Private school fees

Thank you Newlife. What you are saying is that the local schools are giving children a chance of an education that posters on here take for granted.

You only have to look at the performance tables , to see 'high achieving' pupils coming out with C grade averages to have evidence of the endemic failure .

The sad thing is kids getting 8 C grades is considered to be 'excellent' even though in a grammar/private those same kids would have achieved 10 A grades !.

It's a small personal decision that feeds into a wider issue of social inequality which in this country is an utter disgrace.

.....

Hmmm, but so is choosing to send a child to a grammar school, choosing to move to house within catchment of good/outstanding school, choosing to not use your nearest school, choosing a church school, making use of sibling priority, etc.

Not many people truly make decisions without putting themselves/their family as the biggest priority.

Only the privately educated cut services? Now I've seen it all

eyebrowse

If my confident child was at a state school in our area, her confidence wouldn't last long and be replaced by withdrawing, maybe bullying, unhappiness at having to do things she didn't want to. not being able to do the things she loves.
There is no way she would be content and wouldn't reach anywhere near her potential.
I couldn't let it happen tbh.

"If this confidence leads to politicians who are happy to preside over cuts in education for everyone else then I would say that confidence is misplaced"
Its not confidence polished by independent schools that makes our current government preside over cuts in education of health or social care for that mater its politician beliefs. Tony Benn would be turning in his grave at the cuts we are currently seeing, and I very much doubt the likes of Tam Dalyel support them. Its so easy to make sweeping generalisations but not all who went to independent schools are happy about or would be happy to preside over the sort of financial cuts we are all now witnessing.

I do think the private schools are actually selecting for confidence e.g. those that interview may choose the most confident and they are selecting families who are confident that they can afford the school fees. Thus if those confident children were at state schools they would be a great asset.

If this confidence leads to politicians who are happy to preside over cuts in education for everyone else then I would say that confidence is misplaced

I'm confused now.
if you don't like what a private education offers, why do you want your children to attend.

My apologies for assuming you were a gf goady fucker, it's a good thread to start and then not come back to. It is done quite often with the intent to goad people.

Sorry should have addressed to Jones

Well, My FIL left grammar school without any qualifications - does that mean his grammar school was a failure?
You really can't expect me or others to accept the destruction of many good comprehensives throughout the country because twenty (?) years ago you didn't like the one you went to.

Sorry for inadvertently giving your daughter a sex change!

My own daughter is thriving at a comp - I believe more so than if she was at a secondary modern. But I don't believe this by itself "proves" that comps are better than secondary moderns, although I doubt she's the only one.

mini I don't believe in educational apartheid either, which is why the local state options weren't suitable. The flip side of someone like you having a school that will give your kids an equal chance, is that kids like mine get offered the dregs and an unfair state opportunity to many such as yours. The consequence of my child not being offered an equal education to yours, is that we've had no choice but to even it up by going private.

primal Dds school in theory will offer a bursary to anyone that qualifies for a fee paying place and meets the means testing criteria. In practice though, the huge competition for bursaries mean performance in entrance exam and interview dictate who gets them.

Jones

yes, completely right. Our older 2 had no opportunities really.
It's strange having dd so settled in the perfect school for her, quite surreal at times.
There are no grammars that would have been practical anyhow.
We do actually have one grammar Urmston, not close at all but our town just falls into catchment.
Parents don't know about it though and those that do, would never consider it as it just wouldn't be practical.
A private school in Bolton, but few could afford it from here.

This is why I'll always get annoyed at those who moan about grammars, private, super selective etc.
Just because our older dc didn't have the opportunities I wouldn't deny another child.
I like it that grammar exist and wish we had one for the bright dc here. Mine wouldn't have passed 11+, well maybe ds2 would, but there are bright children everywhere, so there should be a grammar in every town.

My dh went to a grammar school, you would never guess tbh.

My dd school only offer what local comps do, but the results are better than local schools.
However, this isn't really surprising as our local schools are pretty poor.
If anybody from our town makes it to Oxbridge, most years there are a couple across the borough, they are front page news

Daughter no 1 not son !.

The point is the comprehensive did not do its job, if it only educated a handful of students to their potential !

DD1 and DD2s the same grammar sends/sent all year 13 pupils to university.

Newlife. Excuse for noting from your previous posts , that you are from a 'deprived' educational town in the North West .

The very sort of town that only has 'fully' comprehensive schools . These schools that everybody in the area go to 'no choice' guess what these fully non selective schools typically achieve 40% GCSE .

They are 'modern' schools. However, parents pupils don't even have the option of a selective school or academic alternative .

jones You say that your son got into Cambridge "because" he went to a grammar yet you know that if 4 children go to Oxbridge from a comprehensive it must be "despite" them attending a comprehensive rather than because of it?
So if you'd gone to a grammar and ended up in Superdrug and your son had gone to Cambridge from a comp that would have "proved" that comps are better would it?
Really not following the logic here!

I doubt DS will achieve higher exam results at his private school compared to the local state school. What he will be able to achieve is a range of exam scores in subjects not available at our local state school- e.g. not a single science advanced higher is offered this year at our local school. If that makes him "tainted", then so be it. It's not something I'm terribly worried about.

eyesbrowse I have absolutely no doubt that in terms of exam results DS2 would have done as well as at the above mentioned academy as I'm hoping he'll do at his independent school. There is simply nothing to "wear off" so he's not tainted for life. I also doubt that even if some care now in a few years no one will care what school he went too. DH went to a big name boys school and he never mentions it and no one asks where he went, he's also not "tainted for life" he's a very capable individual but it was not his school that made capable.

I don't understand what's wrong with schools that have charitable status.
People talk about social mobility, but without schools such as these even fewer people could afford to attend these schools.
I doubt my dd school would survive without the charitable status and no way could we ever afford for her to attend without the gov scheme.
These schools give hope to many the same as grammar schools, good state schools and good private schools.
Surely it's the quality of education that is important, not the type of school.
I really hope my dd is able to be one of the one's who earns high, because her siblings certainly didn't have the opportunity to attend good schools.

As well as the school fees, there are many additional costs involved in sending children to private school. Uniforms cost a lot, many also strongly encourage extra curricular activities which have to be paid for (tennis, music etc) expensive school trips, it all mounts up.

Going to a private school is like taking an illegal drug for sport- yes they will do well but you never know what is them and what is the drug. However unlike drugs it will never wear off so they are tainted for life

Noone should talk about grammar schools or the grammar system. Instead talk about the secondary modern system. I don't think many people would support a system where the majority have poor expectations,poor funding and outcomes are poor.

Note that people from grammar schools appear to have a fixation with grammar whereas the country (and the world) needs engineers, techonologists and people who are not too elitist to do basic work

My comprehensive sent/sends a handful of children to Oxbridge each year !

However, it failed me and most of my friends!

Because a comprehensive school sends a few of its most able students to RG universities does not make it a good school.

it liked to 'congratulate' itself in the local paper about the 4 pupils of to Oxford that year.

The school did not work because it failed to properly educate many of their pupils .

This is why comprehensive schools don't work for all but a few pupils.

The country has a 'fully selective' education system any way despite pretending its mostly comprehensive.

7% Private 5% grammar and 10% of children educated in comprehensives that think or aspire to be grammar schools. There you 22% of pupils selected 78% in what are by reality 'modern school'