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.

Shame, Orm, it shouldn't have to be like that. It's a funny old world when a big flat screen telly or a PlayStation gets you applause, but spending a bit of money on education gets you criticism.

Where I live about half go private and half state. Nobody makes a fuss about schooling at all.

That's because you are comparing the wrong things UQD.

Litchick's comparison was fair UQD because she was answering your assertion that people who buy an education consider themselves a cut above the rest of humanity.

And this thread exists because the OP had a few points about entrance exams and whether they are culturally weighted. We seem to have ignored all that hockey stick stuff.

UnquietDad - yes, there is a lot of overlap. I was generalising massively.

I'm interested what you think should happen. Do you think all kids should go to their nearest comp, so that there's a better social/ability mix (and yes I know those are two separate issues! But so many private schools being selective both factors would be affected). Or should there be lots of different state options to allow kids to go to a school that specifically suited their interests (something along the academies line)?

And why does the existence of independent schools mean change is less likely in the state sector?

Has anyone read Outliers? I know he just states the obvious - though in a rather elegant way.

There was an interesting chapter on the KIPP schools in New York. About how they looked at what happened to the children from less advantaged backgrounds over the summer holidays - how year on year they fell behind. Because there were no books in the house, or no interested parents. The KIPP solution was to stop the long summer holiday and have more intensive days and terms. It made for interesting reading.

I think we waste energy on here accusing independent school users of being twits and living in a bubble, and then private school parents having to defend themselves against such an idea.

There are more interesting things to discuss, I think, anyway.

Yes, 100x, the point I was making, albeit clumsily, is that anything I buy for myself or my children says nothing about those that cannot afford it nor my attitudes towards them. School is very much included in that.

Interesting about the KIPP schools. I think it would be a shame for children to have entirely structured lives from the age of 5, which would be near-enough what it would be like without a long summer holiday to while-away.
But it comes back then to parents - to what extent should society legislate for differences in parents? I was coming home on the bus before Christmas and a group of early teens from the local school got on and started (literally) all over the bus, shouting. That's not the schools's fault, it's their parents who should have taught them better. But it doesn't stop me wanting to protect MY kids from that kind of environment if I can.

sorry that should have been ... started to (literally) CLIMB ...

Yes, good point. Gladwell does say - though rather weakly at the end - that it is very intensive programme, and you could question whether that is a 'childhood'. However, what it does do is even out the playing field.

I do think that's the end of the playing field that needs the breaks and need to be evened.

Not that airy, well-tilled end up by the pavilion.

Litchick - it didn't seem clumsy to me

Oh and there was another Gladwell argument about entitlement - which he says is a dirty word now, but shouldn't be. About how children from more advantaged backgrounds - private school or not - are equipped to question authority, to assert themselves etc.

And then just yesterday I read a piece in The Observer about how Millburn had been brought in to look at social mobility. One thing they wanted to address was middle-class networking and the other - was how to harness the confidence that private schools instill in their pupils.

See, all food for thought. That'd be confidence too, not arrogance. Though is a very fine line, agree.

Yes Lucasnorth, I agree with you about moving house to get your child into a 'good' state school.
I feel that the private/state school argument is bogus really as plenty of my friends have legged it to the suburbs where the 'better' schools are - they can afford to take on the huge mortgage required to be near desirable school but can still feel good about sticking with the state system.

It's not about private vs. state but the inequity that some people can buy their way into a better, happier education for their child, while others - the poorest and most vulnerable- have to cope with inadequate facilities. The response from parents who privately educate is often to shrug their shoulders, after all, 'I'm alright Jack.'

I'm saying this as a parent whose child will soon be going to the sort of crumbling state primary school - where there are plenty of children with SEN, difficult backgrounds, 30 languages spoken - which would send you screaming to your 4x4's.

I'm not claiming any moral superiority here - we do not have the luxury of choice - but actually our crumbling primary isn't that bad. Sure it's not perfect but there is a very strong community identity, many parents committed to improving it, a fantastic head teacher and most importantly DD's friends and neighbours are all going which means she will be happy.

Oh don't get me on the subject of people 'leap frogging' places in the best state school areas. I understand why, I entirely see the point but the holier-than-thouness of it gets to me. As someone who isn't really able to afford to move it makes the red mist descend.

I used to be very anti-private, but now I think my ire was possibly misdirected.

We have a very good (by all accounts) independent school in our town and I can honestly say I wouldn't send my child there - even if we won the lottery.

Gunnerbean - why not?

I know Quattro is saying her state option should be closed down, but that isn't true of everybody who opts to pay. DSs got offered an apparently excellent state school. But they do SATs, they allow their pupils to do soft A levels, they don't give quality advice really early on and warn them that they are probably ruling things out by dropping certain subjects, they don't have such brilliant sports facilities and I could go on and on. So we pay.

I don't think you can keep lumping all families who pay into one big steaming heap.

Just to ask again (just because it got swamped in later posts, I don't think it was ignored):

• if a particular state school was closed, what would/should happen to the hundreds of children who go there, many of whom (presumably) had no other option than that school ?

I answered you UQD! at 17:02...

Can anyone hear me?

Ok going back to the OP, but here's something fairly irritating I thought of while driving through Hampstead at 3pm (a. not in a 4x4 and b. not picking up kids as mine go to local school where it would take three times as long to get there in a car as to walk).
Anyway, the irritating private school thing is those uniforms? I mean, what are they about? I saw piped blazers a-plenty and the most extraordinary range of headgear seen outside of Ladies Day at Ascot. Boaters, bowlers with ribbons on, caps.
I'm genuinely interested as to why they have uniforms that so obviously distinguish their pupils from the sweatshirt-with-logo wearing masses. Do the parents like it? Do they feel it's something they're paying for? Does it mean the pupils can't go on public transport? Do the schools insist on it? Why, why, why?
Honestly am interested in answers and not wanting to enter into the whole polemic, particularly.

PP - I don't know what it's about, but I do know I dislike sweatshirts of any description, and particularly dislike them if they sport logos.

There aren't any independent schools near us that have bizarre head-gear. There is one school (not ours) where the children wear hats, but I think they look quite sweet. The boys wear caps, and the girls wear felt bowler-type things.

Personally, I'm glad our school doesn't have them, if only because they would be yet another drain on our finances!

UQD - an attempt to answer your question, but partly by posing another one. Are you saying that a crap school is acceptable for the 'hundreds of children who go there'? Do you not think that LAs should not be forced to offer a better alternative to these children - which might have to be the case if the really awful schools closed down? Don't these children deserve a shot at something better?

Ooh, and what really annoys me is the assumption that all private-school parents drive 4x4s. Personally, I would rather walk to the moon and back!

Oh only have 9 days left so..... brain has leaked out of ears.
Sorry UQD- you asked what would happen if a school closed - now I realise you meant due to being a poorly performing school?

Well- this actually does happen reasonably frequently, and they usually farm them out to other schools in the area, sometimes with transport laid on, depending on the size of the geographical area.
Frequently of course they are closed down and a 'new' school opens on the same site- with new management team, uniform, name etc. Sometimes this is successful (mainly because a school is so strongly a reflection of the Head's personal ethos and personality, and once they are gone there can be real change) and sometimes this isn't successful.

Goodness knows what I was answering the first time - is that any better?

I don't have a 4 x 4 either. And my sons' fee paying school uniform is grey trousers from anywhere, white shirt from anywhere, polyester blazer from the school shop, polyester school tie from the school shop. In the sixth form any business suit (DS1 got one from Matalan for £17 and one suit from M&S for £49) with collared shirt (any colour) and tie (any).

Sorry about the 4x4 jibe. Although it was based on a straw poll I have taken regularly as I walk past the private school at the end of our road. The cars are massive. One woman has a gold one to match her highlights