to ask if you use state or private education

[manicinsomniac]

Sorry, I know it's a little rude and personal but I only ask because I think that only 7-8% of the children in the UK are privately educated yet on mumsnet it seems to be massively higher than that which I find interesting.

So, if I'm not being too unreasonable to ask, do/did/will you use private or state education for your child/ren?

I've never understood why making and having contacts is such a terribel thing.

Surely it's just another name for 'people I know'.

People I've met in various ways are always asking me for tips/advice/favours...and what's wrong with that? I'm happy to help. Here on MN I try to give out any advice I can in my field. Are thos epeople taking unfair advantage of haining me on hand?

I didn't meet any of these people through school, but would it matter if I had?

"'In real life people use whatever advantage they can whether it be paying for an education or pulling a favor from a relative/friend'.

And you're quite happy to live in a country where all the "top jobs' are allocated along those lines, are you? Where privilege gathers more privilege and devil take the hindmost? A country where the school you went to matters more that who you are and what you can do, and where talent counts for very little if you don't know the right people?

And, as I said earlier - there are actually only 5 - or possibly 6 - schools that "matter" in this context, and I suspect there are only a couple, at most, of parents from those schools on here!

So it's alright to have contacts if you made them through work, or university, or your hobby or whatever? But not alright if you made them in Eton?

Seems a bit arbitary.

No, it's not arbitrary to distinguish between contacts bought for you by your parents at the age of 11, and those you have actually developed through stuff you're interested in/ have done.

What if you make contacts at university and your parents paid your fees?

Are they different from the conatcs you made if you took out a loan?

There is a certain degree of merit (in the sense, at least, of exam passing) involved in a university place - and I do realise, obviously, that our university system is skewed in the first place towards people from fee-paying schools. But if your parents simply buy you your connections, yes I do at the moment have strong objections to that: see Seeker's post above, and Blu's searing indictment of a system that certainly does exist, and is not the system we want to see.

I'm pretty much in the middle on the state/private argument (I wasn't even aiming for a debate, just info on MS demographic but this is much more interesting!)

Two arguments that I think are totally irrelevant to which is better though:

1. Statements along the lines of "I went to Oxbridge from a sink comp." That would be because you were bery bright then. A very bright child will get top results in any school that has half way decent teaching.
   Two children with IQ 130, one in a state comp and one in a good private would probably both get 4As at A Level.
   Two children with IQ 100, one in a state comp and one in a good private - there you might see a difference in their results.

2. Statements like "A child from a state school is more likely to get into Oxbridge than one from a second rate private school."
   I don't think that any private schools are bad per se (if they were they would close, esp in this climate, because parents wouldn't be prepared to pay the fees). It's more that not all private schools have the same objectives or target market. Somewhere like Rugby or Winchester is obviously going to be highly academically selective but others specifically select children with dyslexia or very vulnerable children who need small, caring environments. Some probqably specifically select the richest, I don't know!
   But I suspect that the vast majority of private schools are very good at catering for the children they take.

I work in a prep school. Parents start having meetings with the head about which senior schools would be appropriate for their children at least two years before they leave. Getting the right 'fit' is essential for most parents and is essentiall what they are paying for. The parents of the bright, confident kids are paying for a school to get them to Oxbridge but the parents of the 12 year old that still can't read or add up and finds it hard to make friends are paying for a school where they will be looked after and happy.

Our current head girl is delightful. She is confident, sporty, beautiful, popular and a really great leader. She also has a full scale IQ of 79, is in all bottom sets and has never scored higher than around 38% in an exam in her life. She is the kind of child that I would make sacrifices to pay school fees for and the kind of child that I think private schools should be aiming to cater for above all others.

I thought it was only in the state sector where you got 12 year olds who can't read or add up....

Can I just say: I didn't get to Oxford from a 'sink comp'. I got there from a perfectly good school. Which was a comprehensive. And if you're going to make generalisations like 'Two children with IQ 100, one in a state comp and one in a good private - there you might see a difference in their results' I would like to see good, well-referenced evidence (preferably meta-studies) to back up your assertion.

Not necessarily, if half of each lesson is taken up with dealing with disruptive students or explaining things at a basic level to those of lower ability. Even the best teachers are not going to get the best results out of their students in these conditions compared to optimum conditions. Yes of course, bright students may still get good results - but they could have had better/top results if they'd been in a small class comprised of motivated students at the same level.

"A very bright child will get top results in any school that has half way decent teaching"

But most comprehensives set for different classes, or stream altogether. Have you actually gone and looked at your local comps and asked them about their teaching methods?

What makes you assume half the lesson's taken up with 'dealing with disruptive students'? These are preconceptions about Horrid State Schools.

I have never seen a disruptive top set in a comprehensive school. The deal is - work or move down.

Joan - nope, loads and loads of SN kids where I work.

motherinferior - well referenced evidence?! - I said 'MIGHT see a difference in the results', clearly I have no such evidence! It's not a generalisation, it's a hypothesis that I personally believe is likely. Average-ish kids I went to school with tended to get Bs and Cs, average-ish kids we send on to seniors from my school often age As. But that's not evidence exactly, can't do any better than that sorry!

converse - but most schools are no longer in a position where there is too much disrution to teach in top sets are they? And even A Levels aren't actually very difficult for a very bright child. Providing they are motivated and study at home (which I guess many aren't, admittedly) I think they would get As from even the worst of schools.

My state comp'ed dd was moaning today about two lads in her top set Geography class who keep talking all the time and it annoys her a bit.

I don't care. I really don't. She's doing as well as she could be, it's one of life's little annoyances. I'd still rather than than her be in a small group of wealthy/very clever kids, in a little bubble of perceived privelige.

If you have any motivation and ability, why should your chances be comprehensively destroyed just because some people are talking a bit in lessons sometimes? It's life.

Actually motherinferior, I went to a state school myself, have done teaching practices and observations of various other teachers in state schools, and have taught in the state sector (with good results I add). Good state schools can be great but sadly there are so many which are not, and they definitely do fail the brightest students.

"What makes you assume half the lesson's taken up with 'dealing with disruptive students'? These are preconceptions about Horrid State Schools."

'they definitely do fail the brightest students.'

You can't just state that as if it's fact! It's not, and it's bloody offensive of you to suggest that it is.

OK, I apologise if it's based on your own experience; but I shall see how my lovely (and reasonably) bright children do at their comprehensive options. To which I do not, in any case, have an alternative because I don't have loads and loads of money.

Did you actually read my post, Joan? You've just quoted a tiny part of it totally out of context...

To repeat - I said there are many state schools which are not great and fail the brightest students - and I stand by this. I also said there are some great state schools. It depends on the individual school, its leadership, the class sizes, the motivation of the other students (and their parents) etc. etc.

You seem to be assuming I'll be using the private sector motherinferior? As I've said earlier, I have very little money and as I've said above, private school fees would be larger than our household income.

No, I wasn't assuming that.

I think it's just so frustrating that there are bright children who deserve better.

It wasn't clear whether the 'they' meant the schools which are less good, or comprehensives as a whole, actually.

I read it as 'sadly there are many schools which aren't great, and also state schools do fail the brightest pupils'.

If that's not what you meant, I'm sorry.

.... as well as not-so-bright children who could really benefit from the better facilities, smaller class sizes etc. that are available in the private sector.

Part of the problem I think is that governments over the past few decades have put in too much red tape and not enough money, and have not rewarded teachers enough so there's less motivation there for some and many good teachers leave. The private sector escapes these issues.

But you could turn that around and say that the private sector gets the dregs who go to pieces when confronted by any sort of challenging behaviour so opt for the 'safer' environment of the independent sector: which doesn't equate to them being inspirational teachers.

From my perspective (went to state comp 1989-1996, daughter been at one since 2008, worked in one since 2009) schools are infinitely better now - there are more resources, expectations of pupils and of teachers are higher, and there was a generally improving picture until May last year....