 per class for A levels (private).

I think this stems from the way that the vast majority of people under 40 really struggle to afford the most average of homes regardless of salary. Only those with capital wealth (eg houses bought for a pittance in the 1960s) feel wealthy in the uk. No one with kids in school (private or otherwise) feels wealthy.

So YOU can afford to pay for school fees so your children are one of the posh ones from a wealthy background.

Of course it is serious. What are the criteria that you use to pass judgement on people?

Not my experience either. I have 4 DD's - ages 20 to 9 and have never felt their primary education was substandard. The two high schools we've used have both been excellent as well.

In contrast, we have a private school locally that hosts a lot of sports fixtures for local teams that we've been part of and every time I go I think "I would be furious if I paid to come here, the place is grotty and run down"

I’m in my fifties and aside from small village schools 30 in a class has been the norm all my life!! Why did you think 25 was standard?

I’m agreeing with you! The average person can’t! Obviously… well, obvious to me and some others.
Many private parents seem to think they ARE average despite being able/willing to spend 100s of 1000/s on something that’s free.

Sorry I just don't think the average person could afford private school fees. If you could afford it you're not average. Which is fine good for you but there's no point in posters who insist anyone could do it on the average salary.

Obviously there's a lot of people in between average and millionaire.

I just talking of "millionaires" is irrelevant. Someone pointed out to me recently that a lot of farmers are millionaires because their land is worth millions. Obviously they COULD sell it and buy a nice house but still. The flip side is someone on six figures who blows all their money on extravagant shit is obviously living a more extravagant existence than a farmer.

@twistyizzy Well explain your logic please because what you have said makes no sense to me.

At 10.01 you posted
There are 3 million , millionaires in UK and only 560,000 kids in Indy schools. Even if 100% of kids at indy schools were the kids of millionaires then the kids of those other 2+ millionaires are in state. However the % of kids in Indy as children of millionaires isn't 100%.

At 11.06 I asked
You are assuming that all millionaires have children and also that their children are of school age! Very strange assumptions going on in your calculations.

At 12.00 I asked
Also, how do you define millionaire because in London that would be a vast number of people purely on property value?

Why so cagey if you can explain your assumptions?

‘So talking about "millionaires" is irrelevant obviously the average person can't afford to send their child to private school I have no idea why people on this site insist that it's possible for the average person.’

its not. And there are plenty of people - myself included - who could pay private school fees but for MANY reasons wouldn’t in a million years. And no, my DCs aren’t in a grammar or an outstanding school either, just a normal one.

You don’t have to be a millionaire to pay private school fees- being a top earner can mean £150k, £250k £350k and £350k is a fuck load of money, 10x the average salary.

But saying ‘ can afford private fees’ in £38k is clearly disingenuous. Unless YOU really are forking out £18k PER child and still running a household in £38k salary. Which I very much doubt.

Exactly technically someone working at Tesco living in the house inherited from their grandmother in London is a "millionaire" because they are sitting on millions. While someone on six figures who spunks it on schooling and holidays etc is not considered a millionaire.

So talking about "millionaires" is irrelevant obviously the average person can't afford to send their child to private school I have no idea why people on this site insist that it's possible for the average person.

It seems defensive because they are choosing to care so much about other people's opinions. Who cares? If you have the money to send your child to whatever school you want then own it, it's nothing to be ashamed of. It's the constant insistence that anyone could do it if they budgeted more that gets people's backs up.

No lack of logic at all. Just a refusal on your part to accept it