To think State education is really poor?

[Boswelian]

We sent our eldest to a taster day at a private school. He was agog. His school don't allow playing on the grass when it's wet. The private school change them into waterproofs and wellies for break. PE 3x a week. Sport every day. Dedicated specialist teaching in art, DT, languages, sciences etc. 16 in a class instead of 30. The difference in the quality of life between the two school has really blown my mind. The state school is "outstanding". The private school reckon DS is 2 years behind their curriculum. We've been told in state that he's meeting expectations. How is this remotely acceptable?

Total education spending is around £116bn. Therefore, the optimistic IFS estimate is around 1.3% of the total budget. If people think that this is going to suddenly transform the state sector, I think they might be in for a shock. Transforming the state system is going to cost a lot more than that. It’ll be interesting where the funding is coming from.

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/annual-report-education-spending-england-2023#:~:text=Total%2520spending,-1.&text=In%25202022%E2%80%9323%252C%2520total%2520public,2.

But are you living in a fairly affluent middle class area to be able to access that wonderful single sex state school? If so that’s just another form of money buying education isn’t it?

Except there won’t be any extra cash. Labour has been very careful to cherry-pick their information and to not include the actual costs. Credible sources (like the ISC and the actual current drop out rate from private schools) suggests that somewhere in the region of 20% of privately educated children will leave the sector. That’s a cost of 600,000 to the state sector. Then there’s the 3-16% of children who will probably be made exempt because of SEN needs (dependent on what exactly the criteria is). Added to that, the law will necessarily have to be changed to allow schools to claim back VAT on their expenses. This can go back 10 years. Whilst for your average independent school this won’t mean much, for the ultra-rich few it certainly will. VAT on multi million purchases will be a substantial chunk of money so that has to be taken from the pot too. If Labour genuinely wants to raise money for state education this is ineffective; it could do it through a form of income tax which would hit all high earners. This is not about money, let’s not kid ourselves, though obviously supporting it from an ideological stance is another matter.

That's such a lazy argument, kids can and do thrive in state schools in less prosperous or mixed areas

They can but I don’t think the pp was incorrect, many people do access better state via funds eg house prices or selection on top

I went to a poor state school, as did my DH.

We would still not send our DC to a private school or a grammar school.

If there was excellent state school provision local to me I would not be spending 250k on private schools.

And yet you’ve previously said that you’d rather have a cheap house with no mortgage and pay for private school and retire early.

We aren’t. I live in a flat off Coldharbour Lane, and 40% of the children at DS’s primary are in FSM (looked it up last night after someone here was pearl-clutching about sending their child to a school with good results but 45% of children on FSM).

The school is outstanding (inspected earlier this year), offers MFL from reception, every child learns an instrument from year 2, they do a lot of music, dance and drama (concerts, plays and a dance show at least once a year), lots of trips, excellent Sats results.

They have spaces in every year. Going down to one form entry from next year due to the drop in birth rate. Any child in south London who wanted to go there could get in. There are similarly excellent schools across the borough, again available to everyone regardless of wealth.

The closest high-performing single-sex state secondary schools are in Peckham - again, not exactly a bastion of middle class wealth.

And this proves the point that there is huge inequality in the state system. Many people just don’t have access to those types of school. Those in London and the South East often have access to great school schools, which is probably why a lot of people don’t understand the need to use the private sector.

We sent our younger daughter to a private school on advice from the Police because she was being bullied (violently attacked ) at her state school : who did absolutely nothing about it.

Apart from her being happy and safe, the standard of education , in every sense and department , was so much higher, shockingly so.

But they do. People locally do spend £30k per year to send their four year old to DPL, HHS, JAGS, DUCKS etc. And obviously not because local state primaries are poor, because they aren’t. It’s to avoid the horrors of their little darlings mixing with the FSM kids.

(It really is that, I know plenty of parents with kids at these schools via DS’s rugby/tennis clubs etc, who are quite explicit about wanting to avoid their children mixing with The Poor).

We are in a similar boat and with the threat of VAT on fees and have already moved into catchment of an excellent state secondary. I will reduce my working hours when they start secondary so I am available to supplement their education in other ways.

We are one of a number of families in our prep school who have made this decision. Historically, destination schools for Y6 leavers have been in the region of 90% private. This year half the children are going to state secondaries (funnily enough, none of them to failing ones). A number of families currently in Y5 have moved house into areas where they can get into better state secondaries.

There is a cohort who will find the money no matter what but people need to stop kidding themselves that this will raise anywhere close to the amount projected. If people are already making these moves before labour are in power, you can only imagine how many will do so when the policy is implemented.

FWIW we use a small local prep school where the demographic consists of two working parents who are small business owners or professionals. Majority of parents choose the school for small class size and comprehensive wraparound care.

You’re missing the point that many families who use private schools don’t have good state options though. Some will use private regardless, but it’s by no means all. Many families have already tried the state system and it’s failed them. It’s precisely why they have switched to private.

It is all very well and good getting all political and idealistic about the sending your kids to a private school, but when the time comes we will try to do it for our boy if we can at all stretch to it. There are some brilliant state schools out there, but so many suffer from a shortfall in parental interest and aspiration for their children, that they are on a hiding to nothing. I'm not sure throwing money at them will help; no amount of new stationary will change these parents and likewise by extension, their children's attitude. I'll be paying to have him in an environment where education is valued and disruptive kids aren't tolerated. And we won't live in constant fear of knife crime because someone "dissed" someone or looked at them in the wrong way.

That’s correct. The point I was making is that I cut back on other things such as size/location of house to make school fees more affordable.

I’d prefer not to have to pay for private school at all and then I could retire even earlier but that’s not an option. I’m faced with either hefty school fees or an expensive move. I chose the former. I could have stretched things further and had a more expensive house and private school however I value earlier retirement more than I do a bigger house.

😂 quite

I’ve worked in three independent schools and went to another. I’ve also worked in three state grammar schools. The grammar schools offer almost everything the independents did and the overall quality of education was absolutely equal. Just facilities that are not quite as plush - no swimming pool, sports pitches more limited, etc. and class sizes a bit bigger (but doesn’t make that much difference for the kids when behaviour is overall good). I agree that even a very good comprehensive is not going to be ‘the same’ as an independent because, even where the independents are less academically selective, what they have in common with grammars is that they are a narrower and self-selecting segment of society - they are able to specialise in their niche. I wish we could have a wider variety of ‘specialist’ schools as another PP mentioned - grammars, technical schools, SEND/SEMH - with plenty of opportunities for students to ‘flow’ between them as appropriate (e.g. kid goes to grammar but isn’t thriving in the faster pace but could go to SEND/SEMH setting either temporarily or more permanently without it being seen as lesser or as ‘failure’; or kid goes a more practical/technical route initially but was a late developer academically and wants to move to grammar for GCSE/A Level.)

Think it’s a myth that the “better” state schools are equivalent to private. Even the better state schools cannot compete with private schools. There is less funding obviously/ they can’t boot out troublesome children easily as the local private schools can (and do) / in cities the demographic is always mixed - my builders and cleaners girls go to the same school that mine go to.

They ran a good sales pitch and you fell for it.
why won’t they tell you your child is 2yrs behind on their “curriculum” ? Do you do any extra work with your child at home?

My kids are at top state grammars. We pay for private 1-1 specialist support for select subjects and activities. They are thriving, high achievers and happy.

It is obv misleading to compare ‘state’ to ‘private’.

State schools could range from eg. an all girls grammar (grammars are always selective using the 11+), or it could mean a mixed, sink comprehensive in an inner city.

They are not comparable. So saying I went to state school could mean it was sort of almost private or it could comprehensive / academy crap. Obviously I’m Bot saying the teachers or kids are. They just need more investment. Where is it?

TheaBrandt · Today 11:45
Think it’s a myth that the “better” state schools are equivalent to private. Even the better state schools cannot compete with private schools

Really? But other posters are saying the state schools where they live are greatly superior to the local private schools.
(As others have said, if that’s the case then why bother abolishing private schools - of the parents want to waste their money then it’s up to them).

It’s comparing apples and pears though isn’t it?

It’s a very nuanced and subjective choice. Here the state option is decent so on balance we felt private was not worth it for our robust NT quite academic girls. The state schools are full of teens like them. It’s cool to do well.

But it’s not equivalent to a private school - they are very different offerings.

Except most of the country doesn't have the privilege of living in grammar areas 🙄

Anyone relying on top grammar, which can get good results, will face greater competition to get in with the VAT policy in place

Plus the tax payer will have to fund their places when now the parents do that.

Assuming they’re all bright enough for grammar which they won’t be.Some grammars do access programs now anyway focusing on the less wealthy and state.