First post: what is wrong with considering private schools?

[dietcokeisgreat]

Dear all,

I just starting looking at mumsnet last week and joined today. Some of my work colleagues talk about it and i am thinking about options for education for my son, who is just 3 and thought i would take a look. Well, i just starting the thinking, so it is early days.
We could pay for school, or maybe not, we don't know yet. He is our first child, we are having problems getting pregnant again, so unsure if there will be more yet.

I was surprised at some really negative comments on lots of threads towards people posting for advice/ whatever about private schools. Why are they doing that? What is wrong with people thinking about different options? Or asking about a school they know that is private? Twice i read something 'well i can't pay for school' as a response. For me, its no different to whether or not people have cash for other stuff. I can't afford to live in the smarter part of town, or pay for a boarding school but that doesn't mean no one should be allowed too!

Just wondering...don't want to post something that will enrage others or be and be upset by responses ....

Thank you.

ChocolateWombat
I do not use my local 'sink' school.
Not many other people do either - it has 400 empty spaces.
I do not support its existence.
The sooner it is taken away from its current sponsor, the sooner it will fill up and improve.
So I am standing by my principles of comprehensive schools and in accordance with my strong aversion to sponsored academies.

The school I have chose is much better than my local one. not difficult
People with stuff all money and time have made the same choice - so its not even about being MC or sharp elbowed.

Capsium
Nobody in their right mind would want to ban private schools - it does not work.
Put the energies into banning internships : that will get social mobility moving much faster.

In terms of segregating due to ability; one of the reasons I am pleased that dc2 is at a selective independent is because, being so bright, I didn't want her always at the top being extended from the fundamental teaching to the middle. I knew the state primary would stretch her but I wanted her in an environment where, as they are 3 form entry and selective, she has two other children on her academic level and a host of others not too far behind. They are not pushing any more than the state school would but instead of a lesson pitched at a certain level and her being well extended by the teacher, the whole lesson is pitched to that level. Also, crucially, she doesn't see herself as top if the pile academically or 'so clever'. I think that's good for her.

Talkin Banning internships? Interesting idea. I think 'work experience' can have it's place but these extended 'internships' do seem to take the p*ss somewhat and are obviously only open to those who can afford not to have any income...Some sort of legislation might work... I don't know I don't go in for 'banning' very much but I think you may have a point - 'internship' is open to abuse.

Nancy Can be very restrictive though if children do not perform well in all tests. My DC at Primary was very spiky. Unbelievably good in some areas, balanced out by not performing at all in others. I like the opportunity for flexibility. I also think it is good to be around people with different strengths and weaknesses.

Recognizing individuality and individual progression and being able to cater for it and still encourage at the right level, is priceless IMO.

capsium
they are easy to ban
either its a job with full NMW ~ SSP ~ notice period ~ employment rights
or the company cannot dictate the hours and require attendance
simple

the auction of promises at Westminster School was the most odious exposee of it,
but the whole system is rigged in favour of rich kids getting plum jobs, rather than the most able

when my sister left her posh boarding school she got a temp job in London that for the last 5 hears has been done by unpaid interns - same job, no money.

Workfare is the lower class equivalent : rich Plc gets you to work for free to boost its profits

Talk I think you may just be right..

mellow Q: "Tansie-so in your view it's ok for Londoners to send their doc to private school.That'sreliefbecause that's what we've done"

I answered this earlier:

My Q: " "So Tansie why do you distinguish between parents looking for schools within and outside the London orbit? Is it more acceptable, in your view, for Londoner's to go private?"

• because London is its own little (!) bubble; educationally, politically, economically, even culturally.

I understand that it maybe isn't possible to move into the 50m catchment of an outstanding state school.

The London Influence increasingly skews life for the rest of the UK in oh-so-many ways, thus isn't representative of most parents 'ability', should they wish to exercise it, to move, albeit to rent (as all the houses are owned by 'the haves' as BTLs...) in the catchment of a school they'd prefer to send their DC to.

For the record, I am a bit when I read about young people who've been lured to London for the bigger salaries and faster career progression; the 'culture', the buzz etc etc, who get together with other young people, get married, upsize their 2 flats to one small 2 bedroom terrace in a less-desirable area of London (Oh but it is still London !) - then have DC, then are outraged that they can't get Jemima and Otto into the very best state schools..."

So I haven't said 'It's OK to go private in London', have I? I've said The London Thing exists outside most people's experience.

I've actually said 'It's OK for anyone to send their DC privately! I would if I could! Why? Because I want to advantage my DC, which I am honest enough to recognise means that others will be disadvantaged given that there are only so many places at Russell Group unis, for instance.

However, I have also repeatedly stated that admissions offers to uni should be recognisably lower for DC who haven't had the advantages of a private education.

But funnily enough, amongst those who send their DC privately solely because of the wonderful sport/drama/music etc etc, not the inflated GCSE grades, oh no; no one's supporting that concept....

Talkin I would agree re Internships, but banning them as such isn't practical. They'd just spring back up in a different way, still only available to those whose parents can pay for them to work for free. It's the reason why those particular DC are chosen for such leg-ups: It's all contacts, Old School Tie etc, thus such DC often come from the privileged ranks of the name Public Schools. To my mind, the issue lies with uni entry being predicated on grades that a hand-nurtured, carefully supervised privately educated DC is more likely to obtain than a DC from a sponsored academy will, for instance; that's the problem here!

Nope, still maintain no tangible academic advantage.

Also, you talk about inflated grades. How about looking at it as reached potential instead and for want if a better word, deflated grades elsewhere. You are making the assumption that the comp child is reaching their potential and the privately educated one is being pushed artificially beyond. I think in a lot of cases it's the other say around.

nancy Well, there's an awful lot of parents being duped then if they seriously believe that having their DC sitting in a small class with DC of the same ability, no SEN, no distraction, great equipment and facilities being taught by a specialist teacher who has a direct relationship with the bill payer gets no academic advantage over any state schooled DC?

No, I am not globally assuming the state schooled DC is just reaching their potential, the private DC always beyond. Where have I said that? That is patently not a universal truth, however... read my first paragraph.

You'd really have to love that boater and stripey blazer, wouldn't you?

I give up.

My kids are in grey bottoms with sweatshirts. Only uniform difference is tie. Ime you tend to find it's the crappy elitist with nothing to be proud of private schools who go over the top with fancy uniform. The preps situated in old run down Victorian buildings with no outside space. That sort of thing.
I do indeed pay for all the extras. They are high achieving but then so are our local state schools. There is probably a couple of % difference no more. Of course that will sometimes mean different grades but again, not significantly so. The bright kids from my local comp regularly go on to Oxbridge and RG unis.

Tansie
On the other thread I was roasted for saying that DD's GCSE grades of 3xA* and 10xA were good
and that private schools offer much more than just grades
and that 13 GCSE was silly and all that guff
TBH for bright kids, private school cannot be about grades because kids get great grades in state schools
like the kid who had clocked up 7 x A* at A level by the time he left the 6th form college, having come from the admittedly leafy local comp

Take 3 students with the same A level grades.

Student 1 comes from a background with no history of university education but attends a private school on a full bursary. The private school is not particularly academic but student 1's catchment school was in special measures and it had very few high achieving students. Student 1's parents cannot afford to pay for tutoring or extracurriculars.

Student 2 goes to an outstanding superselective grammar and his parents are professionals who attended university. Student 2 was tutored to get into the grammar, has experienced many co-curricular and extra-curricular activities.

Student 3 goes to a comprehensive school like Thornden (Tansie's catchment school) followed by Peter Symonds (6th form college). Her parents are wealthy, highly educated people who live in a very expensive house right next to Thornden and her parents paid for tutoring throughout school and 6th form college. (One of Thornden's teachers guesses/estimates that around a quarter of their students are getting tutoring.)

Why should student 1 get a higher offer from university? Why should student 3 get an easier offer than student 2?

Universities do take into account student's backgrounds and make contextual offers but they can't and they don't use simplistic rules such as private = higher offer, state = lower offer.

Just to be clear;in done areas it absolutely will confer academic and social advantage. That's just not the case here.

NancyJones - sorry, but you are paying for an advantage one way or the other. You wouldn't pay for your child to have the SAME education as that received for free at the local state school, nor would you pay for her to have a worse education - you think your dc's private school gives her the advantage of, eg, a wider selection of sport, the chance to "reach her potential," to do textiles if she wants instead of maths A-level, etc, etc... Don't pretend you aren't paying in order to give your child an advantage.

I don't pretend there isn't an advantage but I don't believe that advantage is academic or social climbing or anything like that. Yet those are the reasons assumed by many posters on these threads in a 'why would you pay if your child could achieve the same Alevels at the comp?' way.

But surely it is a social and economic advantage to have the self-confidence and healthy glow acquired from having a pleasurable academic, sporting, musical, etc, experience in pleasant, well-resourced surroundings where you are led to believe that you can achieve great things and meet your potential? Employers would love a self-confident young person who has already had plenty of opportunities to demonstrate their abilities in a wide range of disciplines. So much easier to employ such a person than the person who looks like they might have potential, but hasn't been given the chance to demonstrate much of it, yet, because of circumstances beyond their control, or lack of opportunity.

But I guess you can't call that social climbing, given that your parents have already climbed for you.

Agree completely, capsium.

A little thought experiment about the consequences of making private schooling illegal is pretty unpalletable. This thread has made me think of my old Marx and Ingals reader multiple times!

I hope, and presume, dietcoke will do what she feels is best for her children and family. All of our collective, sophomoric drivel aside!

uilen- well, they're top-secret tutors without websites, then! You try finding them! I have, and failed, unless I drive DC 12 miles! For the record, none of my DC's friends at Thornden get tutoring, but what would I know?

Anyway, who suggested that the uni admission offers could or should be 'simplistic'? I'm sure that's one reason why it doesn't happen because it would have to take all sorts of factors into consideration, it'd be expensive to administer, and- maybe the biggie- the 'will' isn't there because, frankly, I imagine unis would prefer privately educated DC; already properly educationally 'socialised', used to doing exactly what they're told as a result of 14 years of there being 'consequences' for under-performance; being used to reams of homework, useful or not. Of course, this doesn't guarantee ongoing performance as sometimes such previously forensically managed DC don't do so well when left to 'get on with it'. But the will to rock a very comfortable boat, imposed as it would have to be by people with DC in that boat, just isn't there.

For the record, interestingly, top performing 'leafy' comps are being made to quantify their success (along with all state schools) by publishing a forensic break-down of value adding, not just GCSE results which takes in lots of factors, so it can be done if the will's there. But only if you want to inconvenience state schools, but let the privates get on with teaching and advantaging their paying customers.

I guess I just see the state educated kids local to me as having that anyway. In some ways it comes from their affluent parents and their accessibility to amazing holidays and hobbies and gadgets at home. I'm not saying the kids at my DCs school don't have these just that in places like here, the vast majority of state educated kids have them too. They ride, (horses and quad bikes) hey play rugby and cricket and tennis. They do ballet and streetdance. Things like Saturday stagecoach and lamda lessons have waiting lists around here. One local comp sent the 6th form rugby team to The Gambia a few years back.

MustChoose remembering Haralambos as we speak....

I'm sincerely wondering why kids can't be "educationally socialised" at state schools.

Tansie when I was at Uni we thought the Privately educated amongst us seemed a bit 'green' in a lot if cases. A fair few rebelled massively (due to the freedom) and got into all sorts of trouble. I wouldn't have said they were better 'educationally socialised' at all...

I would think a lot of state educated kids are more socially educated.