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

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Private schools - more poor pupils than top grammars and comps

71 replies

Judy1234 · 03/06/2009 07:03

So if you want an inclusive mixed education for your child in terms of race and mixing with the poor you pay fees now...... all those santimonious left wingers who choose the "good" state schools are ensuring less social mixing than those of us who honestly stump up the cost of school fees....

FT yesterday:

"Private schools' poor pupil claim

By David Turner, Education Correspondent

Published: June 2 2009 03:00 | Last updated: June 2 2009 03:00

The proportion of pupils at private schools from economically deprived backgrounds is nearly double the figure for the top grammars and comprehensives, the Independent Schools Council will assert this week as it tries to counter its reputation for social exclusivity.

The ISC's conclusions tally with anecdotal evidence that selective schools and the most oversubscribed comprehensives include relatively small numbers of poor children.

But the claim is nevertheless striking because it

suggests the academically best-performing schools that do not charge fees have fewer deprived pupils than private schools charging thousands of pounds a term.

The declaration comes at a time when private schools are under huge pressure to do their bit for social deprivation because of new Charity Commission rules demanding they help low-income families.

It raises the perennial question of how "comprehensive" the top comprehensives really are, measured by social intake.

David Lyscom, chief executive of the ISC, will make the point in a speech to the council's annual conference in London today, although the ISC declined to give details of the research ahead of its full publication later this week.

His calculations refer to the ISC's 1,265 members, which educate the majority of British private school pupils, including those at the most famous schools, such as Eton and Harrow.

His speech also cites recent findings that the number of children at private schools with special educational needs, such as dyslexia, has almost trebled to more than 70,000 in the past 10 years, while declining slightly at state schools.

Several independent schools, such as Milton Abbey in Dorset, have developed a strong reputation for educating special needs children.

Mr Lyscom counters private schools' reputation for being "stuffed full of posh white kids" by pointing to the finding from its recent census that 23 per cent of its pupils in England and Wales were from an ethnic minority, just above the state school average.

Critics might argue that many are instead "posh non-white kids" from abroad. For example, Harrow has a tradition of educating members of the Jordanian royal family, who would qualify for ethnic-minority status.

Mr Lyscom will say: "Even where parents are being squeezed, evidence suggests that school fees are one of the last areas where parents will cut expenditure.

"Unlike holidays, cars and flat-screen TVs, educating one's children is not seen as discretionary expenditure."

He adds: "The greatest threat is probably not economic, but legislative."

The "burden" of regulation "needs to be simplified and, where risks are low, reduced"."

OP posts:
Litchick · 05/06/2009 19:19

I don't think this is really a surprise is it?
The highest achieving state schools in the UK are overwhelmingly middle class.
That's why I find it hilarious when posters lecture those of us that use the indie sector when they themselves use an equally selective form of eduction, be it by expensive housing in catchment, religion, academic selection or some combination of all three.
I'm happy to be hectored ( well not happy but I can understand it) by someone putting their DCs in the nearest low achieving school, but it lacks moral weight if their children attend a complete bastion of white wealth.

thedolly · 05/06/2009 19:33

pointydog - what's to agree with?

You mean you don't think there are tons of us out there irrationally choosing this school or that school for our children, now that's a surprise .

cory · 05/06/2009 19:48

just interested, how do you know litchick if the posters hectoring you have in fact let their children attend a bastion of white wealth?

surely most Mumsnetters aren't in a position where they can do that

pointydog · 05/06/2009 19:52

I agree that people are not so much driven away from the state as they have options open to them and so choose what they think is best. That's all.

thedolly · 05/06/2009 20:03

'choice' is a moot point

one man's choice is another man's swanky car/designer clothes/exotic holiday

pointydog · 05/06/2009 20:10

yes, and all those who can choose between private ed, swanky car, exotic hol are in a very fortunate position.

MANATEEequineOHARA · 05/06/2009 20:25

What a load of rubbish! The only people on benefits whose kids are in private are either in Steiner (does that even count!?) or have a scholarship. Income Support is REAL poverty, what a load of utter crap Xenia. (and a twist on a twisted article!)
And as for honestly stumping up fees, are you trying to say education SHOULD be paid for and that it is DIShonest not to be paying fees??? Because that is what it sounds like you are implying.

MollieO · 05/06/2009 20:38

I do get a bit fed up with these threads where the assumption is everyone with children at private school is wealthy and everyone at state isn't. It is such an over generalisation.

Bizarrely if I was wealthy my ds would be at state school - I would be able to afford a house in the catchment area for a good school. Instead I would say it is cheaper for me to pay private school fees. In reality the choice is a poor local state school or private. I don't have the choice of moving as I can't afford to buy a house for minimum £800,000 (used to be nearer £1m - credit crunch effect) to get into the catchment area.

pointydog · 05/06/2009 20:41

s'all relative, mollie. That's all.

MANATEEequineOHARA · 05/06/2009 21:34

Indeed, Mollie you hardly sound in poverty, you own your home!

MollieO · 05/06/2009 21:44

Manatee the bank own most of it and my mortgage is based on my pre-child income. I did work for 20 years before having ds and maybe I should own it by now but had years of negative equity to overcome.

MANATEEequineOHARA · 05/06/2009 21:58

But it is not like you are really poor and on income support is it? I know people pay school fees when they can't easily afford to, but the OP's argument was way out.

MollieO · 05/06/2009 22:11

No, like pointydog says it is all relative. I realise that I am lucky to have a job but I do get frustrated when these stereotypes are rolled out on MN over and over again and it rarely works both ways. I think most people who have no experience of private schools would be surprised to see how 'normal' the parents who make that choice are. No different to the majority of people who send their children to state school. Of course I am not talking about those on IS but I am talking about those on average earnings.

foxinsocks · 05/06/2009 22:15

screams of trying a bit hard to counter their reputation of social exclusivity tbh

MadameDefarge · 05/06/2009 22:30

SIgh. Cannot believe OP is trying still to convince us all to send our kids to private school.

Such a pointless, relentless campaign to eulogise private schools over state schools. Who are you really trying to convince?

Its boring, smug and quite frankly intellectually bankrupt.

zanzibarmum · 05/06/2009 22:33

Litchick - I don't think anyone is lecturing you if you have kids in fee paying schools. I think what we are saying is don't try to kid us that you have some broader social motive in doing so.

Equally, we'd ask don't criticise good state schools as if they are only good because they dishonestly select - as opposed to honestly select like the private schools. The admissions code, the School's Adjudicator and the Ombudsman ensure fair admissions across the state sector.

Some of the top comprehensive schools that I am aware of have high proportion of FSM children and a diverse intake. My critisism of comprehensive schools is not about the good ones - but about the not so good ones. By "good" i mean the level of their expectations for their students in terms of what is taught and how it is taught.

fivecandles · 06/06/2009 07:48

zanzi, you know nothing about the area I live in! It was not a small number of schools that drove me to a private education. It was the fact that EVERY state school that we could have practically accessed was and is completely divided by faith and ethnicity and with this by social class! As atheists we are EXCLUDED from our nearest state schools which are religious. It is a sad irony that the private school where my kids are is much more representative of the ethnic and religious diversity of the community than any of the state schools and it does not exclude on grounds of religion!

fivecandles · 06/06/2009 07:53

And I am not 'dressing up my choice on some well found principle'.

For me it is absolutely essential that my children receive a non-religious education where they are educated with children from different ethnicities which represents the very multi-cultural community where we live!

I find it incredibly offensive that you feel you have the right to dismiss my personal and heart-felt reasons for my choices when you know nothing about me or where I live.

MANATEEequineOHARA · 06/06/2009 08:02

Fivecandles, it is great that you were in a position to be able to make that choice, I am certainly not atm, as a single student parent, but I do hope to be in the future and may well choose private education for secondary if I can afford it.
Your pov, and that of Mollie's are entirely reasonable, my kids have spent time in a private school which allowed them to come as childcare! (very gratefully recieved and much respect for their flexibility) and I am well aware anyway that private school parents are generally 'normal' people. But the OP's argument that it is 'honest fee paying' as opposed to going to state school is quite disgusting!

fivecandles · 06/06/2009 08:06

The real issue here is not private school v state school.

It's that the state system is hugely unequal. It's that if you are wealthy you are likely to have access to the best performing state schools and if you are from a low income or no income family you will only have access to the worst performing schools.

No, this is not a suprise. We've all known for a long time that this is the case. Those parents with money and education can work the system and those without cannot. But I do think the facts in the OP (facts not arguments) that you are more likely to get diversity in private schools than the top performing state schools is a disgrace.

According to ISC approx 30% of pupils at private schools receive some sort of financial assistance up to 100% discount off fees. Therefore it makes sense that parents on a very low income may find it easier to get their kids a brilliant education via a scholarship to a private school than they ever will be able to access a state school via moving into a wealthy catchment area.

fivecandles · 06/06/2009 08:13

I disagree MAN.

Despite what others are arguing, my personal decision to send my kids to an independent school did not involve an awful lot of thinking about ethics. For me it would have been unethical for us to pretend we had a relgion when we didn't to get our kids into the nearest and best performing state schools. It would not have been ethical or desirable for us to move out of a deprived and very multi-cultural area where we are happy into a wealthy and white catchment area where our kids might deprive needier children of a place at a local school.

It really isn't black and white.

Some people may have been perfectly comfortable with moving or taking up a place at a religious school and then poor scorn on our choice!

Another thing about my choice is that taxpayers don't have to pay for it.

I am hugely resentful of the fact that taxpayers pay for the schools near us which exclude all sorts of local children on the grounds of religion.

fivecandles · 06/06/2009 08:14

That should say DID involve a lot of thinking about ethics.

MANATEEequineOHARA · 06/06/2009 08:17

Indeed. Thats part of wider issues of reproducing a service class, necessary for our capitalist economy.
It is not just about being able to afford to live in a better catchment, but having the knowledge that you can go to schools outside your area and the reasons for doing that. I am lucky that ds got into the school he is in, our catchment area school is not good, and it seems that people are just realising ds's school is good because the last few years it has been oversubscribed, but luckily dd got in for this year on having ds there.

Not only do the less-well performing schools tend to be in the more deprived areas, but they get few, if any pupils from outside the catchment, while the parents who have the knowledge to send their dcs elsewhere are more likely to while a school has a poor reputation. Leaving a rather polarised system.

fivecandles · 06/06/2009 08:17

And if you ignore the private school agenda the OP makes a serious and incredibly important point.

The best performing state schools are largely inaccessible to all but the wealthy. Not a new point no but still disgraceful.

sarah293 · 06/06/2009 08:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Swipe left for the next trending thread