If you can afford private education but remain in the state sector...

[TheseJeansHaveShrunk]

It's going to be hard to avoid this becoming another state v private thread, but what I'm interested in is a slightly different take on that debate. It's not "which is better?" but "if you think state school is better even though you could afford private education, then why is that?"

The question is based on the assumptions that the DC in question is/are reasonably bright (so might benefit academically from academically selective education), that the state school is non-selective (as most people don't have access to grammar schools), and that you hope for your DC to go to a good university (to make the £££££ fees worthwhile!)

I've been mulling this over ever since I heard some maths professor from Cambridge talking on the radio about the age-old private v state inequality of Oxbridge admissions. He was all for improving access for state school applicants but said that the simple fact was that for maths, even the best state schools generally teach only to the A-level syllabus, whereas the best private schools take their maths/further maths A-level candidates well beyond the syllabus and so the state school applicants are at a huge disadvantage - they simply don't have the starting level of knowledge required for the course.

This made me wonder: with this sort of unequal playing field, if you have the choice of private education, what reasons might you have not to take it?

Would be interested to hear from those who've made this choice - how it's working out, or if your DC have finished school now, how did it work out? Did they go to good universities/get good jobs, etc? On the other side of things, if you paid for private schooling but now regret it, why?

My DC go to a state school by the way.

.

I clearly am in the minority but frankly I don't have any desire for ds to do endless extra curricular activities. He wants to come home home after school which is fair enough IMO.

Also, if a few schools get disproportionate kids into Oxbridge, what would happen if those schools didn't exist? The kids still would exist. Perhaps it would be fairer...

I have said this before, perhaps under a different username, but working in child mental health, I would be interested in a league table that showed levels of eating disorders as well as exam results, as I'm pretty sure that the top private girls schools would be up there with those too....

Word, I am genuinely interested:

• From how many schools, in total, does the university you are linked to admit students?
• What number of those schools are state schools?
• What is the breakdown of those admissions by number of students e.g. how many state schools send 20 or more students each year, how many 10 or more, how many 5 or more, how many 1 each year, how many less than 1 each year?

I don't think that anyone would disagree that neither Oxford nor Cambridge takes a completely fair sample of those 18 year olds who have the academic ability to thrive there. However, even in my day - and I am ancient - there were more than a handful of state schools from which students were admitted, and I have not been led to believe that access has narrowed since.

Country, I genuinely don't know at secondary school, but in my experience of teaching in a primary:

We have a very, very mixed intake, and have historically been shunned by the realtively few mc families living locally because of that. Instead, they go to the school a few miles down the road - very mc, chocolate box village, 'lovely little village school'.

Except that we have accepted almost 20 children from said 'lovely little school' over the past 18 months, with bullying being right up there with poor teaching as a reason for moving. We, because we have more POTENTIAL for bullying to occur, are all over it from the moment children start school. Of course we have isolated incidents, but they are so quickly and so rigorously dealt with that they are not an ongoing concern. Whereas the other school had a 'we're all nice here, we don't have bullies' attitude, and a burgeoning bullying problem.

Sometimes, being very alive to the possibility that something might happen, and being very, very proactive in dealing with it, because you are a 'rough' school, DOES make you more effective when it does occur than the school that has to deal with it relatively rarely.

teacher, you have hit the nail on the head. IME the nice, bright kids can be just as bullying just better at hiding it from adults or worse still bullying in a way that adults will condone.

I've said this loads of times, but the worst case of bullying I have come across was in a very well regarded, prestigious London prep. But I don't extrapolate from this that all prep schools are rife with bullying. One case of bullying in a state school, however, seems to make people dismiss the whole sector.

Yes having worked in some very rough schools (one of them in special measures) I know that bullying has to be dealt with sharply. The school I currently work in is also very on the ball and alert to the possibility of bullying but it does seem to happen far less - pupils have it drilled in to them that being a good person is as important as being successful academically. That's only my experience though. I do have to say that I have never encountered bullying that adults condone though NoP - what do you mean by this?

Exactly. I thought you had a legal background word. Your response is exceptionally weak for a lawyer.

For those for whom it might matter: word is wrong. It is not the case that 'virtually all' state school students at Oxford and Cambridge come from 'a handful' of schools. Some state schools send many more than others for pretty understandable reasons but word has grossly misrepresented the situation. I'm not sure why: either the agenda Mordion refers to or simple lack of comprehension of the papers she's been given to read (presumably with an implied brief to read them with care, which I hope she'll now do).

Sorry you're bored word: tough.

@seeker as does one set of poor results. Which are always the fault of the school. Any number of sets of great results from state school are apparently atypical or don't count in some other way.

countrykitten bullying which I have seen adults condone or actively participate in:

• name calling
• ridiculing
• derogatory comments about things like looks, size, ability etc

It certainly happened at my nice leafy home counties school. It has happened at DC's school (one teacher had to leave about this and many other things).

I'm not saying it is common but it happens. Bullying isnt just about taking lunch money. It includes undermining confidence and self-esteem.

My DH has made an interesting suggestion as an alternative to private school (assuming that there is a choice).

Parent says to child (thinking senior school age) - you can have all the extra tuition, real tennis, whatever that private school offers, now or you can have the cash saved when you are 18.

Given that choice I wonder what the decision would be?

Sutton Trust looked into the number of children schools sent to Oxbridge a year or so ago. The report is here for anyone that is interested. While it is indeed more than a handful of state schools that send children each year the figures are very skewed. More than half of state schools send less than one child per year on average for instance.

Naming, children don't always make the best choices, even at senior school age ...

Bullying happens in all sectors I doubt any can take the moral high ground. Probably quaint village primaries are more complacent. In my extensive experience of boarding schools both as a parents and in my professional life bullying is not tolerated at all and very quickly stamped upon.

I wouldn't rate the Sutton Trust, since they are behind the Beccles Free School which is so very much not needed...

As for extracurricular activities - my DDs (one in primary, one in secondary) have a huge ranger to choose from. All free. DD1 is doing 7-8 hours of sport, most of it in Gove-approved traditional team sports, all provided by the school.

Sutton Trust certainly have an agenda, but being behind Beccles free school is unlikely to influence the accuracy of their oxbridge statistics imo.

I do believe that there are only 16 state schools in the country (all grammar) that send 10%+ to Oxbridge on average for example.

NoP - I am aware of what bullying is!

I have however in almost 20 years as a teacher never, ever come across or even heard of anything like you describe. That school sounds absolutely shocking. How appalling.

And I am talking about both sectors before anyone jumps on their bandwagon to tell me that indies are much worse than state schools for bullying staff members etc etc.

gelo it's to do with not much more than that those are the most selective, and really very selective at that. Are the students at those schools not entitled to fulfil their potential? The fact that less selective independents regularly send the same sort of number is a question though.

I think a lot of oxbridge potential dc both from abroad and from state schools join independents for sixth form (often with hefty bursaries or even full fee discounts) most especially in areas where grammars aren't an option. In areas where it is then quite a few of the very highest GCSE performers join the grammars for sixth form so lowering the non-grammar stats and raising the grammar/independent ones. As more areas are non grammar than grammar, and the foreign contingent mostly go independent the independent figures are raised more than the grammars I guess?

The figures do still seem skewed more than they should be to me, but it's virtually impossible to know what they 'ought' to be. The fact that some state comps with the same achievement profiles (in GCSE/A level results) as others send far fewer does sound alarm bells.

@gelo the problem though is not with the state schools but with the skew towards some of the more well known posh schools.

why mordion? If comp A and comp B have the same number of dc achieving high GCSE/A levels, why is a child at comp A twice as likely as a child at comp B to go to Oxbridge? It doesn't sound anything to do with posh schools.

countrykitten - I know you will know what bullying is, sorry, I wasnt meaning to come across as patronising. It was more of a general comment.

The problem with bullying is that it is very much in the eye of the beholder. You will see threads on MN about parents who think that staff have picked on or humiliated pupils about lunch box contents. Labeling pupils as lazy. Not responding when pupils/parents raise concerns about bullying.

Sy King (one of the hairy chefs) described an incident in primary school where the head announced to the whole school that he (Sy King) was not allowed to eat anything other than the food he had brought in as he was on a diet.

The staff who are responsible for these comments probably dont intend to bully. They will see their comments as justified in context. The problem is where other pupils then following the lead of the adults.

The difference between comprehensive A and comprehensive B is easily explained. Parental expectations, school's expectations, subject choice, relative parental wealth, the advice given by the school, the level of specific Oxbridge preparation provided....

My DCs primary (definitely 'rough' and with a high FSM entitlement and Special Measures to boot) was very alive to the esteem needs of its pupils. While there were instances of bullying the staff did avoid a lot of the belittling opportunities which existed. Again, as with the secondary school, the staff member who couldnt follow this was moved on.

How many students go into Oxford/Cambridge each year? Isnt the truth that Comp A sends twice as many students as Comp B statistically insignificant?