Private companies running classes in state schools, DD can't go because we are poor, AIBU to complain??

[PollyPeppa]

We are below the poverty line as we have 3 DC's and DH and I are full time uni students. We worked in low paid jobs and decided enough was enough and are now hoping to get better ones after university.

DD's school had just started up after school Spanish club. We sent her along to the trial session and she loved it. We had foolishly assumed there would be a concessionary rate (as there usually is with after school clubs) but there is not as it is run by a private company so we can't afford for her to go again.

I feel this is very unfair to offer this as only children whose parents can afford to send them can go, I think it creates a divide in the 'state' system.

So, are all our kids deprived and doomed to failure if they don't go to Eton and Harrow and fill every spare minute with out of school classes?

Tosh.

I agree there is more to it then money, but surely education is important to the OP and that's why she posted the thread. Any child who wants to study in their free time should be encouraged to do so imo. Because it shows they have a passion for what they want to learn. Being focused about what you want to do in life has a significant impact on how your life turns out as an adult imo.

Very, very few parents can afford for their children to have access to all possible educational opportunities,

cretinous is a very offensive word.

No, but they are starting out with a disadvantage in certain respects.

Or do you think that people who go to good schools do better simply because they are brighter?

And you reckon offering it free will make all those unsupportive parents who can't even feed their kids or get them to school on time, suddenly sign up for extra curricular language teaching?

Where did I say that JillySnooper? come on, you must know I meant nothing of the sort.

I fail to see what's exclusive about studying Spanish.

Electra - as I've said earlier on the thread, the dses have not had any extra-curricular learning opportunities (apart from the 11+ coaching for ds2, which he didn't need, and which his friend didn't have and still passed into the selective school).

The boys have been wholly educated at state schools, no private language classes at all, and have all had, and are still getting, an education that will enable them to go to university. The same education is available to all children in the area, no matter what their families' incomes.

Ds2's best friend from his old school is the child of a single mother (my closest friend), raised on benefits. He has had no private tuition at all, and has had the same state education as ds2 - except that he stayed at the selective grammar school and ds2 had to leave when he moved. Incidentally, he had no private coaching for the 11+ - his mum bought the revision books and worked with him herself, and he got a high enough mark to get into a very good school.

Stuckinthemiddle my DH is from an impoverished, single parent background of Seventies deprivation and went to a shockingly poor sink school.

He has a First from Oxbridge and is a CEO. He never went on a school trip in his life let alone an activity, a holiday or even a day out. Just like my parents who also have degrees and had professional careers.

You underestimate people, how patronising.

"Or do you think that people who go to good schools do better simply because they are brighter?"

It's an interesting point, but back to Freakonomics, and I'm remembering here. Is that they had a system where you could enter a lottery to get a place at a much better performing school in the district. Upon graduation those who had entered the lottery (i.e. a desire to go somewhere better) did better than those who did not. Those who entered the lottery but didn't win a place at the better school did just as well as those who did.

General gist of it

I went to a sink comprehensive and now have two degrees. That's not the point. I'm talking about generalities, not anecdotes.

Why was the school a sink comprehensive, stuckinthemiddle? What made it like that?

Ah right, so now people who want equal opportunities or more equal opportunities for children who are learning are patronising. A rather unpleasant way to try to shut down debate.

I suspect your dh is in the minority JS.

Also, Electra if education is important to the OP, and her dd really wants to learn spanish, she could get free resources from the library and teach her at home, or use the link provided to the bbc language teaching, given further up the thread. This private class is not, as has been said many times already, going to teach her dd much of any value at all, and is certainly not her dd's only option to learn spanish.

She could open up these home-ed classes to other kids whose parents can't afford the private classes, or who missed out on the deadline.

Children do have equal educational opportunities, Electra.

What they don't have is a right to private classes. Mine don't have that right, nor yours nor the OP's.

stuckinthemiddle what I suspect made your school a sink comp wasn't poor teaching or lack of resources ( although the Tories have actually now directed extra cash to deprived schools through the pupil premium which wealthier schools won't get) but poor behaviour, disruption , disengagement and poor parental support. None of which is to do with money .

In other words, all of those parents paying for extra tuition, private schools, extra classes etc, are just wasting their money?

If you think so.

For some very bright and motivated kids, it possibly is. I suspect it makes the greatest difference to the average or less able kids.

No I don't think that at all.

Regarding sink schools: they have what I believe is called a "positive feed back loop".

Many parents are disinterested which leads to bad behavior and a lack of engagement. This lowers the morale of teachers and makes the school a less attractive employment prospect. This causes teaching standards to fall, so the parents become even less engaged...

Somebody needs to break the loop.

Private schools is a different argument, StuckIn. If you are sending your child to private school, you are often buying smaller class sizes and better facilities and equipment. I can see how that would make a difference, and why people think this is a good option if they can afford it.

I also tend to assume that behaviour is better at private schools, and discipline is stronger (which is going to make teaching and learning easier). However this could be an erroneous assumption, as it is based on The Chalet School, and the odd documentary about Harrow.

But Jilly is right, in my opinion - what makes the biggest difference to children's futures is parental support at home and in school.

I suspect that the OP's dc are going to be fine - they are going to have two parents, both educated to degree level, both, presumeably, convinced of the benefits of education and the need to support their children's learning outside school. That is a hell of a lot more than many children in poverty have.

It sickens me to think that there are children whose parents don't give them a decent breakfast before school, read with them (or even have a book in the house), talk to them, encourage them, feed their minds or support them. Their parents aren't going to care about extra spanish classes or the value of learning a language. Most of these children are going to grow up with no chances at all - and that horrifies me far more than a little girl not getting to do a few weeks of singing songs and learning her numbers in spanish. I wish I knew what the answer was. I am a firm believer in state education - something I learned from my father - a passionate teacher, whose preference was to teach the least able children, because as he said, anyone can teach a child who wants to learn, but there's nothing like the satisfaction of seeing a disengaged, disruptive, struggling pupil's eyes light up when they understand something they previously couldn't.

In an ideal world, state schools would provide far more. Before and after school care for disadvantaged children - homework clubs where they can get support from teachers, as well as some healthy food and some encouragement. Parenting classes, and classes for the parents to help them learn how to support their children's learning. More free clubs - for fun and for learning - languages, arts, sports.

Don't get me wrong - I think the state system does a good job - but it is underfunded and underresourced. Maybe the classes in the OP's dc's school are providing income that is benefitting her children - but the schools shouldn't have to do this to provide the basics - it should be providing extras (the cream, if you like), which isn't what it's doing at the moment.

I am not reading all 650 messages in this but I cannot believe you have to pay for after school clubs!

Where do you all live?

We live in the South Wales valleys and I don't know ANYONE who pays for an after school club. My kids have the offer of choir, various sports and computer club at primary. At the secondary school where I teach we run after-school clubs from 3pm to 8pm, 4 nights a week for 30 weeks per year. All the clubs are free and range from sports, arts, music, craft, cooking to swiming off-site and lasertag and driving lessons on the school grounds. The council fund the lot and it is very closely monitored to ensure that pupils living in poorer postcodes are taking part. Also kids on free school meals are quietly encouraged and get a free evening meal.

Oh and we got 80% A* to C at GCSE this year!

I generally think Wales is ahead of the game in education - didn't they abolish SATS ages ago?

Sounds wonderful, Freddiecat. Sadly it's not like that everywhere - I wish it were.

Learning languages is good and younger children can learn easier than older ones.
But at the very early stage you don't need classes you need exposure to the language. That's very easy these days with internet etc.

After that if the child is really keen, yes classes will be beneficial. But personally i'm in the opinion that if you learn a language you learn it well, which means many hours and lots of study plus conversations with native speakers. I don't see the point of learning few phrases in 3-4 languages and kid yourself that your child speaks foreigner languages. This is the reason i 'm skeptical about those who send their kids to learn Mandarin, it is a very difficult language and i don't see the point unless you are going to invest lots of time and master it.

Yes continuous teacher assessments instead of SATS.

Welsh schools are underfunded by £500 per pupil per year compared to England - I think the money goes into things like the Foundation phase (most kids start full-time school the September after they turn 3 at no cost to parents) and after-school stuff.

Still that's £650,000 a year less for an average size comprehensive school. Most school buildings in Wales I have seen are literally falling apart. My school closed for 4 separate days last year because the power kept cutting out. Schools in England look like private schools in comparison.