To scream, "Your Private School Children Are Not Being Discriminated Against at Uni"

[Triffid1]

Between work and social I seem to have a pretty diverse group of people who I engage with regularly but as my DC are at an age where we're thinking about high schools, there have been quite a few conversations around this recently. I have now had not one but THREE separate conversations with parents who are planning to send their children to private schools who have expressed concern that it might "disadvantage" them because the universities are prioritising state school children.

Clearly, every time someone says this, I immediately move them further down the pile of people I want to hang out with. But why is this so prevalent? Yesterday, talking with a client on Zoom, where he was ringing from his lovely home office in his leafy suburb of London I didn't actually know what to even say but I wanted to yell, "FFS, if there's a small shift so that the small number of private school children don't get the majority of places at the top universities, you'll have to live with it." Instead I simply changed the subject politely. Argh.

Article in the Sunday Times today about the number of private school places being reduced at oxbridge in favour of state pupils

You can’t coach IQ! There’s only so much you can in terms of ‘coaching’ for that sort of school. The ability has to be there in the first place. If you weren’t in the top one or two on your primary you simply wouldn’t event apply!

In primary schools they do CAT tests which test cognitive ability. Teachers don’t always tell you they are doing them, but they are. There is a difference between ‘underlying ability’ (similar to IQ) and ‘leaned ability’. Schools know this and their tests are designed to assess the former.

Mine were in a Oreo and the head there refused Pont blank to write a reference to certain schools for any child who didn’t show evidence if 130+ in CAT tests. This has nothing to do with parents as parents have no access to this, or didn’t know it had even been tracked. The head said he will not put children forward for schools were a) they don’t have a cat in hell’s chance of getting through the first round and b) they simply wouldn’t cope in that environment.

It’s true, there are a few prep schools that have an above average track record of getting kids into these top day schools - but no shit Sherlock - these Oreos themselves are highly selective at 7+ entry or even 4+.

If you can select your cohort to this extent, of course a school can get top results!

It’s like UCAS - you have to choose one or two ‘aspirational’ schools, a couple of ‘should get in there hopefully’ schools and a ‘back-up’ school.

There are certain ‘tiers’ of school in London and this process is what thousands upon thousands of kids are doing, year in year out.

There’s school down the road from me which would be considered more of a ‘safe bet’ option and they have rejected many children of billionaires and all sorts of celebrities, etc. If they don’t cut it in the entrance exams, that’s it.

Prep not Oreo!

Yes, I do agree that some of the schools are very selective. That's why their results never look that impressive to me - an obvious reflection of the cohort rather than the school. And yet people still feel it's worth paying for.

theconversation.com/state-school-kids-do-better-at-uni-29155 there has also been research which shows state educated excel academically above privately educated at university.

Private school offers much hand holding and prepping which you no longer get at university.

Allowing more grammar schools would take a lot of wind out of the sails of private schools.
But I think the people who object to private schools also object to academic selectivity.

Would it?

There would still be plenty of parents who wanted to go private for various reasons if their child wasn't accepted into a grammar school.

Properly funding state education would be a good move, but not one that there's any political will for at the moment.

@Empressofthemundane

Allowing more grammar schools would take a lot of wind out of the sails of private schools. But I think the people who object to private schools also object to academic selectivity.

I am actually much more opposed to state grammar schools than I am to private schools.

The state sector should be fair. Sharp elbowed middle class parents will always find ways of coaching or tutoring their kids to give them an advantage. Good comprehensives with flexible setting across all subjects are the way to go in my view.

@TeachesOfPeaches

Article in the Sunday Times today about the number of private school places being reduced at oxbridge in favour of state pupils

I can't read the article - but getting into Oxbridge is not just about grades and prep. The majority of children from deprived backgrounds wouldn't have a cat in hell's chance because of their lack of educational/cultural capital - as pp have mentioned. The majority of kids who have attended science fairs, competitions, visited museums etc have supportive parents. However there are some students (like one of my parents) who are a) Gifted with an innate intelligence ; neither of my grandparents could read and saw school as a waste of time, preferring that my father help in the family small business instead of study. so he snuck it in when he could b) So driven to learn more that they gobble up anything they can get their hands on - in his case a mobile library.

Such people may not achieve the best grades. But if they have managed to form a deep enough understanding of their subject to impress the interviewers - all by themselves with minimal external interference - they have the drive and the intelligence to do well academically given the right conditions.

This is the true meaning.

It is not that someone getting a B gets in over someone else with an A merely because the former is from a deprived area. It's the flair and creativity exhibited at interviews, considering their background.

Btw my father didn't go to Oxbridge but an American university , on scholarship. This was years and years ago but the principle is similar.

*books from a mobile library hahaha

Bravo, you have done the right thing.

Article in the Sunday Times today about the number of private school places being reduced at oxbridge in favour of state pupils

Jeez, how many times? The number of private school places is not being reduced in favour of state pupils. More state pupils are applying. Some of them are better than the private school pupils. Oxbridge prefer them. They get places instead of the less good private school pupils who might have had places if the state pupils had not applied.

Put another way, some private school pupils only got into Oxbridge because better candidates from state schools didn't apply. It was less competitive. Now they are applying, it's more competitive and being moderately bright and privately educated is not enough.

@AlexaShutUp

Yes, I do agree that some of the schools are very selective. That's why their results never look that impressive to me - an obvious reflection of the cohort rather than the school. And yet people still feel it's worth paying for.

Because they are hugely bright children who can then be taught with other children on the same level as them academically rather than having to share their teacher’s time with children who might have other strengths but are unable to achieve anywhere near the same level academically. Not to mention behavioural problems, gang issues which are particularly prevalent in our part of South London which they would also be exposed to at our local comp. My work means that I come across victims of these gangs and what they do on a regular basis. Not to mention the risk they themselves might become part of these gangs. Police officers permanently stationed in the school, fights breaking out constantly, disruptive kids everywhere, bullying rife. Our neighbours DC went there and experienced all this and more. Or a wonderful enriching academic experience, calm learning in an environment tailored to their academic level and over 200 extracurricular activities to choose from. In my view that’s very worth paying for

@hangonamo

Article in the Sunday Times today about the number of private school places being reduced at oxbridge in favour of state pupils

Jeez, how many times? The number of private school places is not being reduced in favour of state pupils. More state pupils are applying. Some of them are better than the private school pupils. Oxbridge prefer them. They get places instead of the less good private school pupils who might have had places if the state pupils had not applied.

Put another way, some private school pupils only got into Oxbridge because better candidates from state schools didn't apply. It was less competitive. Now they are applying, it's more competitive and being moderately bright and privately educated is not enough.

I know. The language is so telling of the underlying belief that Oxbridge places 'belong' to privately educated children and more state school children applying means that they're somehow being done out of something that is rightfully theirs.

Meh, I'm grateful for the fact that my hugely bright dd was perfectly capable of learning alongside kids of varying abilities. I think she actually learned a lot from explaining things to her peers and it boosted her social skills as well. She didn't really encounter any behavioural issues in the top sets.

As for gangs, it's a bit naive to assume that they only operate in state schools. One of dd's friends moved to private at the start of year 10 and got involved in drug dealing through other kids at the new school, despite never having been in trouble previously. I know from friends that bullying is commonplace in private schools too, so shelling out lots of money can't necessarily protect kids from stuff like that.

I get it, though. If my only state option had been a really rough sink school, I'd have paid for private as well. In most parts of the country, though, those aren't the only options available.

Like Empress I believe there should be more Grammar Schools in England. Thus, every child that would benefit from a selective education would likely get one. I know the arguments from posters which argue that selective schools, destroy other surrounding schools. I think it is not quite as simple as that, there are a number of non selective schools in the Country whose standards have been driven up by being in selective areas.

My mum for instance switched from teaching in a highly academic Boys Grammar School, to become a Head Teacher in a Secondary modern. Despite this she has always been an advocate for academic selection for children. Mums argument being children should not be placed together in a school , just for a notion of inclusivity or social experiments.

We live in a comprehensive area. My dd would certainly have been an obvious candidate for a selective school had we lived in an area with grammars. I firmly believe that it did her a lot of good to be in a comprehensive environment.

In any case, the problem is how you select fairly. They don't seem to have found a method that works - it's always the kids of the sharp elbowed parents who benefit.

I can only really speak for my area (SW London). It’s clear to me there is a self-perpetuating cycle here. Many of the top 10-20 independent day schools (no boarding in London obviously) happen to be the local schools. Families are wealthier than average and so, of course, if your child has a slight chance to get into one of these schools, you are more tempted to let them have a go.

What happens is, the more parents get sucked into going private (simply because they can and it’s all there in your face), the less state schools are built. Overpopulation means that there’s no such thing as a reasonable chance of strolling along to go to your local ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ state. Yes, they are obligated to give you ‘a school’ but you will have to traipse to the far side of the borough for a school.

So do you pay up, let your child have a go at the independent which achieves 95% grades 7-9 at GCSE? Or do you let them travel an hour or more to a school that achieves 30% 7-9 in a good year?

It’s not hard to see how and why parents, if they possibly can, just decide to pay up. But the very same parents, if they lived out in other parts of England, would just use their local comprehensives if they were accessible and reasonable..

There is a situation now around here, in which children with ‘average’ IQs (ie around 100) can not gain admission into any of the private schools, Everything is so ramped up. The pressure on places and the fact that schools can be so selective means that even the so-called ‘softer options’ will have 5 applicants for every place. Yet you have no chance of a reasonable state school either. This is why many people leave London, frankly. But they probably end up paying what they would have paid in school fees on stamp duty on their new home in suburban England. It is what it is.

I still don’t get how being invested in your kids’ education is sharp elbowed. Is it a good thing not to care and not to help whenever you can? There is all kinds of gaming the state system that goes on. Church schools - sudden discovery of religion, grammar schools - tutoring to the max, comps with minuscule catchment areas as in 500m….these are basically all quasi private schools. Your fees are the cost of living near a school like that and the hoops you have to jump through. We looked into it all deeply before deciding we’d rather just go private and be done with it rather than saying they’re at state school - but only a certain type of state school. @AlexaShutUp at least you practice what you preach. Unfortunately our choices in this part of London were indeed a very rough comp or two very selective private schools. Fwiw I’ve never heard of any bullying at their school at all. Drugs a different issue - obv wherever there are teenagers there will be drugs, alcohol etc and some of these have money to burn. That’s not the case with my DC and they know that. Parenting is so important wherever they are at school. Gangs - not at all a thing at their school, certainly nothing like the knife carrying postcode divided lot up the road. In fact the kids at their school regularly get mugged/robbed for their phones by them.

@sol5 that’s exactly right and yes we are in the same part of London!

Yes there is a state school around here which is a quasi-private school. You have to live in one of about six roads to be in the catchment. Houses in those streets go for a couple of million at least.

There are a few good Catholic schools such as the London Oratory and another one I can remember the name of, but entrance there fiends in the age of the baby when they were baptised . So a child who was baptised at 2 days old, would get in above a child whose mum didn’t get round to it for a few weeks because she has a Caesarian or something. Or maybe the family had to travel in from somewhere else, or the church was booked up. Madness on all levels.

*depends (sorry for typos)

Children can go to grammar schools in neighbouring areas to me, ie Bromley and Bexley. I live in Greenwich, just. My neighbours' two both went to a grammar in the Bexley area, it was just one 'bus though usually one of the parents ferried them. There are also a couple of good grammars in Bromley and others I know were accepted for them.

Two good independent schools within very easy reach. Mine went to one of those though could have gone to the grammar but in the end, he got an award for the indy and it was easier transport wise.

The nearest comp is excellent. There's another one in the other direction which is not bad but absolutely huge.

I never worried too much about such things at the time, just assumed it would work out somehow but that's my nature. My priority was for my child to be happy wherever he went to school. I always said if he wasn't, not to worry because we'd find somewhere else.

sol5, I had no idea the Oratory was like that about baptismal dates! How very odd. I do realise they are highly academic, a friend/colleague of my husband had three boys there.

City of London used to give quite a few free places, I don't know if they still do.

I think the only criteria should be that the child is bright enough, does well in 11+ or entrance exam, and appears to be enthusiastic about what the school offers; nothing else should matter.

No soul no pastoral care and utterly focussed on results at the detriment of the child. I don't think you can get any sense of those things (re grammar schools) just from looking round! DS's one was very good on all of the things you mentioned as being lacking, including pastoral care. Indeed one of their former pupils is a star in the making for design engineering (currently at Imperial).