If you could afford to send your kids to a private school, would you?

[juicychops]

or would you choose for them to go to a 'normal' state school?

just curious what your responses will be

That is nothing to do with it being private or state, elastamum-it is the ethos of the school. It can happen, or not happen, in either sector.

But so many independent schools seem to exist to gloss up the rather pedestrian talents of better off children ... we can spot this grooming a mile off in Oxbridge interviews.

So why do you let so many in Boffin?

I don't

Remember more of them apply in the first place though, a lot more.

Then you are not representative.
The last time I saw the stats almost half of Oxbridge students were independently educated. Of the half that are not, a huge number are from grammar schools.

Your average comp, considering this is what the vast majority of schools are in the UK, gets very litle representation.

Isn't "glossing up the talents" of our children what we pay for?

Yes, but as I said, fewer children from state schools apply even if they are likely to get the grades. If they don't apply, we can't give them a place.

It is a cause of great frustration, because everyone thinks it is some sort of Oxbridge conspiracy to maintain the ruling order.

That's something I really believe Boffin mum.

My grammar school had really bright girls and they didnt apply. Average private school and so many applied without 2 brain cells to rub together!

I rest my case.

Isn't "glossing up the talents" of our children what we pay for?

It's what Xenia pays for.

They generally went on to do medicine at other Unis... ARGHHHH

Not if they fall apart without the ongoing support and glossing, once they are on their own in a very intense environment, and then start on the ritalin and street drugs to try to compete, and end up with major psychological problems at some stage. It can be dark for them if the preparation has resulted in a lack of resilience.

The medicine course at the Russel group uni DH was on was all multiple choice and a joke.

I would like to have the option, but would only be for 6th form. Until then I think the comprehensive school i attended was fab. The 6th form was good, don't get me wrong, but the classes were too big and you couldn't get as much support as i think was needed from teaching staff.

Would depend totally based on how my DS performed at school. If he was education focused but would benefit from smaller classes, more teaching support and more of a kick up the backside: then yes!
But, if he was more focused on the more applied subjects then I believe that a comprehensive school or college would be best.

But there are also very bright kids at independent schools, Boffinmum. And as an admissions tutor you must also realise that some independents just exist to bring out the best in the kids attending rather than to artificially inflate their results but coaxing.

Also, as I keep saying, there are many 'comps' around the country were the intake is predominately very affluent and those children will have had a very similar background with added tutoring. When we lived in Surrey and Cheshire we saw frequent advertising of services which help with 'draft' personal statements who claim to tailor the advice they give to the uni the child is applying to.

Not if they fall apart without the ongoing support and glossing, once they are on their own in a very intense environment, and then start on the ritalin and street drugs to try to compete, and end up with major psychological problems at some stage. It can be dark for them if the preparation has resulted in a lack of resilience.

I assume though that of you are able to spot them a mile off and don't, as you suggest, let many such applicants in, this isn't too much of a problem? Or at least if there is a problem, the reasons for it are different? Or more complex and not limited to a certain type of student from a certain background? There seems to me to be some stereotyping from all sides going on.

My privately educated children are neither rich nor clever (okay one is clever but the other isn't really) but I teach in the school (85% off) and am a single parent (10% off).

However, I have to say they really attend the school because I wouldn't be able to cope if they were elsewhere. There's a lovely village school literally over the road from our house. I would be equally happy with that for older daughter (Y4 at Prep) and much happier with it for younger daughter (R at pre prep) but it finishes at 3.15. We go on till at least 4.40 and I am often required to work till 9 or 10pm.

I did worry that they would be seen as the poor relations at school and not integrate socially but that has been far from the case for 3 main reasons:

1. staff children make up 5-8% of most year groups.
2. there are lots of families who are poor AFTER paying fees (obviously they aren't poor as they can pay the fees but if they are watching every penny and living in tiny houses in difficult areas because of their choices then, as far as the children are concerned, they might as well be poor families iyswim)
3. the vast majority of the children couldn't care less what background another child is from. Some of the parents are another matter but I don't care about them!

For me, the pros to having my children in prep school are:

1. small class sizes (16 for Y4 girl and 11 for R girl)
2. unbelievable school grounds (acres of woods and fields they are free to play in)
3. freedom from overly stringent health and safety (our children can climb trees, throw snowballs and have conker fights for example)
4. the extra curricular opportunities (more for the future than now, especially with the 4 yo!)
5. having sport every day and being allowed competitive sports/sports days

the cons are:

1. Saturday school (only from Y4 on and only until lunchtime but still ridiculous imo)
2. Longer school hours and more homework

For me as a teacher there are few if any cons to prep school education. I love:

1. Being free from the narrow and shallow national curriculum
2. Having amazing performing arts teaching opportunities
3. Working very long hours (yes, I am a sad case but I enjoy it so much!)
4. Spending time with children who are boarders
5. Being able to teach GCSE + level material without having to deal with that age group

I have to admit my choice was made more for me than for my children. They adore going to school but I know they would be equally happy in either sector. It's me who would be much less happy in a state school.

And as for private school parents not knowing about the real world - I completely disagree. There are a section of parents who don't but by no means all. And it can work the other way too. My parents were privately educated and actually were rather naive about the world. But I went to a very average local comp. Hence, I was a state school child whose parents knew little of the real world and am now a private school parent who knows plenty!

oh, and the prep I work in is totally unselective. A large proprotion have learning difficulties and/or are ASD. We also have a certain amount with behavioural and emotional problems.

Private school certainly won't guarantee you immunity from disruptive and struggling children!

manicinsomniac: if you'retotalky unselective, does that mean you're generally undersubscribed, or have sufficient flexibility to add classes to fit the total number of applicants every year?

scaevola - non-selective private schools usually work on a first come first served basis, rather than by comparing applicants and choosing which ones to take.

scaevola - for most children at most times we are very unlikely to be full. We currently have one year group with only 1 space but the rest have between 5-8 spaces. Children leave and join every term (and often in the middle of terms too).

I have zero experience of any other independent but I believe that's very standard for prep schools outside London these days. Waiting lists are essential for many of the senior schools e feed but certainly not for us. With a few exceptions (PMLD, most SLD, boarders who are persistently unhappy etc), we will essentially take any child, especially if they're going to be a boarder - I suppose it all comes down to money in the end.

A private school cannot make a child with a 100 IQ clever enough for Oxbridge or a Russel Group university. However if good teaching in a state grammr or private school makes the children interested in work, love their subjects and do well then any objective university entrance system and employer ought to be allowed to give credit for that.

There are very different kinds of private schools. If you take say the top 20 for exam results which are the ones we've largely known they are like the state grammars. Hardly anyone can get into them. Save for Prince Harry your average prep school boy will not pass for Eton. Most boys are nothing like clever enough. The day privates like Manchester grammar they are marking papers totally blind to who the child is and it is the very brightest who get in so not surprisingly the finished product is bright and thus most children at Oxbridge from the state sector which si more than 50% of the intake are from selective state schools. It's not rocket science. Any Oxbridge admissions tutor can see that. Of course Oxbridge has always looked at the child from the rough school who got AAA when hardly anyone gets A levels and private school parents have never minded that. I wonder if I should have been advantages in the same way - tiny private school, not that many went to university, no one ever been to Oxbridge b ut it would take a very non PC not right on left wing admissions tutor to give preference to a school like mine although why not?

The trouble is as soon as you have to many formal criteria like if your parents went to university you are marked down, if you went to the best comp in the area you are marked down it all becomes very complicated and unfair on those whose parents thought buy moving to surrey and sending the chdil to a comp where only the chidlren of the rich go they wwere doing right by you. Instead had they sent you to a London sin k comp you might have had a better chance at university.

In fact it's rather comforting so many of the universities this year have stuckby their principles and simply recruited those who are the best and ignored Govermnent interfering dictat.

Wow, so many posts here! It's interesting to red so many different points odf view. As some posters have said I think Britain is really different from most countries, in Europe at least, in having such a huge private sector and that does change things for all the schools. It is true that state schools are not representative of all sectors of society if a large proportion of children are not in that system, and I think it does negatively impacton the state schools. In Britain, unlike other European countries, it is a huge advantage to have been to the right sort of private school, and I admire some of those as I think they really are centres of excellence, bringing out the best in their pupils academically and also in a much broader sense. Unfortunately, though, I thinkthey are the main factorperpetuating the extremeclass division in Britain.