Private school pupils penalised

[Cortina]

school

Thoughts on this? Has this been happening anyway? Interesting.

:) I'm considering it liked!!

I think it is great and much fairer to all kids. It shouldn't be about if their parents had the money. As for people working hard, many people work hard and cannot afford the bills; never mind private school fees!

From the article: "St George?s Medical School in London offers places to students with lower A-level grades (BBC rather than AAB) providing that their performance is 60 per cent better than the average for their school". This makes no sense at all.

Completely agree with sticky. I just don't understand how you can say that a student coming in to read maths who got a B is somehow superior to someone else who got an A or A*, solely because they did better than 60% of the other students at their state school, possibly in completely different subjects! University courses don't start with 2 weeks' remedial training for those who were at schools that didn't prepare them for the course - either you know the maths already and know your hyperbolic functions and triple scalar products, or you don't - nothing to do with how well the rest of your school did in their A-levels!

I think the point that iggly makes above is a salient one - if this "radical plan" comes into force, should she turn down a bursary for her son at an independent school because he's going to be discriminated against when he applies for university? Should ithoughtthis keep her son in a school that's wrong for his needs because universities will discriminate against him in 7 years' time? That just shows that university entrance is the wrong time to be applying this kind of social engineering.

I do think that universities can and should use contextual information to differentiate between a wealthy kid from a public school who spent his summer trekking in the Amazon to publish a paper in an academic journal on social customs of the Yanomamo (true story), and a poor kid from a state school who worked in McDonalds over the summer and just read books from the library - but only AFTER both those kids had demonstrated their academic ability, as measured by exam grades, as a prerequisite to showing they have the knowledge to do the course.

Ok jellybeans - answer iggly's question above. Should she pull her son out of his independent school which he attends on a full bursary, because he will be discriminated against when he applies for uni?

Not everyone who goes to Eton is rich - 20% are on full fees and another 20% have some form of financial assistance. Not everyone who goes to a comp is poor - some families with kids at state school will have far more disposable income than a family, like my PIL, who lived hand to mouth for years to afford school fees for their three kids because they wanted them to go to a school with playing fields and music lessons more than once a month.

Jellybeans, you are seeing it too black and white. You are reading it as, private school=rich and state school=poor(er). This is certainly not always the case.

Whilst I would never dream of suggesting that most kids at fee paying schools don't come from reasonably affluent families, many are also on 100% remission of fees. Also, as per my earlier posts, you can see that many state school children are also living in a nice affluent bubble.

When we lived up North, many school fees were actually no more than what parents paid for day nursery fees and in some cases cheaper. They are more expensive down here but all that shows is that you cannot make assumptions that fee-paying = rich.

What about the children in grammar schools whose parents can well afford private school fees but choose the 'free' option, thus taking the place away from someone who could really benefit? The majority of pupils from our prep school go on to grammar. Where do they fit into this scheme?

But the point is only 7% of children go to private schools, and, if you look at the number of entrants to Oxford etc., there is a very high number from private schools. If this inequality is addressed that can only be a good thing. All children should be able to access a good education whether their parents are paying or not. Why should such inequality (as the above stats) exist?

There may be some children that are from disadvantaged homes (that recieve a scholarship) affected but presumably they had the benefit of the education and their school will be ranked along everyone else according to that school. It would then be up to the individual to decide whether to take any perceived risk in either direction.

Fozzie a potential grammar child might be better off in a good non selective comp under this scheme especially if 'borderline' for top A'level grades necessary for a top university? There were some stats about how this would/might influence Grammar students - will have a hunt.

Goinggetstough - thing is pupils will have been prepared in the independent sector from something like Y3 for public exams. Our local prep has tests and mini exams each week from Y3, the children could do tests in their sleep and know how to excel. Most coming from the usual state primary and local comp won't have this advantage. Sure some might show them the mark scheme at GCSE and A'level but this isn't the same.

Yes, but my point is that many children attending state comps in very affluent areas have all the same advatages especially at home as their neighbours using the private schools. I saw this in Surrey and Cheshire and now to a lesser extent in Sussex. These kids are tutored within an inch, have 3 holidays a year, tons of after school activities and live in large houses with amples gardens. My point is that they are really no less advantaged so making it about private schools makes no sense.

I don't think it's about private school pupils being penalised - more the opposite - state school pupils are being assisted.

Also, 7% is a national average and in some areas it's closer to 20% simply because other areas have a close to 0% usage.

My neighbour in Wilmslow paid just under 800k for her house and drove around in her new Range Rover. Her girls went to the outstanding primary school and she inteneded to send them to the very well regarded secondary. Her kids had everything kids could want inc amazing holidays and life experiences. They were a nice couple who were interested in their kids education and fully supported the school. I think she'd be quite annoyed at the idea that her children were at a disadvantage behind mine simply because we opted out of the state system.

Bramshott if a student from an independent school with AAB is turned down for a place in favour of a student from a state school with BBC, solely on the basis that the student from the state school's grades were better than 60% of the other students at their school (the example given in the article), then the independent school pupil is definitely being penalised.

When I did my A level selections about 6 years ago, I was at a boarding school with a mixed academic range (from very high to lower than people might "expect" from a fee paying school). This is when the norm across state schools was 4 AS levels then drop an AS and do 3 A levels + General Studies, thus ending up with 4. My school did not do general studies as an exam, so we would in theory have ended up with 3 A Levels.

We were told in no uncertain terms that there were certain universities who would look at our school and question the fact that we were only doing three when we were in a position to do four. There was no compulsion to do four (the school didn't push people who really would have struggled) but for those of us whose universities might have been leaning towards rankings like this, it was made very clear that four A levels would be expected and we would have to justify ourselves if we did not do them.

I think that's completely fair. I don't think it is fair to discriminate without asking. Yes, I had a good education and I don't doubt that some of my peers at university worked harder than me to achieve their grades, but that doesn't mean I did not work hard. I worked harder than friends at religious grammar schools who would, presumably, be ranked higher than me in this system.

I think the main problem is that there will never really be a way to give students from a less advantaged background an equal footing without also disadvantaging more advantaged students. I'm sure there should be, but I don't think it will really happen.

It doesn't sit right with me, even though my children are state educated. It seems to lend itself to massive flaws, like other PPs suggested.

A side point, but if you look on the "good school guide" they have added a guide to universities abroad. I know some countries in the EU are already offering top rated degrees such as science and medicine in English for a very small fee indeed. I am watching with interest as I think this will be a very real option for us and many other families.

I have said it before but I think British unis due to fees and lots of other reasons will see themselves having to fight hugely for students in the future and all these measures will have to drop - I think they are still in a honeymoon period, believing they really still be getting more applicants than places, which won't be the case in a few years' time, once the 9k fees kick in.

'Yes, but my point is that many children attending state comps in very affluent areas have all the same advatages especially at home as their neighbours using the private schools. I saw this in Surrey and Cheshire and now to a lesser extent in Sussex. These kids are tutored within an inch, have 3 holidays a year, tons of after school activities and live in large houses with amples gardens. My point is that they are really no less advantaged so making it about private schools makes no sense.'

Then for what reasons, in these affluent areas, do some parents (such as those mentioned in the posts above) still opt to go private? If there was no advantage at all, why would they do it (and pay all that money)?

I live in a fairly affluent area with pockets of poverty. Local state is good. There are lots of very well off people at the school but also lots of very disadvantaged. There are still quite alot that send their kids to private. If the local school is good/outstanding then there must be another reason. perhaps some of the reasons listed on another thread; 'not dealing with rif raf' from a mum who uses private school, 'social networking' etc. Are these not advantages?

How about a family which lives in an area with really dreadful state schools and that spends every spare penny on fees to a private school so that their child can get a reasonable education? Maybe that child gets AAA at A-level in three academic subjects, but might have only got BBC in three non-academic subjects at their local state school. Why on earth should that child be penalised at university entrance time?

Ok, we live in a more rural coastal area now but until last year lived in Cheshire. We were parents who paid despite the local schools almost all being graded outstanding or good.

I paid because as a teacher and a mum I could see these schools as being very SATs and results driven. Too narrow academically. Lots of parents who could afford to pay chose not to because the very thing theyd be paying for; academic pushiness was clear and present in the local state schools. I was paying more for the day to day experience. The extra music and the art and D&T facilities. I didn't have to pay for weekly swimming lesson or ballet or rugby as they got all this at school.

So what I am saying is that these kids are still just as priviledged. They still come from affluent homes and go riding on a Sat morning. Their parents just don't pay for their schooling. So making the dividing line paying or not paying is not the answer.

I expect that by the time my DC get to university age there will be far fewer children going to university because they cant afford the fees. At which point the universities wont be turning away good students in favour of social engineering.

My DC are privately educated. I have already told them that since I will be paying they will have the option of studying anywhere in the world. If the UK universities decide they dont want to take privately educated children, then they will simply study overseas at a good university elsewhere.

Agree with loving the coast. Am really paying for a broader education that is not driven by targets.

Top universities should be making offers to the students who show the most potential and sometimes it's not the ones with a glittering array of A stars. Anything that, in some small way, helps even the gap between the best and the poorest achieving schools is a good thing. I say this as parent of grammar and privately educated DCs.

That's a lot of spare pennies though, Bonsoir.

sue52 how will they measure potential at 18?

Just as important as potential is passion, drive, the ability to work hard and not waste the opportunity.

Don't the US universities have the SAT test which is a form of IQ/academic potential test you can't really prepare for? (I don't know much about it but think it's something like that?)

elastamum - then this target won't matter to you will it?

Time to call the bluff on all those who say they're not buying grades!