Are more of you planning to move your DC from private to state for 6th form now?

My DCs school doesn't have a 6th form so they all have to go elsewhere.
DD had the option of a different Private, Grammar or one of the best 6th forms in the country luckily and she opted for State. DS is going into Y11 and has said he wants to do the same.
DD was fine, it was good prep for Uni

@RidiculousPrice they do very well at university of course, and often go on to have great careers. That's literally the reason why people send their kids there. I don't recognise this trope about state school kids being more driven and independent in their learning.

Of course it’ll be different I’m talking about our experience of one school.

Attainment is a different thing though. I have no doubt that selective intake private schools attainment is great. How do they then do at uni? That’s more what I’m talking about - state schools produce more independent learners in general.

The point is the state school kids didn’t struggle once they were in but lots of the private ones did, because the way they had learned in primary was quite different. But also at sixth form the differences were even more stark

Your experience of private school learners is very different to mine. Perhaps it wasn't a very good private school? Certainly the attainment at dds private school was exceptional, can't see how state kids at grammar school would improve on it.

It’s not a veiled dig, just stating facts. And I’m sure plenty of the state school kids had tutors too. That’s kind of not the point here. The point is the state school kids didn’t struggle once they were in but lots of the private ones did, because the way they had learned in primary was quite different. But also at sixth form the differences were even more stark.

They were spoon fed how to pass the 11+.

Well in that case it sounds like we are in agreement :)

The AMSP do a fantastic job: my understanding was that they helped out with schools that don’t offer further maths. The existence of the AMSP supports my suggestion that nobody needs to transfer to a private school due to F Maths….

No.

ETA: But one of my youngest’s friends could physically only get to the one sixth form without travelling 1.5 hrs each way. Which then restricted her choice of A levels to what was on offer at that sixth form.

Are you saying that you had to send your youngest to private school because you live very rurally?

I didn't have to, I could have cut my hours (which i didnt want to do) and picked her up until she learnt to drive. But it was definitely a factor in our decision.

I was just wondering if there were any actual examples of your hypothetical example. It seems there are not (or at least, nobody has given an example and I would be interested if there are any).

Are you saying that you had to send your youngest to private school because you live very rurally?

Which county?

Personally I would be really surprised if anyone needed private education due to maths, but it sounds like that was not what you were actually claiming.

I wasn’t ‘claiming’ anything. It was a hypothetical example.

I agree that with the truism that people who live very rurally have fewer state services to choose than people who live in towns, I just am not convinced that this suggests that they might need to go to private schools.

I’m guessing you’ve never lived rurally. My youngest’s school has an enormous catchment area.

There must be some areas where FM isn’t easily available in the state sector because the AMSP can arrange tuition for AS/A level FM where schools and colleges can’t provide it.

Really?
We are rural and have 2 choices: poor performing state or private.
That's the lot.

F Maths is actually becoming more and more popular each year partly due to the last Government’s big push for STEM.

Personally I would be really surprised if anyone needed private education due to maths, but it sounds like that was not what you were actually claiming.

I agree that with the truism that people who live very rurally have fewer state services to choose than people who live in towns, I just am not convinced that this suggests that they might need to go to private schools. I can’t imagine this fact pattern really arising.

It was just an example, as FM being a subject with low take up means that not all schools can offer it. A PP couldn’t believe that state schools might be inaccessible due to not offering the right mix of A levels combined with limited transport. Or, in rural areas, students might have a long and complicated journey that makes attending somewhere offering your choice of A levels impractical.

My DC had to travel to a different school because our one didn’t offer mathematics of mechanics. We had to make our own travel arrangements (fortunately one of the students was driving by then which made it easier) and the school wasn’t a long way away. Some other schools were much more remote and travelling for one subject (or switching schools) was not an option.

(Sadly, nothing surprises me at all about SEN provision any more. But I am surprised by the blanket discrimination against those who live in areas with no walkable / cycleable sixth form provision )

I know that up to 16, school transport is only to nearest school or if nearest school was applied to but you didn’t get it etc. But to say that everyone outside walking / cycling distance to nearest 16-18 provision must pay discriminates massively against those living rurally or in smaller towns without sixth forms.

For DC with additional needs, it isn’t even about being rural or semi rural. Many DC travel over an hour to the nearest setting that can meet their needs.

So even worse than I thought? Genuinely discriminatory based on location?

@cantkeepawayforever there is not an automatic right to transport for 16-19 pupils even with an EHCP or a disability requiring assistance to travel but no EHCP. And it is often not free.

In the days when 16-18 education was optional, maybe it seemed ok (though when I was that age, free bus passes to providers in the same LA were the norm). But now young people have to be in education or training until 18? Is it pushing bright but not well off young people from rural areas and small towns with 11-16 schools into inappropriate apprenticeships just because then they gave enough money to pay for transport to college on the required days?

I have found out - and am shocked by - the fact that rural pupils living a distance from any sixth form provision do not get free transport, except if they have EHCPs or (in some cases at least) if family income is very low.

I have to say it is not private school pupils trying to move to state who spring to mind as the most disadvantaged by this - but rural pupils from families who may not meet eligibility for family income based free transport but live in families that do not want to, or cannot, pay for transport to any sixth form. How can that be fair, when urban pupils may be able to walk or cycle free to several different providers? How does it drive social mobility if rural pupils are hugely disadvantaged in accessing A level or equivalent providers?

So there are no secondary school children in this area who use state schools, that have 2 working parents? That sounds highly unusual.

Or just maybe other parents manage to find different solutions to get their children to school?