Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Private education

84 replies

GlobalTechIndustries · 30/01/2017 18:40

Following on from the private school thread, if you can afford it why would you not want a good standard of education for your children ?

OP posts:
BertrandRussell · 01/02/2017 16:31

A school which does not reflect the ability range of its catchment cohort is not a comprehensive school.

Bobochic · 01/02/2017 16:33

Bertrand - not comprehensive but not secondary modern either.

BertrandRussell · 01/02/2017 16:37

Why not? A secondary modern school is simply a school that educates the "goats"............

HPFA · 01/02/2017 16:39

Flying There isn't always a clear-cut definition of what is a comprehensive and what is a secondary modern. The statistical whizzkids at Education Datalab have a very detailed analysis here:

educationdatalab.org.uk/2016/11/when-is-a-comprehensive-school-actually-a-secondary-modern/

Personally, I tend to define a secondary modern as being a school which is defined by the fact that children are there because they have not succeeded at the 11+. I believe something like 85% of children in Bucks take the exam as you have to opt out of it. Whereas whilst a few of the girls at Coombe could well have sat for Tiffin I imagine the large majority have not.

I'm sure DD would have got the same quality of education in some of the Bucks SMs as in some of the Oxfordshire comps. But what she couldn't have avoided in Bucks is the knowledge that she is at an SM because she wasn't able to pass the 11+.

Purple 0.14 Progress 8 means that high achieving students are doing better there than in the average English school by 0.14 GCSE grades. I did a quick comparison with the Kent grammars and if the school was put in a list of them it would be half way up. So the school is doing as well as the average Kent grammar for progress of high achieving students. I'm still struggling a bit to understand Attainment 8 but again the average Kent grammar gets around 65 or 66.

It's pretty sobering to see how socio-economic background so totally dominates educational achievement. Skegness Grammar School has a Progress 8 for High Achievers of -0.38.

OrlandaFuriosa · 01/02/2017 16:44

Silly sausages, yes, DS' school has a huge range too, 30% on bursaries or scholarships, very mixed in terms of ethnicity and nationality. One of the reasons why I liked it.

But not all schools are like that. And some private appear to aim at the uber posh and/or uber wealthy.

crazycrofter · 01/02/2017 18:01

Why is the choice always state v private? What about home education? I've often seen private referred to as being immoral but what about home ed, with tutors, workshops, one that one teaching etc? That's a huge privilege but it's never called immoral!

Dapplegrey1 · 01/02/2017 19:11

Good point crazycrofter. Also educating children abroad doesn't seem to raise hackles either, but that could be because it's quite unusual.

gillybeanz · 02/02/2017 14:41

crazy

were you not on MN when the h.ed board was going strong.
It was dreadful the amount of people who used to go on to cause trouble.
It was a shame as the H.edders were really supportive of each other.

BertrandRussell · 02/02/2017 16:58

I suppose because technically anyone could home educate? And I suppose because many people are a bit ambivalent about the advantages it confers........

crazycrofter · 03/02/2017 15:54

Home edders get abuse yes but for different reasons. But it's not really true that anyone can home educate - you need to be able to live on one income for a start. And to do it well you need to spend money. Surely that's as immoral as spending money on private education? If you have plenty of money to spend you can buy lots of privileges - a tailor made curriculum with one to one tutoring by specialists. Surely that's even more advantageous than private school? After all it's what all the upper classes used to do - governess at home etc.

SuperRainbows · 03/02/2017 23:56

I've home educated one or more of my four dcs for the last 18 years. I've also flexi-schooled and had dcs at Grammar and Comprehensives, so I'm not anti-school.
I've yet to meet a situation as you describe it crazy crofter. For many families, financially it is a struggle. However in my area there are loads of activities going on and many are free or low cost. There are lots of free and low cost resources online. Also, we don't have to buy school uniforms or pay for school trips, so it probably balances out.
BertrandRussell, I am trying to find an answer to your question about % attending grammar school.

gillybeanz · 04/02/2017 17:11

Crazy

You don't have to have one income to be able to H.ed.
I was a sahm with dd, but met so many families where they both worked and H.ed happened just the same, why wouldn't it.

We went from 3 years of H.ed to dd boarding, which was a huge shock to the system. One minute she was there 24/7 the next I was waving her off for a week, then a fortnight.

crazycrofter · 05/02/2017 20:29

True, but I still think home education can confer certain benefits if done well and money is no object! We've been home edding no2 for two years and I consider it's been a sacrifice made for his benefit - i.e. It's better for him than state ed and he has more opportunities. I just wonder why people object so much to the inequality of opportunities created by private education but they're happy for people to home educate!?

BertrandRussell · 05/02/2017 20:44

Home education does not confer privilege on already privileged children. And technically anyone could do it. Only a tiny minority can access private school-even technically.

RalphSteadmansEye · 06/02/2017 03:30

I don't understand the sums involved in "anyone can home educate". If I were to home ed ds (which has been considered from time to time) I would have to give up work and lose my salary - which is (only just) more than the £13k pa his private school costs.

Pallisers · 06/02/2017 04:13

Home education does not confer privilege on already privileged children. And technically anyone could do it. Only a tiny minority can access private school-even technically.

I'm another one who can't understand how anyone could technically home educate their children? Is it that you'd do the educating at night when you get home from work?

A lot of the cultural capital purchasing (music lessons, sports, travel, extra lessons) that state school parents do is also conferring privilege on already privileged children. Is it wrong to do that? Why not?

RancidOldHag · 06/02/2017 07:13

It's because of the way the law is framed. The responsibility is on the parents to provide an education for their children. There is no requirement to use a school to do this. Anyone can choose to HE.

There is no requirement to be qualified, or to follow a certain curriculum, or take any particular approach. So anyine can do it. Whether they should is a totally different issue.

MaryTheCanary · 06/02/2017 08:34

Re home education: I have known a few working people who have done it. Usually one spouse who is the second-income earner and has a flexible job (working from home) does it in between other tasks, and has some help from tutors. After the kids were 11 or so, they did a lot of their schooling online, so the HEing parent increased their working hours. You'd have to be organized to make a good job of it, mind you.

crazycrofter · 06/02/2017 11:11

Pallisers - I totally agree. I find it so hypocritical when people object to private school as it's elitist / creates inequality but they're happy for the same sort of parents to use state schools but create the same inequality by using tutors, paying for extra curricular activities etc - or home educating. Children with involved parents are already privileged - you can't avoid that. Children with well off parents are privileged. I just don't understand why using that money in certain ways is immoral (private schools, tutoring for grammar) whereas using it to home educate or pay for extra curricular or even to tutor for GCSE to make up for the failing school is fine!

BertrandRussell · 06/02/2017 11:18

"Children with involved parents are already privileged - you can't avoid that. Children with well off parents are privileged"
I don't think anyone denies that!

2014newme · 06/02/2017 11:21

Home ed is the most expensive kind of education asit involves the forfeit of at least one parents salary and work related benefits plus purchase of all resources.

bojorojo · 06/02/2017 11:56

I do think the "failure" card is overplayed in Bucks. I know legions of children who have attended the secondary moderns. Generally, no-one ever expected the vast majority of these children to go to the grammars, so it is no ever-lasting disappointment! Many of the secondary moderns are good but a few are not and struggle all the time. Waddesdon selects on a religious affiliation and has a tiny catchment, such as Waddesdon. If you only serve a couple of midsized villages, one small one and a few outlying farms, the number of children going to the grammars is small. It takes the brightest non grammar children from a wide area which means other schools lose these children. It gets good results because it effectively "poaches" other children who have gone to church and the parents will sort out the transport costs. I used to live in Waddesdon by the way!

flyingwithwings · 06/02/2017 12:47

Regarding Bucks DD1 has just been joined by her best friend from Primary school in Sixth form at Grammar school ! DD1s best friend failed 11+ DD only scored '123' so was quite near the border line.

For the record Flying 1 got 7 A last year 'Debbie' achieved 2 A and 5 A s from her excellent 'Modern' school !

This is why one another thread i posted that i would rather have children in a Buckinghamshire Modern than a Comprehensive in Wigan.

Also kids in Bucks Modern's are much better served than the Comprehensive school in Stoke where my Sister is HOD of the Chemistry department. She has sent both her children private, because she believes the school she teaches in is not able to educate able pupils correctly.

This proves that areas or family backgrounds are more important, than the selective or non selective debate !

HappyHoppyFrog · 21/02/2017 10:23

I don't have any experience of the state sector but have had experience of a few schools in the private sector and can see that private does not always mean better, but I guess it's also about matching the right kid to the right school. My dd's first (prep) school was chosen before we knew that she had dyslexia, was very academic and scholarship-focused...and they were terrible with SEN. The support teacher herself was wonderful but her hands were often tied by being pulled in too many directions and being made to cover for classes when teachers were off, thereby cancelling or giving work sheets un supervised to my dd in her support time, and often weeks worth of extra support classes were cancelled without telling me and it was hard work getting the support in the first place. We moved our dd in year 5 (Westonbirt Prep) and the difference made me realise just how bad the previous place was. Even though it's a really academic school, she was really well supported. My dd's senior school is also really good (Westonbirt Senior). My dd doesn't need as much support now/at the moment but some of her friends seem to have excellent support and I think it's always adjusted and monitored. Makes me so sad when I hear about kids not getting the support they need - it's hard enough already.

Bellini239 · 21/03/2017 13:42

Well, I don't think it's a black and white answer. Both me and my husband went to private schools and I am pregnant now with our first child, and I wouldn't automatically say we both favour private schools over state ones. For me, I would be concerned about sending my kids to a school that was too elitist. So, even if you can afford private education and had that yourself doesn't mean it's right for my kids. X