Private education - a waste of money, for arseholes?

[Pooella]

There's a certain irony in this title in that my DCs are both privately educated (both primary age)

And I apologise also for what must be the umpteenth rehash of the 'private vs. state' debate.

That said, what do you think?

I was thinking this having taken my DD to a playground near a state primary school. More community because the children tend to be local.

OTOH I shuddered a little when a couple of 'rough' kids came into the playground (about 9 or 10, swearing, etc.)

Though diverse ethnically the social profile of parents at private is very homogenous - if you're not a middle class, skiing at Christmas, type, you don't fit in.

We are quite well-off, about £150k/year net, but even so I'm conscious that senior education for 2 DCs is about a quarter-of-a-million. It is a little hard to see the value in that you can buy a whole set of after-school activities for about £1k/year (music, ballet, drama, sports, whatever you want), and then for bright children GCSEs and A Levels are not much of a challenge. (I went to a comprehensive school (albeit a rather leafy one) and got As and A*s in everything and then Cambridge, so hard to see what benefit I would have received from private.)

Outcomes so far from private? Posh accent, good behaviour, good levels of academic progress. But, we don't 'fit' in to the prep school parental mould, so not much social interaction for the DCs outside school (compounded with the greater distances to school), which is a shame.

My old school (now) gets about 80% A-C, so it's not exactly Stabton Comprehensive, but I'm not sure if the 50-60%-A-C-type places are necessarily mediocre (as in, if you've got the option to pay for it, as we do, then you'd be mad not to), or what.

There are some independent schools known for being for the 'nice but dim', but they still seem to get 80%+ on their GCSEs, and assuming the intake at these places is not up to the standard of the average comprehensive (which seems likely, unless you believe that being able to afford school fees means your kids are brainy), then they are presumably delivering better outcomes. But whether that is because the parents are more motivated, or because the school is better is not clear? Perhaps the expectations on the lower sets in comprehensives are not high enough? Or are they just too many kids/parents there that don't give a shit?

So is it in fact the nice-but-dim kids that get the value from private, where they will be coached to an inch of their lives to get them up to GCSE/A Level standard, whereas the brainy ones would get their A*s (almost) anywhere and might as well just go to the local comp and save £100k, and there will be plenty of motivated top set kids there to mingle with.

TOSN
Fair point. But what I would also say is that the benchmark for a good school is too low in my view. Our children are going to have to compete in an international market place. A school that gets half its pupils through 5 gcses (or replacement) a-c isn't really good enough, its not a sink school by any stretch of the imagination but its not particularly impressive either.

I think you will find a lot of children of 9/10 and onwards swear when not with their parents, it has nothing to do with parenting or schooling.

Rosemary: be careful, you're insulting people's children. You aren't talking about mine for a start.

Rosemary
If you sail through life with your nose in the air do you bump into stuff? Maybe flies get in?

I'll have to check my children out later for bumps and insects.

Private Education buys a lifelong ability to be totally arrahagant. I'd love to sail through life with me nose up in the air, and given half a chance would buy the package for my own children. TOWIE is testamont to the fact that the nice but dim still can't be saved no matter how much money is thrown at them.

Ever heard the term "Wearing your ignorance like a badge ?"

I read on here often when someone is talking of which are the good schools near them, that Ofsted should be ignored, and that schools DO go from bad to outstanding (and vice versa presumably) so this CAN happen with the right focus and leadership. Why should ANY school in this day and age be THAT bad?

Lots of people believe behaviour/'standards' in this day in age are very much worse, so unless you believe that a good or bad school is determined primarily by teaching methods/funding, it seems that in this day in age the schools will be getting WORSE.

Certainly it's not hard to see that the overwhelming majority of 'good' schools have a disproportionately middle class intake, and pretty much ALL the 'bad' schools take the poorest kids from the poorest areas.

Which is why so many people select state schools, in effect, not on the quality of teaching (so hard to measure), but on whether they are stuffed to the gills with 'nice' (i.e. middle class) children or not.

Lots of people believe behaviour/'standards' in this day in age are very much worse

Someone in every generation always thinks that. It ain't necessarily so.

Going private is the best thing we've ever done. We have/are making sacrifices to pay for them both, but to date it's worth it. It is however a personal decision. So listen to everyone's opinions, but only you know what is best for you and your children. Good luck deciding.

Maybe a school is only as good as its pupils . In terms of academic learning, you do better if your classmates are all relatively well behaved in class, well fed, have done their homework and are willing and able to join in with what is being taught. Even I think you get more of that sort of pupil in a private school.

'but they still seem to get 80%+ on their GCSEs,'

It depends on WHICH GCSEs they are taking.

'Cause the school getting 80% on IGCSEs or GCSEs such as Latin are doing better than the school getting 80% on GCSEs including Business Studies, Statistics, etc.

And are they getting 80% A-Cs, or is that 80% at A*? There is a huge, huge difference. At my children's schools, anything below A is considered disappointing. B is barely acceptable (somewhat worryingly, given one of my children's performance in sciences).

At our local comprehensive, the headline 'best' results were a few pupils (one or two) getting 7 A or As at GCSE. At my son's school the headline was the children who'd got more than ten A (this won't be my son, btw). There's no question that my son is going to do better at his school than at the local comprehensive, where he'd be pushed into early entry for GCSE and everyone would be happy if he got a C+. Except for us.

Tosn I think it was porto who raised the suggestion that the way to improve state schools was to close private schools thus galvanizing the private school parents to help make changes.

My pint was that if you did that, you might not like what you got as a result.

What you're essentially saying is that you don't want private school parents to do anyhting to state schools. That mostly it's not needed. But that they should be forced to use them anyway, even if the eduction on offer is absolutley not to their liking. For social cohesion?

I think quite a lot of state school parents would actually quite like a more private school style education for their children, wordfactory...

I also think that if more parents did actually find out exactly what their school's budget was, how it was used, what teaching methods were used, what had to be taught (rather than whining about the national curriculum without necessarily knowing what was in it and therefore how it HAD to be interpreted and how much of what went on was an unnecessary interpretation by their school, etc), observed what really went on in the classrooms, what regulations teachers had to get around and whether they could be got around etc, etc, they would have more educated opinions on what really needed doing to improve their children's schools and, frankly, more educated views to pass on to politicians. As it is, everyone whinges and whines but most of the whingers and whiners don't actually have a clue what really goes on, they just like to whinge and whine about it and claim utter powerlessness, despite the fact it is taxpayers' money going into these schools.

" There's no question that my son is going to do better at his school than at the local comprehensive, where he'd be pushed into early entry for GCSE and everyone would be happy if he got a C+." Actually I think there is a question. At the local comp, he would be needed to help get the higher grades they are targetted at getting (schools aren't just graded on C+ passes - that is just the league tables). Whereas at the current school he is a low achiever who won't any difference to the headline grades andf therefore isn't a priority. The thing is, no-one will ever know where he will actually do better, but we all like to believe we have made the 'correct' decision.

Out of interest, how much per head roughly does a primary school get per year? A state one I mean.

mnisa, there maybe some question, but it seems v unlikely that a child would outperform every other child at the local schools and take more/higher qualifications than the school offered. And if they had done so then they'd have stood out like sore thumbs, instead of being in the top groups without actually being top which imo is better for them and less likely to result in arrogance. I do take your point though that you never really know how things would have turned out if you had made a different choice with your dc's education.

I agree that results shouldn't be the main driver for choosing a private school even when they are clearly better. I like all the extra curricular things that just happen as part of the normal routine for example. Again, my dc have achieved more in those areas than they'd have been able to if it had to be done outside school and I think it has enriched their lives.

As has often been pointed out though, state and private schools vary hugely in their provision of extra curriculars and in terms of results too, so private may well be a waste of money from that perspective in some instances.

People all have different priorities over what they consider important in education and also what, if any, sacrifices in lifestyle are worth making if a private education has what they want when a state one doesn't, the really difficult thing is weighing up what the differences actually are.

"And anyone who choses a school simply upon the basis of what results their child will get isn't really thinking it through. "
So so so true. Exam results are exem results. they are not education. I loathe the attitude which equates the 2. My ds will probably never pass ane xem in his life; does that mean his education is not worth investing in? Most assuredly not. I feel sorry for people who haven;t the imagination to see beyond league tables.

KarlosKKrinkelbeim. Nice post.

you only need to listen to R4 with its selection of lovely, well modulated and comprehensible accents to know that its not the be all and end all nowadays

You can actually hear them and understand them? Nothing grates more on my ears than some of those regional accents. I can listen to John Humphreys and similar but not strong accents. They are not as comprehensible as you would like to think. In fact the only reason the BBC use them is politically correct " diversity".

I still stand byt the statement. I do not want my DS learning to say " unnit" and worse swearing or even to copy East Enders or Scum ( or shame or skins ) or whatever it is called.

I do believe that in a future where international trade is important a single RP will be required to do business. Its what international speakers learn.

"God where does this idea that Ed Miliband lives next door to the fanciest state school in Britain come from? "

No idea, it isn't (wasn't!) mentioned in this thread.

No, I didnt say he lived next door to one. I indicated ( correctly) that he and his brother went to one. Its was the socialists "state " haven for those so principled they couldnt go private.

Yep, exactly.

OP, I don't understand your point. What were your reasons for going private and then describing it as a waste of money for arseholes..
I dont think you can calculate how much each A will cost you over the years- if you do then it is a waste of money.

Aren't the teachers in Private Schools trained in the same places as the teachers in State Schools?

Yes, as a general rule. The exception is when they are not trained at all but just take up teaching as " graduates" which isnt common these days.

Does beg the question exactly what sort of training it is that isnt supposed to be good enough doesnt it?

The entire article is predicated on the 'London is the UK' assumption of many meeja types. The fact is that outside of a few cities the UK is quite homogenous. You won't rub shoulders with Afghans at a comprehensive in Glasgow, Jamicans in Padstow, or meet many Muslims in Sevenoaks.

Many independent schools are ethnically diverse because they have borders but they are very singular in certain attitudes toward education. Afgans, Jamacians or Muslims, they will all share the middle class values of wanting their children to succeed, work hard and have a good education.

It reminds me of something I heard a parent say to his child as he dropped him off this morning "I'll see you later , dont forget, work hard and play hard." That sums it up really. That is everything state schools are not IMO

I'm not sure Pooella opted for private in the first place in order to ensure her children get strings of As and A*s, she gives the impression more that she is disappointed to find that maybe that is the only real benefit her children's private school appears to be giving anyone that the state may not be able to offer. So now she's wondering whether all private schools are like that, and whether she is now too scared to go back into the state sector, in case it is just the same as the private school but with worse behaviour and without any promise of good exam results for her children. In other words, if that's all that is on offer to you (an exam factory with good results and other parents you aren't keen on, or an exam factory with very variable results and some parents you feel you've got something in common with), is it worth paying for it just for the exam results? Even if your children are quite bright and would hopefully therefore be among the comprehensive school kids that do get the good results?

At least, that's the impression I got. ie that her kids' private school probably isn't worth the money she's paying.

" they will all share the middle class values of wanting their children to succeed, work hard and have a good education."

Why is that limited to the middle class. I am not, I live on an estate that is mostly council housing. My children go to our local state school. I want them to succeed, work hard and have a good education.

In answer to the original question, I agree with what other have said about it depends what other options are open to you. I grew up in a town with an outstanding secondary state school. It had lots of middle class families and very good results. This town also had a small private school. It was known as "the school for yogarts" because the only children that went there were the ones who were rich and cultured but also a bit thick. It was like their parents thought they could buy their intelligence.

So if there is an outstanding state school then I would say it would be a waste of money but if you can afford it and it's the better option then why not?