Private schools are a bloody great rip-off

[fillipo]

and I should know because I used to teach in one!! I'm an English teacher, taught for 8 years in 2 different independent schools and then took the plunge and got a promotion into the state sector in September. It's like a breath of fresh air! And I've moved into the 21st century! Can't understand why I took so long to take the plunge. The teaching staff are on the whole far more professional - they don't have the complacency that some of my former colleagues had. Lessons are vibrant and interesting, the pupils are well behaved and interested. And it's free!! Well paid for through taxes but you know what i mean. Now I fully expect I'll be shouted down by lots of people telling me i'm wrong, but I don't understand why anyone pays for a private education when the alternative seems just as good.

Do you think she's a bit preoccupied with people's school status, Xenia? I didn't know who went to what school when I was at university, except for my good friends. I certainly didn't check out which school fellow tutees attended! Has the university world changed beyond recognition?

I have just moved my 11 year old from the state to the independent school system. She was in a huge mainstream junior school with 30+ children in her classes and sets. She is bright and able but just disappeared into the ether and was not really noticed by anyone. She is now in a lovely, family, small, local independent school. 14 in her form and between 8-13 in maths and english sets. Everyone knows her and she is revelling in the attention. She was never very dilligent before because her efforts were never really appreciated and she stopped bothering to do her best.Now she is noticed, her work marked, credit given. I am delighted and so is she. Her school take the best bits from the national curriculum and discard the bad. They have very modern teaching methods without all those ridiculous meaningless targets she encountered at junior school, largely put in place to impress ofsted. I don't blame her state school. There is no way 30+ children in a class can all be given the attention they deserve. If only the government would wake up and realise that the one thing that would vastly improve our children's experiences and achievements at school is SMALLER CLASSES!

Myself I make it a rule not to mix with people from state schools, and I am surprised that Xenia allows her daughter this sort of licence ...

My Cambridge experience was the reverse of your daughter's university, Xenia - there were many students from independents who weren't half as bright as some of the children from my comprehensive. There were some people, of course, who were truly brilliant (myself NOT included) but from both sectors. I'm thinking more of the 2:2 territory, where private schools seemed over-represented.

I think the trouble my son's school has is that this is precisely the sort of area people move to when they start thinking about their child's education. But they then confuse a good education with an expensive one. Which brings us back to the original post.

'Children at state school do not achieve their potential, have to deal with continual disruption in lessons and will not be given the education they need to keep up with a top university degree program'

The reason it's not acceptable to say this, berries, is that it's simply not true of most state schools! Some are awful - but so are some independents. There are some generalizations you can make - classes are generally smaller in independent schools, there is a narrower social mix, fewer children with special needs and a higher liklihood of having to wear a silly hat. State schools are often scruffier, noisier, have a higher proportion of crew cuts and tend to have lower results because of the afore mentioned wider social mix. And that's about it for generalizations. Apart fro that, there are good and bad in both sectors - it's not better just becaus eit's paid for.

"I'm sure a lot of the sensitivity on MN comes from people's means or lack of them "

I'm sure it is too helly. It's hard to hear people saying again and again that the state sector is failing children and that the independent (or private if you prefer although it's just semantics IMO) is much much better and know that no matter what you do there will never be a way to send your child to a private school. We won't. I do also have a problem with private schooling due to my experience with it. But if things were really as bad in the state sector as some people would have us beleive, I'd like to have the choice. And it is the same as the working mother argument - I agree there too. Makes no difference how many studies come out telling us that children in nurseries suffer this or that and are slower at the other, many can't afford to stay home.

Not that that means that either subject should be avoided but it does explain why it gets heated at times. We all want to do the best we can for our DC's.

I certainly agree with seeker over that but I know the state schools my children's father taught in before he escaped to the private sector he felt he was more a policeman than a teacher.

My mother taught classes of 40 after WWII in a very poor area and they sat in rows and largely behaved because they did that at home and were having whole class teaching looking to the front which works better with larger groups.

Most children go to state schools and many do very well as the original poster on this thread has found. But those in private schools do even better usually which is why 7% go to private schools but make up 50% of the better university places. Anyway those in state schools and private will have to contend with the new rules from next year at university entrance - declare if your parent has a degere. If they did you'll be marked down like in Communist china even if the parent went to the worst comp in the land, best state grammar or St Paul's. And then they're thinking of passing on a lot more data too such as your post code so they can positively discriminate on those grounds. All good fun.

My second daughter at university may just have had a dull university tutor group or children from bad state schools in it.

But I do think on the whole if you can get into schools like Manchester Grammar, North London Col, etc not only is life easier but the whole experience is nicer for the children and parents, nicer buildings, more chance of listening to Handel in the grounds sipping champagne on summer evenings etc. Just a nicer ambience the parent can feel more at home in never mind all the other more important stuff on the thread.

It's a completely pointless debate for most parents who haven't a cat in hell's chance of affording fees however unless they change job.

spokette - loved your post of Monday 20:37:30 - good for you

Can't we accept that our individual circumstances are just that, individual? I am not prepared to send my child to my local state school that only has 32% of children pass 5 GCSEs at A-C. If we could not afford an alternative I would move. We have excellent independent schools in westminster. Nobody on this thread has questioned my choice in this.
If, however, we lived in an area where the state school was good, i would be more inclined to send my children there, rather than an average private school.
For the vast majority of people, the purpose if sending their children to an independent school is not about segregation, it is about education. I feel sad that some people's experience of privately educated people has only exposed them to snobbery. WE have all seen these people- whereas I would tend to roll my eyes and think 'braying sloane' other people on this thread seem to think that this is the norm. It simply is not. I know that there were certain attendees at my state school who i would not like to be taken as representative of state- educated people, so I would ask that you think about it before labelling everyone in the same way.
I have worked very hard indeed, sacrificing a lot in the last 20 years to have the choices i now have. I will be able to work 3 days a week and be home at 5pm if i choose because i run my own business. I will be able to be the primary carer for my children and afford to send them to an independent school, as DH has been similarly committed throughout his working life. He will also be able to spend more time working from home. Hopefully we will be able to give our kids a good emotional upbringing in addition to a financially privileged one.

My real point is, that none of us can make a generalisation based on our own experiences or those of people around us.

Quote: "ok. so if affluent children are on average more intelligent, why then is such a fuss made about the proportion of independent school pupils who go on to university?"

• for me the issue is that a fair proportion of those privately educated kids who get the 'good' uni place effectively deprive a smarter state educated child of that place because the private school with one-to-one tuition coaxed an A out of a B grade student whereas the identical state child got the B.

• Objection to private health? None except to how the public is conned by deeper pile carpet AND how often the NHS has to pick up the 'pieces' when things go wrong!

Regarding 'poor' schools in affluent areas, I believe it's a question of critical mass. If sufficient number of well-heeled parents take fright at the idea of little Chloe and Alexander going state and whisk them off to private, you will inevitably be left with the 'lowest common denominator' at the local primary, if indeed it has sufficient numbers to stay open! Near here, (Winchester) it seems most of the well to do send their kids to the 3 local (excellent) comps, thus creating a 'critical mass' for success. And save themselves 10K a year into the bargain.

Q: "The point I was making is that absolutely no one that I know who pays money for education does so to insulate their children from the hoi polloi ..."

Actually, a think a fair number of posters on here do!!

And while I'm at it I have a SERIOUS problem with law and policy makers ie MPs sending their children private having more or less destroyed many other DCs life chances. It's almost like felling 'the opposition' isn't it? And morally reprehensible.

Thanks Anna.

DH told the DC this morning that now that he has finished his MBA, we can now go swimming on Saturday mornings. DH is really looking forward to doing more activities with DC - he knows that time with them is invaluable! He is also looking forward to getting them involved in track events because he is a runner. Why get a school to do it when you can do it yourself?

Spokette - absolutely. Direct transmission of skills from parent to child is a wonderful, wonderful thing - I love the idea of passing skills down the generations and whole families developing each other - big things and little things.

I love the fact that I have little habits when I cook that I know that my grandmother had, and that I share with my sister and cousins. Little turns of phrase, ways of looking at things... how would I have learnt them if my family had outsourced my upbringing?

That is lovely Anna, I have no contact with ym mother now, and my father is dead, but I still cook things the way she did, and know my dc's are already picking up on it.
They learn a ton of things that I know I will see them do when they have their own families and make me proud.

That's great Lorayn .

I am fascinated by the whole tranmission through the generations and the role of mothers in that. I want to pass on all the good things that I learnt in my family, and I want my partner to pass on all the good things he learnt in his, and I want us both to be vigilant and not pass on, unwittingly, the less good aspects of our upbringings.

And when people (as they are prone to do) suggest that I am wasting my education by being at home with my daughter when she is little, I wonder who else would try as hard as I do (or indeed be able) to pass on a sense of family and a sense of thoughtfulness. Both of which I think are critical things to have in order to feel grounded in life.

if that were true, miljee, then on average state school graduates would do better in their degrees than independent school graduates. The reverse is true.

The quote of mine from earlier on was in direct response to someone else who had siad that the children of middle class parents were on average more intelligent- not my words or sentiment- and i was questioning the current leaning towards positive discrimination towards state school graduates for university places on that basis. I was playing devils advocate.

WE do need to find a way to separate the truly bright and motivated from the less so, independent of their background. That is why i applaud those universities who still manage to interview all their applicants who achieve the minimum accepted grade.

suey2 - I don't think anyone has said that on this thread .

I said, in response to a question from you, that:

"suey2 - well, it's debatable, but many people would say that middle-class children are on average better supported than less affluent children (better food, larger homes with own bedroom, more parental time and attention etc) and more intelligent because their parents are more affluent and it may therefore be assumed more intelligent. There is a correlation between intelligence and affluence"

which is not the same thing at all.

"And when people (as they are prone to do) suggest that I am wasting my education by being at home with my daughter when she is little, I wonder who else would try as hard as I do (or indeed be able) to pass on a sense of family and a sense of thoughtfulness. Both of which I think are critical things to have in order to feel grounded in life."

Anna, we are singing from the same song sheet.

sorry, anna- i misinterpreted the 'there is a correlation between affluence and intelligence'. I tend to define intelligence as inherent ability, not something that is related to environment. Perhaps it is better if i understand your statment to mean academic achievement rather than intelligence?

suey2 - intelligence versus academic achievement is another minefield .

All that I meant is that the richer (more affluent) you are, the more likely you are to be above average intelligence. That's surely not very contentious?

Anna, putting aside the family values, which I must add were incredibly important in previous generations, in which there were a lot less problems with discipline in schools, surely having good education and deciding to stay at home with your child gives her the best start in education too?

I know my DD is very outgoing and curious at school. Partly because when she asked me a question at an early age, I had the knowledge behind me to be able to provide her with a decent answer and asking questions became fun. Ds now asks her the same questions and she can answer them providing a wonderful learning relationship between siblings, I know for a fact half the things he knows were not taught by me!

Presumably it was also your education that made you financially able to spend that time at home with her too?

So go ahead, waste it

No, i don't think it is contentious when you look at any research done on the subject. But surely there must be a way in which we can evaluate and compare intelligence and drive across social classes? Then any resentment from either side would be irrelevant. Surely we can make the system more meritocratic?

Lorayn i think i pointed out that kids in private school does not automatically mean absent parents.

suey did I imply you did??

sorry, lorayn, i completely misread your post- i thought you were following on from previous comments re working to afford private school vs staying at home to give them a stable home environment. Put it down to my PG brain which only seems to work intermittently. only 6 weeks to go, thank god.