To think private schools should be banned?

[BethanyBoobs]

Why should someone have a better education just because their parents have money? Why should someone have a better chance of getting into university because their parents paid for their education? It makes me feel uncomfortable that people can buy their kids an upper hand when it comes to education.

I feel the same way about private health care too.

IMO private schools should be banned. Everyone should have the same chances when it comes to their education.

Oh well, that will be fair then.

Sorry you're too thick to come to this school and benefit from THE best teaching staff and facilities.

How about trying the run down, oversized outhouse 10 miles away.

tosn how do you feel about state schools who effectively exclude anyone who doesn't live within the very small catchment of very expensive housing? Do you feel there is some injustice in the 'exclusion' of children from poorer backgrounds (because they can't afford to live close enough to stand a chance of getting a place)? Do you think that exclusive state school catchments exclude poorer children in the same way that private schools exclude poorer students? Do you have any solutions to this catchment problem which won't be expensive to set up and run and won't cost parents directly? I am genuinely interested because you are one of the few anti-private school posters who doesn't sound jealous and genuinely seems concerned about the unfairness that you feel the two tier system creates.

Darn, MN lost my post.

Ok, so firstly, I don't think that state schools with small and exclusively wealthy catchments are as common as pro private posts on MN would have one believe.

Secondly, I don't think where they do exist they are quite the same as private schools, because they do not start up with the actual business plan of catering for the wealthy; like all state schools (except faith, which is a different and equally problematic kettle of fish) they are there to cater for the children who live nearby, which will inevitably be more or less wealthy according to area.

Thirdly, because this is a tricky one, in the case of cities or areas with widely different areas and concentrations of wealth, I would be in favour (as have said earlier) of banding or lotteries in areas where there are several schools within comparable travelling distance for children. Not a perfect solution, but perhaps a start.

Impatient - some oversubscribed state schools now allocate places by lottery.

This is becoming more common because it stops selection by expensive postcode.

Not read the thread, for which I apologise. Not sure if someone would have posted similar.

My DS goes to a private boarding school. He's actually going to take (and hopefully pass) some GCSE's. He has ASD you see, and the LA decided that leaving him in a mainstream state school where he was taught in a corridor was acceptable, he was also mercilessly bullied by a fair few of the children and 2 members of staff. The HM also told me that he would never amount to much and not to set my expectations of him too high. I disagreed and sent him to the best school we could afford.

What an awful shitty snob I am.

Oh, also fair banding. A school near me does this. It is an academy and used to manipulate its selection procedure to ensure a much higher intake of high ability children than all the other local schools. This was flagged up by OFSTED and the school has had to address the issue. Last year it's intake of high achieving children went down from 75% to 47% to more honestly reflect the social make up of the local area. Local middle class parents are muttering about the school 'going downhill'. It's not. Same teachers, same head, same ethos, same average GCSE grades for high achieving children as it had when it was dubbed 'the best comprehensive in the country' not long back following a perfect OFSTED. It's lower in the local league tables however because it's intake of high achieving children has gone down.

Nobody has said anything about awful shitty snobs, capt; I hope your son does well, but I still disapprove of private schools.

Nit I read the first few pages, and yes, someone did state that they believed that people who sent their children to private schools were shitty snobs... I realise it might not have been said more recently though.

Would prefer it if my DS had stayed in an LA school? To be bullied and pigeon holed as useless? Would you honestly say that, where state education is seriously failing a child, their only option should be home schooling?

Caperchaos - what would you do if you couldn't afford a private school?

My youngest has ASD and is in mainstream without proper support.

I HAVE to stay in the system and advocate for my son, join my voice with those of other parents with children with disabilities to ask for more and better help for our children.

That chorus of voices and demand is very much weakened by the fact that those people who are best placed to make a case for better help have jumped ship, leaving the rest of us behind to continue the struggle for better state provision, not just for our own children but for the children of those parents who find the system even more difficult to negotiate than we do.

I live 5 miles away from a secondary school deemed to be poor by ofsted, this however is in a separate LEA. In my LEA I am 12 miles away (3 sec schools), so whilst a lottery system may mean my DCs would not be in an outstanding school they would still be in a school classed as good. The lottery system does not help children who live in areas where there is not a better school just a choice of the best of a bad bunch.

To Anyone So basically, if all private schools were banned it would not make much difference in the long term with regards to the quality of education in state schools.

Mini, I sympathise with your situation, but there isn't really much reason why the chorus of voices and demand couldn't be made up from the other parents who share your school.

The parents who are the most able to make a case for help should not have to sacrifice what they want and can provide for their own children for the sake of other people's children. That seems a completely bizarre way to look at it to me.

Blame the parents who share your school if they are unsupportive, because they are the ones that should be making the effort to improve things at the school they are choosing to use.

Ok, so firstly, I don't think that state schools with small and exclusively wealthy catchments are as common as pro private posts on MN would have one believe.

I think that they are fairly common in the bigger cities. I would think that as many children are in schools with either a majority financially poor or majority wealthy intake as there are children in independent schools.
London is more mixed cohorts and not representative of the country as a whole, but if we look at Greater Manchester as an example: schools in trafford (especially south Trafford) where house prices are well above average for Great Manchester, the schools perform very well in league tables and the schools have very low FSM. In Central manchester, numerous schools have very high rates of FSM and high levels of social housing and these schools perform quite badly in comparison with the national average. Salford is another similar district; the wealthier parts have schools with low levels of FSM and get good results and the inner city parts have very high levels of FSM and low owner occupier rates and the schools perform very badly.
The difference between schools in high housing cost areas and low cost areas is very obvious and significant. I would imagine that much more than 7% of children across greater Manchester are affected by being at a school in either a majority wealthy or deprived area. To make it more equal and divide the children between the schools in wealthy and poorer areas based on a random allocation system would mean children travelling to get to schools as a lot of the deprived areas cover quite large distances (especially an area called Wythenshawe which is one of the largest social housing estates in Europe and is quite a few square miles of deprived residences). It isn't practical or financially feasible to get those children to schools in wealthier areas.

impatient, before we moved to Sussex we lived in Wilmslow. My children attended a large 4-18 independent school in CH (st'port) Our state catchment in Wilmslow really was houses of 500k+ That wasn't that unusual for that bit of Cheshire at all. Friends from school lived in bramhall which was stockport authority. Their state catchment was very similar. I taught in a different part of Stockport and it was massively different. I think areas of GMan can be like that so I wouldn't be surprised to find that replicated around the country. We're slightly more rural now so have a much larger geographical catchment which although still fairly affluent, isn't quite like Cheshire.

Oh I I remember that bury authority had 12% of children using the private sector, Stockport was also 12% and Cheshire was. 9%.
Now as Stockport was so polarised I can only imagine that almost all those children lived in Bram/CH/Cheadle. Also, since we moved I know that Cheshire council has now split into Ch east and Ch west. I fully expect Ch east's figure to be far in excess of 9% now. Certainly Wilmslow and Alderley edge seemed to be awash with preps.

I can't remember what the Trafford % was but I expect much lower due to the grammar system although there was certainly a fair few preps there that I remember.

Nancy Jones - I think I know which independent school your children went to.
You are right about Stockport, it is a good example of state schools having either majority wealthy or majority deprived intakes. Marple Hall and bramhall high schools for example: wealthy cohorts from quite small catchments and both achieving very good results. Reddish vale has a very economically deprived intake and it's results are no where near that of Bramhall or Marple. However, the students that attend Reddish vale mainly live in Brinnington and Reddish and couldn't get to Bramhall or Marple easily or cheaply even if we had a random allocation system. Stockport almost certainly has more than 7% of its children affected by living in wealthy/ deprived catchments. I don't think the North West is unique in these catchment and deprivation issues.

I think the 12% of Stockport children actually come from a wide geographical area and includes Marple, Hazel Grove, Disley and the Heatons as well as Bramhall and Cheadle. Stockport has quite a few independent schools to choose from and also some in neighbouring manchester, Macdlesfield and Alderley edge, but as you have lived in the area I suspect that you already know that. I think the fees being lower in the North West than in the southern regions is part of the reason why a higher percentage use the independent schools.

Yes, I forgot about places like marple and disley. We weren't actually in Stockport but kids went to the school with the green uniform named after the village. I taught in Brinnington which I always remember thinking was all the more deprived because it seemed so cut off even from places like reddish. I think a lottery system there would just have meant more truancy as I couldn't imagine many kids from Brinnington getting up and out to get to bramhall high every day.

We moved up to Cheshire from Surrey but Cheshire was still quite an eye opener in terms of how much cash people splashed about. Sussex is a lot more demure and sedate by comparison.

Nancy

I was raised in Cheshire, not the posh parts though.
The set you talk about who flash the cash were known as the "all fur coat and no Knickers" set.
There are some really deprived areas in Cheshire too, so the rich like to distinguish themselves from the working classes.

Yes, I think the further west you went the more normal it became with nice and not so nice areas. That bit just sth of Manchester though where we were was quite something though. Lots of women who all look the same with their blonde hair and year long tan. More range rovers than I've seen anywhere else and just so much bling! Now, I'm not saying there aren't plenty of monied people here on the sth coast, just that they don't usually wear quite so much of it!

Wow, can't believe this thread is still going - lots of opposing views. I honestly think that the main reason that failing state schools are so bad is because the majority of parents whose children attend just don't give a shit. To me what needs to be changed is the value that individual parents place on education. They need to realise that education is a way out of poverty, rather than thinking it is completely unimportant. Not sure how to get that message across though. In many developing countries parents really value education and will make sacrifices to ensure their children attend school (which they mostly have to pay for). The level of education that a child of a poorer family in this country can access for free is excellent, yet there are large numbers of parents who just don't see the value in that. Until many more of these parents value education I don't think there is anything that can be done to change educational achievement for the children at the worst schools.

Until a way is found to change attitudes I plan to continue sending my children to private school.

Nancy: I assumed it was the one with the bottle green uniform and nearby state senior school with a very similar name (after the local area). Brinnington is very unique as it is almost cut off from neighbouring areas and despite its obvious deprivation you will often see people riding horses (that they own) through the myriad of social housing. You are quite correct about Brinnington's residents being unlikely to send their children further afield to better performing schools if given the opportunity.
I too have worked in Brinnington and various other deprived and more affluent areas throughout stockport and south and central Manchester. We must compare notes sometime

Yes, I was emailing a friend the other day whose children are still at the school. She has two in the senior school now and was complaining that the state school with the similar name got equal to or better GCSE results last year. I think she said they had applied for academy status and a 6th form. Or maybe that they already have it. Anyway, she said there's lots of talk about how many local parents in B&CH would now opt for that school instead. There was a new head at our school just as we were leaving. I think a lot can change when a new HT comes in.

And yes, I miss the diversity of teaching up there. I'm mainly a sahm down here but a lot of the schools are very similar. I remember supply teaching in Salford and teaching in Langworthy one day and Worsley the next. Practically a different job. I imagine it's the same between schools in Brinnington (I did half term at stBs) and Bramhall. That's why I see the biggest gap as existing between the spectrum of state schools. I knew children attending our state primary in Wilmslow and their life experience was so vastly removed from that of the kids I was teaching in Brinnington.

Interesting what you say Nancy about the green uniform school having no better results than the nearby high school. I thought that the green school had very competitive entrance criteria.

I toyed with the idea of sending my DS to a private school in Whalley Range but it turns out that the state catholic school in Didsbury (which is socially very diverse in spite of its location, I.e. 33% FSM) got better GCSE results. Hardly worth spending the money on the private school.