Private School Worth It?

TalkinPeece
Dame Alice Owen's School "Admissions policy: Comprehensive (secondary)"

Similarly, JFS, aka Jewish Free School and The Camden School for Girls.

Perhaps you could learn something about terminology in a field before you start throwing it around.

This isn't intended to sound superior or haughty, but what I think has has the biggest impact on DS since we moved him from state to private hasn't been the teaching or facilities, but his classmates.

His old school wasn't awful by any means, but he was surrounded by people in his friend group and year who weren't the most motivated when it comes to education. Now, he's surrounded by hard-working, ambitious fellow pupils and I think that work ethic has really rubbed off on him. He's gone from a boy who had to be cajoled into doing any homework at all into someone who's now doing 4 hours revision every school night and 10 hours on weekends/holidays for his GCSEs.

I think a large part of that is down to his friends' work ethic and not wanting to be 'left behind'.

Maybe in large towns and cities - but in smaller towns and more rural areas where there are only one or two secondary schools, how does the state system allocate good school places by house price? People generally just send their children to the local school or pay private school fees, surely? You can only get marked differences in intake in more metropolitan areas or areas with a selective system, surely?

the state system allocates good school places by house price
Link please
name the comp school with no social housing in its catchment
and no B&B in its catchment

user149799568
The government formally classifies Dame Alice Owen's school as a comprehensive.
The school itself does not ....
link please to where the Government does ?

You're making up your own definitions if you're going to exclude faith schools, single-sex schools and schools which prioritize limited numbers of "talented" pupils.
Really?
Any school that selects
by gonads
by god
by "aptitude"
is not "comprehensive"
how hard is that to comprehend ..... ?

Comprehensive schools do not in any way select their kids
they take whatever comes through the door
its incredibly simple

Talkinpeece - The government formally classifies Dame Alice Owen's school as a comprehensive. You're making up your own definitions if you're going to exclude faith schools, single-sex schools and schools which prioritize limited numbers of "talented" pupils.

Btw, what do you mean, date of birth only? Afaik, the vast majority of schools use distance for their oversubscription criteria, with only a few going to lottery.

That said, I was clear that DAO takes up to 37.5% of its pupils on a selective basis. It does take at least 62.5% of its pupils on distance. Even if all of its 1.7% FSM eligible children came from the "non-selective" portion, that would only represent 2.7% of those pupils. The average independent school provides more full bursary/scholarship combinations than that.

DAO is one of the worst "comprehensive" secondaries in terms of having few FSM eligible pupils. But, as a PP pointed out, I could list hundreds of primaries with 0-3% FSM eligible pupils.

xenia is absolutely correct that (to paraphrase Theresa May) the state system allocates good school places by house price.

stateschoolparent - as you probably know a recent study showed that "the 7% difference in performance on GCSE results between selective schools (private and grammar) and comprehensives was almost entirely explained by differences in the ability and family income of the pupils.

I am familiar with that study. My main criticism of it is that the sample they used for "selective" schools included the 168 grammars and a little over 500 independents, i.e., all of them. While it is, of course, true that independents are very selective on ability to pay, I feel that it would have been more informative to have combined the grammars with the highly academically selective independents. As it is, given the weights in its sample, the results in that study more reflect financial selection than academic selection. Given that it may be impossible to classify "highly academically selective" independents, I would have liked to see the results for just the grammars to see what the numbers were for academic selection alone.

There is no doubt in my mind that most of the difference in raw scores between pupils in academically or financially selective schools and pupils in fully comprehensive schools can be explained by parental circumstances and prior achievement (which is also strongly correlated with parental circumstances, thus making it very difficult to disentangle the effects). However, I am not aware of any study that credibly demonstrates that attending an academically selective school has statistically zero effect on pupil achievement.

Private or state, they are just schools at the end of the day. There is a lot more to a child's life, education and growing up than school. Provided your child is reasonably well educated and happy at school (this bit, at least, is important), there are frankly lots of other ways to spend your time and money than obsessing about schools as though they are the be all and end all of a child's life experience, education and future success. As for those who witter on about prioritising education and therefore being willing to live in poverty so their children can go to the best private schools - more fool you, imo, if you think that is the only way to ensure your children are well educated, well adjusted, well rounded and successful human beings. You are not prioritising education, you are prioritising a school, which is not so very different imvho to prioritising a top of the range car - lots more expensive than necessary for an overall package which has lots of unnecessary features you don't make full use of anyway, but makes some people feel good about themselves to know they are there - which is fine if easily afforded, but looks a bit foolish to outsiders who do not share your obsession with unnecessary features.

To get back to the OP's question

RATHER THAN THE ARGUMENT THAT THE REST OF US HAVE REHASHED WITHOUT RESULT FOR MANY YEARS

It really depends on

• the child
• your options
• the child
• your family circumstances
• the child

all else is just bitchiness

Undoubtedly, the children who get the rough end of the stick are those that are neither wealthy nor bright.
I grew up on a council estate with holes in my clothes and shoes but with a mother who read to me or with me every day
Lookingforsoace I would qualify your first statement by adding 'and unsupported educationally by parents.'
There are countless examples in the UK of economically poor immigrant families whose middling ability DCs do rather well at school due to the parental support and ambitions for them . These DCs also still remain part of a community. Other ethnic groups including some poor white British may not place as much importance on educational achievement though.

Exactly Xenia. Inequality is everywhere you turn, it's woven in to the very fabric of our society. To act holier than thou because you (no one personally) are anti private is in many cases often hypocritical. Arguably, going to church for what can sometimes be years, when you wouldn't ordinarily, just to get your child into a certain religious state school with a good name happens frequently, moving house into expensive catchments, being an informed, educated middle class parent generally is an advantage. Where exactly is the appropriate level of unfairness? Attending a leafy Home Counties state will arguably not be the same experience as attending one in inner London. State school does not automatically equal equality.

My husband and I will both be working full time if we decide to go the private route. I will still be earning that money if I don't send him independent - I could spend it on tutors, or give him the deposit for a house - is this 'fairer' then? As I said, we moved house partly to get him into a good primary - is this acceptable?

The state school system is geared toward the middle classes. Whatever happens, they will use it to their advantage. It's not bloody fair. I wish things were different. As I said in a a previous post, they are nothing but exam factories, creating stressed out, often mentally ill young people (and teachers) who have lost out on creativity and individuality. It's all shit and to make sweeping generalisations that those that are able to take a different route 'don't care' about inequality and can't call themselves meritocratic is very black and white and ignorant.

I think it's unfair just to pick on schools. My son had a good private educate and drives Ocado trucks. Whilst it is true a fgood state school whether a good comprensive or grammar or secondary modern or a good private school or even just a very good teacher in any school can make a huge difference to your life lots of other things can too like your genes, how things are at home, if you get beaten up at home or abused and all the rest.

The fact some parents like I am pay school fees for say day schools whereas Gove, Cameron and Blair game the system by picking religious state schools is not too different from a parent reading to a child at night - yes it;'s unfair some of us get parents who do that and others don't or one parent feeds a child well and the other stuffs it with sugar and junk food but I don't think private schools are in some kind of special category of wickedness. They are no more unfair than someone moving to Bucks for state grammars there or moving out of the Sunderland my mother's family are from to Surrey because they want a different peer group for their children just as it's not fair some parents stay in a Syrian refugee camp and others buy or force their way into a land where they might do better. There is no shortage of unfairness around.

minifingerz. You said "Nobody who uses private schools can claim to believe in the principle of equality of opportunity for children or the idea of a meritocracy."
I have no idea how many types of schools you have experienced. I was of the same opinion until my family experienced the following: state, state grammar and independent. Seeing this institutions from the inside has been interesting, informative and sadly, at times, alarming. I absolutely believe in equal opportunity for all children. It just doesn't exist. It is a pipe dream. A pipe dream that will never materialise. Especially under the present regime.
Lookingforspace. You are completely correct, it is the children who are not the brightest and/or the wealthiest who suffer. Our grammar school system only helps a small proportion of pupils and in leafy boroughs they are (as we found in our case) dominated by wealthy parents who can afford expensive homes within the catchment. Many of the parents at our grammar were much wealthier than us. Many had holiday homes, some boats and many expensive holidays. They were mainly professionals and extremely involved in the school. 99% had tutored their DC to get places.

Why should poorer children get less opportunity than those grammar school children? Why should they have less opportunity than my children?

I don’t know but they say home, especially the level of education held by a child’s mother is the greatest indication of how well that child will do. So I grew up on a council estate with holes in my clothes and shoes but with a mother who read to me or with me every day. I don’t know if that made a difference to my choices and aspirations.

Lookingforspace having to choose between community and a good education is I agree one of the hardest choices. Even for the brightest young people I have come across those who can't wait to move away from their community and experience the outside world but also the opposite.
However the question is how can community and a good education be not mutually exclusive? Or do low parental expectations always dominate educational outcome for all but a few?

Undoubtedly, the children who get the rough end of the stick are those that are neither wealthy nor bright. That has always been the case. When the PM and others harp on about how much better and socially mobile we were when we had the grammar system what she actually means is how much better it was for the very bright kids. Nobody wants to think much on the poor buggers that ended up languishing in the crappy secondary modern. Some were great and really channelled non academic kids towards appropriate trades but some were utterly shocking. And indeed in many (most?) areas, there was double the grammar school places for boys so girls had to be twice as bright to get out.

Having said that, many of those boys offered the full bursary place at MGS would otherwise be attending poorly performing comprehensives. For many of those boys, that opportunity is a game changer. There’s an episode of Shameless where Frank ‘goes back’ to his 11yr old self being made the same offer and he doesn’t take it. It’s interesting because it helps you realise that it’s not just a case of taking the place as many of these kids will be battling with low expectations and aspirations from their community and family making such a choice really very difficult.

Our education system - where the brightest, best supported and most privileged children routinely get 3x as much invested in their education, is a moral embarrassment.
This sentence excludes those DCs who find classroom. learning most difficult. Are they better served in the private system? I though the MN consensus is that no generally not? So the state system is best at supporting that need. As funding is limited for state education is that not the best use of money?
Or should the limited funds be focussed on middle or high attainers? Middle or higher attained but only when the students don't have the benefit of supportive parents supplementing education at home?
Is n't that what is already tried by funds allocated by FSM places?

Or mini are you advocating that to increase available funds private schools fees paid for by parents be paid instead by them into state schools?

minifingerz

Alan Bennett (an ex-grammar school boy) wants to abolish private schools and merge them with state schools so that the brightest state school kids can be educated with the brightest private school kids in academic centres of excellence - and the 'not so bright' private school kids to be in a different centre of excellence with the 'not so bright' poor kids, thereby improving them. This would involve selection tests of course - is this the school model you agree with?

For our DC, yes. Reaons include:

DS1 being ubergeeky and wanting to study ancient Greek and Latin which weren't taught at local state school.

DS2 having ASD and getting outstanding ASD support at private school (I think this is rare - usually better at state schools from what I've heard)

Better attitude among pupils. At DCs school it's really cool to work hard, get As and A*s, aspire to get into a great uni or job. It's uncool to disrupt lessons, not bother to revise or do homework. At the state school I went to it was the other way round and that left a mark on me that I didn't want DC to have to overcome.

"The brightest boys get offered a place regardless of their parents’ ability to pay"

So children already succeeding highly in the state sector are offered free places?

Children who are failing in the state sector are not?

Shouldn't educational charity be directed at those who need it most?

I'm with Allan Bennett on this issue. Our education system - where the brightest, best supported and most privileged children routinely get 3x as much invested in their education, is a moral embarrassment.

www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/17/alan-bennett-attack-private-education-lecture-wrong

Nobody who uses private schools can claim to believe in the principle of equality of opportunity for children or the idea of a meritocracy.

stateschoolparent. You said "My DC's excellent online MFL teacher charges £25 per hour". There is no fairness in education in the UK, no quality education available to all, something I would like but will never see. Those of us who choose to pay for extra tutoring or independent education are all the same, using our money to gain what we hope will be the best education for our DC.

User149 it is difficult to compare the Oxbridge admission rates of private schools -especially selective private schools- with state schools. Firstly Oxbridge admission rates very much depend on the subject you apply for. In some subjects like Classics and MFL I think the admission rate at Oxford is around 40% of applicants! These invariably tend to be subjects studied mainly at private schools as not many state schools pupils do eg two MFL GCSEs and even fewer do Classical Greek etc

You don’t need 2 MFL to study languages at Oxbridge and you don’t need to have studied Latin or Greek to read Classics either

Just to be clear, I know most other independent schools offer bursaries. But in theory, MGS could end up with a Y7 cohort one year, none of whom are able to pay. Of course that’s highly unlikely but they have the finances in place to support it should it happen.

I live in Trafford which is a grammar authority. Like all grammar authorities, the schools in the more expensive, more desirable parts of Trafford are further up the league tables. In fact, when we looked for DS1, the local to us high achieving comp had better gcse results than a certain grammar the other end of trafford.

Around here very bright boys from deprived backgrounds also have the option of trying for a place at Manchester Grammar. They are one of the few independent schools in the country to operate a genuine needs blind admission policy. The brightest boys get offered a place regardless of their parents’ ability to pay. I’m not sure if any other independent school base their admissions just on ability. I’ve certainly not heard of any others and I imagine the vast majority simply couldn’t afford it.

stateschoolparent
This year for the first time over 10% of sixth form pupils at our local comp have had Oxbridge offers (and all for hard subjects to get into). As my DC are in the top 10% of pupils in their year, they are IMO undoubtedly more likely to get into Oxbridge from there than from most leading private schools where they would be unlikely to stand out

Not necessarily - unless your dc are already in the sixth form. Any state comprehensive school with 10% Oxbridge success (if it exists) is going to be highly desirable at sixth form and will open up to many external applicants previously outside the catchment area - your dc may well be overtaken by a new crop of A* students.