AIBU to discuss A level success without private school spending?

[Absorbthecost]

Parents/carers who have not spent a penny on Educating their children and they have just received great A level results.

The sacrifices made all the struggle,

I’m interested to discuss families where the child has succeeded without need for private school

https://www.gbnews.com/money/private-school-fees-soar-vat

https://www.ft.com/content/091b214d-231b-414a-8f3e-9ef9fc021926?syn-25a6b1a6=1

Those who did pay,

presumably to secure great results at A level

The same kids off to Uni, placements easier to secure as less international competition. Uni the playing field evens.

And now time to pay for Uni,

https://inews.co.uk/news/education/university-tuition-fees-11000-2030-4705197?srsltid=AfmBOorss52PSHD6xJzisWMdeNxcXDen3IrCGS49nnGH1ZyDnmvTOh_k

A child who did outstanding (without spending a penny) the same result as a family who spent £250k + The above article is a low estimation for a selective U.K. day/ boarding.

The kids holding the same result off to the same Uni, How are families feeling!?…. Did you save to help towards the Uni Fees/accomodation.

But how if all the places are taken and the existing students qualify?

edit - like I said before it would be very unusual for this to happen unless school super small as usually places are available in sister form in average size comps

I’ve had one child in (Scottish) state and one in private and totally disagree. At the state school my child was shouted at - obscenities, abuse, laughed at because of something they wore etc - by dangerously violent classmates regularly. It wasn’t them being picked - it happened to every child. My child and a lot of their peers learned to keep their heads down and their gobs shut. They were cowed.

My private school child found respect between teachers and fellow pupils alike was the norm. Poor behaviour and abuse weren’t tolerated which resulted in happy, confident kids who - perhaps with a touch of arrogance- were far more likely to stick up for themselves and be resilient.

I really find it so offensive the idea that you become ‘resilient’ by being attacked regularly. The state school used to use the word ‘resilience’ to excuse so much bullying. ‘Oh well, it’s a shame that thug punched your kid, but it will be a great lesson in resilience for them’.

This is how I feel and why we didn't want to use the grammar system before. If there is state education it should be available at the same level to all. Parents who send kids to grammar and begrudge private school kids who get better results can't see that irony. Paying for DC to go to state through taxes and then paying on top for a private school should keep a space for your kid open in the state system. They've enjoyed years of funding without having to look after the child, after all!

What I struggle with is that the places should be there for every child in the area. Limiting space at A' Level for a child scraping 50 points at GCSE, for example, and rejecting a child who did far better, purely on the basis the first child was tutored and wasn't meant to be in a high achieving school, is ridiculous and doesn't help the school show it's potential either.

The solution is 2 fold.

1. We need to find more money for state education. Either through higher taxation or through spending less in other areas and redistributing that money onto education.
2. Parental responsibility needs reinforcing through law. No one should be sending their kids to school in nappies (rare exceptions excluded). Bad behaviour at school should be directed at the parents. Cut benefits, take council houses away. Etc.

There is nobody to reject, the places aren’t there because those that are already there have the grades to stay. Not sure what you mean about children not being meant to be there and schools not showing their potential either. Some of the top performing state schools have sane requirements and have no need for all 8s/9s from pupils particularly 8s/9s from private schools which are far easier to attain.50 points does not mean a child doesn’t deserve to be there either. Some kids can have spiky profiles and all sorts of shit can happen in 5 years at secondary. Also state schools do not have all the advantages the private sector has eg classes of 15.

A top academic outstanding comp would have at least a 7 requirement in the subject to be able to take at A-level so a child barely scraping by wouldn’t be allowed to continue.

Grammars in our area just want 50 points and a 6 in the subject. However they prioritise past pupils as long as they get 50, so even if they have a candidate with a much higher profile the school can't take them over the kid who has never shown as high an aptitude despite being in the best school since year 7. It feels unfair that just because their parent likely paid for tutoring in y6 someone who has better results can't take a coveted place in 6th form.

So they might have 9s in their subjects and other supporting subjects but lower grades in other areas, or may have SEND or experienced shitty life circumstances or mental difficulties. You can’t say they were tutored and undeserving. A higher profile from a private school is pretty meaningless as many grammars are struggling with massive classes and low finance. In our area the hugely successful grammars have similar entry for 6th form but still have masses of places as loads leave having had enough of the stuffiness. State schools shouldn’t be in the habit of turning out pupils, the hideous stress and strain that would put on pupils would be awful. It isn’t a requirement of grammars that everybody has to leave with As for everything. Kids vary and have all sorts of profiles.

I was pointing out that the state sector shouldn't be selective at all in my opinion. If they are selective at 11+ they should start afresh and be as selective again at A Level or they continue to not give opportunities to the same people.

Not sure how you’d get that to work and clearly they don’t feel they have to so it is what it is. Have to say I don’t really agree with the grammar sector either however I disagree with turfing kids out and putting the fear of silly grades over their heads for 5 years even more. Unis don’t contextualise grammars so I’m not sure what the advantages of going to one for Alevels would be anyway.

Agree with your second point - but not the first, if you are suggesting that taxation should be even higher on private school parents: they are already paying for a state service they do not use. In some other countries, people who choose to pay for private education are reimbursed by the state!

When you go to an academy chain school you don't sit the 11 plus. You take sats. Academy chains are normal state schools run by academy chains

A place would be available at a school/college, maybe just not the one you want. You just need to go on a waiting list if it's full like every other child in the state system

So then you should resit some kind of exam at sixth form entry and also widen any catchment area significantly. So much of cognitive development happens after 11+. Alternatively select for overall GCSE results.

If there are desirable academies, that would open up for bright children who were less pushed at 11 and whose parents couldn’t afford nearby houses. I find it outrageous that the state should fund education for the children of pushy parents, safeguard 6th form places based on early selection and lock out other children who may be higher performing.

I was explaining it isn't just a waiting list, it is a 6th form of a grammar with preference for kids who got in an 11+ over candidates who score higher at GCSE. If they are going to be selective and decide not to allow kids at 10/11 they need to be selective at all entry points, not continue to gate-keep the best state education from pupils who do better than their current cohort.

But if these other kids are in completely crap schools how are they all getting a raft of 9s and if they have what is the point of moving? Who wants to be sitting additional exams whilst doing GCSE’s and how do you know most in grammars aren’t getting well over the requirements anyway?

And what is the obsession with grammars anyway?

If you live in a grammar area and your kid has an off day for 11+ the other options are often sink schools with history of often violent behaviour and very low aspirations and results. That is why in grammar areas (Kent, Essex, Surrey, London) more people pay for private schools.

If you have a kid who was locked out of the grammar system at 10 and you have paid a hefty amount because you value education or your kid has struggled through a sink school and got the best GCSEs of the year, how is it fair that your kid then cannot access that state education when they perform better than someone who hasn't realised that they had a lucky free ride and pulled their finger out?

That is what is bothering me @6thformoptions , it is abuse of the system by sharp elbow middle class parents.

@Pittachip I have noticed so many changes in children between 11 and 16, especially in maths but also in overall determination and intellectual curiosity. It is a way for the child to have more of an impact than parental wealth and sharp elbows. If there is a school where a child can do even better, where sixth form has specific course or amazing teacher or if they just feel like moving that should be possible.

you just cannot have a system where the tax payer pays for some children at the detriment of others, completely unrelated to ability.

How do you know they can’t? While many pupils continue into their school's sixth form, a significant number move elsewhere or change educational paths after GCSEs. Not every grammar school has its own sixth form attached.A student's preferred A-level subjects might not be offered or may clash on the timetable.Some pupils prefer a fresh start at a local tertiary college, further education college, or a comprehensive school's mixed sixth form.

And sorry but the best GCSEs from a private school are not as worthy as those from a state. I’ll reserve thought for those in the sink schools you describe that are getting the best grades.

I am explaining how the grammar schools in our area work. I doubt we are the only grammar area with this system. They need to decide if they are academically selective or not and stick to it.

But you don’t know they aren’t. You don’t know the grades their students have. If they’re as good as you think they are to the extent you get upset your kid isn’t there chances are their pupils are all getting way over the minimum requirements.

Ok this is how academy chains work. There are multiple primary in an academy chain spread out over a city and surrounding areas. Then there's multiple secondary schools in the academy chain covering the same area. This covers all areas affluent or not so much so you are not buying into the academy chain by moving.. Then there is one college in the city that is the academy chain college for all those schools. Pupils from those schools are prioritised because they are already on the academy role. So you have pupils from several schools going to the college. If they have extra places which they normally do those places are then given to outside pupils after the academy chain pupils get there spot. They carnt produce a indefinate number of places for everyone else due to cost State schools like this including the college are for everybody, including every ability, you carnt just kick out current students because a private kid with a better grade wants the place. It doesn't work like that. Everyone deserves a place including those who get lower grades. State school is not like private . I'm my area every state school is part of 3 different academy chains, they aren't some super selective school for bright pupils, they cater for every ability.

Wow. I thought no one had a chance against private school. I don’t understand why anyone would pay.