To find people say X public School is OK because

[NoComet]

It gets DCs into Oxbridge and RG universities, a daft justification for choosing a school that costs £15,000 plus a year.

We have a local secondary (not even a true comp as there is some creaming off of bright DC by Grammar schools) that is in Special Measures that has just got two pupils in to Oxbridge.

And this is hardly news, bog standard state secondaries and sixform collages all over the country send DCs to Oxbridge and RG Universities every year.

My very ordinary Welsh Comp sent someone in the year above me to study medicine at Oxford, there were others at prestigious med schools and, now, RG uni's me included.

Yes, private schools are very nice, yes DC avoid some DCs with a bad attitude to education, Yes DC get good sports facilities and yes DC may study a wider range of subjects, esp. MFL.

But in the end your DC will, quite likely end up at exactly the same uni, doing the same course, just with poorer parents!

Only 6% of pupils go to private schools. Wouldn't make much of a dent for the little treasure to have to go to the awful rough comps along with everyone else.

There will always be private schools. Its not even worth imagining a situation where they do not exist.

Get rid of the state funded discriminatory schools : THEY are what impact on parents without the funds to choose alternatives.

Sunny
DS is late August and he's doing fine at school. somebody has to be the youngest in every class after all.

Then it wouldn't make much difference in terms of a level playing field either. The reality is that there are vast differences in the state sector too - there are some very good state schools but then that pushes up house prices in the area. Life is unequal - it's not restricted to education.

holidaybug
The schools I want to see the back of are

• religious schools (you want heavy duty RE, pay for it)
• academically selective schools (because they penalise late developers and summer babies, let alone those without sharp elbowed parents
• any state funded school that is not equally open to all pupils within reach of its catchment.

And yes, house price pockets will happen - I live in an arse end pocket, houses safely in the Thornden catchment have a 20% price premium!
But because the admission rules are transparent, my kids are not at the sink school (admittedly making the problem worse but thats another story)

State maintained schools have been improving since 1988 because the middle classes have started to use them more.

But there is still social discrimination internally within schools.

I am another one who thinks it is not the role of the tax payer to fund religious schools.

(Even though I am religious).

My DC's prep school is selective - they take into account summer babies as part of their assessment. Tbh though at that age, they are looking more at behaviour/temperament than ability.

Many private schools invest huge efforts in networking with ex pupils at Oxbridge etc., building contacts, getting feedback following interviews and employing teachers with contacts. It's not just old school tie - staff are employed to organise networking events and encourage ex pupils to stay in touch via social media etc.

They tailor exam choices and extra curricular activities towards what they think their target universities want. In general they don't have to worry that much about providing broader career advice.

Despite universities actively seeking out pupils at state schools, private school pupils are still disproportionately represented at 'top' universities, so it seems to work.

Snobs is not a nice way of putting it, but I do think some people send bright DCs, who'd get A* in any 1/2 reasonable comp., to private school.

A) because they went to private school
B) they went to grammar school and now live in a non grammar area
C) they wished they went to private school
D) their friends DC are going there

A,B and D are pretty lousy reasons to my mind.
C, if they had a bad experience at school themselves is probably forgivable, but still slightly unreasonable.

However much we all hate Ofsted, league tables and the prescriptiveness of the NC, most state schools are far better than they were.

My school did a very good job with top set science, maths, English, Welsh, history and geography(despite the geog teacher not being any use with disruptive DCs).

However, it did a diabolical job with the less able in some classes and some subjects . Bottom sets got teachers that Ofsted would have failed on the spot.

We didn't have any formal discipline system or organised detentions, HW was distinctly optional.

The DDs school is way better well over 1/2 of DC get a decent number of GCSEs. Many state schools do way better. In the past only 25-30% even got to try.

ie what I'm trying to say is I wish parents of bright DCs for whom affording private is very marginal would give their local state school a chance.

A) for purely selfish reasons, more nice bright kids would improve teacher recruitment, and their parents would be great governors, fundraises etc. They would mean we had a truly great sixform.

B) DDs best friend would have a lovely savings account for uni.

C) most important - a whole sector of society would have a much more rounded and realistic view of how people really live.

Given many of these children are our future doctors, lawyers, bankers and accountants and one day maybe councillors and magistrates too. That can't be a bad thing.

Sunny your DS wouldn't sink. 4.2 is too young, but reception teachers know that. They would look after him and he'll be just fine.

It's a tremendous leap of faith sending summer born boys to school at 4. DFs late August DS worried her terribly being behind in YR. Later she told me she wished she'd relaxed, he caught up just fine.

I know he did, I used to go in and hear them read.

A private school may let your DS stay in nursery another year, but in Y1/Y2 you may find yourself cursing a pile of HW that a state school wouldn't think of giving children that young.

There is no perfect answer.

If you have a really bright child, I think private education is probably a waste of money, as some kids will just do well wherever they go. However, if you have a child on the upper end of average, I think private education is probably a fantastic investment.

Why should people have to justify how they spend their money? If someone wants to send their child to private school and they can afford it then they should be able to.

Because they do justify how they spend their money and that justification is often a lot of muddled thinking and half baked ideas rather than the truth, which is they think.

Either "My DC is better than your DC"
Or I'm a better parent than you"

That sounds very bitchy, which it's not meant to be because I think many private school parents are very insecure and brain wash themselves into thinking their is no alternative.

Your last post does not describe my thinking Star.

I want my child to have a different education to that on offer at the local high school. I have zero power to influence what the head there is doing.

If we pay for private my child will perhaps end up with the same qualifications in their final year, but the pathway will be different with a wider range of subjects and more extra-curricular opportunities.

I think the problem is that they've started and have been around for centuries. The damage has been done. Why would you send your DC to a school with (taking three schools my DC could go to) a 30%, 28% and 44% rate of pupils eligible for GCSE getting one A*-C GCSE when you can send them to a school which has a 90% or higher one? Too much risk. I wouldn't either, if I had the choice. If there hd never been private schools, maybe the spread would be more even, but the problems have been made and even if you don't go to a private school, if you can afford a nicer area, you'll probably end up with children in a better school.

I think many private school parents are very insecure and brain wash themselves into thinking their is no alternative.

Nice.

Compare my Oxbridge interview preparation at a very large community college (ie the year head telling me that lots of tutors were very sexist and I might have to answer some tricky questions on why I wanted to go there - but not actually giving me and tips on how to manage those questions) with a friend's child at a top 5 independent school who had a series of preparatory interview, including one with the headmaster at Eton...

The

Compare my Oxbridge interview preparation at a very large community college (ie the year head telling me that lots of tutors were very sexist and I might have to answer some tricky questions on why I wanted to go there - but not actually giving me and tips on how to manage those questions) with a friend's child at a top 5 independent school who had a series of preparatory interview, including one with the headmaster at Eton...

Sure, but the interviewers know that the level of prep has been completely different, and the preparation doesn't always help anyway. I had no guidance at all before my Cambridge interview, and was completely thrown by some of the questions, whereas I know that some of the privately educated candidates were much more confident and managed to bullshit their way through because they'd had more practice. I went home and cried my eyes out, as I felt so utterly inadequate next to the competition. But I got in and they didn't.

I later asked one of my tutors want they look for at interview, and how they make their choices, as I couldn't figure out at all how I'd made it through. He said that his top priority was "intellectual honesty", followed by "genuine independent thought". Some things can't be taught.

DS1 is an Oxford medical student, his (state) school "gets" one or two kids into Oxbridge most years, and many into RG. The school is in a Scottish university town, and because its in Scotland, it has entry by catchment area (if you live in catchment, you get a place).
The results this school get have little to do with the school - it's the parents (small town, very high number of university lectures parents).
There is no encouragement to apply to the "best" universities, or most challenging subjects, so for example my son had no prep or interview training for either medical application or Oxbridge. No help or advice with personal statements. I am sure many able pupils at this high performing school are missing out on opportunities due to lack of preparation.

At the private school in a nearby town, pupils are given extensive interview prep and advice re application to university, with small groups run by teachers for different groups (Oxbridge/vet/medic, law etc). Personal statements are scrutinised, much advice given. Of course all that extra attention gets more of those kids into the "best" universities! It's what people are paying for when they pay the fees - advantage.

StarBallBunny I'm not insecure in the slightest. What I feel is pure relief that my DC will have the same educational opportunities that I had. If they went to our catchment school their opportunities would be extremely limited and that's pure fact not brainwashing!

jinsei Oxbridge do indeed take into account those things at interview, but there is no doibt it is hugely helpful if a candidate is used to regularly discussing a subject at a much wider level. A far bigger block to entry however is not having the right grades in the right subjects! This is something too many state schools get wrong and it is entirely avoidable and unacceptable IMVHO.