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.

.

Bonsoir- that proof that comprehensive schools disadvantage the bright?

ps ds1 is still at primary school at the moment and very happy there.

TheseJeans - there were quite a number of problems really, some quite trivial I suppose, but they just reached a tipping point.

DS certainly experienced low level bullying for being clever and wanting to do well (although DDs did not experience this).

One DD had some very disruptive children in her class - chairs thrown at the teacher etc. One of these boys sat near her for every lesson (seated alphabetically) and made life quite difficult for her and others - he sat kicking the back of her chair throughout one lesson, poured a bottle of coke over her, tripped her up in the corridor and even locked her in a cupboard.

There were also teaching issues - DS got detention for losing a book when he had just handed it in a week early (having done his homework early) and the teacher had lost it, five different teachers in one year for English (no grade on report or teacher present at parents' evening because 'latest teacher doesn't know the pupils well enough to comment'), a term of watching DVDs in Spanish (supply teacher) and so on.

Of course I contacted the school about some of these issues, and they always took them seriously and responded well, but eventually I got fed up of it. For every one thing I complained about, there were another two things that weren't serious enough to complain about but which were intensely annoying.

I know we are lucky to have the option of escaping to the private sector. I suppose there is a case to be made that, if there weren't any independent schools, I (and others like me) would be forced to stay in the system and try to improve things. But then there is also the consideration that this school is said to be great because it has such a good private school competing with it on the doorstep.

I expect my DCs will leave school with the same grades that they could've achieved if they'd stayed, but they'll have a nicer time getting there I think.

And these issues are all because it was a state school?

I think it is rarer for pupils at an academically selective school to be bullied for being clever, and I think that bad behaviour would not be tolerated at a fee paying school.

Sorry, bad behaviour of the type my DCs experienced would not be tolerated for very long by a fee paying school.

Seeker: " 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."

I am assuming your response was due tho this in the article "In practice he has found the students do not have the grounding in some maths topics to be able to tackle the challenges and sometimes has to stop to teach them. "The first lessons I wanted to do used simultaneous equations but fewer than half had done them. A lot of them don't have the algebraic skills they need to solve problems so I have taught algebra," he says.

"I am not criticising the state schools in any way as teachers are bound by the curriculum. There is certainly a case for challenging the national curriculum. These are very able students and we are expecting them to work at a higher level which at times means having to strengthen and reinforce their algebraic, numeric and geometric platform."

What would a more acceptable response by a St Paul's teacher have been, to state in a national newspaper that he thought that the teaching these children had received was rubbish? Particularly in light of the final statement by John Dunford "But he adds: "This won't work if the independent sector uses it to criticise maths teaching in the state sector. They might say it privately but I don't think there is a need to say it publicly because otherwise state schools will be less willing to take part."

Bonsoir I really can't see anything objectionable about what Penelope has said. It's a fact that the admissions process varies hugely betweeen institutions and even between different departments at the same institution. If you go to an Oxford Open day for History you'll see a tremendous double act by two tutors each giving a moreorless opposite view from the other when asked about the process when asked questions by parents. Two or three years ago the admissions boss at Cambridge came out publicly and said very clearly that they don't rate personal statements. When there's an admissions test such as the LNAT there's even less reason to read these statements and with Law there's a particular danger that some more privileged students will attempt to secure an advantage by spending a week at their parents' City firm (I think they're on the wrong track myself there, but what do I know?). Penelope has given her reasons for skating over the personal statements and those reasons seem completely and utterly right. Hers is a pretty impressive department; I expect they think things through :)

when asked questions about the process by parents.

Yellowtip - do you really think that the sneery denigrating phrase Penelope used below is going to encourage Y12 and Y13 pupils who must write a personal statement in order to apply through UCAS - and it is often a long and painful process to do so, especially for those from less advantaged educational establishments/backgrounds - to have faith in the process?

I am relieved to hear that what penelope said is still the case. Having known someone who taught at Oxford for many years and always said they couldn't care less about the extra curricular stuff- he was interested only in if and how the students were able to think. As it happens, he thought that he often had to undo much of what they had learnt in private schools, which was to talk and write in a convoluted and rather pretentious way.
Anecdotal and only one person etc...

"had to undo much of what they had learnt in private schools, which was to talk and write in a convoluted and rather pretentious way."
twisted you are tarring all independent schools with the same brush. There are small group sending over 30% annually to Oxbridge in the case of Westminster 50%. It is inconceivable that they would have such high number being accepted if the experience of the tutors was that these children had to taught to speak and write in a coherent fashion.

Clearly they had redeeming features! Primarily that for example Westminster, most of the kids that get in there are very clever. That doesn't mean that everything that they are taught is appreciated by their tutors.

But as I said, although I do not like much about private education, my main and most serious objection is idealogical. I do not believe in segregating children's education based on family weath. It is not fair.
There may be lovely private schools (no doubt the ones not at the top of the league tables) but I would never send my child to one because I absolutely refuse to contribute to this system. My lovely, clever ds can be educated along with everyone else, regardless of their family circumstances.

But as the competition for Oxbridge places is so intense why would anyone in their right mind take so many from a small group of schools if their general experience was that they had to relearn to write and speak in a less "convoluted" way. Also the requirement of the Pre U offered by many of these schools is that you must write in a coherent fashion and this is reflected in the two A* grades.
Don't get me wrong I have no problem believing that some from independent schools require assistance on this area but as a fairly recent undergraduate myself (like your friend anecdotal) I was shocked by how inarticulate and illiterate many of my fellow students were (mostly from grammar schools). They had to provide optional lessons in punctuation and grammar basic maths study skills and essay writing one very able boy has never heard of a semicolon. In fact our first assignment marks were given and lost for the correct use of capital letter, paragraphs and full stops!!

"There may be lovely private schools (no doubt the ones not at the top of the league tables)"
You call it ideology another word is prejudice and making points about something you clearly know absolutely nothing about. I dont object to your ideology and I take my hat off to you for following it through but I find it annoying when people making sweeping statement about all independent schools when they very obviously have no first hand experienced of one.

Yes, every writes in crayon and text speak at grammar schools. It's very sad. :(

EveryONE. Mumping iPad.

Writing style (not just skill) is dependent on all sorts of things and different styles suit different circumstances. One of the things that everyone needs to learn is how to adapt one's writing style to the genre and milieu one is writing for. Specific schools, teachers, school leaving exams and subjects will prepare students differently for writing. That is all part of the richness of academic and professional life.

Not being acquainted with the semi-colon is a failure of education.

Well the person I know didn't think that a level results were a very good indication of being able to write clearly!
It's not that they were necessarily incoherent but he was a firm believer in writing as simply and clearly as possible- a hater of pomposity. And in his experience, for many of the kids, although they may have been very bright, writing in this way was new for them. There used to be an entrance exam which was also unfair because private schools geared the kids up for them, but in those days entrance was based on the exam and fundamentally the interview and a levels counted for almost nothing.

You are making assumptions about my experience, very wrong as it happens...

Mordion you tell me why these lessons were provided? I worked along side my fellow students and read their work most were quite open about their inability to wrote coherently many never read books most openly admitted to admiring my level of general knowledge political knowledge and ability to analyse data etc. All assumed that I as an mature student I had been taught it when I was at school and openly criticised their schools for not doing this. I came from a science background and hadn't even done the subject at O level but I knew more about it than they did and could certainly read a map (one of essential pre requisite for the subject) which most of them couldn't the only major difference was in their IT knowledge.

I had a tutor at university who gave very clear instructions for essay writing: maximum number of words, maximum length of sentence, maximum number of paragraphs.

It was a lesson that had its uses, but God was it dull.

"You are making assumptions about my experience, very wrong as it happens..."
So Twisted your ideologically opposed to independent ed but send your children to them and that is how you have first hand experience of them. I'd better pot my hat back on then.

They had to provide optional lessons in punctuation and grammar basic maths study skills and essay writing one very able boy has never heard of a semicolon. In fact our first assignment marks were given and lost for the correct use of capital letter, paragraphs and full stops!!

Just like getting my DCs to practice for 11+. (Do they forget it all in the next seven years??)