What Annoys You About Independent Schools?

[zanzibarmum]

Me? Independent schools who:

• tell applicants not to tutor their children when the entire prep school set up is precisely about cramming for common entrance exams;
• refuse to explain content of common entrance exam, again which discriminates against state school applicants;
• entrance exam papers which are clearly biased - Latymer's practice paper asks a question about the size of a hockey stick;
• poo poo league tables when their whole raison d'etre is to churn out As and A*;
• promote all the sport they do but in practice do very little for most children;
• who do not standardise entrance exam scores for age - selecting therefore the oldest not necessarily the brightest (cf churning out As and A*;.

Clearly, there are lots of good things about some independent schools but generally they have an easy life and probably coast on the back of the intelligence (innate or prepped) on their students.

to make a working society all children from all backrgounds need to mix at a young age.

though i imagine most 'independent' school are getting more like old comps now.

prince harry anyone? hehe

UQD you are obsessed with these independent school threads. I am sorry that one of your acquaintances has said that they are sending their children to independent schools because they are so bright - that is an offensive thing to say. But really, I do not know any independent school parents who think that way and you've clearly allowed one bad personal experience to colour your whole views of independent school parents.

It is time to dismount that hobby horse because throwing insults at independent school parents is not constructive and does not move any debate further forward.

Take this question:

"what the hell DO you mean by saying 'we're sending DS/DD to so-and-so private school because he/she is bright?'"

It's about as sane a question as this - which I will pose to state school parents

'Why do your children all have asbos and engage in criminal activity and disrupt the classrooms so that children in want of an education are denied it?'

Do you agree that BOTH questions are a gross generalisation? A misrepresentation?

To the OP - what I dislike the most are the termly fee notes.

I am at this thread. Noone has used the word chippy yet.

I think UQD is just gutted he can't afford to send his dc to one !!!!

Isn't UQD reporting actual comments though Quattro? Or have I misunderstood him?

Admittedly asking all of you to explain it is a bit harsh...

it's just very weird to me that people don't care about communities anymore, bus them out

we're segregated round here by religion and those that can afford private schools and seem to gloat in it, though to me they just talk about hairdressers and nails

In my opinion, I wish to not offend anyone, is that independant schools still have the same mix of people in as a state school. You still get the kids who mess around and willingly disrupt lessons for others (going off personal experience here) and see fit to abuse the great privildege that should be an education to see them for life. However in reality, they don't give a damn that their parents are shelling out thousands a year and just want to mess it up for themselves and others.
Another problem is single-sex independant educations, particularly girls. It has caused me unhappiness and upset throughout my compulsory secondary education to be in the school I am. It is all-girls. This creates, imo, a difficult environment with many instances of not neccesary typical bullying , but alot of nastiness and backstabbing. I can say that 50% of the girls in my school have felt upset and victimized at their time there, whether it be they look weird, their parents don't have the right car, they don't have enough money, whatever it is, it's making the numbers drop. Out of a class of 36 only 7 stayed on for sixth form this academic year. 2 people lower down in the school have left this Christmas.

I am sorry for going on a personal rant, but I needed to get that out.

P.S apologies for offending anyone :/

brainfreeze - yes, that is exactly my problem. yaaaaaawn....

I find it odd that actually answering questions invited in the OP is taken as "hobby-horsing".

Forgive me, but nowhere in the thread title does it state that only parents who have "chosen" the "independent" option may answer. (If it really irriates people, they may imagine me doing those really, really annoying "finger-quote" things while saying that.)

Your answer UQD in a nutshell was 'the people who use them' wasn't it?

Problem is your answer trades on unsubtle stereotypes, and therefore isn't entirely truthful. I'm sure there are some parents like that in the independent sector, but it isn't a general truth - just examples of people who confirm your own prejudices.

I think this insistence on believing that everyone who uses independent schools are awful, blinkered idiots, and that all their children are braying, foolish, twerps who can't wipe their own arses helps swallow the bitter pill that private schools are not open to all.

Because it would be dreadful if an independent school encouraged independent and thoughtful learners, encouraged the children to be committed members of their local community and to foster a sense of self-worth, service and excellence. If the parents who used that school worked hard in private and public sector jobs, and thought it was the best school in the area and were unashamed of using it.

What then?

Ah me. It seems that all the things everyone dislikes about indie schools are all the things I love about them!

Even the fees?

at the Fallen Madonna

Thoughtful post 100x.

1.The fact that they're allowed to be fu&*ing charities and get all the tax breaks that go along with having charitable status.

I don't know how many people actually realise that this is the case, or the disingeuous means they use to ensure that they meet the public benefit tests required to be granted charitable status. It's an absolute scandal.

1. The way they are so establishement orientated, Church/Queen/Army and all that crap.

I read UQD's posts differently. I think his answer in a nutshell is "because my DC's school isn't like them". Because he is rather like the people who use them really. Closer to them than the majority of parents at the school where I teach. And perhaps at his DC's catchment school.

That's an interesting point, Gunner.

Like all charities, independent schools benefit from not having to pay income tax or stamp duty, have an 80 per cent reduction on business rates and special VAT treatment, as well as financial support from gift aid. The charitable status thing is significant only in the context of indirect tax I think because the income tax issue is not really relevant for the vast majority of independent schools that operate on a not for profit basis.

The benefit of this charitable status is estimated to be around £250 per year per child. Which actually is not that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. And in return for that charitable status, schools are obliged to offer scholarships, and allow the public to use some of their facilities.

If you consider that in the absence of independent schools my DCs would be taking up places at state schools at some expense (I think around £3k per child from memory) I don't think the public purse is losing out.

My children are in a state primary and will go on to a state secondary; nothing annoys me about independent schools.

The state schools where I live are okay; as far as I can tell, there are people living in other areas of the country where the state schools are terrible, so people choose to go independent. Some will get to go to excellent independents and some will go to independents that are just okay. They are having to pay for something that my children are getting for free.

it is a very unfair system, and I feel sorry for any parent that has to send their child to an inadequate school or who has to pay to keep their child out of an inadequate school.

It's the "has to" which rankles though. For every parent who has meticulously researched all the options there will be one who has just looked at the building and sneered a bit. I mean, if people "had to" send their children private to avoid an inadequate school, then by logical extension nobody would go to these inadequate schools, would they? Where do people think the pupils for these schools actually come from?

Children who have to attend what I consider to be inadequate schools are there for a variety of reasons. Some are there because we all have different opinions on what constitutes 'adequate', and their parents consider that school to be right for their particular child. Some are there because their parents have no money to spare, some are there because no other school will take them and some are there because their parents don't really care where they go to school.

I think you're right, MillyR. And that accounts for most people. Which puts it all in perspective, really.

Okay, maybe not the fees...

Agreed Milly, there are parents who really don't care at one end of the spectrum equally there are those who 'bray' about their offspring. But on Mumsnet and in our society we have ago at the top end rather than the bottom end all the time.
As for those of us who fundamentally disagree with the state system... better get braying.

In an ideal world, state education would be just as good as that offered in the private sector where money is no object. Then if people with more money than sense wanted to send their children to private schools just for the qudos, or so that they didn't have to mix with the hoi poloi that would be up to them.

If all children attended state schools, I don't think the notion of the inadequate state school would disappear altogether but there can be no doubt whatsoever that it would be significantly diminished.

Personally, I think Britain should be looking to Scandanavian countries as the "Gold Standard" for delivery in all its public services.