Grammar Schools and Private Schools

[peapodlovescuddles]

I genuinely don't know what to think here so would be interested to see what other mumsnetters have to say

Today while my son was swimming I overheard another mother moaning. Her DD has just found out she hasn't got a place at our fantastic local grammar school.
She was saying it wasn't fair people like peapod sent their children to grammar school when we could easily afford private school fees, my DCs went to a good prep school and then onto the grammar because I wanted them to meet a wide range of people from many walks of life. I didn't feel this would be accomplished at the local public school and I don't want my children to board.

So should I have sent my children to the private school so someone less well off could have had their place? Or is ANYONE entitled to a state education?

Pristina, think you must be very close to us, DH went to this school and we are considering it as an option for our DS1.
Because of the difference in the intake age we took the decision to move DS1 to prep school (Vinehall) as this will fill the missing two years!
However following conversations with mums IRL and with a tutor in Battle we are now considering Ashford grammer as an option at 11.
Once DS1 started we had our eyes opened and now DS2 has joined him and so will DD when she goes to reception.
To the other posters, I would absolutely love to send my children to private all the way through, however I have no idea if this will be financially possible so I plan for other scenarios,
I did not send them to Prep and Pre-Prep with any intention of playing the system but simply with the wish to do the best we could for them all.
For us this means going without a lot of things but, so far it is the best decision we have ever made.

I know a number of people with v strong Northern accents who went to Oxbridge and who are partners in top law firms and senior investment bankers. I really don't think any sane person in London gives a damn what your accent is.

Newpup - you are so right. This government ties itself up in knots trying to manipulate societal structures and even out the 'hills' and 'dips' without spotting the bloody obvious, which is that they are actively facilitating Oh God, I can't be arsed. I haven't actually got the energy for one of those class war rows today!

Oh, I see. You mean it only takes children from 13? And it is a state school? How bizarre. It isn't in an area where they have middle schools? So you are saying that most of the children have come from private prep schools that go up to 13, (as the norm) and any state school pupil has to leave a school after 2 years to go there. That's odd.

Coaching for 11+ isn't something I asked our local prep. I chose it because it accommodated my working hours and because it will give my ds a good education. I was aghast at the recent Rugby ruling as if that is carried out nationwide we will lose the opportunity of applying for our local grammar school since although we are in catchment (it is our closest secondary school) we are out of county.

Part of our LEA moves children to secondary at 13 and our local prep only goes up to 11.

Thank you TiggyR!! I'm so glad someone understands as I have a real thing about this- it seems so unfair. There are no middle schools in Kent. Every single primary school ends at age 11. Every single senior school (except this one!) starts at age 11.

There is a "gap" in the state school provision in this part of Kent between the ages of 11 to 13. It is quite literally the only area in the country to do this, and it means that taxpayers are, in reality, funding a free private senior school! (Much more so than for your average grammar school).

Quite how this isn't a breach of the Admissions Code (which promotes social unity in the local area among other things) is beyond me.

Hmmm. That sucks.

Of course everyone has the right to a state education: it is a universal right. But it leaves a nasty taste when someone talks of wanting to send their kids to grammar school so they can meet a wide section of society, given they have sent them to a prep school. If you wanted them to meet a wide range of people, why didn't you do it at an age before many of their prejudices have been formed? As for sending children to a prep school to prepare them to get into a state school: well, there's nothing illegal about that and nothing to stop you. But that leaves an even nastier taste in the mouth. I don't think you should pick and choose when you are committed to state education: you either support it or you don't.

And, of course, the single thing that would most improve results in state schools would be the abolition of fee-paying schools. That's the real answer.

Susie100, places where an educated person could work post-university that are not the South of England are: the North, the Midlands, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the rest of the world. I think that is pretty obvious and I hope my children will think a bit wider than just the North or South in terms of future career opportunities, and even in terms of university if the opportunity arises. That is why grammar schools tend to focus on languages, and skills in science, which are in demand worldwide.

OP, sorry that this has become a bit of a thread hijack!

chickenfortea, have only just read your post and yes, I think a lot of people living in the vicinity of this area have to change their entire plans regarding schooling because of this age 13 thing. I'm tempted to make a complaint about it, but I expect there would be stiff opposition to any changes from the cluster of prep schools that rely on this school for their entire existence! (Hijack over).

With regard to op, under the present system your friend is being unfair because there is nothing to stop people moving from private to state at age 11. However I would have thought that a good state school, plus tuition, plus pushy parents was equal to prep school regarding your chances of a grammar school place.

I'm afraid I can't accept that abolishing fee paying schools would necessarily improve results in state schools. If you look at the statistics, the worst performing state schools are in general located in places with a very low proportion of children attending private school. This is of course what you would expect given income/ education levels etc.

Abolish private schools and sure, state schools in middle class areas would improve from their already often very good standards. The worst performing schools will be broadly untouched given that often less than 2% of children locally are privately educated.

I see nothing wrong in the OP's desire to pick and choose. To use an analogy in the health sector, was I wrong to pay for a 12 week scan privately because my local health authority didn't offer one? Presumably the local primary schools on offer didn't meet her requirements for whatever reason.

our local grammer schools take children from well out of the area, the only disadvange I feel is that in our borough you have to list the grammer school as 1st on your list of 3 schools, if your child doesn't then pass, you are highly unlikely to get in to the other schools on your list as they fill up with pupils who have listed these schools as first choice. if you come from out of the borough these pupils don't have to list the grammer school on their forms, so they can safe guard their alternative comp school by listing it as a 1st choice, they can then decline the place if they then get accepted to the grammer school.I consider myself very lucky to have got my sons 1st choice of school, even though we are slightly out of catchment, it has just been classed as outstanding in ofsted, so I personally am glad I didn't bother entering him in the 11+, it isn't always the best option even for a bright child.

AllFallDown, Well yes of course it would but it's not a reasonable or realistic request really, is it? On that basis we'd have to abolish everything that came under the private sector and have state controlled everything, then 99.9% of us would be equal sure, and the other 0.1% would be the ruling government elite, which clearly would be total and utter crap. Utopia doesn't exist. Allow freedom of choice, free markets, and all that, just make all state education equal. As only 7% of children are privately educated anyway, and by no means all of them are academically and intellectually superior to state school children (I'm sure you won't argue with that) then putting those 7% back into the mainstream is hardly going to make much difference, unless of course you have an enforced social engineering admissions policy whereby all children in every local authority are 'graded' like chickens and are mixed up and evenly distributed to ensure an even spread of abilities and social backgrounds in all schools, which would be impractical, cause needless travelling, damage local communities, annoy parents (including many of the ones it was designed to help) and just be revolting on all sorts of levels.

All this nonsense about middle-class children having a stranglehold on 'good' schools because their parents can afford to buy into the expensive catchment areas is missing the point. Is it just me? Why are all the 'good' schools in such 'nice' non-problematic areas? And more importantly why are all the really 'bad' ones, er...not?

I can think of several schools I know of that have been put into special measures, closed down, and re-branded to rid them of their stigma. Not one of them has been in a 'nice' area. Unless every teacher in the country is shallow and ruthless and motivated only by the glory of good SATs results (in which case it's unlikely they'd be teaching at all) it is too simple and convenient to say that schools in poor areas are disadvantaged because they cannot attract good teachers.

Ooh, Chocolatedot, I spent so long composing my last post that I've just seen you've said it for me!

I beg to differ TiggyR- your post is vastly superior

The labour government proves time and time again they'd drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator so abolishing private education would just mean everyone being worse off.
Everyone would just home ed assuming that's still legal.

No, just more waffly. I strive for succinctness and fail.

Is succinctness a word? I must pop over to pedants' corner...

A child who is in a tiny class at a prep school has a massive advantage over a state school child in a class of say 32. Their numeracy and literacy skills are far higher because of the small class sizes, better resources and having no distruptive kids in their classes. State schools find it hard to kick out ADHD Adrian or thuggish theo. They do better in the 11+ as they have had a better education.

It is unfair and has everything to do with money. It is unfair that the bright child in a council flat cannot have the same level of preparation as the child in the prep school.

However I think that all parents are entitled to a state education for their child. Prehaps what would be fairer would be to limit the percentage of privately educated children that a state grammar accepts. Although I suspect that many parents would just switch their kids at year 6.

"Allow freedom of choice, free markets, and all that, just make all state education equal."

Yep. Cos the last six months have really proved the truth of the mantra that the markets are always right.

"The labour government proves time and time again they'd drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator so abolishing private education would just mean everyone being worse off.
Everyone would just home ed assuming that's still legal."

Well, that's just Daily Mail rubbish, completely untrue with regards to rising investment and standards in state education.

If private education is was abolished then the state would have to pay for the education of all those children currently privately educated - are we all prepared to pay the extra taxes necessary to fund this? I doubt it!

I was forced to send my children to the local prep school as, to quote my local council, "you are not in the catchment area for ANY of our primary schools"! Therefore they assume everyone who lives on my road will send their kids to private schools. Could in theory have forced them to provide places by taking them to court, but in the meantime my children would have been sitting at home getting no education. Gave in and sent them private.

Yes, the state would be able to afford it: cancel the schools' (utterly spurious) charitable status some years before abolition, and you can use the extra tax income to start generating the necessary cash.

Dream on - how much cash do you think that will generate? Not enough to pay for a 7% increase in demand for school places overnight (based on 7% of children being currently privately educated).

On the subject of coaching for grammar schools, our local girls grammar is one of top schools in the country, gets applicants from all over the UK.

Everyone I speak to in the area insists that it is IMPOSSIBLE for your daughter to get into this school without at least two years intensive coaching by one of the local tutors who specialise in entrance exams (and have long waiting lists!)

If this is true, how can a state school, funded by taxpayers money, justify its position as being a school only available to those whose parents can afford to pay for this?

Of course, I don't expect fee-paying schools to be abolished. But the abolition of their charitable status would be an important practical and symbolic step. Equally, public money should never be used for projects at private schools that benefit, principally, those who attend the schools (whatever the school might say about it being for public access). Because, for example, the boating lake at Eton College, which was publicly subsidised, was obviously of huge benefit to the local community.