Private school fees up 43%

[UnquietDad]

story here

Deliberate, do you think?...

So if only "18 professions" can now afford them, and they don't include teachers, architects or police officers, what are they? Any offers?

Er, yes I've read the thread and know she uses private school.

I also never said whether I agreed or disagreed, just was impressed by her well thought out argument that isn't reduced to dismissive or emotive language designed to attack the posters themselves and undermine their credibility rather than confront the argument.

Bridie3 - The voice of reason. My sons' school do a lot of international GCSEs they are of course interested in results but they are more interested in stretching their pupils. Latin, at least one modern foreign language and maths are compulsory.

Imperial college have lost faith in A level results. They will be setting their own separate entrance exam. I suspect the other quality universities will follow suit. And quite right too. It's time somebody tested this relentless "rise" in standards.

swedes, it doesn't deny you an opinion, but it does imho undermine your credibility if you want to dismiss a system as unfair when buying - literally - into another system can't possibly be described as "fair".

fwiw, i don't have a problem with private schools - but justifying a private school choice by saying the grammar school system is unfair is laughable.

i think "i do the best for my child using all the resouces at my disposal" is a perfectly valid and credible position.

Swedes, my son's school misses out on being in the league tables because the powers that be won't give them points for IGCSEs. So they look as though they perform badly! Quite funny.

If I were running this country (HAR) I'd set up grammar streams in each comprehensive (on a reasonably flexible basis so that children who mature less quickly could move up when they were ready) and hammer the academic stuff: compulsory Latin (it's good for children's brains), three sciences, IGCSEs, etc.

I'd do it on a mainly IQ basis, so that children from less good primaries wouldn't be discriminated against. The grammar stream would be unashamedly elitist.

So, Swedes, would it be fair if universities set entrance exams that only a small percentage of children (ie privately-educated ones) could sit?

I thoroughly agree about the decline in standards and As don't sort the wheat from the chaff, but there surely must be a third way.

Ii suppose you could argue that if Oxbridge/Russell Group demanded Latin etc, then all schools would get the message that say, Dance GCSE just wasn't going to cut the mustard, but this would take some years to filter through and deny a generation a chance of a top university place.

I realised that fivecandles sends her children to a private school. I send my children to a state school. I still think fivecandles is talking a lot of sense, regardless of where she sends her children to school. On the surface it appears hypocritical but she is explaining the true problem with the education system at the moment. Am bowing out of this discussion now as it is just going round in circles!!

Fircone - "So, Swedes, would it be fair if universities set entrance exams that only a small percentage of children (ie privately-educated ones) could sit?" - Yer what? Why could only privately educated children sit them? They are open to everyone.

why would only private school pupils be able to pass the entrance exam?

My own experience was the exact opposite - the private schools do give the poise and confidence that allow their pupils to shine at interview - and the interviewers have a hard job working out what is real intelligence and what is just good training. OTOH, the old Cambridge exams were so darn hard that they were almost impossible to "revise" for - not that sort of an exam, because they weren't asking you to "spew out all I know" on a particular topic, but asked very hard questions that made you think (or cry!!).

I feel very sorry for today's (and the past 10 years' or so) A level entrants as they are constantly being told how standards have fallen etc - but they can only take the exam that's set! It must undermine their confidence.

Bridie - Would the elitist grammar stream not get beaten up every lunch time? Or would you teach them in a neighbouring town building?

As for the universities that base everything on GCSE/A level results and "personal statements" (nothing personal about them - who writes them ?) - well - the private schools have a field day and the poor old academics are left trying to find reasons to admit state school pupils who don't have 15 A*s and haven't built a new school in India single-handedly!

Bridie - you might consider moving to Germany!! Tho their system is crumbling, it's not crumbled as far as it has over here!!

poppycake why don't state school children get proper advice about their personal statements?

Actually, in a lot of cases university admissions officers pay very little attention to personal statements because we know fine well that they are largely written by the schools. As a result, they are actually not that useful for differentiating between applicants, because they tend to be incredibly generic and predictable.

Also, IME, most of us are far more interested in evidence of real interest in, engagement with, and aptitude for the subject to be studied than in extra-curricular activities. I have never met an admissions tutor who would say otherwise, but it seems oddly difficult to get this message across to schools.

when ds joined a cricket team another mother said, "Oh, this will look good on a medical school application. They like you to be involved in team sports." Eh? He was eight.

Are all the other kids there because their parents are mentally filling in the UCCA (or whatever it's called now) form already?

Good point, Swedes. In my old grammar school area the secondary modern had a grammar stream. It SEEMED to work well, but that was, erm, a while back.

I've heard that Germany can be more like this, Poppycake.

In case it wasn't clear, I AM an admissions tutor - not for medicine though, it may well be that they are more interested in extra-curricular stuff, though even there I think experience that is really relevant will trump the cricket team every time!

Well medicine have a BMAT don't they to ascertain the academic suitability between all the candidates with 4 A grades at A level. I suspect after that they look for someone well-rounded. Being a member of the cricket team might shade it over being a member of the science club.

Bridie3, re your point:
"Comprehensives, with some notable exceptions, don't seem to be as good at pushing very bright kids. Where's the Latin? The Greek? The International GCSEs in Maths and Sciences, which stretch the more able? Our local comp, well-regarded, doesn't do any of the above."

I was amazed when I look at the raw results for the highly regard Comp that people spend heavy-duty amounts of money to move next to - it gets 75% A-C at GCSE - but last year only 3 children got an A in Eng.Lit. and 1 got an A* in German (there are over 200 children in a year). No Latin, no Greek, no Spanish (!) but Media Studies and Drama are popular.

I see we're still playing "link tennis", which I'm done with.

All I can do is reiterate my standpoint: I am not in favour of any form of selectivity other than the academic.

So I'm uncomfortable with (but don't want to "ban" , as I don't really do "banning") schooling being determined by what brand of deity you worship, how expensive your house is or how much Mummy and Daddy can afford to shell out in fees.

People disagree with that, but that's where I'm coming from. I want to see a more diverse, less comprehensive, less centrist state system. And by that I don't mean, as some choose in a straw-man way to think, a return to a system from the 1960s. The German system is a good model to study - imperfect but along interesting lines.

And if the wonderful comprehensive experiment is such a success, why is the system such a mess and why are increasing numbers choosing to opt out of it?

At a comprehensive school local to us (one that gets 85%+ A-C at GCSE) only 3 pupils took an A level modern language and nobody sat A2 maths (in the sample year results that I studied closely). Their A level points seem to come mostly from what I would call non-subjects. And that is a good school apparently.

UQD - My sons' school is one of the top academic schools in the country. If you have the brains but don't have the fees, the school will help you. However, if you have the fees but don't have the brains, you can forget it. It's not totally about fees you know.

Yeah, yeah. Bursaries are usually on a sliding scale, so if you earn a bit more than not much you might be lucky and get a 50p discount.

But the point is that it's a bloomin' cheek for those people on this thread who can clearly afford private fees to berate others who wish to do the best for their children by whatever means. How can you sneer at comprehensives offering mickey mouse subjects and trumpet the virtues of your own institution, yet then deride those of us who might have more academically-inclined dcs and want something more suitable /challenging for them?

fircone - Who is sneering? Do you have a blanket rule that anyone who pays a termly fee note is the enemy of state education?

To clarify my position regarding my own kids'
education:

I made the point earlier that there is very often a conflict between what is fair and equal, what is for the general good and what you are prepared to do to ensure your own kids' success and happiness.

I am not for a second suggesting that private schools (any more than grammar schools and faith schools) are fair. I have a conscience about my choice. However, a very important difference is that I am not asking taxpayers to stump up for my kids' selective education. I am paying for it myself.

I have also been at pains to point out earlier that my choice to send my kids' private is very much based on the fact that the education system is so riddled with inequalities and unfairness (even without private schools). If it were genuinely fair and equal my kids would go to my nearest school. Near my house (a very deprived area), because of Govt policy on 'choice', because of faith schools, because of league tables and SATS and all the rest of it and just because of the area itself there are some very partilular problems in the schools and in the community (which may be similar elsewhere but it is recognized at local and national level that they are particularly bad where I live) which mean that schools are very divided by social class, ethnicity and faith. I do not want to adopt a faith (hypocrisy and using taxpayers money unfairyl), I do not want to move to the leafy suburbs (this would be anotehr form of hypocrisy) but I do not want my kids to be educated either in an entirley white school or an entirely Asian school. It is a terrible irony that the private school is the only school in my area which has a mix of ethnicities which reflects the ethnic backgrounds of the community.

I recognize that my choice makes me and my kids privileged. I recognize that my choice probably makes me a hypocrite. But what I am not saying is that my choice is fair, or right or in any way benefits anyone other than my kids and myself.

I am also not one of these people who says that comprehensive education is ok for some people and some kids deserve or need private edcuation more than others. It is my view that EVERY child would benefit from the small class sizes, individual attention, support and challenge, and lack of disuption which is offered in most private schools.

When people argue that grammar schools are good what they are actually saying (99% of the time) is grammar schools are good for me/ my kids. There are few people who would argue that grammar schools are good for those who don't go to them and the majority of people do not go to them.

I have a view about the education system, I have a veiw about what makes it unfair and unequal (which is what drove me to my decision to educate my kids privately), I also have a very, very clear vision about what would make it better partly because I teach in it, partly because I pay taxes (although don't benefit from the state education I contribute to), partly because I have kids.. In a truly comprehensive system, without faith schools, grammar schools etc and if the Govt would invest it what really would make a difference to kids' lives (ALL our kids) which is reducing class sizes and ensuring more and better trained teachers and support I would be delighted to send my kids to the local school.