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.

Now you've got me there. I do have gold highlights.

PP, surely all school children used to wear blazer and full uniform. I hate the comprehensive sweatshirt type uniform and am dreading my children having to wear it; it is so scruffy that it defeats the point of having a uniform.

eachpeach- thanks for yours. Yes, it was a sort-of rhetorical question as I knew/guessed that this is what happens. So often the already-stretched system has to accommodate lots more kids !

milly - our primary uniform is a sweatshirt/jumper and grey trousers. You might find that you are grateful for it in the end - easy to wash and replace. My youngest gets through 3 jumpers a week and at least 2 pairs of trousers.

At secondary level 2 of the 4 schools here have 'proper' uniforms ie blazers with badges and ties. I think it's still quite common.

Sorry UQD- can no longer spot rhetorical questions- look I'm even making up the questions I'm answering!

The issue is - how do we ensure an excellent standard of education for all children regardless of their background?- education is supposed to be the great leveller, but it really is dependent on where you live, and how interested or vocal your parents are- yet the children who would benefit most long-term from an excellent education are frequently those with the greatest barriers to accessing an decent education, let alone an excellent one.

Part of the problem is we (mners, I think rather than country as a whole) aspire to a scandi quality education, but we're only prepared to pay 20-25% tax- well that just isn't achievable. I'm not saying there isn't wastage in the current system- of course there is- not helped by Tony's cronies and their 25 year PFI contracts [grr] but really- tax in Denmark starts at 50%. Only oddballs and fervent religious types send their children to private schools in scandinavia- it really isn't felt necessary- because the state system is so good.
Denmark also has an entirely free university undergraduate system- with grants, and no time limit (within reason) to complete your degree- so you could spend 7 years doing your first degree (masters equivalent here really, rather than bachelors) and be fully funded through it.
What better way to encourage bright children to do well in education- there is no catch for their parents?

That said- there isn't 'choice' like we have in Britain -people attend their closest school and university in majority of cases- but if they are all excellent, it is hardly a compromise is it?

Smallorange - you are forgiven!

Our grey Mondeo matches DH's hair

I have no objection to paying higher taxes if they mean having fantastic public services and a better society for all to live in. It's a complete and utter no brainer to me. Sadly, I know a lot of people in this country don't share my view, which is why things here will never change.

You have people earning squillions of pounds a year and they are still moaning because they have to pay even 40% tax and trot out the old line "why should I, it's my money, I've worked for it", or the apologists who trot out the old "we can't penalise them or they'll all leave the country" line. Nothing will ever change here.

Here, we can only ever dream of living in a society where the benefits of paying for education are negligible when compared to educating your children in the State sector and it is more or less pointless to pay to have your children educated because it would be hard to see what you were getting for your money.

A society where that hapened to me, would be a panacea. However, in Britain, there's more chance of the sky falling in.

If I had one wish, I wouldn't wish for money but for my entire close family to wake up tomorrow morning with the ability to speak a range of Scandanavian languages fluently and a burning desire to relocate to a Scandanavian country!

You wouldn't see me and mine for dust!!

Gunnerbean - you may have a point about Scandinavia, but you still haven't answered my question as to why you wouldn't pay school fees even if you won the lottery!

The 'old boys' network (and 'old girls too, I guess) that means that the products of public school education are disproportionately represented in public life.

I wouldn't pay private school fees if I won the lottery because local state school perfectly fine, dh is a teacher (not there) so dd benefits from the extra activities he offers her as a complement to her learning (which all parents should do). I spend an hour with her after school practising things with her - comprehension/handwriting

I think positive parenting has an enormous effect on children and by that I mean reading to them/spending time with them doing educational activities/involving them in extra-curricular activities.

My best friend sent all her children to private prep. so that they could secure an excellent (selective) state school for secondary. She is very happy to say that the reason she did that was because her and her dh went out to work to pay for it as they didn't have time to do the extra work themselves. She also didn't want to do it herself (has learning difficulties) so she made sure it happened by paying for it.

Hi Dottoressa,

I just wouldn't - it's not for me I guess and not what I want for my son, just as state school education is probaby not what you want for your child/ren.

Some of the values which are deeply embedded in private sector education are not for me. I feel that my child will get a more well rounded education in the state sector. That is my personal choice and I don't expect others to agree wtih it, or to think it is a choice they would make for themselves.

I am lucky with my local state secondary. We are in a small town and only have one secondary school so there is a really good mix of kids from across all social strata that go there and it is a nice school with good reports.

If I was near an appalling state school I would prefer to move into the catchment area of a better school but would not pay for private education.

It is my firm belief that the cream will always rise to the top and if a child is motivated to do well and supported and guided well at home they will achieve just as well in the state sector. I have seen it time and time again with the children of friends/relatives and work colleages.

There are thousands upon thousands of children each year coming out of the state system who do very well academically - by anyone's standards.

Equally, there are children who are privately educated who will do only averagely well academically - again, by anyone's standards.

Actually, I don't want to get hung up on measuring my child's "success" by what he achieves academically. My life will not fall apart if he doesn't want to do A levels or go to university. He will be allowed to choose the path he wants to go down career wise and will be supported by me to the very best of my ability all the way to help him acheive whatever it is he wants to in life.

I think there is a tendancy when people say they don't agree with private education for others to think that as a parent you don't want the best for your child.

Naturally, like any parent, I want the very best for my child but just don't happen to view private education through rose coloured glasses as some sort of panacea or guarantee that your child will automatically gain an advantage over their peers by being privately educated.

What Gunnerbean said. With knobs on.

Gunnerbean/UQD - could you be a bit more precise please? Because I'm struggling to understand exactly what you're saying.

Which values deeply embedded in private education do you dislike?
What about a state education do you think is more rounded?
And why do you think it's OK to move to the catchment of a better school (therefore helping to inflate house prices, and taking a place that might otherwise have gone to a child whose parents couldn't afford inflated house prices) but not to go private (although this last question may be answered by the first two iyswim)

I'm not trying to be difficult, just want to understand what the argument is exactly.

Having short socks for the winter and long wool socks for the summer. Stupid idea...

I think "with knobs on" is key.

Yes a friend teaches at a top-rated state school I guess the values are fairly similar; cramming them through exams, 'what does your father do?,' and spending the day at the beauticians getting hair straightened before a school disco.
She tells a story about taking agroup skiing. There was a delay decanting them from the tour bus to their accomodation so finally a tour rep gets on and apologises for the wait.
" So you should be sorry," shouts one, "Our parents are paying your wages,you know."

If that is what the kids are coming out with, God knws what the parents are like.

I really think the problem is the league table obsession and the fact that the middle classes can buy a better education for their children.

I think the media has alot to answer for in the way it portrays 'failing' schools and the demonisation of the working classes. DD's state nursery id very mixed and as a consequence is fantastic!

state school attitude toward my disabled ds locally was appalling.Thank god I don't have any moral highground to have to stick to, and was able to do what I felt is best for my child.

I used to work with a bunch of guys from Eton. They would wear Eton rugby socks in the office so they could recognise a fellow old boy. Dunno if they were so thick they kept forgetting where each other went to school.
Public school education is another thing altogether - it really does open doors. It's really sickening.

MABS on Tue 13-Jan-09 17:52:37
"state school attitude toward my disabled ds locally was appalling."

I'd have to say the same. But we had no money and a good deal of pig-headedness, so we stuck around. In the end, 'twas the headteacher who left. Dd is now getting a good education.

so sorry you had same experience Cory, glad it worked out in the end for you tho.

i think the old boys/old girls thing is over extimated - sure if you went to Eton or Harrow or somewhere but for most independent schools ( I went to a girls trust school) it hasn't made the blindest bit of difference to my career - never had a leg up due to the school i went to.

To be honest, I can't really see the point in expanding any further on what I've already said.

I am fully aware that there are people here with views that are diametrically opposed to my own and frankly, life is too short to be flamed for holding the views that I do.

They are my views, I am comfortable in holding them and I do not need to justify, or defend, my position to anyone.

I have already said all that I want to say on this issue and will add no more save to say that I hope everyone here is happy and comfortable with the choices they have made regarding their children's education. I know I am

Sorry, going back to the uniform thing, these were all primary/prep schools so I really don't see that blazers are appropriate. I know I sound like I'm obsessed (I was gobsmacked) but I really am genuinely interested to know why they see the need to distinguish themselves so visually. There's a private school round our way that has the same old polo shirt, sweatshirt thing that the state primaries do and I respect it a lot more for that. If it's all about the quality of education and not about separating yourselves from the rest then why have an expensive, bespoke, conspicuous uniform? Sort of makes a mockery of a lot of the arguments on this thread. (I know that lots of people have said their private schools have "normal" uniforms, though one did coo over their kids' boaters, and this may be a very posh London enclave thing).

Gunnerbean, thanks for the further thoughts. I think you beg a lot of questions, and I think lucasnorth's comments are justified - but, as you say, we all make our own choices, and we all ultimately want what we believe is best for our DCs, without reference to anyone else or their decisions.

What interests me, though, is UQD's approval of our comments. UQD: Gunnerbean says she chooses to send her children to a state school. But according to you, there's no such thing as "choice" when it comes to education. So how can you agree with her?