to ask if you can afford a 'private' school in the UK but have chosen to send your child/children to a state school why?

[Foreverexhausted]

My three year old DD has just started a nursery attached to a fee paying school. I chose the nursery because it is by far the best nursery in the area but unfortunately we can't afford to send her to the school itself as fees are £15k per year per child and we have two children.

We have friends who could afford private schooling but their children are in state schools and then others who can't afford it but are just scraping by because they like the status of children attending a private school.

A long established private school near me recently became a comprehensive. Now anyone can go and it is free.

The odd notion that some have that attending a state school will enable their children to get on with 'a wide variety of people ' is clearly rubbish. All you need to get on with anyone is good manners and self confidence, neither of which are likely to be bestowed by an average state school. Avoiding snobbery is important but that comes from parental attitudes.

I think private schools should be banned.

Betrand - how on earth can you know that parents don't choose a private for the results. You have never set foot in a private school, your children don't go to one. You really have no idea!

We 100% chose the private school for its results and it paid off. One has just finished his degree and the other is doing A Levels.

A long established private school near me recently became a comprehensive. Now anyone can go and it is free.

That doesn't mean it will be as good as it was when it was private.

I went to a state comp, that only 2 years earlier had converted from being a top grammar. It was an absolute hell-hole. The teachers (previously accustomed to grammar pupils) couldn't cope with the kids of the local estates and several went off sick after nervous breakdowns. The furniture, display cases, lab equip etc wasn't "vandal proof" as previous grammar pupils had respected the school - the estate kids just wrecked it all. It wasn't so bad when I started as the upper years were still "grammar" kids, but as years passed and they left, it just deteriorated.

Schools can change very quickly!!

That doesn't mean it will be as good as it was when it was private.

You have made an assumption - that it was a good school when it was private.

Why have you made that assumption, except for the common - and often misplaced - idea that 'private is always better than state'?

I cannot imagine why a successful private school would become a state school (the only ones I know of are failing private schools which adopt the 'free school' mantle as a way out of closure - in general, the huge gap in funding per pupil per year is sufficient to put off those private schools good enough to fill their places), so I think your assumption if probably particularly misplaced on this occasion....

As a PP states - a grammar school converts into a comp. The kids wreck the place, there is no respect for the services and equipment offered.

THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED TO ADDRESS

Loving the categorization intro “grammar” and “estate” kids. It’s a very accurate assessment (although for the wrong reasons in this case) but one which is strenuously denied by grammar supporters.

“grammar school converts into a comp. The kids wreck the place, there is no respect for the services and equipment offered.“

Blimey. And downthread, people were saying that there was very little negative characterization of state school kids..............

One of the local schools was selective but not a grammar and when it stopped being selective after six or seven years the results dropped. The fact that they lost the ability to exclude as easily and the management changed made a huge difference.

when it stopped being selective after six or seven years the results dropped.

Ummm... yes, of course.

Selective schools such as grammar schools do not, in general, get better results because they are 'better educators'. In general, they get better results because they select for those with a higher starting point, and select against those who have had a disrupted start to education, chaotic home lives, SEN or low ability.

So you would absolutely expect a school which did admit only part of the ability range (or even simply selected against those who e.g. weren't organised enough to go to church, or literate and familiar with the systems enough to fill in an extra form) to have lower results once the new cohort had travelled through the school.

Which is why PROGRESS, not raw results, should be the measure used for measuring each school, and even then, only progress within the same context - so if schools are compared directly only if their intake is socio-economically similar.

“One of the local schools was selective but not a grammar and when it stopped being selective after six or seven years the results dropped.”

Do you really not see why that was?

Which is why PROGRESS, not raw results, should be the measure used for measuring each school, and even then, only progress within the same context - so if schools are compared directly only if their intake is socio-economically similar.

Except that in real life, no one gives a damn about your "progress" in a given field, only your attainment.

"My God, doctor, you removed the wrong kidney!"

"Yes, amazing progress, isn't it? My last kidney removal patient left without an elbow. Fortunately I've now improved a great deal relative to my starting point!"

So you genuinely believe that if Pupils A, B and C from selective school X all get exactly the expected results (let us say 8s at GCSE) given their starting points (let us say an old level 6), giving an average progress of 0, then their school is better than one in which 3 pupils D, E and F get 9s, 6s and 5s (a lower AVERAGE than School X, from starting points of levels 6, 5 and 4 at SATs), despite the fact that the second school has a progress score of 1?

I am NOT saying that a child who has 9 9s at GCSE is less good than a child who has 9 7s, or a child who has 9 5s - ie I agree that the absolute qualifications obtained by a single child can be better for one child than another.

However, I am am looking at the educational PROCESS and the institution where it takes place. The educational process whereby a child makes more progress is surely better?

So while for a single child, attainment might be a suitable measure, from the point of view of the palce where they are educated, looking at the progress that they have enabled that child to make given their starting point is a MUCH more appropriate measure.

Continuing your medical analogy:

Patient with mild cold 'I am cured! The doctor must be a mirackle worker'

Patient with Stage 3 cancer 'I may live a few months longer than expected! Doctor, you're terrible...'

Which medical treatment team is the better one?

“Except that in real life, no one gives a damn about your "progress" in a given field, only your attainment.”

Well, unless you are a teacher or a school, in which case, people should give many damns about the “progress” your pupils make.

If you can afford private, why are they at State?

Because DH & I both went to private & were both bullied and in both our cases, it was never picked up on, which in our minds goes against the entire ethos of a private school. Absolute nonsense about more attention being paid to children.

@Binglejellies i got bullied in state school. teachers didn’t give a shit. doesn’t mean all state schools are bad. (my kids go private as i refuse to pay £40000 extra to be in catchment of the decent state schools. i rather pay the school for their work than a real estate agent, and the previous owner for playing the system

I know It just stays with me, that pain and association is still so raw for me and DH.

One would assume that making excellent progress would lead to excellent attainment, if one's starting position is relatively high, surely? So in what world is this a bad measure? That post about "grammar" and "estate" kids is so sad. My dad was the first kid from his estate to get into the grammar school and go to university (Oxbridge as it happens). That was more than 60 years ago and we haven't made much progress on social mobility since.

Any school which claims to have no bullying is lying, regardless of sector.

sorry I feel like there’s some kind of hidden contradiction going on:

P1/ private schools are not necessarily better than public schools so are not necessarily good
P2/ the vast majority of social influence is held by people who attend private schools which is unfair to those who attend public schools because it is a factor of their attending private school, so we should ban them.

On one hand they don’t impart any advantage, on the other hand they do?

So if they provide no advantage to people yet take children off the overburdened state system, why not let them remain?

And if they DO provide an advantage what makes you think people shouldn’t spend money to give their children such advantages? (Should tutors be illegal as well? Should academically interested and well read parents also be disallowed?). Why shouldn’t people spend money to advantage themselves or their children whom they love, care for and hope the best for?

Hidden,

I don't think there is a contradiction, because the points are not both about education.

In point 1, it is probably clearer to say: the education provided by private schools is not necessarily better than the education provided by state schools, and in particular it is not necessarily better at enabling all children to make the maximum progress.

Many people counter by saying that it is not the education, but the 'package' of education and extra-curricular provision and manners that is provided by private schools that makes them better - but that doesn't make them better educationally.

Your other point is about social influence, which is not linked to better education at all - perhaps a feature of family background, wealth and peer group, none of which are a function of the school at all, except in that they concentrate the already wealthy and well-connected and confident together in one place?

Why shouldn’t people spend money to advantage themselves or their children whom they love, care for and hope the best for?

It depends whether by doing so they actively disadvantage others. So if i ruled the world, I would have no problem with private primaries ... as long as parents could not thereby buy access to state grammar schools ... or private schools ... as long as parents could not thereby buy access to state universities ...

In fact, further research shows that 3 schools within 2 miles of each other became academies in the past few years. These were all schools charging around 9000 per year so they were at the cheaper end I guess. But I don't think there was anything wrong with them. One of them was attended by the children of the various well known people - don't know much about the others. The change to academy was presented in a positive light but of course who knows the real reason. I think it could be due to the financial problems of the late 2000s mean fewer parents can afford the fees. Possibly other schools in the area have improved as well.
Anyway the point I was making was that private schools can turn into state schools very easily, so ending private education doesn't mean extra places would be needed in existing state schools.

The problem with private schools is that only around 5 per cent of children attend them, but more like 50 per cent of those that run our country have attended them. They perpetuate inequalities.
The education probably is better in many cases but that's not the main problem.
If your child goes to school with the local kids and has an extra few tutors and music lessons, that's a world away from the offering of the top private schools which are teaching children how to be future leaders rather than just getting gcse's.
Also I have no problem with those who use private schools to give their child an advantage within the current system. We do need the system to change though and that will be achieved by voting.

Just in process of making this decision. We could easily afford to send them to private schools. Everyone who we know who can afford to is going to do that. But I think we'll go with the comprehensive that DC1 really liked because:

1. she really liked it and I can imagine her thriving there
2. it's a great school that gets great results without having the benefit of only taking children who have already met very high academic requirements in order to be given a place
3. my DC already live a very privileged life (nice house, surrounded by books, opportunities to travel, all manner of extra-curricular activities, love and support) - I'm not sure it would in fact benefit them in the long run to be in an environment where 90% of their friends can afford x, y, z in private school fees.
4. I do believe that DC will meet and learn to interact with a much broader range of people there and that that is a good thing
5. we are in the very fortunate position that we can pay for them to do all sorts of enriching experiences outside of school, and the fact that they won't have to travel for hours a day will give them more time to take part in extra curricular activities

I have heard some of the most ridiculous scare-mongering about state schools among people who want to justify their decision to send their children to private schools. I also know a lot of people who have had very expensive educations and yet are very poorly educated and a bit spoilt, and many erudite folk who went to comprehensives.

But equally I know a lot of families for whom private education has resulted in lovely, bright, engaged, well-rounded, pro-social adolescents who will no doubt turn into wonderful adults. Horses for courses innit.