Are we wasting our money?

[angelnumber9]

It appears that every year the results gap between state and independent schools narrows and this seems even more defined with 2017 figures. Combined with the incentives that top universities give to state school students I am struggling to find good reasons to carry on paying our hard earned dosh for DC's education.
To give this some perspective I have checked out local independent school results and compared them with some of the state school alternatives and it makes interesting reading. I have said before that we are very lucky to have such a good collection of schools in Shropshire. It has to be said that we can only just afford the less expensive ones such as Wrekin or Shrewsbury High School and I appreciate that like all things you get what you pay for but if you care to cost it out purely on a results v price basis there seems very little point in spending your money.....or am I missing something really important?
Having watched selective schools like the gdst's Shrewsbury High school continue to plummet down the A level league tables for the last 5 years (from 63rd with 61% A/A in 2014 to 255th and 26% this year) I know that many parents are again asking what their money is being spent on. Especially when non selective schools such as Moreton Hall and Adcote are roaring ahead (Moreton is an all round school monumentally up 118 places to 91st place with 53%, more that twice that of its High School rival. State grammar schools like Newport Girls High, Adams and Thomas Telford score consistently above 50% A/A and at least four Shrewsbury Sixth form students have achieved Oxbridge places. The Marches sixth form has 22% and William Brooke's 24%. Shrewsbury School and Concord (like the High School selective but far more expensive) have broken their own records. Concord unbelievably managing 84% A/A with 45% at A. Shrewsbury School continue to publish detailed exam results and leavers destinations on their very informative website.
Perhaps I'm too caught up in figures but when Shrewsbury High School recently held an Oxbridge conference in an attempt to win an award (sadly I'm told none of their girls have secured offers there since 2015) I can understand why parents are livid. But they now have a new dance school so perhaps girls will be able to waltz their way into Oxbridge??? (sorry, couldn't resist!).
So I am very frustrated about it all and seriously considering cutting my losses. I hate to see our school fees being spent on ridiculous projects when the focus should be on raising standards. With what I would save in fees I could probably buy a small house which may be a far better investment for my children in the long term.........anyone?

I think there is burying heads in the sand in both state and fee paying parents.
Yes, lots of middle class state educating parents rest too comfortably on the fact they are uni educated and in good jobs and did well from their mediocre Comps - they decide that the fact they provide swimming lessons, music lessons and their kids go to an outstanding school must be enough. They don't always actually engage with the details of the consequences of schools not offering certain subjects, or not having enough funding. Perhaps in their minds they think 'how can kids like mine fail?' They see their own backgrounds, houses and jobs and conclude that their own kids simply WILL succeed....and like you say, considering anything else is too unpalatable to engage with.

Perhaps those who opt for the mediocre fee paying school has enagage with it,mot some degree, but again, not entirely successfully. They feel that education is so so important that you must provide the best you can. They conclude that paying is always better than not paying and that by throwing money at education, they must be doing the right thing. It is buying peace of mind, but often without really researching if there is a real benefit. Perhaps what parents really want more than a good education full stop, is peace of mind for the 7 or 14 years their kids are in school. And it's funny what seems to deliver that peace of mind - again, not always rational, but emotional.

chocolate I agree.

But the consequences of the former are greater than the later.

If a parent 'wastes' some dosh on education, there's usually little harm done. Maybe it's because I'm working class, or maybe because I earn lots of money, I've never worried too much about seeing a forensic accountant like return on every penny I spend . If the kid had a nice time in school and no one starved, I'm not seeing a big problem.

Unfortunately the lack of parental engagement in the problems with the state sector has given the government a virtual free pass. We've slid into a situation where the school budgets are untenable. I don't hear anyone in education say otherwise.

I agree they're untenable, but I don't know what can be done (short of wholesale political revolution). Strikes don't faze the powers that be, and parents just view them as selfish and inconvenient.

We send DD to prep school for the following reasons:

• Better facilities than the local state option
• Smaller class sizes
• Outside space
• Time spent outside for play, sport & education
• Opportunity to participate in many different activities on site
• Adult to child ratio
• Excellent wrap-around care
• Opportunity to do Prep at school
• Beautiful surroundings
• To enjoy this childhood experience
• Our families have all been privately educated, so it is the norm

Shameless hijack - OP we are thinking of moreton hall for DD. Any intel you have as a local v gratefully received - please pm me. Our big worry is will Jonathan Forster retire in near future - he's clearly driven a strong culture through the school and we were impressed but still that is a concern.
Apologies for derailing!

hells I think the time has passed, sadly.

The public seem to want teachers to achieve the impossible and then for universities to bridge the gap.

However, I sense we're at a point where both are saying no more. Teachers are leaving. Schools are simply offering what they can afford and being honest about it. It will become far more common to ask parents for money - because sparkly middle class parenting can't pay for a new lab.

In tertiary education there's definitely a hardening of attitudes. There's only so much outreach people will do for free when potential applicants are not receiving an appropriate education in school.

Sorry havent had time to read the thread so apologies if it has already been covered. If you are using government data to compare schools please be advised that not all exam results are included. So if, for example, pupils at your independent school sat iGCSEs in English and maths that were awarding letter grades this summer they will not be included in 2017 government stats. So It will look as if no pupil at those schools passed English and maths.

Other boards offer non-regulated exams eg co-ordinated science. These are also not included. So you could have a pupil take 9 GCSEs but only be credited in govt stats for 5 exams. And so it goes on. Not all vocational qualifications are included. Year 10 passes are not included in govt stats but might be on the school website.

So to properly compare you will need to obtain the detailed information from each school.

You need to consider the breadth of what is being offered and the potential of your child.

That's my impression. Maybe in the long run we need schools to be really blunt to parents. And universities simply aren't geared up to sort the problems.

My local state comprehensives really don't seem to be disadvantaging their pupils. My friends with older children have seen them go to Oxford (2) Edinburgh (2, one of them studying medicine), as well as to SOAS, Manchester, Cambridge, Leeds and less impressively, a local college to do a music course, but his band is doing pretty well. The local comp has two pupils playing sport at a level which puts them in the running for Olympic consideration, and a former pupil is currently on the Booker shortlist. Independent school would be a huge financial stretch for us, and I think that any advantages they would get from a private school would be pretty small compared to the combination of a very good state education plus parents who weren't having to scrimp every penny.

I think schools have improved massively and there seems to be an improvement in discipline even compared with 10 years ago.
Low level disruption is a massive problem and mobile phones and pissing about isn't considered an issue at many schools.
Primary education is excellent and hopefully it will filter through to secondary soon.

That sounds great for your child. But do you (and everyone who sends their kids to private schools) not feel uncomfortable that the only reason your kids are getting these advantages is because you can pay (not including scholarships etc)

(sorry that post was to Anne with her list of prep school positives!)

I think EVERY parent, at some point, questions the education choices they made for their children.
The problem with schools is that they're not an impulse purchase where you can chop and change easily all the time.
And you only really know what you have personally experienced with your own children.

FWIW we've privately educated our DSs since age 7. Have they had excellent educations? Yes. Would I do the same again if I had my time over? Possibly not.
The problem is that at age 4, 7, 11 or whatever, you don't always know how your child is going to turn out and which environment will be best for them. In retrospect, DS1 is academic and would probably have done very well anywhere. I think going to a state school would have made him a bit more independent and streetwise. For DS2, independent was probably best for the small class sizes, but sometimes I think he would have had his dyslexia diagnosed earlier and had better SEN support in the state sector.

In my experience, people rarely slag off their own school to parents of the 'other type'. Friends in my local area rave about their kids' comprehensive to me, but tell fellow parents they have 'grave concerns' about their decision to send their DD there .

Karlos, yes this thread has been rather taken over!
In relation to Moreton Hall I have not heard any news of Mr Forsters impending departure but he won't be there forever, having met him and had a tour of the school we loved it but just couldn't afford it, simple as that. We know a number of girls who are there and it is about as rounded an education as you could possibly get (horse riding and golf!) and yet their exam results as still fantastic so all this talk of value added v results is getting dull.
Childmaintenance I have done all the research and taken the factors you mention into account when comparing schools. The results are still shocking especially when read in combination with school websites which try to put a positive spin on everything. Someone likened the High School website as trying to put a shine on a turd!

We need Educating Eton so we can compare and contrast because the only extras I can see that are taught in these places is how to be a massive twat.

"We need Educating Eton so we can compare and contrast because the only extras I can see that are taught in these places is how to be a massive twat."

That really is an extraordinarily dim witted thing to say!

Thank you angel.

All this 'public school is so much better' narrative thrives on secrecy and innuendo and fomo. Lay it bare and then see if the povs can't emulate it though their own ingenuity and effort. I think it's easy to underestimate how intelligent lots of people actually are.

PersonLky, I never use any of this rather lazy spaghetti monster/imaginary friend/sky pixie type comments because I think they are rather bad mannered. But I can see why people do. I would be absolutely ready to live and let live and leave people of faith to get on with it- if they were prepared to do the same to me. As is obvious from this thread, they often aren't.

Sorry-wrong thread!

OP I think what it has to come down to is does this school work for my child. From what you have written it doesnt.

Look at the alternatives available to you. Think of your child in that context. 'Will my child fit in here'.

Going to even a failing state school doesnt mean your DD will automatically do less well than she would at a mediocre independent.

How well your DD does ultimately comes down to her. If she is a self-disciplined self-starter she will get the best out of whatever educational setting she is in. If she lacks motivation and is easily led then you have to consider what that means for your DD in any given educational context. How high can this or that school help her to fly but also how low will it let her fall.

I went to a conference on sociak mobility in education a few years ago where one of the speakers said he thought the increase in school fees generally would have a positive impact on widening participation at university.

I'm finding this thread interesting. Re the above, It may improve social mobility but surely it also places more pressure on the system - for every child that's privately educated that's one less child that the state has to pay to be educated?

Also for every child that's privately educated it probably means more places at decent schools that a less affluent child could take (as wealthy parents rend to live in better catchments)? I remember some criticised David Cameron for sending kids to a very good state school as they could obviously easily afford to go private, as his kids had displaced someone else's (poor bloke can't win).

If roughly 7% of kids are privately educated, imagine the pressure on the system if/when most of those parents can't afford it.

I agree with Wombat that people will rationalise their educational decisions. Most parents are trying to do their best under the circumstances they find themselves in, and think that if something is expensive it must be good.

It could be said that it is not anyone else's business how they choose to educate their child. However, I think that if we agree that huge inequality in wealth in society is a bad thing for all, then private education is part of the problem. Not necessarily because it is superior, rather that it encourages a 'them and us' mentality.

If parents from all backgrounds made it clear to government that they will vote for state provided excellent education for all I'm sure funding and standards would improve. Unfortunately many who are in power are not personally invested in the state system as their families are not using it. The same goes for healthcare.

I think successive elections have proved that the UK does not have a homogenous vision of what good state education should look like. Nor do they wish to have taxes raised to pay for it.

bluejelly - No, it doesn't make me feel uncomfortable at all. Why would it?

I am paying to get what I want, in the same way I buy my make up from Estee Lauder instead of the local supermarket. Both are perfectly acceptable and functional, but I prefer one to the other.

If DD went to the local school she would get on ok, it is a perfectly fine school. However it doesn't provide all the extras, it is overcrowded and if I sent her there it would just make their class sizes even bigger.