Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

groaning under the weight of private school fees!

383 replies

pearso · 04/01/2009 17:46

Hello,
I've got one child at private school, the other still at state primary for another year and we're dreading the decision next year about what to do. It's very unlikely we'll be able to afford a second set of school fees. Is anyone else in a similar situation? I'd love to hear from you if you are.... I'm also writing about it in my column for the Evening Standard so wouldn't use names but would love to hear what people think, especially in London and about any experiences good or bad.
thanks!

OP posts:
cory · 08/01/2009 18:31

Amen to that.

UnquietDad · 08/01/2009 19:45

"Deal with it"? Are we on Jerry Springer now??

My frustration is that so much time and effort is given over to hand-wringing about an issue which just isn't an issue for the vast majority of the population. It's as relevant to their lives as cupcakes and bunting. This place controls the arguments (in a Sarah Palin way) in favour of "choice", because it's, as far as I can tell, about 50-50 state-private on here. Not representative at all.

One simply can't compare education with cars, houses or cornflakes. It's not a commodity in the same way. I'm not a "banning" person as I often say on here, but if everyone in the catchment had to go to the same school, then blimey, you'd see a few changes, sharpish.

That assessment of Sheffield made by Dottoressa is spot-on and I suspect may be as true for other big cities as well.

UnquietDad · 08/01/2009 19:47

Oh, and "it's not equal and it's never been equal and it's never going to be equal, so there, get over it" is a really really crap argument. Imagine that applied to racism or sexism or ageism or homophobia...

violethill · 08/01/2009 19:54

Surely one disadvantage of a private school education is that it can make people very fearful of the alternative. (And I speak as a parent with children in state and private). I'm aware that a lot of the private school parents have a private school background themselves, and some of them clearly have very little idea of anything outside it. I'm also a bit doubtful about the idea that it always leads to better jobs too... how come so many of the mums have lives which revolve around the gym and the school run if they're such high fliers!

It's a tricky one; there can be some upsides to private schools, but I'm not convinced they are worth the money, unless you live in a truly crap area and don't have decent alternatives - and even then it's not necessarily value for money in a positive way, you're simply paying to avoid crapness.

neenztwinz · 08/01/2009 21:09

Hi Boffinmum, thanks for replying to my post. The problem I have is you are saying teachers need to be more intellectual in order to challenge the brightest minds, so are private school teachers more intellectual than state school ones? I can see why it would be a good thing for more graduates with a first or 2:1 to become teachers, but are private school teachers all first or 2:1 graduates? If not, then how do they challenge the brightest minds in a way state school teachers do not? I agree private schools have a high number of gifted kids, but just wonder whether they would necessarily do worse in the state system. Would they fail to become the next generation of surgeons, scientists etc because they went to a school where the teachers were average? I don't think so. I don;t know the figures but I assume the majority of our surgeons, scientists etc went to state school (the majority of Oxbridge students come from the state sector too).

I agree with your theory, I just don't agree that private schools are 'plugging the gap' and still think that university is there to really challenge students - even if they went to a bog-standard comp.

You say gifted children need good teaching and encouragement. Of course, but why wouldn't they get that in the state sector?

violethill · 08/01/2009 21:22

I don't agree that private school teachers tend to brighter than those in state schools, any more than private school pupils are brighter than state.

Private school may be able to confer some advantages - but intelligence isn't one of them.

scienceteacher · 08/01/2009 21:40

It depends a lot on league tables.

State schools tend to publish their 5 A-C results so really only care about getting their pupils to a safe C-grade, and then only in half of the subjects the pupils take.

Independent schools tend to publish % A grades, in all their subjects.

Jamillie · 08/01/2009 21:46

Speaking as someone who went to a state school but now teaches in a private school, as you don't actually need to be a qualified teacher in the private sector you often find that the quality of teaching in private schools is not that great - possibly bright teachers who have a good degree, maybe from Oxbridge, maybe not. However some of them are there because of the quality of their degree NOT because of the quality of their teaching. There are a lot of bright people out there who do not know how to get their knowledge over to kids.

As a head of dept I would rather employ someone with a "normal" degree than an "academic" who perhaps doesn't have the teaching skills that they should. There are often complaints where I teach about teachers who can't get the info over.

Jamillie · 08/01/2009 21:49

BTW in order to challenge bright minds you don't need to be an intellectual, you should just know how to do your job. We all meet kids that are, or will be, brighter than us, and we just have to accept it and know how to deal with it!

JazT · 08/01/2009 21:53

UQD you'd certainly 'see a few changes, sharpish' in London if everyone moved their privately-educated DC into state schools. They'd all be sitting in the playgrounds for a start because there wouldn't be room for them in the classrooms. And the proportion of the taxes their parents pay that goes towards state education, and from which their DC derive no direct benefit, would suddenly have to stretch a lot further.
We all know that our education system is far from perfect and unfair in many ways (whether people are paying fees or inflated prices to get in the 'right' catchment), but spare us the over-simplistic arguments

scienceteacher · 08/01/2009 21:58

We wouldn't hire anyone in our school that was not a qualified teacher. I think it is pretty rare.

I know that places like Eton do not require QTS, but most of their applicants will in fact already be qualified.

TBH, on my PGCE, I wasn't taught how to teach particularly. Some pitfalls were highlights, and some teaching as to how children learn (very useful). An awful lot of the PGCE was focussed on classroom management, which is pretty irrelevent to me now.

There are useful elements to the PGCE such as Child Protection training, but we have to have this every three years whether we are formally trained or not.

I am actually a very big advocate of the PGCE, but I think it is important to know where it adds value and where it doesn't. It is very convenient to get a lot of the training out of the way (curriculum development, sociology, etc.), but a lot of it can happen in-service, given the time and focus.

Jamillie · 08/01/2009 22:03

I agree - PGCE doesn't go anywhere near teaching A level either (on mine we did about a week if that). It does give some good skills but you learn on the job. I had to learn to teach A level from a good head of dept.

violethill · 08/01/2009 22:03

'State schools tend to publish their 5 A-C results so really only care about getting their pupils to a safe C-grade' -

this has to be one of the stupidest comments in the whole thread!!

UnquietDad · 08/01/2009 22:03

But if private schools did not exist, would it be necessary to invent them?

scienceteacher · 08/01/2009 22:03

Even if there is not a net move to state education, there is a lot less investment in schools due to the credit crunch. Funds are being diverted away from education, both from the public purse and private initiatives (academies).

Historically, recessions show a small move away from the private sector 1-2 years after the main shrinkage in the economy, so coupled with reduced investment, it's pretty dire situation for all families entering key stages of the state system, not just those who move from private.

On a happier note, history also says that after the shrinkage, even more people enter/reenter the private sector and the recovery is pretty fast and buoyant.

scienceteacher · 08/01/2009 22:04

We live in a free country, UQD. We have a private sector. Long live the private sector!

UnquietDad · 08/01/2009 22:05

It ain't free, though.

violethill · 08/01/2009 22:08

Huge funds are actually going into rebuilding and remodelling state schools actually scienceteacher, probably partly because public spending is precisely what will happen to get the country out of recession.

scienceteacher · 08/01/2009 22:09

The pot has dried up!

violethill · 08/01/2009 22:16

nope

EachPeachPearMum · 08/01/2009 23:13

All state maintained secondary schools in England and Wales are required to report
%A*-A,
%A*-C,
%A*-G and
%no quals.

EachPeachPearMum · 08/01/2009 23:17

Building Schools for the Future, Violet?
180 schools across England benefit from this- my LEA has over $450 schools in it...- drop in the ocean comes to mind.

EachPeachPearMum · 08/01/2009 23:17

oops- 450 of course, not $450...

Pheebe · 09/01/2009 08:18

O look this is a BBC news headline this morning...chicken or egg? Or am I just tooo cynical?

LIZS · 09/01/2009 08:47

anyone see the schools for sale article in the Times yesterday and wonder ....?