To be annoyed that private schools have charity funding.

[Olympiathequeen]

They are not charities, they are businesses.

They do little or nothing for the local community.

They benefit by about £750 mil. They part fund bursaries for around half that amount.

Leaving them with a tidy little £300+ million profit at the expense of the taxpayers.

That money is desperately needed for public schools.

WTAF is the government doing?

Not rocket science-you really have to name that school.

I think double locked doors where you are held before you can move into the school - buzzed through reception are quite normal, they are where I am. Not the rest though.

Yes it is, Dapplegrey1; is that incredulity?

My point was relaying my own personal experience of having a University where the majority intake was from fee paying schools and the limited student body that you get that then goes on to contribute to a limiting society. What's your point? That people develop prejudices and resentment against a two tiered system of blue collar versus white collar workers or that there's twats everywhere, as I said the latter, also.

YANBU

Private schools mean that a large number, if not the majority, of influential people in the UK have no stake in the state sector, and therefore prepared to tolerate poor standards in state schools.

Private schools create and entrench inequality.

Morally they are indefensible.

"The biggest unfairness is the variation of quality of state schools. It is hypocrisy that rich people can buy an expensive house and polish their halo that they are using state schools."

Stop kidding yourself.

The average spend per head on state school children - even at the most successful state schools is 6K per head. The average spend per head on a privately educated child is 12K.

Kids in private schools get twice as much spent per head as kids in the state sector.

Even the state schools in areas where housing is very expensive will have children there who are both poor and low achieving. Certainly in London many of the most oversubscribed state schools have switched their admissions to 'fair banding' or lottery systems so that their intake is not dominated by children living in small and expensive catchments.

Private schools exclude 100% of children who are both poor and low achieving.

If private schools really had a charitable remit they would offer subsidised places to children who are failing in the state sector, rather than only offering bursaries to those who are already excelling.

Ebop - you did indeed say there are twats everywhere, but I think the point you were trying to make is that privately educated people are snobbish, narrow minded and rude to those educated in the state system.
Otherwise why did you use that particular example?
There are plenty of other ways your privately educated co students could have been rude, but the example you chose was intended to show privately educated people in a stereotypically bad light.
I was unaware that a university with a majority of privately educated students existed.

Honestly you lot!! Morally indefensible? Sounds like a whole load of sour grapes to me. Or no ones shot stinks who went to/ sends their kids to state schools. Of course private schools are elitist. The same as private hospitals and Aston Martins.

My goodness it's a shame we aren't all one size fits all rosy and perfect Mumsnet robots isn't it?

I used to think private schools were not good for society. However, I changed my mind. I realised it didn't matter that much which school you go to. Learning happens in your head. Looking at twin studies raised separately, nature was found be a huge predictor of academic success.

I have experienced several schools in different sectors. In fact it's more the subject that you study at uni that matters I believe.

"My goodness it's a shame we aren't all one size fits all rosy and perfect Mumsnet robots isn't it?"

So - are there different 'sorts' of children? Some need twice as much spent on their education as others?

Are you saying it's not unfair?

Or are you saying that epic, institutionalised and endemic unfairness in education is fine, as long as it doesn't negatively impact on your children?

Do you live in London Mini?

There are state schools that are run as feeder schools for very good private high schools

Some are so oversubscribed you will only get in under social needs or if you have a sibling there that I joe believe is irrelevant (many have a sibling in a private prep that are on the waiting list). it's well known that flats are rented out empty to get children in these schools (still cheaper than private school fees)

We lived very close to one of these schools ds didn't get in the school he got into (6th choice and only put down as a choice to avoid the worse primary in the area) it was and still is far bellow the standard of the over subscribed school it is appalling in comparison yet only half a mile up the road.

Thankfulky the option was there for him to go private and we absolutely took that option without a second thought. I am very thankful that was a option for him

This situation isn't unique it's happening in many areas

Enthusiasm - are you making a case that private schools are a good thing because they enable well off families to side step inequalities in the state sector?

No I am making a case for the inequality in the state system that you claim isn't there

mini some children do need more input than others.

I used to spend five - seven hours a day feeding one child. The other, ate normally and took very little time.

should I have limited feeding to an hour a day, and let her starve? Of course not.

Morally they are indefensible.

Oh well. I can live with being morally bankrupt.

I'm also surprised that parents who have money for private schools and therefore also for tutoring really think that there is such a difference in the quality of teaching and management between two state primaries close in distance to each other that children at one are doomed to failure, and at the other one primed for success.

IME primary schools which get outstanding results are usually crammed with high achieving m/c children. They may find it easier to get and keep good staff because they have fewer difficult children and fewer children with s/n and social deprivation.

It's also about social exclusion.

My dc's primary school had a very deprived intake. Despite being well managed and having talented and energetic teachers, m/c parents in the area rejected it in favour of the one half a mile down the road with a much more m/c intake and (on the face of it) better KS2 results (though worse VA).

"Oh well. I can live with being morally bankrupt."

Of course you can - your children are benefiting from it, and you don't care about the rights of other people's children to equality of opportunity.

"No I am making a case for the inequality in the state system that you claim isn't there"

I didn't claim it's not there!

I said it pales into insignificance compared to the inequality in provision and spend per head between private and state.

Actually I do care, but my children are my first priority. Same as all of us. Sorry about that. Oh wait, I'm not.

Social exclusion works both ways mini . I think most people like to mix with people they have things in common with, and have had similar experiences.
I found myself "socially excluded" outside my DDs school, initially yet I was trying to make friends in a new area. I think I was regarded as a bit posh! I stood a Whole week outside school once without anyone saying hello even. (After many many weeks trying to make eye contact and saying a hello to anyone who looked my way! )

Putting your own children first

What a bizarre idea

It doesn't as I have experienced why should state schools half a mile from each other differ so greatly

And why are state schools geared up to be feeder schools for the private sector

Becuase money buys you the chance to get a better education for your child in the state system too and

"Actually I do care, but my children are my first priority. Same as all of us. Sorry about that. Oh wait, I'm not."

You are helping to perpetuate an indefensible system by paying into it.

You're not alone. Many people would trample over the backs of other people's children to grab the best deal for their own kids.

I also found state provision was a lot more elitist than the local private school in some areas. I didn't feel the state school itself provided equality of opportunity within its own four walls, or within county.

Since my previous comment was overlooked I'll try again:

Some of us have gone private because we weren't offered ANY realistic state options (see my previous post).

We've chosen to give up A LOT for our children's education.

We still pay taxes that fund STATE schools, often contributing way more than the average parents of state school pupils. I really wouldn't mind this, if it wasn't for the moaning on here and elsewhere about private school pupils.

If you do want to moan: sure, remove our children's school "charitable trust" status. And while you're at it (since our children don't get a penny of taxpayers' money towards their education): let's just cancel our tax bill altogether. No, didn't think so....

(Although after Brexit we'll probably leave anyway so that's a few £100,000 of tax money written off - oops!)

"Becuase money buys you the chance to get a better education for your child in the state system too"

Any child in the state sector - rich or poor- has half the amount (or less) spent per head than any child in the private sector.

Half.

Obviously I want to make sure my kids are OK. But my kids- and most mumsnetters kids- are so wildly privileged that they will be fine regardless,
It's the others we need to be thinking about.