Why would anyone consider going to Rugby school better than the mixed local comp?

[Charis2]

I read this article in the standard earleir, and just thought what is this headmaster on? Why is this scholarship presented as such a huge honour for the boy, when in fact it is a way of the school paying to improve its results by taking in some of the best sixth form students without fees.

What "lifechanging" opportunities does he expect he can offer, which Hassenbrook acadamy can't?

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/needs-pic-teenage-footballer-wins-70000-scholarship-to-boarding-school-that-invented-rugby-a2953791.html

Headmaster Peter Green said he hoped Michael and other Arnold Foundation scholars would have a “ripple effect” on their communities when they return home.

He said: “We might be able to be transformative and transform their lives. Then when they go to university, and after, they can start to transform their own local communities. It’s not about parachuting someone out of that. We want to keep their association with where they are from.”

What a snob. Does he think the staff at Hassenbrook only teach poor peoples maths and physics, and the maths at Rugby is somehow a better class of maths? perhaps he thinks the laws of physics perform better there too?

I hope this lad has fun, but I don't think for a moment his life is going to be in any way better because he spent two years mixing with rich snobs rather than normal people.

The only reason people are against private education is that it is better than state. No-cares if rich people spend money on nothing, only that money gives them an advantage.

Heck I only know one family who had polo ponies at school. They were not living in the UK and owned an oil related business in South America. The polo ponies were all back there where labour is cheap and plentiful.

As for football costing more than sailing! Please ignore my snorts of laughter. My parents had a boat which was chartered. We all know how to sail. The only sailing that could be cheaper than football is jumping in a lake with a plank of wood used as a paddle board.

FWIW both of my kids play football. We are here in te Us and its $25 a year. Sailing is about $5k a year.

The world canoe polo championship will be held on a lake in London in 2016, cannot find any other polo played on a lake in London in the last 50 years Obviously looking in the wrong place, we attended it.

I lost the will to live at the point that Op asked why doing triple GCSE science is something that people might want

No, I asked what OPPORTUNITIES triple science gave that double science does not. My DC do triple, because they want to, not because it opens any more doors for them. It doesn't. Double science is fine, (core and additional)

Triple science opens the door to studying sciences at A'Level and beyond. While you can study a separate science A'Levels with double science it is much harder to achieve a good grade.

I'll just leave this:

www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/state-school-students-get-better-degrees-than-private-school-pupils-with-same-a-levels-10504225.html

here.

Private schools offer so much for their students, but SOME (note the operative word) students are hot housed and massively supported by the school in many ways and then go on to flounder a little.

The scholarship things works out for the scholars because they get that support, for the school cause they get academic students and their A levels get boosted. Win on both sides.

There may be social issues private school children can be notoriously superior. There are issues with behaviour and bullying but just of different types.

Also, interestingly, 6th froms in private schools/naice leafy comps etc tend to have a lot higher numbers of students who take class A drugs recreationally as they have larger amounts of disposable income.

In this argument there are lots of sides to it, all of which depend on the individual and how it actually works. So OP I can see why a child would decide to attend a private school.

I can also see how people's hackles are raised when "superior" teaching and pastoral support are mentioned in the private sector, or when someone mentions "higher qualified staff". Neither of these are true in terms of ROCE but the thing that makes the difference is numbers.

I think people's hackles are also raised when it is mentioned about students at private schools being more academically able, this is simply not the case, there are plenty of places who will let the Tim nice but Dims in ( the tory cabinet for one).

In fact having worked with private/grammar schools in my area, I'd go as far as saying teachers in the comp schools would find the change to a private easier than the opposite. Not just because of behaviour but because of the expectations on work load in the state sector, the time constraints are just so much more difficult.

When you send a child to private eduction you are paying for 2 things, and 2 things only, teacher time and a higher spend per capita than in a state school. Easy. These two things explain all of the differences in results away.

I'll end this with an anecdote, I take 8 of my year 13 economics cohort to a Bank of England run competition in the city each year. The first year we were up against other state schools, the second year we were up against private schools. So one of our competitiors that morning were CLSG and I chatted to the econ teacher about the challenges of running an extra curricular opportunity like this for students. He was baffled by this, he had time in lessons to prepare ( had 6 lessons rather than my 5 a week) but his cohort were the 8 girls he had with him, not the 8/50 that I had with me. Questioned a bit further, he had a further 12 girls in the AS class, and taught something else lower down the school, but only had a timetable of 18 lessons a week.

Smaller class sizes and more time for teachers mean more time for developing individual student support, drafting oxbridge applications, supporting work experience apps. It makes all the difference.

The thing gthat fucks me off, is you have bought this privilige and it works, yet goady arses on here will talk as if this was down to the their own tenacity, its not. I'd go as far to say, that if you are at Uni and have been privately educated, you actually have a bit more to prove than those who are state because many of the bumps in the road were smoothed for you, it was less of a challenge, check your privillege.

It goes right to the top, when Cameron and Osbourne blame the poor for their own state, ignoring the economic and social factors that have massive effects on someone's life and life chances, they are effectively saying: "I got where I am today by my hard work." Did they bollocks, they had a privilege bought for them, they wouldn't be there now if they'd been at an average state comp in the North or North London. Should we be saying:" well done, you chose to be born to wealthy parents>"

Private school children do better because a) They get more teacher time and b) They get more money per head spent on them at school which brings them more opportunites.

Oooer, wine induced rant there, shall i press post? Ahhh go on then...

longtimelurker your link makes the situation very clear.

Often the original research (which shows that state schooled pupils get more firsts in tertiary education) is used as 'proof' that state education is better.

It doesn't. What it shows, when you dig the detail, is something less positive; that private schooled students aim high at tertiary level. State schooled students too often do not. Access is the problem and the idea all to prevalent inthet state sector that you have to be truly exceptional to consider the most selective universities. When the truth, as private schools know, is you really do not need to be a genius!

As for what parents pay for at private school, well of course the money and time issue is a big one. Where OP gets the idea that 15k is spent on state schooled pupils I don't know. It's more like 5k.

That said, I think the personal motivators for paying fees is far more subjective. Each family has its own reasons for considering it value for money (even the family in the article, who though not paying fees, are completely changing their status quo to facilitate this, which they wouldn't do unless it had a value).

I should also add, that many of the measure that state schools could take to improve access wouldn't cost much at all if anything. They are more to do with SLT decisions and ideology.

If charis is so convinced that state education is better than private, what's it o her if people throw money away on an inferior, or at best equivalent product? The usual argument about private education is that people are buying the privilege of a better education, and therefore gain other advantages later in life. But charis doesn't believe that: the education these parents are paying for is wasted money. So what's it to her? Her children are getting a better education than the private sector and she isn't paying for it. So why all the emotion?

It's very odd bolo.

Over the years I've had posters jump up and down at me telling me I'm 'wasting' my money.

And? I earn a lot. I spend it on all sorts of things the MN collective would deem unnecessary .

If the OP has quoted the Head of Rugby properly, then he was extraordinarily crass and tactless in what he said.

I don't think this discussion should really be about exam results. Clever supported kids get good exam results wherever they go. It's just easier for them in some places than others.

What good private schools offer is time, and cultural capital. And, crucially, the perspective that "people like me" are in the top jobs. Did anyone watch that programme called, I think, School Swap? That was a point that the comprehensive school Head felt very keenly. The private school Head could very easily get very senior people (including an Archbishop!) to come and talk to his kids, she very obviously coildn't. So the private school kids had a sense that those senior posts were something they could aspire to. The comprehensive school kids didn't.

An anecdote to innustrate this in a minor way. I have a grammar school child and a secondary modern child. At Prize day, grammar school child was presented with her book token by the MP. Secondary modern child got his from the vicar of the church down the road.

The cultural capital thing is interesting. Private schools can provide loads- but they are giving it to kids who have loads already. In an ideal world, all the private school "extras" would go to the disadvantaged kids who have no means of getting them anywhere else. But as usual, privilege attracts privilege.

Oh, and a quick aside to whoever said something about Tim Nice But Dims in the Tory cabinet. There are absolutely none- and we think there are at our peril.

Clever well supported kids don't always get the grades they should bertrand.

School policies actively work against this sometimes. As does poor admin, lack of organisation. And shortage of teachers etc.

No amount of supportive parenting can make up for some of these problems (though middle class parents would rather not believe that).

Bolograph- maybe she, like me, thinks that segregating children in the way that private schools do, is very bad for society as a whole. I have a lot of emotion about that.

I find the concern about whether or not state schools offer polo with horses(!) leaves something of a bad taste- maybe they offer things that are more important, like inclusive education regardless of how much money you have. That is something, the head teacher at rugby might be surprised to hear, his students could learn from.

But if you value elitism I suppose its hard to believe that.

Maybe she should, you know, actually say that then twisted.

Throughout her many many posts she hasn't mentioned a distaste for selection or privilege. Quite the opposite. She thinks state schools offer just as much as places like Rugby! And where they don't it's because there is no desire or need.

Well I'm saying that SheGot. And therefore I could not imagine choosing a school like rugby over a comprehensive. And I do not think it is actually better for anyone.
I also think that many people who choose private really do not know what many state schools actually offer.

That's fine twisted your views are your views, but you can't conflate from the OPs posts that she feels the same ( though you've tried twice now).

Fortunately for you, Rugby hasn't been on the cards so no reason for you to be concerned about your DC receiving such an inferior education.

I am concerned- very. Because like I said, it creates segregation which is bad for all of us.

I don't really think it's always fair to lump all private education as unfair etc. Even if you take the scholarship/ funded kids out of it who got there on personal merit not parental wealth. The state system is just as unfair.
A middle class child with supportive parents and access to the best of the state schools, has probably more advantage than the child from exactly the same home/background whose parents don't have access to good, let alone the best state schools, and therefore have scraped the money together for a no frills cheaper private education.

I don't dispute that for the majority the private sector is not an option and therefore the advantages are unfair. But realistically there are probably a greater number who get massive advantages from their luck in state school choice.

I work with someone who I know earns the same average salary as me. But because they are a two parent family and the other partner has a higher paying career, their child has spent the last decade having unfair advantages over mine. Such is life. And because they have the money to do so, moving into catchment for a school that is actually good for all but the most able was something they can and have done. Because I can't move, dds state place was at a sink school that will fail her. So I don't see that my child getting into an independent on her own ability is an unfair advantage above a child like that. If they lived my lifestyle they could afford the fees for Dds school, let alone a no frills but good one. Even if dd went to the same state school as theirs, she'd still get an unfair deal compared to theirs. Because being in that top most able minority, her educational needs would be placed behind the needs of their already more advantaged child. As that's how the state comprehensive system often works even in a school that actually wants to support the most able.

I can understand the logic behind sacrificing my Dds needs to the struggling fsm child, even whilst thinking it's unfair and unnecessary. I don't see why it's either logical or levelling to sacrifice my Dds needs to an average achieving child who already has advantages over mine.

I know one girl who is equally able to mine, but for whom nerves probably cost her the opportunity my dd now has. Her parents are great but for reasons beyond their control have neither time or money to prop up her education. Her home life indisputably comes under the heading of disadvantaged. Her one advantage is her ability. And at the sink school she's now at, she's giving up her one advantage to the majority. Lots will be kids with the same or worse background to her who don't even have her ability advantage. But she'll also be playing second fiddle to plenty of children who already have loads more than her. Thats just as unfair an advantage as many comparisons between private and state.

So yes, no argument the child from a wealthy background at a top independent has an advantage most can never have. But there must be more than 7% in the state sector mopping up unfair advantages most can never have too.

Twisted

How good / bad is your local state secondary school? Our catchment secondary occupies the lofty place of 10th (out of 10) in our city. 30 something percent get 5 A* - C. And far more worrying only about a third of pupils make "expected progress" in English and 40 something percent in maths.

On the other hand there is a private school within walking distance of our house. Selective. 100% A* - C. (Not surprisingly when they exclude those that won't.)

Oh - and dd is bright. Very bright. Currently (in Year 1) working at somewhere between Y2 and Y3 level apparently. Starting to become aware of being different to her friends. Struggling with it.

Even if the state school can meet her needs she will be very different there. At the private school she will be "one of the crowd". Ordinary. Normal.

We can afford the fees.

We have time to make the decision but that is the nutshell of our decision. How important is "inclusiveness" when your own child will be excluded?

What would you do in that situation?

Option A - send her to the comp.
Option B - private.
Option C - use our superior purchasing power to buy a house in the catchment of one of the top state schools in our city.

Option C feels the most palatable but

1. We really like our current house
2. Dd is currently very settled and happy in her primary.
3. Ds is currently settled and very happy in his nursery.
4. It is completely hypocritical. If we are using our superior purchasing power to buy our child a better education then we need to own that decision. Not "just happen" to conveniently move whilst spouting about principles.

Ps - this is a much debated topic in our house. You are playing the role of my Dh!

I'm going to do something shocking and present sourced facts. I know this may be uncomfortable, OP.

The Social Market Foundation found that after controlling for family background and test scores private school pupils earn five per cent more at 26, 22 per cent more at 29, 20 per cent more at 34, 13 per cent more at 38 and 14 per cent more at 42.

39% of Cambridge undergrads and 43% of Oxford undergrads were privately educated, compared to 15% of sixth formers. Regardless of how they perform once accepted, private education provides a clear advantage in gaining acceptance to Oxbridge. (Figures from Oxford and Cambridge).

I'd add another advantage - choice. Unfortunately, despite living in a London borough, state schools with the facilities, options and results you describe are not available to my children in the state sector, unless they turn out to be incredibly clever and get into a super-selective like Tiffin. In fact, they have one option (of course, all this may change in the 7 years until DS goes to secondary, but that doesn't help 10 year olds now). It gets average results, has an extremely limited extra-curricular and sporting programme, and is frankly fine, but I'm not deluded enough to imagine that it would offer my kids the same opportunities as local independent secondaries.

Are the comps you mention not oversubscribed? How are the surrounding house prices relative to the broader catchment? A good community service would be to share details with those of us who might benefit.

Oh, and you should probably tell the IOC and FINA about the world championship water polo you've been attending, they might find the info helpful (is it not available online?) FINA might appreciate not having to juggle all-deep pool venues at the world champs every year (Kazan this year, in pools) and I'm sure the IOC/individual organising committees could see cost savings in doubling up on the rowing venue with water polo rather than trying to cram it into the aquatic centre programme. How foolish they've been all these years...

If IRC ( and huge apologies if I'm mistaken) twisted does not send her DC to the local comp. but is extremely fortunate to have a musical child and a school close enough that selects on musical ability.

We all do what we need to do ...

Twisted, isn't it the case, though, that for most people what the state sector can offer at its best isn't that relevant - it's what the state sector offers locally that is abailar to them that matters to them? Hearing about the wonderful things on offer elsewhere must be just as galling as hearing about what the private sector can offer if they can access neither.

A middle class child with supportive parents and access to the best of the state schools, has probably more advantage than the child from exactly the same home/background whose parents don't have access to good, let alone the best state schools, and therefore have scraped the money together for a no frills cheaper private education.

This. For example, the house price premium in catchment for good comprehensive secondaries is quite appalling. It's my understanding that private school (not even 'no frills') is the cheaper option if you have one child, buying in catchment for the comp works out cheaper than privately educating two children.

Mum,I think this is where OP was trying to make an important point. People really really scaremonger abut state schools. And of course I take Lurked's point that state schools and private schools vary wildly in both sectors.

My DS was also considered 'Very Bright'- cognitive assessment showed he was in the 'very superior range' ( top 1-2% of the population) for verbal ability and understanding - for example . He wasn't sporty- his intelligence was what many would have said was his best asset. (Although I find that horribly reductive and shows what we value, at a cost).

His comp was something like 35% a-c gcse, over half free school meals and a very high proportion of english as a second language. Like I said it was rated ofsted satisfactory- one above special measures. It was not an amazing school but it was fine. And he is going to RG uni next year. But most importantly he was part of our local community- inner London, not hidden away from it. I do not want to give the message to any child that my child cannot be educated next to you.

If your daughter is feeling 'different' because she is quicker at certain things, then perhaps you can help her with that. Rather than just remove her from it. There is nothing wrong with being different. And she is only in year one! They will all change and develop in different ways. You are assuming she will be excluded, you absolutely do not know that.
I have said this before on these threads but I wish they did league tables for things like eating disorders in private schools. They are a not insignificant problem in these environments where a narrow type of success is so heralded.

I would choose option A, without a doubt. But I feel very strongly about not contributing to social inequality among children. I would like most schools to be different, private and state. And that really isn't to undermine some of the fantastic work that goes on in comps. But I would, for example, like all teachers and TAs to have better training in child and adolescent mental health.

But I appreciate its hard to make this kind of decision when there is so much scaremongering about what comps are really like.

twisted I know what the state system has to offer, both at its best and worst. My dds state primary is in my opinion a wonderful example of state education at its best. They still made every conceivable effort to educate her despite the fact it must have been extremely difficult. And yet even then she has missed out academically. That is in no way a criticism either, getting a degree level maths teacher for one to one twice a week is beyond impressive at a council estate primary with a low ability cohort, with above average Sen and fsm. That's still less teaching than everyone else though. Ditto a minute setting her different literacy tasks and a few minutes offering improvement is impressive in my mind, compared to the literacy support needed elsewhere in the class. And at primary age I think the social benefits were more than worth it.

If we had a state secondary option where she had an equal cohort, and therefore the opportunity to get a suitable education I'd feel differently maybe. It wasn't till she started at her independent I realised just how much she's missed out on by never having a peer group to learn with. No friendly rivalry etc. So with hindsight even the secondary equivalent of her primary wouldn't have offered what she needs, even though up to September I would have thought so.

As it is her state secondary has fuck all to offer her. The head of department in maths told me that they didn't even intend to try, although not in those exact words. And I know from the ethos, prospectus, local knowledge and ofsted that is true for more than just maths. Not to mention her personality and being good at sports would be the only thing between her and serious bullying at this particular school. It's an issue for any child, but sending a child who's either able or Sen there needs something else in their favour if they don't have 5yrs of hell.

It's knowing exactly what my local state secondary choices can offer my child that made the hens tooth full funding at an independent more than worth the gamble.

"Even if the state school can meet her needs she will be very different there. At the private school she will be "one of the crowd". Ordinary. Normal."

Would she be very different? Or would she be one of the 30%?