In Defence of Private Schools

@BertrandRussell - a local private school near us allows GCSE students to drop Eng Lit if it's not a strength of theirs. I'd never heard of this before - didn't even realise it was an option!

Schools cater for their communities. If the middle classes who desire extra languages, etc, are not present in large enough numbers to create sufficient demand for these subjects, then the supply isn't going to be there, particularly not if funding levels are low - sufficient funding to enable small classes in some subjects would of course help, as would making the teaching profession look appealing enough that there are actually teachers available to recruit.

The issues in UK schools are really just a reflection of the divided, unequal society we live in. My children are lucky enough to go to state schools large and good enough to cater for a wide range of abilities, needs and interests, including satisfying my rather middle class tastes. Unsurprisingly, we live in an area of relatively low unemployment and generally high aspirations. There is the expectation of good jobs and careers to go to. Leadership in the local schools is also good. Parents are supportive of their children's schools in large enough numbers that the dominant ethos is a positive one.
Schools are being expected to cure society's ills rather than to be a reflection of them, but they are expected to do this on a shoestring. How ridiculous is that?!

Ideal world at Eton,each science subject is taken-or not-on its own totally ideal! I did physics and chem but not biology at o level and dd would have liked to have done the same

Ideal world at Eton,each science subject is taken-or not-on its own

I agree actually. I also think Maths in its current form is nuts.

Yes, triple science isn’t for everybody. Controversially, I think English Literature isn’t for everybody either- but that’s another story.

Dd chose to do combined science. She knew she wanted more time for her essay subjects.

If a school says it sets then it should do it, and do it properly, I agree. Apart from any other reason because it, by definition, it won’t beset up properly for mixed ability.

On the subject of combined science- obviously in an ideal world, any child able to should be able to take 3 separate sciences. But if financial choices have to be made and something has to go, then rather go to combined science than lose other subjects. Doing combined science does not practically disadvantage anyone- although it may not be their preference.

It's a no brainer if we want the 'Swedish/Finnish/Danish model' often touted as the answer to everything.

Good for you! That’s the spirit.

I would wholeheartedly approve of higher income tax - mostly because we are not in the higher bracket!! i think EVERYONE should pay more tax.

I would wholeheartedly approve of higher income tax - mostly because we are not in the higher bracket!!

The costs schools incur because they must go through ‘approved’ contractors is a scandal too....................across the whole public sector. The whole set-up of private companies making their fortunes out of the public sector is pretty rank.

Hi everyone - to come back to this, Bertrand “Yes, of course we need lower ability children to do well - but we do also need to stretch and challenge the high achieving.”
I did say that I was assuming the school concerned had top sets!"

• the one state school option for us said it setted in yr7, loosely based on SATS and then assessments in the first term. For whatever reason, this didn’t happen, and I had a number of friends pretty disillusioned about this as they had very bored bright kids. Another thing with the school is that Science is taught as a combined subject up to moving onto focussed GCSE studies, and if the student shows aptitude they are able to take on the three separate sciences at GCSE, otherwise combined science. That’s the theory - until they found they had quite a number of keen bright students who met this criteria, but they could not accommodate them all in the separate science classes so some were asked to forego that route and stick with combined science. You can imagine what a ruckus that caused, but it had to be.

We went for the particular independent school because of this and more - knew lots of parents/kids that had had varying degrees of experience at the school - and went for one with a really broad curriculum, and selective. Lots of foreign languages was a big one for us. We are still in touch with parents at the other school, and a few have changed their view about independent school - after their experience and not being happy with how/what their child is learning - and applied for entry to year 9, but found that was too late as they had already fallen behind the level needed and places in yr 9 are fewer. I’m sure their children will do fine, ultimately. But just to illustrate, many Indes are simply very good schools and fulfilling a large need, in our particular area.

Oh, and it is also for those who want to contribute to a better society but also think they are paying more than their fair share - but you know you're onto a bad thing when in one of the richest countries in the world, so many people think this at the same time as agreeing that many public services are currently being underfunded.

Natalia175 - yes, and interesting it is this government's deliberate policy to skew things this way, by taking increasing numbers of people out of paying income tax altogether. Of course, paying less income tax does free up the less well off to pay more tax through the purchase of goods and services, although nobody seems to count any tax other than income tax in any assessments of how schools are or could be paid for, for some reason. Income tax is for those who want to contribute to a society worth living in, and those too wealthy to avoid it but not wealthy enough to find ways around it. It is not the only tax in existence, however.

I got the impression that dd was a slight irritation at state school, there was so much emphasis on having to encourage those who weren't as sporty or academic. She could have won every sports match or got top marks in ebery test and wouldn't have been celebrated (unless she was a boy, success in sport was treated completely differently, no emphasis on encouraging others there). They'd made up their minds she was probably gojng to be successful in life anyway, so no real interest needed. So she's moved somewhere where achievement, even for the high achieving, is celebrated. It's probably done the state school a favour tbh.

Bertrand, I just don't agree that the main focus is on the high achieving, outside the independent and grammar system. In my experience, the main focus is definitely on getting the maximum possible number to the expected level, not in encouraging the high achieving to excel. Certainly at primary level.

Interesting statistic on taxes from a study I came across
'Income tax payments are highly concentrated with over a quarter of revenue coming from just 0.6% of adult population (300,000 individuals with income over £150,000 per year) and almost half of revenue coming from 3% of adults in 2017-2018.....Increasing reliance on a very small number of taxpayers for revenue also leaves the public finances more vulnerable to changes in their behaviour'.

With this in mind, I wander how they would react if there could not send their children to excellent private schools . Relocate I guess to follow their schools? From this week's Sunday times 'It is a straightforward decision for a boarding school to move from England to Dublin, Paris, Calais or Amsterdam. it would be the end of the great British boarding tradition'. Most of the posters here would probably think ' good riddance', but just imagine how much tax everyone would need to pay to fill 25% of tax gap left.

I think the lib dems proposed a 1p increase across the board a few years ago? Makes so much sense to have a tax rise - NOT just high rate tax.payers but everyone.

I’m a labour voter. I am quite comfortable with higher taxes.

Everyone wants excellence but noone wants to pay for it (through taxes)!

“Yes, of course we need lower ability children to do well - but we do also need to stretch and challenge the high achieving.”
I did say that I was assuming the school concerned had top sets! And ir’s rated “good” the high attainers must do well too. All I was saying is that I don’t have a problem with a school making a “mission statement” out of its plans for the middle and lower attainers. I find the desire for the main focus to be on on the high attainers very depressing. And I speak as the “owner” of two high attainers.

I agree chipadvisor. Higher taxes for all and plough money into state education so that it becomes good enough to supercede private. Improve discipline and add more sport - voila