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.

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.

This is far from being the case. His teachers know he wants to go to a Russell Group university to read History and they will do all in their power to help him obtain as many As and A*s in his dreaded sciences as they can.

"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"

oh jabed do you really think that state school parents (and teachers) dont encourage their children to do their best??

I think I would have thought someone was being a bit odd and performance parent-ish if they said in the playground 'work hard and play hard', yes. From memory, I think I used to say 'have a good day, love you', or 'be good, see you later'.... the working hard and playing hard would be a family ethos and expectation that you wouldn't really feel the need to say in public.

Mind you, dd couldn't usually hear me for all the other parents instructing their offspring 'remember, chuck chairs and swear'.

To go back to the idea of everyone using state schools: I think any CEO who thought he or or she was going to walk in and say 'I am a CEO and I want to see a bit of Latin around here goddammit' would be in for a well-deserved disabusal of his/her arrogance! So I don't think the 'careful what you wish for' argument necessarily works on that level.

What I do think though is that intake makes a big difference to non-curriculum things: ie, 'oh do you know what, let's shelve Speech Day this year, nobody ever turns up and it's pointless', and the kind of atmosphere which prevails if you have a school that is shunned by ambitious or aspirational parents. Similarly with PTAs, governors, smart PE kits, parents who are willing to say 'there should be a choir/debating club/hockey club here: why isn't there?' and so on. So all the little extras which are sometimes perceived to be lacking in some state schools, and the atmosphere more generally, are what would change - nobody wants, or would allow, rich parents to come in and demand curriculum changes!

Would someone please tell me how you would police the closing of independent schools?
And do you really think that you would galvanise the private school parents to help make changes?
If some do idealistic dogooder tried to close my DS's school I would fight it tooth and nail as would all the other parents many whom I suspect have significant influence over policy makers.
Secondly I have no time or interest in making changes at my DC's school. I don't at the current independent school I just send him and trust that they the experts are doing the right thing.

I always say to my two 'Make good choices' in an American accent.

It's a quote from Freaky Friday.

TOSN what you say is correct, I think.

In the school where I volunteered I saw a gradual caving in by the staff.
Parents never turned up tp anything. Reading was never done. Homework ignored.

In the end they just gave up.

To an extent I can see the same at the school where I am a governor.
The staff bang a particular drum for a period of time, but it is very dishearteneing^ when they're getting no where fast...so things slide back.

"Mind you, dd couldn't usually hear me for all the other parents instructing their offspring 'remember, chuck chairs and swear'."

'I also want him to develop a sense of feeling for other people, respect and to understand kindness. Those are difficult things to come by in state schools these days'

With you as a parent, I doubt he will grow up to respect anyone who is state school educated.

And when did having a regional accent become a bad thing?! I missed that meeting. Assuming that RP is the correct way to speak or that a private education makes you a morally superior person is laughable and the type of old fashioned snobbery that I find highly amusing. Honestly, you sound archaic!

I don't want to galvanize private school parents to make changes! In the unlikely event that I get made benevolent dictator of the British Isles, I would do away with private education, yes, but I wouldn't worry too much about that contingency just yet!

Original Steaming Nit- Your post made me laugh.

Also I'm grinning at the response I might have got if I'd called down the road as dd set off with her friends this morning 'work hard and play hard!'. I think I said 'see you this afternoon'. She knows if the working hard and playing hard aren't happening, there'll be conversations to be had without me making a point of it every morning.

But some families have daft little rituals that stick no?

Perhaps the parent had said it once and now says it every morning as a joke. I know I do.

Mine would be disappointed if I didn't say it.

TOSN
Well until that day we will have to look at other solutions

I think parental attitudes to education are key and some new research appears to back that up
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9602564/Good-parenting-matters-more-than-a-good-schoolsc.html

So its probable that the children of most people on this thread will do reasonably well whatever school they go to because we all care enough about education to debate the structure of the education system in this country.

What concerns me is that education is not valued by some people possibly because it has not offered any benefit to them so they don't see the value for their children. This is not traditional working class thinking, I come from South Wales and there used be a strong WC ethic of self education and self improvement such as through the Working Men's Institutes and the like. I'm not sure that exists in some areas any more.

Yes, I agree Chaz's. And I think if you add into the mix for children whose parents aren't interested or supportive the view of the OP that they are 'rough' children at whom one shudders and then steers well clear - well it doesn't help.

I wonder if education is seen as less valuable in some sections of society now as a direct result of consumerism and celebrity culture?

Plus the speed of modern life with immediate access to information, media on tap, instant communication and fast food is in direct opposition to dep seated learning, which is, by its very nature, slow and requires delayed gratification.

Yes to rituals. And if it was that, fine - but to go from over-hearing that to making the assumption that a 'work hard, play hard' ethic is the sole preserve of private schools just because someone said it either as a little bit of performance parenting or a jokey ritual doesn't seem very logical!

Well I hope if anyone were to overhear me they'd know I was taking the piss.

But then perhaps someone without any sense of humour would think I was being all California New Age.

YY TOSN to both your previous posts.

But they might be really impressed with Californian New Age! You don't hear enough of it round here. Perhaps on Monday I'll say 'now honey, you go right on out there and be the best that you can be!'. That would go down well

But TOSN when this day come and you are a "benevolent dictator of the British Isles," and "would do away with private education," how are you going to enforce it? No one will answer this question for obvious reasons; its not enforceable.

Hmm, but I wonder whether or when there was a golden age when education was taken seriously by everyone? Not when you left at 12 to go out to work; not when you might not be allowed by your parents to take the 11+ because girls don't need education/the uniform is too expensive/you'll get ideas above your station. Not in the 80s when you could leave with 2 GCEs and a few CSEs at 16 and never go anywhere near a school again.

I think disaffectation (dissafection?) has a specific form now, and presents its own challenges, I'm just not sure what era we should be looking back to.

Happy do not worry: I won't be! But I guess, thinking about something comparable which got banned - fox hunting - you have to do it and then deal with the law breakers one by one, don't you? People might have secret Boxing Day meets, where they all assemble in a building wearing gowns and saying Latin, but they'd have to do it to an empty hall with no children in it.

How is it not enforceable (in this rather daft hypothetical situation!)? If you start a school which charges entry, you're breaking the law and you get charged with that. Just as you're not allowed to solicit/chase a fox/run an illegal bookmakers

happygardening - you know perfectly well that independent schools have never been closed down precisely because of all the issues you raise... Perhaps you would also acknowledge that the existence of these schools has to date been of no benefit to state education and skews the debate on what to do about state education and what we should all be entitled to expect from it.

Tossn I'm not sure there has been a golden age.

When I was at school in the seventies/eighties the vast majority of my peers hated school and couldn't wait to leave it.
The reasons were different perhaps.

"Perhaps you would also acknowledge that the existence of these schools has to date been of no benefit to state education and skews the debate on what to do about state education and what we should all be entitled to expect from it."
Yes I acknowledge that independent ed has ultimately no benefit to state ed despite what many in the sector would claim and I couldn't agree more that it does skew the debate on what to do about state ed. In fact I personally think that people should stop bashing independent ed; its not going to go away because even if we had the best state ed in the world there will always be those who believe that the independent sector at its very best provides vastly a superior education and will carry on paying and secondly because as we both agree it doesn't have any effect on state ed and is just a distraction.