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.

And if more schools are failing to provide what parents want (whether that is via an unsatisfactory ofsted either now or at some point in the recent past, or by some other judgement that parents use) then parents will always vote with their feet.
Tbh, I don't put much store by this 80% of schools are good. If you live somewhere where the school you get allocated is not what you consider 'good' then you will look for ways to change school. The wool can be pulled over people's eyes for a while, but many parents will realise when something isn't good enough.
And I don't care if the Ofsted requirements have become more stringent. The fact they have apparantly changed several times since the start of 2013, according to rabbitStew (2013 is not exactly long ago is it) doesn't give me any more confidence in state schools. It simply tells me that the goal posts have changed lots and will continue to do so and an Ofsted rating cannot be relied upon by parents who don't know every piddling alteration to the definitions of 'good' etc. Private schools often argue that being outside this political interference and constantly changing goal posts is one of the things that gives them an advantage over schools......and this constant changing supports this.

Rabbit, do you really think that the new definition of 'good' is the definitive one? Do you think it will last? Do you think parents can rely on it? Or that they will know that a 2013 'Good' might not be good enough, whereas as 2014 one is worth more? What about a 2015 rating?
And the teachers spending huge amounts of time stressing about it all and constantly playing catch up. And the Heads whose careers are ruined by a poor report. My goodness!

No wonder that if they can, parents gravitate towards the schools in affluent areas, with children who start off at a strong beginning point.

Tess

I think it's actually 20% in private schools at Sixth Form.

Yes, 7% is the average across the whole age range and country.

Fewer than 7% are in Preps and more in Secondary and again in 6th Form. And there are huge regional disparities too, with areas of London having almost 50% in independent schools, whilst often areas of the North are below 2%. It's partly to do with how over-subscribed the popular schools are, but mostly to do with income.

ChocolateWombat And if more schools are failing to provide what parents want (whether that is via an unsatisfactory ofsted either now or at some point in the recent past, or by some other judgement that parents use) then parents will always vote with their feet.

Does anyone know how many private schools are Outstanding/Good/Failing etc.?

Hak I was simple responding to xorryforher's comment "I think what you mean people with poor parents don't get the opportunities to experience other things" yes his school is unique but many seem baffled why I pay and frequently tell me that I could have the same thing without paying. As I've frequently said I wouldn't pay for most other school as we have perfectly good state school in our area.
I agree that children need to don't attend a lecture every week but the point is that if the are so many there will be some you want to attend.
The tragedy is that many seem convinced that their state school is distinctly second rate at best and feel that paying for an independent school that is often little or no better is the best solution. Many seem to think that in the state sector there are high incidences of behavioural problems and bullying. There is bullying in the independent sector as well as the states sector. I'm haven't been into enough state schools to comment on behaviour in general but certainly at my DS1's "outstanding high achieving academy" all the behaviour I observed was pretty good, I sat in lots a lessons at a well regarded grammar and again behaviour was pretty good, are children really endlessly throwing chairs in most state schools? I somehow doubt it but maybe I''m wrong.

As per here
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/schools-pupils-and-their-characteristics-january-2013
in 2013 private school pupils were
5.41% at Primary
7.82% at 11-16
17.45% at 16-18
averaging at 14.63%
BUT
The school/college leaving age has now risen so that the 6th form percentage will drop back to be in line with younger ages
ie under 8% (and that includes overseas students and the state figures exclude special schools and PRUs)

In fact as per table 2a, it is 7.03% of pupils at non state schools
MN in a skewed self selecting sample

"So were those comments actually in the report that concluded that the school was "good" or did they come from the "special measures" report?"

Keeper, could you answer this,please?

Talkinpeace. The of Mumsnet statistics must be 12% Public School 25% Private school 35% Grammar School 25% Comprehensive 3% Modern or other type of school.

Totally non representative of real live.

are children really endlessly throwing chairs in most state schools?

Obviously I can only talk for ours (and it was primary) but at the time we left our school there several people who removed their children from year 5 as they spent too much time working in the corridor having been 'evacuated' whilst the teachers tried to talk down a chair throwing child.

Anyway the point re the failing schools was simply that it is entirely unsurprising that a higher number of people will have experienced a failing school than the number of schools that are rated 3 or 4 at this snapshot in time. Also, those people are also disproportionately likely to post on an education forum.

Hak

Half was from the old report, half from the "newer" one. But one has to take the "newer" one with a pinch of salt… not much time has passed since the "older" report.

Definitely not enough time to improve it that much.

Unless all the disruptive kids have moved on to secondary school and they were lucky enough to not have as many disruptive kids in the new cohort.

In fact, I think that must have happened, based on the stats.

So when you said that was a report on a "good" school........

Well - it is, Hak.

As I said, you had to read between the lines (you always have to with these reports!!!). There's no way in hell you can change a school in just a couple of years. There you have it. Not when there are pretty much the same teachers there. You have to read at least the last 5 years of reports to see how it developed. As you can see from one of the comments, it did improve once before already and then went downhill again.

My DSiL's school went from "special measures" to "good" to "special measures" to "satisfactory". During that time, NOTHING actually changed - other than smarter uniforms having been introduced. Teachers were the same. The change in "grading" had little to do with the school, but maybe with perception that things had changed.

You quote 6 very damning comments, and say they are from a report on a good school. Then you say"oh, no, they are half from the "good" report and half from the"special measures" report". Then you say it doesn't matter, because you can't turn a school around in 2 years ( you can, actually) I'm confused.

And Hakluyt - it's all fine if you want your DC to be the guinea pig. I just couldn't live with myself if I did so.

DSiL managed to actually go to a good university and get a good job at a very, very elite firm after going to that school… but only after:

(a) switching to a Sixth Form College to which many private school pupils switch to on a regular basis; (b) a LOT of extra tutoring from her siblings (we're talking like 15 hours a week during A-levels) to fill in the gap - having an academic family is useful; and a LOT of paid tutoring by a professional tutor; (c) her siblings (and me) having convinced DPiL to spend a lot of money on extracurricular activities, incl. holiday camps abroad to widen her horizon; (d) a fair lot of internships gained through family (including me) at firms most kids would never have access to (a notion which a lot of people on this thread would not like); (e) a gap year after uni that gave her other things to talk about at interviews.

All the above costs money/time, too.

And now we discover it's so long ago that the person you know at the schoo, has gone on to 6th form college, universtity and into a job since all this happened.........

KeeperOfSouls DSiL managed to actually go to a good university and get a good job at a very, very elite firm after going to that school… but only after:

All the above costs money/time, too.

From your posts, am I correct in saying that the school in no way contributed to, what appears to be, a very bright future for you DSiL?

Out of interest, why did your DSiL not go private?

And presumably she had decent GCSE s or she wouldn't have got into the 6th form college? And why wasn't she at the same school as her siblings? And once she was in the 6th form college, why did she need 15 hours a week of informal tutoring and a lot of paid tutoring.....how come they all only noticed the school's deficiencies at that late stage????

More holes than an emmenthal !

As said Hak - from what I saw with DSiL's school, I don't believe you can turn a school around that quickly and keep the same staff. When you evaluate companies for investment, you don't look just at the last annual report. You look several years back (because the 'good' year may have been the odd one out). Sometimes, you can even identify a pattern.

Why should schools be any different? Are you saying schools are mega efficient and unlike companies, one year's performance alone is a guide to any future year's performance?

Which kind of goes to show, KeeperofSouls, that the timetable for schools to improve as set by Ofsted/govt pressure is ridiculous, doesn't it?

ChocolateWombat - the biggest turn off for me when it comes to state schools in recent years has been the ludicrous amount of rushed change inflicted on them, putting colossal stresses and strains on all schools, not just the genuinely bad ones, so I agree with you on that. Personally, though, I think it's actually 6 of one and half a dozen of the other - yes, some state schools are bad and deserve to be avoided by all who can avoid them, but many parents are pretty crass when it comes to judging a school, relying on: reputations that are no longer merited (it takes an unbelievably long time for parents to catch up with the reality that a school has actually gone from being good to being crap, or vice versa); reports that do not represent reality; personal prejudice (if some parents were really honest, they would admit they really do hanker after a school full of the children of parents with very similar aspirations to their own (which often, in many parts of the country, actually translates into similar social class), because it reduces the number of unknowns and gives them at least one thing to be a bit more confident about, fills them with confidence there will be other kids wanting to, eg, play in orchestras and sing in choirs, etc...).

It has to be borne in mind, though, that even without government pressure, private schools have their own stresses and strains, given that they have to make enough money to keep going, which is no easy feat in difficult economic times, and can also go from good to absolutely crap incredibly rapidly, close down with virtually no notice, provide a dire education and try to cover it all up with a glossy brochure, etc. Private schools get away with an awful lot of things they shouldn't get away with because they are not in the public eye in the way state schools are. The lack of publicity doesn't mean they are all good.

Private school parents also pay for private tutors... and ensure their children get good internships... and send their kids off on Gap years... and send their kids on holiday camps.... Maybe their private schools are rubbish!

KeeperOfSouls What Ofsted rating do you think this school has?
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/secondary/2205492-unresolved-set-problem

Hak

DPiL were very leftist once (particularly DMiL who actually hated the thought of academia). Siblings went to the same school, got bad GCSEs… which considering DH later academic path shows how bad that school was. DH basically had to teach himself once he was at Sixth Form, and to this day thinks he learned NOTHING at the high school, where being intelligent was seen as 'uncool'. He hates the school even now! Siblings also told DPiLs to send her to another school, but their leftist attitudes and DMiLs unwillingness to drive her to a school further away just would not make it happen.

DFiL was a workaholic. DMiL didn't give much of a toss about school (she didn't do A-levels/uni). They finally saw the light when DSiL's privately educated friend who once attended the same school where she got lower marks than DSiL achieved much higher marks at GCSE. The girl had left due to bullying. That's the problem… GCSE grades was sort of the wake-up call. I'm not sure what the grades needed for Sixth Form were, but it wasn't that selective.

Why 15 hours a week? To recap 5 years of learning nothing… it's not that easy, you know.

KeeperOfSouls Why 15 hours a week? To recap 5 years of learning nothing

DSiL achieved much higher marks at GCSE... not sure what the grades needed for Sixth Form were.

Can I just ask how she managed to get GCSEs if she learned nothing for 5 years?

To add… DH went from being 'gifted' at his primary school (where teachers told DPiL to send him private!) to being laughed at for doing homework at high school, so he stopped doing any work to fit in. He then got terrible grades at GCSEs but turned it around at the Sixth Form College. By then, the damage was done - Cambridge was off the list of unis to apply to, for example, because GCSE grades were not good enough… an acquaintance of mine who is an Oxbridge don teaching DH's subject said he would have been Oxbridge material otherwise.

That's what a bad school can do to you.

KeeperOfSouls an acquaintance of mine who is an Oxbridge don teaching DH's subject said he would have been Oxbridge material otherwise.
What did he base this opinion on given that your DH has no qualifications and the Oxbridge don did not know your DH as a teenager?