Private schools and future privilege

[Potsnpans23]

Need to caveat this that I am foreign and grew up in a country that doesn't really have private schools. Was bored this morning and Google a few people from tele, academics and a few others and realised they've all been to private schools (perhaps with a tiny minority who went to a grammar). Got mr thinking- is it that private schools really propel their students to make a success of themselves or is it just privilege shining through and those same kids would have got ahead anyhow? Like if you send an ordinary kid to a private school would they make such a success of themselves?

I don't think people are just paying school fees for GCSE and A level results however. It's the connections and extra curriculars.

Lots of parents send their children to private or grammar schools mainly to avoid the bad influence and heavy loss of learning time caused by poor behaviour. Not that there aren't badly-behaved students at private schools, but often far fewer and it's a lot easier to expel them.

Parents of pupils at the excellent private school I taught at often admitted that they chose the school mainly for its intake, not its impressive facilities.

Girls at the girls' grammar school largely seemed to be glad to be separate from the boys, many of whom they considered badly-behaved and disruptive (based on experience from primary school and on stories from their brothers).

Behaviour is a massive problem, even at a lot of theoretically good comprehensive schools. Students (and some teachers) often don't see it as being particularly bad, because they've never known anything different.

Ime my closest state comprehensive was more interested in pushing non-selective education crap. So they proudly stated they don't stream etc on their open day. For an academic child this is crap, they are being taught alongside others who struggle to access the curriculum.

If state schools were more ambitious and always streamed the kids, I suspect they'd do better. But from what I could tell, this offended their comprehensive ideology. I am hoping my dc doesn't have to go to that state school.

With a bright child, I looked at the GCSE results to see whether there was a set's worth of top grades in core subjects. If yes, then there was likely to be a peer group and staff capable of teaching them to that level.

@Hoppinggreen yes the small class sizes make a huge difference. DD was in a class of 8 for maths GCSE and DS in a different school was in a class of 6 for French. They were both on course to get 6 or below but got 8s which for DS in french was frankly a miracle!

is that why its more popular to send children to private secondary rather than prep because it is that age where disruptive behavior from other kids really makes a difference?

I guess in terms of state we'd be thinking Charter or Kingsdale and private Dunstans, Colfe's or maybe Alleyns. I'd really rather go mixed rather than all boys. I have heard about the lack of secondary school teachers in many subjects but how would one go about finding out?

There’s a little bit more to the naming than that. Any paid-for non-state school is a private school. Within that group of private schools, public schools are very specifically the group of elite old boys’ schools such as Eton, Harrow, Westminster etc etc. This is because when they were first founded they educated ‘the public’ - non royalty etc, but those pupils were still from the elite of society. That’s why schools like Eton are still magnets for the landed gentry but many more recently built ‘private schools’ are less esteemed. It’s also where the ‘out of touch with reality public-school boy’ stereotype comes from. I’ve worked in both types of schools and the public schools do feel very different. Much more traditional. They attract the sons of such powerful, famous and wealthy people that it helps pupils build a truly extraordinary network of contacts so former public school boys often get such a leg up in life. Work experience at any law firm, bank, newspaper, in parliament etc etc is much more accessible if you boarded with the son of the CEO.

is that why its more popular to send children to private secondary rather than prep because it is that age where disruptive behavior from other kids really makes a difference?

I guess so. But also perhaps because the extra-curricular activities and potentially highly-qualified teachers might make more of a difference then too.

My DC is at a state comprehensive and claim they don't stream. They have regrouped the kids into different maths classes not along tutor groups. This is after assessment in the first couple of weeks. They still say they aren't streaming, but DC says all the kids in her maths group have the top marks. I think what they will claim is that they don't stream but have aligned the children into multiple ability sets, and they have more than one class in each set. It's not the strictest definition of streaming.

What I mean is that it is not streaming because their tutor groups are mixed ability. But individual subjects are then separated into multiple ability sets by combining multiple tutor groups.

Thanks, my local state comp said the English classes are all mixed ability for example. The only rationale given was 'we don't believe in academic selection'. But I know other comps do have academic sets for English and Maths, just annoying that individual Headteachers can make this decision based on their own ideology.

The government should make all comprehensives have sets by ability, it would increase the number of children with top grades.

I can usually spot former public school kids - they have this certain aura of confidence that state schools don't seem to produce, even excellent ones. I went to one of the best state schools in the country, which was selective and thus academically hard to beat, but it still didn't give that confidence that private education seems to supply. In terms of the education we got, it was at least as good as my older brother got privately and my parents kind of wished he'd gone there as well!

To some degree it's connections, but a lot is confidence and feeling sure you deserve to do well somehow. My dad started his career in stockbroking, but didn't stay in it, though he remained friends with contacts in that field - one told him they were putting their kids down for Eton and Roedean and said 'It's all right for your kids, they're academic, ours will need the connections'

I think state schools have got much better since I was a kid - even my privately educated husband, when I humoured him and viewed a (very well rated) private secondary for our eldest, admitted that although the facilities were great, it didn't otherwise seem amazingly better than the state schools we'd seen. Boy, was I relieved!

NB, should add I didn't want to go to the private girl's school which would have been equivalent of my brother's - it wasn't that his education was seen as worth more than mine!

The private school system tends to encourage a work hard ethos that celebrates academic success - crucially not just from teachers down to pupils, but within peer groups. Nothing makes a child work harder than when their peers cheer because they got an A. That means they are encouraged to strive from a young age, and to plan strategically for their future.

They get loads more extra support - particularly careers advice - which unis to apply for, courses to take, work placements to go for. There's money in the system which state schools can't begin to compete with.

Then there's the old-boy network which is fostered. Lots of connections, friends in high places offering jobs to people they know. Powerful parents of school mates being in a position to offer interesting internships and work experience and freelance projects etc.

I am surrounded by privately educated white people at work. Their privilege really shows.

I went to private school. My parents were immigrants, and they actively wanted to send me to a British private school based on reputation.

What you get from it is often dependent on the school itself. Some will provide more opportunities in the way of networking, for example. The funding that goes into them usually means excellent amenities, as well as a broader range of subjects. Add in smaller class sizes, and a ‘work hard’ ethos (at least in mine). This was of course backed up at home.

It definitely opened doors, and provided a solid foundation upon which to build.

That’s why we went private. Nearest “good” comp was too far away (we are talking 100m) so we were allocated a further away school (distance wasn’t a big issue). But that school very proudly stated there was no streaming. I had an issue with that approach.

Sorry that was in response to the comments about streaming.

Yes, I wonder whether as many personalities will be from private schools going forth seeing as they've become so much more expensive

It’s not as simple / binary as private school good / state bad. Depends where you live, your family’s attitudes and your child’s talents/ personality.

If you have a good state option and are confident educated parents private school seems an utter waste of money to me. But that’s just my subjective experience.

I'm sorry, I don't really know any of the particular schools you mention OP. If the results seem similar between the state and the smaller private schools in your area, you would need a very good reason to go for the private options, on my opinion. It totally depends on the needs / personality of your son.

In terms of 'future personalities,' I don't think a minor private school would make any difference whatsoever really. Sure, the standards of behaviour might be higher in the private school (easier to expel bad behaviour). There might be marginally more opportunities for public speaking etc? I think there is something about most independent schools that seems to promote 'soft skills' perhaps - such as looking people in the eye when you shake hands etc? It's hard to put your finger on, but you tend to get less teenagers of the type who sort of skulk about and avoid making eye-contact. I think that's the kind of 'confidence' some people allude to when they talk about private schools? It's more the 'famous' schools where this kind of 'confidence' tends to be more marked though - not just the big boarding schools, but also the 'big name' London Day Schools. They seem to instil a sense that there are no limits to what you can do. But also you can give them all this at home probably, depending on the type of family you are.

I'm in the middle east. Kids at private schools here are the children of hugely ambitious parents and children do hours more homework than other schools. Was the same with my kids in the UK when they were at school there.

If you do another 500 hours homework a year for 10 years eg 5000 hours you will probably do better in exams and life no?

The point of private schools was (is) to buy the network, connections, status and reputation. It had nothing to do with being a superior education, that's just PR - it was the norm in private schools to use unqualified "teachers".

They have slick and aggressive marketing.

Hence why they covered up child sexual abuse because it would have damaged their reputation - and that has always been the most important.

Other posters will now get aggressive because pointing this out invalidates their self-image.

The end result in our small city is utterly interchangeable 😁. Actually the teens state and private tend to all socialise together. But maybe area specific our comp is full of doctors and lawyers kids as well as kids not from those backgrounds.