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.

.

How many people who post a lot about a topic in which they are super-interested are going to say: I'm really average, my DC are really average, we all want a really average life and how best do we find a very average school that suits most people? And do it over, and over, and over again?

My profession is being an academic lawyer. If either my research or teaching were of poor quality then I'd accept an accusation of incompetence but there is no indication of that.

I have explained to you how we use personal statements in our admissions process and why. I have explained this is not my personal position but an institutional policy. You still accuse me of professional incompetence. How rude.

I am at a loss to understand why you think I am letting down UCAS - what possible obligation could I owe to UCAS? UCAS is an administration service for higher education institutions. But each HEI isets its own admissions criteria. UCAS plays no role in telling us how to evaluate applications.

You seem to know very little about English higher education but you said your son is applying to universities here. If you have questions I'd be happy to answer them, you can PM me.

More generally I raised the point because there is a view that getting in to university is anarbitrary process determined by the prejudices of the admissions tutor. It really isn't. If you get the right grades, and in law do well in the LNAT we will probably make you an offer. The point Sarahtigh and Yellowtip are both making above is that students from state schools can be put at a particular disadvantage by this belief because their teachers may even discourage them from applying in the belief that their application will not be received favourably. Far from it being a matter of professional incompetence not to read personal statements I think it is a matter of considerable importance that we only give weight to those variables which we both know to strongly correlate with good academic performance and which are not massively distorted by coming from a privileged background.

Oh, bonsoir, while you're here, have you got that research that proves that comprehensive education disadvantages the brighter children? You did say that it had been proven, so there must be some evidence.

"The 18 state school pupils in the maths classroom at St Paul's looked out of place ? with their pink pencil cases and polyester sweatshirts"

How did you get past the first sentence of that article Mominatrix and Bonsoir?

Hi, OP here. Been reading the thread but it's turned into the much wider private v state debate that I guess was inevitable!

adeucalione, I'd be interested to know more about what your DCs experienced in their state school. Was it a poor school or was the "crap" more on the social side?

I'm super interested in education ( I was before I had children, actually!) and my children fit very comfortably into the bell of the bell curve. As I'm sure you know, there are plenty of non-average children sharing that curve with them!

@seeker you are so very selective about what you recall from the posts you read in here. Or perhaps you don't read anyone's posts but your own. I have - many many times - stated that my DS is at a comp which is clearly the right school for him. My Dd1 however did clearly need to be at a selective school. But if she continues to feel the same way bat her future as she does right now she won't be applying to Cambridge, not because her French is a bit poo (it is, though) but because Cambridge does not offer what she wants to do. The fact that she won't end up at Cambridge doesn't mean that she didn't need and deserve an appropriate education for her needs, exactly the same way as my DS does.

I don't think I am delusional about any of my kids. I certainly haven't claimed my DS is too good for his school, for example. I extend the courtesy of assuming that they are similarly non delusional to other posters. Perhaps you should do the same?

And Seeker, while I take your point that no parent thinks their child is "average", my DD is on the gifted and talented register for literacy, numeracy, creative writing and science. I'm not responsible for this: her teachers made those decisions. Some children are just very able not that being on the g and t register makes any bloody difference to the teaching anyway.

OP, I have used state and independent provision for my DC at primary level and had reconciled myself to sending my eldest to the local, well thought of, not too bad in the league tables Comp - until I worked there for a brief spell.

Many of the MC parents who send their pfbs there do so in blissful ignorance and believe that they are getting the equivalent of a private school educational experience for free - they are not.

Was it a poor school or was the "crap" more on the social side?

Can you separate the two though, Thesejeans? If a school can't manage the pupils who bully and mock high achievers, and can't help those mockers to aim high themselves, it's not doing a great job, however dedicated the teachers may be individually.

the national curriculum does not stop teachers teaching anything. It says what the minimum requirements are. If teachers are not extending bright year 9 mathematicians it's not because of the national curriculum, and it's a red herring to harp on about it. Even more of a red herring than the "polyester sweatsuits and pink pencil cases" Jesus wept. No wonder nothing changes with that sort of attitude.

Yes, I know, mordion. And I know that one of your children is an outlier. And it's discussions with you that has moved my thinking about super selectives.

But most people's children are not outliers. Most, even the very bright ones, fit on the bell of the bell curve. With my children, and, I suspect the childrennof most contributors to this thread.

Yes, but seeker, it is often one's experiences with an outlier child that makes one view state education (and possibly society in general) in a less positive light.

@rabbit My DD1 is getting a superb state education.

@seeker I'm not sure I would describe her as an outlier. But the interaction of her whatever you want to call it - IQ, whatever - with her SEN condition does make it much more difficult to deliver an appropriate education in an environment where she wouldn't be materially disadvantaged. The grammar school she attends does this brilliantly. The most important thing was for her to be part of the herd, not the top kid. Or, you know, the top slightly freaky kid. She's not anonymous at her school, she has 4 subjects where she does shine even in that company. But there are other kids shining in other subjects (which is exactly the way it should be). I think it's really important for kids like her to experience not being top at everything.

I don't think being top at everything is ideal for anyone mordion, but I can see being slightly different too makes it even harder. You are lucky to have a state school nearish you that facilitates your dd - for most people in your position it's not an option.

I would imagine that having an outlier child would make you view education generally with a bit of a jaundiced eye. I know private schools who are as about tall poppies as any state school. My point remains. You can't base an education system on the needs of the outliers. You base it on the needs of the bell and make additional provision for the head and tail, so to speak.

@gelo most people in my position would send their kids to private school. But I think that private schools, like private medicine, are wrong.

You base it on the needs of the bell and make additional provision for the head and tail, so to speak.

That sounds great in theory but a lot of schools don't even provide properly for the majority. They have decided that the 'needs' of the the bell are 5 A*-C CGSE - for which they read 5 C-grade GCSE - and put the emphasis on maximising the school's results, not the individual child's results. The effort is on ensuring the maximum number get a C grade; the effort is not on ensuring each child gets their optimal grade.

I agree with you seeker you can't base an education system on the needs of the outliers (which would at the top end be all those with an IQ of 140+ not the top 1-2% they are still in the bell curve) because this would be ridiculous. But just as provision is made for children with Downs Syndrome or those with "complex needs" although sadly this is becoming increasingly patchy in these financially restricted days do you think proper provision should be made these outliners. How would you organise this as I understand it if you child has an IQ of 155+ then only on in 500 share this in rural areas like mine we have 8 comps with 15 mile radius (quarter of the county) all have approx 1200 pupils so the chances are there are no more that 20 children with this level of ability. Is it unrealistic to expect the state to single handedly provide funding for such a tiny minority. Is it better to form partnerships with likes of St Paul's? By the way we know St Paul's very well (my DH's school he wore a polyester jumper when he was there as the uniform is very simple although probably no fluffy pencil case) I doubt the comment about polyester jumpers etc came from them just journalists enjoying or even creating a stereotype. When my DS was at a his primary school (IQ since formally assessed at 157) it was very briefly suggested that the SEN governor that the local retired maths professor came to give him help during the numeracy hour but the head saw this as favouritism that all would then want it. Whilst any sector be it state or independent take this view then we as a nation wil soon be overtaken by those who don't take this view.

I agree with you seeker you can't base an education system on the needs of the outliers (which would at the top end be all those with an IQ of 140+ not the top 1-2% they are still in the bell curve) because this would be ridiculous. But just as provision is made for children with Downs Syndrome or those with "complex needs" although sadly this is becoming increasingly patchy in these financially restricted days do you think proper provision should be made these outliners. How would you organise this as I understand it if you child has an IQ of 155+ then only on in 500 share this in rural areas like mine we have 8 comps with 15 mile radius (quarter of the county) all have approx 1200 pupils so the chances are there are no more that 20 children with this level of ability. Is it unrealistic to expect the state to single handedly provide funding for such a tiny minority. Is it better to form partnerships with likes of St Paul's? By the way we know St Paul's very well (my DH's school he wore a polyester jumper when he was there as the uniform is very simple although probably no fluffy pencil case) I doubt the comment about polyester jumpers etc came from them just journalists enjoying or even creating a stereotype. When my DS was at a his primary school (IQ since formally assessed at 157) it was very briefly suggested that the SEN governor that the local retired maths professor came to give him help during the numeracy hour but the head saw this as favouritism that all would then want it. Whilst any sector be it state or independent take this view then we as a nation wil soon be overtaken by those who don't take this view.

Anonnona- I am sure some schools are doing that- but under the new league table criteria, they will be caught out- they now have to publish progress for low, middle and high achievers, so even if everyone got Cs they would get a crap OfSTED unless that was the predicted grade for the entire cohort.

I'm in a tough position re secondary schools: I don't believe single sex education is best; I don't really want to send my DC to private schools; the local secondary school provision here is single sex (with some combined teaching in sixth form). How to reconcile these views? No idea yet, luckily I've got a few years to worry about it

Back to the original question...

My parents could afford the local private school for me and my sis, but opted to send us to the very large, very mixed, very average local comprehensive, for both financial & ideological reasons.

Out of our local friendship groups (which encompassed both comp & the private school children) my sis and I have the highest academic attainments. I think this would have been the case, whichever school we went to.
In terms of life outcomes - fairly equal, I would think.

My children now go to the local comp. We couldn't really afford private (without selling some of the horses), but never bothered looking into it in any case. Both DH and I are comp school educated, so sending them to the local comp is the 'norm' for us (as it is for most people).

Fascinating, PenelopePipPop. You put up a lawyer's defence but you are not in a courtroom and you have multiple responsibilities when posting in a professional capacity (not just to yourself).

You accuse me of rudeness when I was trying to help you avoid putting your foot in it, big time. Instead, you just made a bigger hash of it. I suggest you look on the many other threads where admissions tutors from British universities give advice to parents on university applications. They never denigrate the system to which all applicants and university departments must adhere.

Mordion - if your dd's state school wasn't an option, a psychologist and teacher (and the headteacher) at your child's state school had advised you that they didn't think the local large comprehensive was the best environment to deal with your child's needs in a way that would enable his self esteem to remain intact and his academic potential to be met, and the only other options within a reasonable distance (given that the other comprehensives are all of a similar size and reputation) were private schools, would you go for the comprehensive anyway and hope those advising you against it proved themselves to be wrong and prejudiced, would you look at the private schools and consider them, or would you move to an area you didn't know in the hope of getting your child into a school that might meet his needs better, even though that would mean taking him away from existing friends and community and might not work out? In other words, whilst you disagree with private education, what would you actually do for your child in that instance (ie what would you do if you were me?)?