To be outraged about fee-paying schools and social inequality?

[coffeerevelsrule]

I have a ds in Y11 who has been researching potential careers and degrees and it has brought home to me what a horribly unequal society we still have in this country. Apparently 70% of barristers went to public school and there are similar stats for other desirable non-stem roles like journalism and the civil service, as well as medicine. It's a bloody disgrace - what a joke for a supposedly modern society.

And it seems that certain schemes like blind recruitment might also feed into this as although going to Oxbridge might have become slightly more attainable recently thanks to contextual offers and an awareness that those institutions shouldn't be filled with people from certain schools, now blind recruitment means the advantage a state school student may have got from going there is pretty much cancelled out.

To me it seems that ds is most disadvantaged in a way as he wouldn't qualify for schemes aimed at people who are the first in their families to go to uni and we aren't in a deprived area, but he has none of the advantages that would have come from going to an independent school. Everything about us is just average!

He is very bright (predicted all 9s and got that in his mocks) and wants to achieve but it seems that the odds are against people like him having prestigious roles. Obviously when he is quoting these stats at me I'm telling him not to be defeatist and that he has every chance of doing something amazing as long as he keeps working hard, but inside I'm wondering if how true that is.

I've always been against fee-paying schools but him reeling off all these stats at me has just been sickening and yet when Labour make noises about doing something about it there's outrage when in my opinion there should be daily outrage about the current situation.

Can anyone who cares about fairness honestly say I'm BU?

This is true but as I said earlier in this thread - if private schools were abolished tomorrow people with money would have to send their darling children to the local secondary - you would soon seen a massive improvement in many of these schools - as the moneyed classes would not stand for the poor resources that many of state school currently have to deal with.

I don't disagree, but the students that come from money will still have a massive advantage over the ones that don't. ''Twas ever thus.

Society will never be equal. There will always be people who have more and there will always be people that have less.

You can't tell rich parents that they're not allowed to pay for tutors, or piano lessons, or riding lessons or big houses - and those are all things that improve chances in life.

@coffeerevelsrule tell your son that when he looks at employment stats, e.g. for barristers, he's looking back in time to the inequities of 20-40 years ago. They tell you nothing about recruitment practices of the present time, and serve no purpose other than to create a chip on his shoulder.

There are plenty of jobs, and bright, motivated young people who have skills that are relevant to the modern economy will do well. Tell him that at his age he doesn't need to decide what he will be in 20 years time, because that job title may not have been invented yet, but just focus on one or more broad paths that suit his interest and personality and see where they lead.

Here is a recent article showing how rubbish these private schools are at being charities. More teachers are needed already so that's nothing new and something the government should be working on anyway - but that's a whole new thread. Maybe there would be a radical change in how schools are funded I don't know - neither do you - but that's not an excuse to sit back and say - so is life... suck it up.

.https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/private-school-charity-status-labour/

I’ve spent my working life as PA to directors and chief execs of multi million turnover companies. Out of all the execs only a tiny proportion have been from private education or privileged backgrounds (most of those at the BBC!) Many of them have worked up from entry level jobs. Intelligence, hard work and a huge heap of luck are important.

Your don sounds bright so there is no reason he couldn’t aim for one of the more prestigious universities to help him get a headstart.

Equality of opportunity is a complex thing. In reality there is only so much opportunity available in society, only so many top jobs and place at elite institutions etc.

As other PPs have pointed out, you can never make the system fair. OP may dislike private schools because it ostensibly gives people an advantage over her offspring but her own children will benefit from many things that other children won't have. In the state system, you have grammar schools, OFSTED outstanding and good schools, mediocre schools and some absolutely awful schools. If you have money you can buy your way into a better catchment than if you don't. You can also afford to pay for tutors, buy the latest IT equipment and books and pay for extra curricular activities that will make your kids more rounded.

All of this extends way beyond money too, as one of the biggest determining factors that impacts the outcome for children is parental input. If your parents are well educated and have the time and inclination to help their children then those kids will have a pretty big advantage over those who have very little input from their parents.

I always think the real final death knell to the idea of achieving 'equality of opportunity' is the unconscious bias we all have towards things that are difficult to measure and articulate. It's been proven that accent will affect how intelligent we perceive people to be and there are undoubtedly non verbal cues and mannerisms that we all pickup on that influence how we view others and the amount of opportunity they will therefore be afforded. Culturally we expect a doctor, barrister or even politician to talk and act a certain way and will be suspicious and unnerved when they don't align with the stereotypes.

Culturally we expect a doctor, barrister or even politician to talk and act a certain way and will be suspicious and unnerved when they don't align with the stereotypes.

I don't think that's right - in an increasingly global world I hope to hear lots of accents!

@Ladybowes

This is true but as I said earlier in this thread - if private schools were abolished tomorrow people with money would have to send their darling children to the local secondary - you would soon seen a massive improvement in many of these schools - as the moneyed classes would not stand for the poor resources that many of state school currently have to deal with. Classes would also be smaller like in private it would be a massive benefit to all our children.

I disagree. What will happen is that the tutoring industry will explode. My kids go to private secondary but they could have just as easily gone state, we were not ideologically wedded to the idea of private . However I would have employed as many tutors as they needed with the money saved should they have needed them if we had gone down the state route. I would have invested the money I saved into music lessons/ sport etc which would have given them an advantage. But I’m not going to be lobbying the government for better schools- I would just take their enrichment out of school time. Like most private school parents we aren’t super rich, we hold average middle class jobs. We would just do the best we can with what resources we have as is every single parent. I don’t think for a second that state schools will get better in the slightest sadly, education for the wealthier will just be off-grid.

I agree- I hope so too
English is my second language, this is the case for many, many of my medical colleagues.
However it’s worth the OP rethinking what she considers to be some great profession for her son… I would exclude medicine from that, wouldn’t recommend it to anyone young now. At least not in this country.
Juniors striking this week, consultants strike ballot in a few weeks as vast majority have indicated to BMA wish to strike due to 35%+ pay erosion.

if private schools were abolished tomorrow people with money would have to send their darling children to the local secondary - you would soon seen a massive improvement in many of these schools

How can a huge influx into already overcrowded classrooms be an improvement? It will get much worse imo.

Parents will just spend money on tutoring and extra teaching and/or will help them themselves.

Drfosters I hate all this 'sadly' it will never get better...There have been huge improvements in teaching and education in my lifetime and even within my career and this could continue and grow if the government would fund it adequately. I agree with Ladybowes that if everyone had to use state schools there would be higher expectations of them and things would have to radically change. Talk about me and ds being defeatist - the amount of people on here who are happy to accept massive inequalities being baked into our system, probably because they are on the 'right' side of it, is really depressing. Look at what happened in Finland. But too many people here don't want an equal society.

You might not lobby the government but you might vote differently.. currently the main parties approaches to education is pretty much more of the same - don't rock the boat kind of policies. I would suggest we need more imaginative ways of tackling inequalities in education. As while on the whole the current system might be good for those with money vast numbers of the population don't have money or resources to help their children and rely completely on their local schools.

I appreciate that many who send their children to private schools have worked super hard to do this and I admired this - but at the same time I know many who work super hard and never in a month of Sundays could even dream of a private education or a tutor for their children. As I said earlier in the thread - I am most likely an idealist but I wish people could get angry about this unfairness and try to do something rather than shrugging their shoulders and that's life suck it up..

What would wealthy parents 'not standing for' poorer schools look like?

Loads of very articulate people, some of whom work in journalism, have direct experience of the current NHS shit show, and are shouting it from the rooftops. Only the government can actually effect change though.

It's a myth that good schools exist at random and rich people can afford to move near them. 'good schools' ie those with consistently high exam pass rates are schools lucky enough to be in areas of high parental engagement.

My DS goes to a high rated state school. The teachers are fine but I don't see them waving any magic wands. They just have well fed, well slept kids from mostly middle class homes to work with.

The worst rated schools are in areas of deprivation. If you swapped over the staff, you wouldn't swap the exam passes. It's the parents that would do that.

You might but countless studies have proven that accent influences how intelligent we perceive someone to be. I have experienced this first hand so know for a fact it is definitely still a thing, especially with British accents that are viewed as working class. Studies also suggest ethnic minority accents are also perceived negatively.

Just to be clear, I'm not an advocate of this at all but simply pointing out that something as seemingly irrelevant as the way you pronounce words can have an impact on your access to opportunity. So just being born in an area that has a nice southern accent could play to your advantage, whilst being born in an equivalent area in other regions may have the opposite effect.

@coffeerevelsrule I agree it’s unfair. But honestly, if you had the money, would you truly not have sent your son?

Absolutely people do move to areas where there are 'good' schools - just pop over to the education section on here and you will see many threads where people are talking about just that. I live in SW London and trust me - our house prices have rocketed in part due to parents moving into the area trying to be in the catchment of the local grammar schools.

Yes only the government can change things but we know the main political parties use focus groups to develop policies that make them electable.. maybe if more of us got active and angry about the state of the system - change would happen. This in my opinion is the only reason the current government has not completely privatised our NHS yet - as they know public opinion is against it. If I was cynical I might think they are deliberately run down the NHS into the ground to make it easier to be completely privatised.

You are completely correct about the Ivies. I have Irifg-Amererican cousins on the East Coast (New York& Connecticut). They are all very wealthy but their children's lives have been so carefully planned. Right neighbourhood (Rye, Scardsdale etc) private catholic school, loads of enrichment camps, carefully chose activities (2 instrument's, hockey, lacrosse, rowing, debating, languages), lots of foreign travel. They have pumped serious money & social & cultural capital into the kids who are now heading for the Ivies..

I did have the money and chose not to send dd. Not out of some kind of noble notion of fairness, but rather because I didn't feel that it was worth it.

I agree with those posters who say that family background/wealth are the factors that really determine outcomes for children, not private schools per se. Educated, aspirational parents, a strong work ethic and enough money to facilitate extracurricular/supercurricular activities.

There will be some kids who no doubt benefit from extra attention/extra pushing etc that they get at a private school, but lots of private school pupils would probably do just as well wherever they went.

To be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that there isn't huge inequality in the system, and we absolutely need to try to tackle that. However, I think it's about wealth and aspiration rather than private schooling per se.

And OP, the fact that you have started a thread worrying about this absolutely does mean that your ds has at least one supportive parent, regardless of how crap the other parent might be. That makes a huge difference.

The state school near has a kind of selection by house price. It does very well, the dc have a range of next places they go on to as would be expected from mixed cohort at entry. But if you have 9 / A star / Oxbridge dc they can reach that aim. It’s a comp not a grammar.

Many parents make sacrifices or put a lot of effort in to being near that school. What would the anger look like in reality?

They won’t be asking to mix up who goes eg through a lottery system. They don’t want it to be a more difficult environment. They’re not going to argue for it. The opposite is more likely.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves but the OP @coffeerevelsrule does think it is worth it. Hence my question.

I agree other factors are relevant but if you see 70% of barristers for instance having been privately educated, and you want your son to have an equal chance, isn’t it also morally questionable to sacrifice your child’s chances on the basis of a wider moral principle?

Yes I agree with some of this wealth and aspiration are important - the problem with private schools is many with aspirations don't get the chance of private school as they haven't got the wealth. If private schools were not offering something special/ additional to state schools why would the wealthy send their children to them... private schools sadly in my opinion don't ameliorate the problem of inequalities but add to them.

The whole idea that new - to- state school parents would demand some radical change is a pipe dream.

look at the mess theNHS is in, NHS dentistry etc too. The government aren’t listening to what most people want and need.

‘Demanding’ parents will do nothing aside from upset and further demoralise school staff who are doing their absolute best already

There is a bit of me thinks one sure way of making sure state schools are the best they can be is to make all MPs kids attend state schools.

Now I know it will never happen, and you'll end up with some state schools having ££££ houses around them.

But it means they'd be an incentive to make sure all schools were properly funded, repars all up to date, well equipped, the SEN kids would have proper help as they won't want their kids education being compromised by wee dyslexic or ASD Johnny taking up far more of the teachers time than they should.

But it's a pipe dream that will never happen. Or they'd send their kids abroad for the best education.

It's a good question as to why the wealthy send their kids to private schools.

In many cases, I think there is just an assumption that private schools are better, perhaps because people look at results without also looking at the cohort. However, bright kids can do just as well in state schools.

In some cases, I think people believe that they're buying access to a better peer group, ie less disruption etc. Not necessarily the case!

Some people are attracted by the wide range of extracurricular activities on offer, or lots of sport etc. But there is no reason why these can't be facilitated outside school if a parent is willing.

Some people believe that private schools confer confidence. But again, nothing that can't be developed and nurtured by a canny parent facilitating access to a range of opportunities.

Some people value the network that private schools offer. That may be valid in some cases, but only where the parents don't already have a wide network of their own.

Some people are attracted by the nice environments and superior facilities in private schools. This is fair enough, I suppose, if you prioritise that kind of thing.

Some people value the longer school days/one-stop-shop approach to extracurricular activities because it fits around their work commitments etc. Fair enough if that's what suits them.

Some people feel that their kids are struggling either academically, and that they would benefit from more attention/smaller class sizes etc. Fair enough if they feel that's what their kids need.

Some kids feel that their kids are struggling socially and that they would benefit from being in a smaller, more nurturing environment. Fair enough.

Some people feel that their kids lack self motivation and would benefit from being in a pushier environment. Again, fair enough.

Some people feel that their children's SEN will be better supported by a private school. Fair enough, if they have researched this and found it to be the case.

Some people have significant concerns about the specific state schools that are available to them, and choose private schools as a last resort. That may or may not be valid, depending on the schools in question.

I think there are lots of different reasons why people might choose to go private, but not all of the reasons are equally valid imo. And not all kids would necessarily benefit. Some kids thrive within the state sector, and simply don't need any of the "extras" that private schools are able to offer.

You might but countless studies have proven that accent influences how intelligent we perceive someone to be. I have experienced this first hand so know for a fact it is definitely still a thing, especially with British accents that are viewed as working class. Studies also suggest ethnic minority accents are also perceived negatively.

Well I have an accent from a (northern) European country. So I am an ethnic minority in the UK.

I think I'm pretty intelligent and do not at all feel held back by your suggested prejudices.