Do you think private schools give your children a advantage in life ?

"My cousin's son gained a scholarship to the top school in the area and his view is that at his new school treats him as an individual, rather than an inconvenience. Teachers will say hello to him in the corridor and refer to him by name. This was something he never had in his old school, he was that bright child ignored in class whilst the teacher was dealing with those who were struggling..."

Yeah,because that's what happens in state schools.......

"They develop this sense of entitlement that doesn't fit with 'real life'."

I agree that this is a real danger. Children who grow up used to small classes with masses of personal attention and achieve good results on that basis can have a really hard time adjusting to the real world where there is much less handholding and far more personal graft involved in getting results.

My experience of it has been that those that go to public schools who have been overindulged by their parents seem to fail in life. They develop this sense of entitlement that doesn't fit with 'real life'. As a result 'real life' can be a huge shock.

Then there is the drug culture. In state schools the drug culture tends to be a bit of pot as that's all there is money for. If your child mixes with the type to take drugs at a public school the chances are the child will have cash to spare and may well be dabbling straight with class A drugs - cocaine is a big problem.

Kids who know that you have to work to get what you want, know that a public education is a privilege, and have supportive parents, will do can do exceptionally well in a public school.

My cousin's son gained a scholarship to the top school in the area and his view is that at his new school treats him as an individual, rather than an inconvenience. Teachers will say hello to him in the corridor and refer to him by name. This was something he never had in his old school, he was that bright child ignored in class whilst the teacher was dealing with those who were struggling...

Gosh! If I were donating money to a school I would want to make damn sure that it was going to where I wanted it to go!

Right off to a meeting. Thanks for the early morning discussion. I just hope that people can see that independent schools do try and help people like me and they did.

I will always be grateful to them for that.

All I can tell you (at least for the school I was as at) is that it is means tested and that it was set up to replace the assisted places scheme when this was abolished by Tony Blair.

This might help put into perspective what the schools I know of are trying to replicate with their scholarships:

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/schools/special-report-workingclass-pupils-went-to-private-schools-under-margaret-thatchers-abolished-assisted-places-scheme--how-did-they-get-on-8857345.html

All you can do is research the schools that are realistically open to your child geographically and then take a decision as to which you prefer. It may not be the most expensive one!

In the past year I have visited and considered schools that cost between €0 and €30,000 per year (day fees...). My preferred options (two of them) cost €3/4,000 a year each.

"I now donate money to my old school, as does my husband to his, by direct debit. The donations are to help children from similar backgrounds to ours to have access to the independent sector in the way that we did."

Could you tell us more about the children who get the help? How many? What sort of backgrounds?

So Its not about how good the school is academically or in any other aspect. It is rather more to do with we don't have so you shouldn't have. If that is the correct take on the matter.

However, the rich will always be rich and will always be in power. Despite sending them all to state schools. Yes a few of us plebs maybe found on the same play ground but they will have their social group and the poor will have theirs.

Wouldn't it be far better to concentrate on creating a good strong middle class with good state education rather than worry about the 7 %? Therefore upwards mobility could be a real possibility for the poor.

"think the real test would be - what percentage of privately educated children come from household's recieving tax credits and housing benefits"

I would be prepared to hazard a guess....

"So discount this idea that only the rich educate their children privately.This is definitely not the case in rural middle England."

1. They are rich compared to the majority of the population.
2. Giving up holidays, driving old cars and not shopping at Waitrose are not "sacrifices"
3. "Rich" and "privileged" are not synonyms.

For the avoidance of doubt "children from similar backgrounds" in my case were parents on limited income and housing benefit.

I'm sorry to break your middle class stereotype of the type of child that gets a scholarship. Certainly in my case we were far from being middle class or in the "top quarter".

Judging by the groups of parents at my girls private school they are definitely not rich.Several have been given burseries.These burseries are not huge and the parents are making considerable self sacrifices to send their girls there.
Certain sectors of the population believe in getting the very best education and are prepared to pay for this.
So discount this idea that only the rich educate their children privately.This is definitely not the case in rural middle England.

Hak I have already explained how broaden their intake in my post.

There is also a clear difference between "do what they can" which suggests limitations and "everything". I am not going to patronise you by explaining the obvious difference.

On the issue of intake I can only speak from personal experience. Without the help of the school I would never have had access to the education afforded to me. My parents simply couldn't afford it.

I now donate money to my old school, as does my husband to his, by direct debit. The donations are to help children from similar backgrounds to ours to have access to the independent sector in the way that we did.

My own children now attend a private prep that offers one full scholarship a year which is means tested. They can't help everyone but from personal experience they do what they can. We are after all talking about a small percentage of the schools in the country.

I agree, word. But if we're talking about privilege, the point is that regardless of the quality of state education, the movers and shakers would still inhabit their private bunkers..........

'Broadening their intake' often means 'giving bursary money' to people who are in the top half, possibly the top quarter of the uk income bracket.

I think the real test would be - what percentage of privately educated children come from households receiving tax credits and housing benefits.

But hak we surely don't want to improve state education to draw the 7% into the fold ( though undoubtedly some would go)?

It needs to be done for the remaining 93%.

Cameron is the only Etonian in the Cabinet. Three women (May, Greening, Morgan).

So called "leading" private schools are doing the opposite of broadening their intakes. See eg the threads on KCS, Alleyns and SPGS. The middle has been squeezed out.

I don't believe for one minute that the sort of people who send their children to private schools on the basis that state schools are inadequate are also the sort of people who would agree to the huge increase in taxation which would be required to bring the average spend per head on state educated children to the equivalent currently spent on privately educated kids.

Imagine the scene: the great and good of Winchester College shimmying into the worst rated school in every LEA in the land, pinpointing the hungriest looking child in this year 8 class, or the one holding a pen upside down in that, bundling them into a vehicle, threatening the parents with SS if they dare to object.

That's probably the ultimate in "broadening intake." Not sure how well it would work...

kenlee, the point is that Britain is still a deeply class driven society. Those born to privilege draw more privilege to them as they go through life, and private education helps to perpetuate this. There are more Etonians than women in the current cabinet, for example. And they situation will probably not change much should Labour win the next election.

The same applies to law firms, big business and the media world. Even fields like acting are dominated by the "top" private schools.

And the "make state schools better then" line is a red herring. Most of the 7% who use the private sector would not send their child to a state school whatever it was like. And from that 7% comes the tiny fraction of a % who run the country!

Sorry, I did misquote you.

But I don't actually see how "what they can" differs from "everything they can" to be honest.

However, I would still be interested to see how they are doing "what they can to broaden their intake."

I don't get it..All that espouse how great a state education is should be rathered pleased with those of us who send our children private. This frees up more places for those children that don't have a choice.

What if I wasted all my money on a private education for my children. Does that remotely affect those who haven't.

The argument is that it isn't fair. life is far from fair. Then we have the argument that state schools are no worse than private. So send your children there. That is your choice. We privately educate our children and that is our choice.

I am quite happy if the local school outstripped private schools in every aspect. That means those who have chosen private have helped others to get into that outstanding comprehensive. I do think those that can afford to pay should do so.

I am really not too sure.

Friend was quite concerned that her DD would wet herself which would apparently definitely not be a good thing