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?

Totally agree otherpeople

We live in an area where few if any pupils are creamed off.

Rather than the middle class few that exist raising the bar, actually I've found I've become much less interested in their education. For example, we've stopped bothering with parents evenings so much, my child has dropped music lessons. I no longer ask about homework and I've noticed others do the same.
I found myself saying to my DD for a school event earlier in the year, oh wear whatever your friends are wearing. It's more important to be one of the crowd.

And that, Head, is the result of the politics of spite and envy sawing off privately-pursued excellence in the belief that it is the answer to inequality. So, in the name of anti-elitism we pretend that there's no difference in ability, potential, ambition and ability to pay across the entire population but hey, at least we're all mediocre (and poor) together.

So sad.

That's really sad head but sadly it does reflect my Own school days at a failing school. I hid my ability and misbehaved in order to try and fit in. I didn't want to be seen as a swot and ridiculed because of it. I persuaded my mum not to bother coming to any parents evenings and I never did my Homework. As a result i didn't reach anywhere near my potential. Perhaps this is why we have generations of the same family not doing well academically. They never move house and live in areas where academic aspiration is low. It might also explain why black Caribbean boys especially are
Among the worst academic performers after the age of 11. They are Not the worst at primary level but at secondary that peer influence and family influence might be playing a significant role.

And it hasn't stopped now that I am an adult head. Several members of my family ridicule me and barely speak to me due to my decision to accept a bursary and send my
Son private. They had asked me why I am trying to raise ds as a snob and why do I want him to be a goody two shoes. Fortunately I am not a little girl anymore and I can ignore the comments and shield my ds from it (fortunately it isn't difficult seeing as we are barely on speaking terms). Those family members who ridicule me all have children older than mine and none of their children have left school with any qualifications, not even a single low grade GCSE.

Locally, the story is the same as the last few posts; probably no innate lack of ability, but a distinct poverty of ambition and aspiration. There are a few small private schools and a small rump of grammar schools, where places tend to be allocated to professionals' children, but there are several extremely mediocre community colleges. Most people have no choice but to make the best of it, as this is a rural area and generally low waged.

I do worry when people glibly say oh perhaps it does affect the very brightest, but not by much...

Don't they count?
We also have to realise that talking in terms of averages when looking at academic performance is not the whole story.
To disadvantage a brighter child by one A level grade possibly will stop them having a career in what they have chosen. But lower down the academic field it often doesn't matter if you get an E or a D to follow your career path. There are certain crunch points which it is much more important than others.

I've always been courteous and encouraging to friends and family who send their child private, but a little bit of me dies inside when I have to listen to them explain why the local schools are 'impossible' for their children. The local schools which are OFSTED outstanding, and produce many children with great GCSE's and A-levels but which have admittedly more than their fair share of poor and difficult children. More than their fair share because private, grammar and some local church schools ruthlessly exclude these children so that they are disproportionately concentrated in non-selective state schools. Which of course are then deemed to be 'too rough' or often 'terrible' regardless of OFSTED success, for their special DC.

I've particularly struggled with my SIL (three boys in private) banging on about finding the right school for each child and that my dc's comp is great for him (she thinks he's not all that bright) whereas her boys 'need' an environment with fewer poor and thick children...

They had asked me why I am trying to raise ds as a snob and why do I want him to be a goody two shoes.

Inverse snobbery at its insidious finest.

Someone - anyone out there - please prove me wrong and show me that the UK isn't the only place in the world where this sort of thing happens.

Mini, I have no experience of the Ofsted evaluation and rating process, but if it's anything like healthcare then they have little credibility to many people, with good reason.

Most regulated services here are assessed against minimum standards, which means that passing might still not be very good. When a full range of top grades at GCSE is no guarantee that a pupil is literate or numerate, it stands to reason that the school rating system might be flawed too. In other words "outstanding" might be outstanding for Ofsted, but perhaps not for someone else.

You might get "great" results, but if you can't get into your chosen course they aren't that great.

OFsted is a broad picture that looks at lots of stuff, some relevant, some not. Sometimes there is an attempt to embellish the school. Oh yes we do have an orchestra....(it met once and all times since have been cancelled...)

I agree Headofthehive55. Every grade does count for the brightest students in state education, so they're better able to complete with the more privileged once they leave. We need people in the influential professions from all backgrounds, so it's not just old Etonians in charge for perpetuity.

"To disadvantage a brighter child by one A level grade possibly will stop them having a career in what they have chosen. But lower down the academic field it often doesn't matter if you get an E or a D to follow your career path"

Absolutely wrong. Entirely the other way round.

The difference between an A and an A* at the top is minor compared to the difference made by getting a C instead of a D at the lower end.

The difference between an A and an A at the top is minor compared to the difference made by getting a C instead of a D at the lower end.*

This isn't true in my experience. If missing the top grade in one subject is the difference between getting onto a degree course like Medicine or Veterinary Medicine then, in all probability, those career options are closed - forever. Those are pretty high stakes.

That's not to say the difference between C and D can be ignored, as 'C' at GCSE English and Maths is a minimum requirement for many things in life, including some 6th form or university entry, but in all honesty a borderline C grade student at GCSE English or Maths is unlikely to be doctor or vet (or whatever high-stakes career you choose) material in the first place.

Any future path is "high stakes" for the young person who had chosen that route. What snobbery to suggest it's only being a doctor or vet that is important, getting into sixth form or a "lesser" university course can be every bit as important for that individual.

Lack of aspiration is so detrimental. So many of my state educated peers (I went to a not so good comp) who were brighter than me did so badly after being shoved into studying business studies, or other such subjects, at a poor university.

"but in all honesty a borderline C grade student at GCSE English or Maths is unlikely to be doctor or vet (or whatever high-stakes career you choose) material in the first place."

Blimey! I am always amazed- and, I have to say, quite impresed - when people actually say the appalling things that most other people keep to themselves, even if they think them!

For goodness sakes, surely it's not a competition between wether the stakes are higher at the top or bottom end of the scale, wether it's a A* needs to read Medicine or a C grade required to do an apprenticeship, both are equally important, no one should be missing out

The problem with inadequate education provision is not one for private schools to answer but for government, the Minister for education and To address. It is their job to provide good quality accessible education, private schools never said this is what they are setup to do. They are setup to provide an education for those who meet their criteria.

If government provision were good, we won't need private schools to give bursaries etc because we won' t need them. Infact most would probably close, save for a few because demand will drastically fall. The better state provision the less the need for private.

If government provision were good, we won't need private schools to give bursaries etc because we won' t need them.

If a private education is a need it should be available to all children, surely? Not just the 7 per cent.

"If government provision were good, we won't need private schools to give bursaries etc because we won' t need them. Infact most would probably close, save for a few because demand will drastically fall. The better state provision the less the need for private."

Well we would. Because most people don't go private for the academics - clever children with supportive parents really do do well anywhere. They go private for the "stuff". If I wasn't so completly politically and philosophically opposed to private education that's why I would go private. I have no worries about my children's academic achievement at their state schools. But there is lots of "stuff" that I wouldn't have to worry about providing if they were at a good private school. Stuff you just can't afford to provide at 5.5K per child.

The need is education just like Healthcare is a need. The responsibility for that lies with the State not charities. Charities equally may help government to shoulder the burden of healthcare provision by having a set criteria and proving a service for those who meet that criteria. But the responsibility for providing good accessible healthcare does not rest with private healthcare providers, it's rest ultimately with the government, it is the same with education.

MissKG who is the "we" who "need" the education you're talking about? It does sound very "us and them".

How is the government really going to help, when their own education minister is privately educated?

Because most people don't go private for the academics
How do you know this? evidence please?

clever children with supportive parents really do do well anywhere.
Really? Just anywhere? Your experience must be very limited.

I dropped on grade bertrand and it did indeed close that door on that career. However I found there is much wider scope lower down. You can do a science degree with AAA at Cambridge, but can also do one with no A levels whatsoever at the OU.

My DD recently did GCSEs and there was a lot of scope with level 1 2 and 3 courses at college. Often as a ladder entry E's etc to those with five GCSEs entry level 3 - same course.

Clever children may do well. But do they reach their potential? Are you saying that their sacrifice is worth it?