If you are at a fee paying school, do children know?

[Parky22]

DD is 6 and currently Y1 at a fee paying school that ends at Y2.
I have been to open days for the next schools and a headmaster has said how they want the children to know they are in a privileged position.
Also heard another mum state that if her child gets a scholarship she has promised them 10% of what they save.
Should the children know about fees/scholarships/bursaries and at what age should they know?

My children know they are incredibly lucky, because they go to schools where there is a social mix which is reflective of wider society.

They have children in their class who come from truly impoverished homes, who have lost parents to violent crime, who have never had a proper holiday, who get their tea from the chip shop more nights than not, who live in appalling overcrowded flats.

They know what life is like for children at the bottom of the heap. They feel lucky to have two loving, caring parents and a secure home.

No mini the schools round here that don't offer academic dc much aren't losing the brightest dc to private. They lose them to the selective comprehensive system, or quite often don't lose them at all, they just screw them over.

As for your fee's logic, you do realise that there are huge differences between areas with state spend per head?

Fantastic that your dc have classmates from deprived homes and therefore realise hew lucky they are. My dd is really lacking that faux socialism at her independent school. I'm sure the fact she was only born into it, and lives amongst it on a daily basis minus school hours will compensate though. But feel free to crack on with your bs morality. I'll believe anyone truly cares about unequal education and mixing with deprived dc when state parents start actively sending their dc to places like our local state school.

Fwiw none of Dd's wealthy privileged secondary friends or their parents have given a toss about where we live. Unlike some twats who live in slightly wealthier areas, whose state educated dc and themselves are ignorant and offensive about deprived areas and the dc from them.

Lurked - I live in a very deprived area and we are part of that community.

As for the 'faux socialism' - what does that mean? Do you believe that parents like myself who are invested in the state education sector are morally inferior because we express a preference for schools whose intake is reflective of wider society? Are we only allowed to say we support a fairer system if our children attend schools where there is a massively disproportionate number of very low achieving and impoverished children? That this is how we prove our commitment to educational equality and fairness?

And yes - everyone knows some state schools get more per head, but none of them get anything remotely like the spend that private school pupils get. Average spend per private school child is 13k a year. The highest spend per pupil in the uk is in Tower Hamlets where each pupil costs 8k. The average across the UK is about 6K.

And you making it personal - really there's no need to be spiteful about it.

This isn't about personalities or attitudes - it's about structural inequalities in the system which are harmful to children and to wider society.

"well if Hugh achieving schools weren't absent from the WORST schools"
I find the assumption that we're paying because we live in areas with with poor star schools a boring and inaccurate generalisation. minifingers you may life in a "deprived" area and you children may go to school with children from very disadvantaged back grounds and thus realise how fortunate they are but IME of friends like us who pay most if not all live in nice very MC areas with good state schools.
Also IME of good often "outstanding" state schools in nice MC areas with motivated involved parents they still do not offer as a wide range of subjects and opportunities to their "top sets" or any set for that matter as "private schools".
The bottom line is that people may because they believe it's better than their state options, yes in some cases their state options are dire but in cases their state are not.

Minifingerz I'm interested in the figures of average spend, pls can you tell me your source? I'd like read up more about it. Is it from the Sutton trust, DFE? Thank you.

I don't see how the children wouldn't know they were at a fee paying school once they get to juniors/secondary.

I don't see any reason why I would converse with the DC about school fees at all. We send them to school, that's the end of it.

It's not their choice, it's mine. I don't discuss anything financial with them, I can't think why I would!

They do also get a discount. It's neither a secret nor a topic of debate.

Ignore minifingerz. She/he pops up to bang the drum on every private school thread.

I don't "drum" into my children that they are privileged. Sounds like a recipe for a guilt trip to me. It's not their choice which school they go to, which clothes I buy, which toys they have, which holidays they go on.

They are just kids. All they need to do is enjoy life at the moment!

Even if you don't talk to your children about school fees they may well hear something said in front of them by you/family members or friends.

Besides which, unless they are spectacularly think they are presumably going to notice that they have expensive and unusual uniforms which don't come from the local ASDA and work out that there is some difference between their school and the local state school. Ditto the expensive foreign holidays, large houses and flashy cars that many of their peers will have, plus the fact they have much longer holidays, may have to go to school on Saturday and the longer school days.

mini £8k is double the spend of the lowest areas, and in general London gets the lions share. I'm sorry you feel it's personal, but as long as you want to post about the unfairness of the 7% at independent, I'm going to point out the huge variance in state provision for the other 93% is the inequality we should be focusing on.

The reason I say faux socialism is because you presumably went to open days, listed schools on your admission application etc, and did as much as possible to choose the best school available to your dc's needs? Which is no different to any fee paying parent choosing the best available to them. I bet you didn't think 'yes, dc could get a place at x school which would be best for them, but I'll actively choose one that won't suit them and isn't as good because other dc don't have my choice'. Which is no different to a fee paying parent actively choosing the best of their options. Except the latter don't pretend to take the moral and social high ground.

Also in response to it being personal and faux socialism, your opinion on bursary pupils/ provision is partly why. The vast majority of people couldn't give a flying fuck that the most able from less affluent homes/ areas are royally screwed over by state education. Despite the fact if we really want social change they are the group who have the ability and motivation to bring it about. Instead the most able are meant to sacrifice their education for the less able. And yet that one small option for able dc from poorer homes, a bursary, people like you object to as unfair.

My situation might be different to the majority of independent parents, but I will defend the system that wants my child and is willing to provide a suitable education. But in all honesty, if I was wealthy and had access to good state schools, then I'd probably still have sent dd private.

I also agree with happy. The majority of independent pupils wouldn't be at schools with a representative social mix even if they went to state schools.

I went to private prep and secondary school. All the kids know it's fee paying - even at primary age. Don't kids yourself they don't know because you haven't told them. Someone else's parents have mentioned it and so it's gone round the playground.

They also know more or less everyone who has a scholarship/bursary - most kids will know and even if they don't some of the other kids will have been told by their parents who know from the scholarship kids parents... There are no secrets.

And frankly even if it is a secret, everyone is guessing because it is bloody obvious if your parents have significantly lower income than the other parents at the school and you are always top of the class/captain of the sports team/winning the music prize. That child clearly has a scholarship and every child in the class knows it.

And definitely at secondary level, being in a privileged position, having responsibilities and giving something back is a big part of the ethos of most private schools.

I had a scholarship throughout my time at school and I always knew because if I didn't have one, I wouldn't have gone, and that's the case for a lot of scholarship kids. I didn't know anyone who didn't know about theirs.

Lurked - the difference between a state school where there is a higher spend per head than the national average and a private school, is that the state school with the higher spend per head will not have its doors firmly locked to shut out the children who most need better teaching and support they might get there.

As for your other comment again about 'faux socialism' - sorry but you are talking out of your backside. Being a socialist means that you support equality of opportunity for all children. Are you really going to make the case that thinking carefully about which non-selective state school your child attends somehow undermines a claim to believe in equality of opportunity?

In any case, you want to make this about the moral choices of individual parents. It's not. It's about the fact that as a society we tolerate a system of social and economic apartheid in schooling, and this is not morally healthy or fair. Hugely disproportionate numbers of the most influential members of our establishments - law, media, politics, medicine are schooled in the the private sector. That has got to be wrong.

It's not fair on children and not good for society.

I appreciate that you are happy with the privileged education your child is getting - there is nothing wrong with that, but there is no need to tie yourself in knots over it. You can't make a serious case that a school sector which entirely excludes the most disadvantaged children in society - those who are both poor and low achieving - is somehow no more unfair than a state sector where poor and low achieving children are present in every non-selective school, including in the more successful and better funded schools.

By the way, non-selective state schools in places like Tower Hamlets have large numbers of low achieving children with multiple disadvantages, and are in an area where services and wages are ridiculously expensive compared to areas where schools are less well resourced.

mini Do you honestly believe the majority of deprived dc attend schools with broad social mixes, or that St.big mortgage secondary in an affluent area is any more of an option for less able dc from deprived homes than Eton is?

Tower hamlets is not the only deprived area in the country. And in less densely populated areas, including some cities, you do not get the mixed intake that naturally occurs in London.

The fact remains that the best state schools are closer to private schools than they are to the worst state schools.

I agree that far too much power is in the hands of the tiny minority from top public schools. But if those top public schools didn't exist, or indeed any other independent schools, do you really think they'd be attending poverty high on a council estate? Because they wouldn't.

It's such a shame that potentially interesting talk about private schools is shut down in order to have the same boring political discussion about their existence every time

I went to private prep and secondary school. All the kids know it's fee paying - even at primary age. Don't kids yourself they don't know because you haven't told them. Someone else's parents have mentioned it and so it's gone round the playground.

Possible true.

They also know more or less everyone who has a scholarship/bursary - most kids will know and even if they don't some of the other kids will have been told by their parents who know from the scholarship kids parents... There are no secrets.

Your are massively confusing scholarships with bursaries.
Scholarships are based on merit i.e child excels in a particular field. Of course other students will be aware because scholarship winners are usually 'advertised' so to speak byu the school as well as competitive.

Bursaries - Income based. To help parents on lower incomes.
At our schools and most top public schools no one knows who is on bursary and who isn't. No one cares!

And frankly even if it is a secret, everyone is guessing because it is bloody obvious if your parents have significantly lower income than the other parents at the school

Utter rubbish! people aren't guessing because they've better things to do with their time. I really don't know what type of independent schools you've been to, but they don't sound, sound.

and you are always top of the class/captain of the sports team/winning the music prize. That child clearly has a scholarship and every child in the class knows it.

eh? Utter rubbish. That's not how it works.

And definitely at secondary level, being in a privileged position, having responsibilities and giving something back is a big part of the ethos of most private schools.

if its the ethos of the school then what has it got to do with you specifically being on a bursary? Scholarship students are of course expected to have exemplary behavior and contribute more within their field of expertise. But in general all students are expected to behave, have reasonable responsibilities. Its not a case of just one student running around doing everything and sticking out like a sore thumb.

I had a scholarship throughout my time at school and I always knew because if I didn't have one, I wouldn't have gone, and that's the case for a lot of scholarship kids. I didn't know anyone who didn't know about theirs.

Again a scholarship is NOT the same thing as a bursary! what you are describing is a bursary and in most good independent schools no one knows who is on what, its just not that important. Most good indies focus on your academic/extra curricular achievements which is why the scholarship kids stand out. It is not a secret and not meant to be.

Agreed Iam. No one in my school knew who was on a bursary. I don't think we had scholarships, or if we did I didn't know which kids were on them.

The reward of a bursary is part of an incredibly private discussion you have with the bursar about fees and payment before you start. I can tell you now that all sorts of kids' fees have been tweaked here and there for all sorts of reasons. Schools rightly consider who pays what as done in the strictest confidence.

And no, you can't tell just by looking at the kid/the family. There are loads there paid by grandparents, family trusts, other relatives and those whose parents plain old scrimp and save. A bursary kid will not stick out.

I couldn't agree more with poster who mentioned that the best state schools are closer to private schools than they are to the worst state schools. The difference between a very high performing comprehensive in an affluent middle class area is going to have marked similarities to an independent day school. The facilities may be less shiny and they may not have the all singing and dancing music / drama and sport but to all intents and purposes the vast majority of parents will be interested, engaged and supportive whatever the child's ability. Inner city street comp will no more have been on their radar than Eton would have been on Jeremy Corbyn's.

Suit - my dc's go to a comp where 80% of children (more or less) get 5 or more GCSE's including maths and English. It is in the top 20 most oversubscribed state schools in the UK.

This school still takes large numbers of children who are both poor and low achieving.

In that it could not be more different from the 100% of private schools whose doors will be forever closed to these children.

Would also add - there is also regular low level disruption in many of my dc's classes, partly because like all non-selective state schools, it has to accommodate children that no private school would touch with a shitty stick.

I have looked at a lot of state schools. Most in my area are 'good' or 'outstanding'. They still have class sizes a third larger than the vast majority of private schools, high staff churn, and regular low level disruption in the classroom.

And the evidence is there in the exam grades - high achieving children in private schools get better exam grades than similar children in even good state schools - fundamentally because they get more teaching time, because teachers have smaller caseloads, and spend less time dealing with low level disruption.

Inner city street comp will no more have been on their radar than Eton would have been on Jeremy Corbyn's.

Jeremy Corbyn was educated at a prep school, before attending a grammar school. I imagine that schools similar to Eton (if not Eton itself) were on the radar of kids at his prep school.

Esornep, that explains a lot!

Having been to crapstatecomp myself, and not having the benefit of a lovely mc upbringing I would go down the private school route if I could afford it, every time. And I've no idea why my kids would need to know about why I decided to pay for them - it would be my choice, after all, not theirs.

Years ago, bursaries were not widely advertised and someone in education 20 plus years ago probably had a very good scholarship and that helped if the family were not so well off. It is only since private schools became Charities that bursaries were ramped up. Some schools do still give big fee educations to scholarship holders and others give a big fat £0 so the passage of time alters how some schools work.

Actually I think from the age of 11-13 children do work out who the bursary holders are. They can be the same as the scholarship holders and they do extra sport, give concerts, do plays and get the academic prizes. The older child can easily access the school's web site to check fees if they are interested. We didn't discuss amounts but they both knew we paid for them - they boarded! We come from a grammar school area but we thought private gave them a broader education and they liked the idea of making close friends and living with them. Also children go to parties. They observe lifestyles. It does become more obvious if you look but I agree it did not remotely bother me about who had what. Often the more well off were not pleasant people anyway!

It has been the case for a long time that many bright people have been educated privately. It is what their families do - for generations. Clearly lots of parents aspire to use private education but unless you are fairly poor, a bursary is difficult to get at very over subscribed schools. There are clearly a number of state schools that need to aim higher with their children. So do the parents. Often they do not think the best university is suitable for their child so they do not even try. Too often the ex poly down the road will do because they did outreach at the school. There are a great many reasons why some of the best children don't make it. It is not all about £ per head. Quality of teaching and ethos of the school counts for a lot.

"It is only since private schools became Charities"

So, for the whole of the last 509 years or more?

If you're looking back 20 years, then no bursaries (though available) were not much talked about. I think there are two reasons:

a) school fee inflation had not ramped up (I was re-reading a Jilly Cooper from the 1990s and snooty/expensive Fleetly full boarding was exaggerated up by tabloid to £12k for the whole year. It can be triple that now.
b) the assisted place scheme was the first point of call for those needing assistance to pay.

Dd is only y7, so my view might change, but so far at her school knowing who has a bursary is neither common knowledge or top secret, something inbetween.

It would be fairly obvious to anyone who came to our house or knew our address/ area that I am highly unlikely to be paying fees. And yet nobody appears to care or finds it gossip worthy, despite the fact she has friends round.

It is a very academic school though, and very competitive even for full fee places. Dd tells me any pupils aware of exactly how bursaries work are also aware of how much more competition there is for them, so the reaction is more how intelligent you must be, rather than how poor. It might be different at a school that was more about the trimmings and facilities, and attracted disproportionate numbers of parents looking for kudos rather than education iyswim.

DS2's school currently has just shy of 20% on bursaries average size is a 66% reduction on 36k. 1 million has recently been donated to boost the fund so that more and I suspect larger bursaries can be offered, the school want to become needs blind. Over subscribed and highly selective I'm not sure if the boys are aware of who gets one and who doesn't there is no academic difference between the boys on bursaries and those not I doubt anything one cares. Also to a recent report increasingly little or no difference between scholars (who get no financial, help they too have to apply for a bursary if they can't afford the fees) and commoners so no one would know by academic or music ability if a boy was on a bursary.
Boarding school children/parents obviously see less of her homes although I'm told do google map them!
I do not see how anybody can hide the fact that their child is at an independent school beyond yr 2/3 and as children are very internet savy they can easily google the fees. If your child is on a bursary why hide it from them?