Who can afford private schools in the UK?

[wjchoihk]

Hi. I am not sure if this is an appropriate question to ask here. But I have always wondered how rich you should be to send children to private schools in UK. Fees are anywhere from 3000 up to 10000 per term. Even allowing for wide gaps in income, thinking of 'avearge' UK wage of 26,000 pound, math simply don't add up for a normal life with such high fees. I also know only 7% of children go private though.

How much of private parents live on "inherited" wealth and how much on simply superior current earnings? I have my kids at SW London privates but I wouldn't be able to afford this without current int'l expat package. Some parents at my kids' schools LOOK and ARE very very rich but most of them LOOK quite down to earth. But I can't ask....

seeker's DD may have had a GS 'forced' on her despite her principles but she is certainly pissed off that the Gods of the 11+ didn't likewise 'force' the GS on her DS.

If seeker were to say that she is against the GS system but the alternative in her catchment was crap so what is a parent to do? then I would say fair enough.

However, if you were to criticise sec mods she will rush to tell you what a great job her sm is doing in turning around year 7 kids who arrive with literacy levels 2 years behind expected levels. She will tell you how her DS was working at the same level as her GS DD at that age.

The school is obvious doing well for those semi illiterate kids and for seekers high achieving DS so clearly the alternative isn't 'crap'. So why does seeker want her DS to go to the GS? Because it has an orchestra. I can imagine seeker going - feck my principles. I want DS to have a school orchestra to join.

I don't expect parents to sacrifice their children on the altar of principles. If the alternative is crap then I would join seeker and say feck it DC is going GS. However the alternative isn't 'crap'. Seeker is dumping her principles because she wants her DS educated in a MC environment.

Oh I see. I'm getting involved in some kind of feud.

I'll step away.

Merry don't go. I don't know much about the grammar school system and I thought your comments were interesting. I am in Essex where the have a grammar school and they sound like a positively good thing.

Oh what a surprise.

Totally Bullshit, you are really making a fool of yourself. Stop it, for the love of god.

My Suggestion to anyone who does want to talk about this and not imagine what happens in Seeker's head, is to ignore this poster.

Thank you,TOSN and others. Not a feud, merrymouse, a vendetta!

I am happy to talk about anything to anyone who is prepared to listen to what I actually say.

Anyway, to more interesting things. Those of you who are championing selective education, why is it that areas which still have it don't have significantly better results than similar areas with comprehensive schools? Surely Kent's GCSEs and A levels should be head and shoulders above other LEAs?

Because as you have said Seeker, you are not comparing like with like. The grammars have taken the top 23% & you cannot expect the sec mods to achieve the same as a fully comp. However if you compare the performance of the selective borough overall with the non-selective one I have a sneaky suspicion the selective would come out better.

And as I said before, grammar areas give you a choice of a number of grammars or a number of sec mods so that there is competition between schools for your business. Something our non-selective does not offer without having to move house.

I thought the point Seeker was making was that even overall, they are not better?

Why is it a vendetta?

I simply do not think that a person who has DC1 at a GS and tried to get DC2 into same GS should be telling selective school parents that they are bad people because they only care uabout their own DCs. And that they should stay and fight to improve the other school instead of cut and run.

I don't think I made myself clear, sorry.What I am saying is that there is no significant difference between the performance of a grammar school and a secondary modern combined and a comprehensive school with a similar catchment. If selective education is better, surely here would be a difference?

And I have no experience of an area where there are 6 grammar schools and 6 secondary moderns competing for your custom- in my experience grammar schools do not have to compete, they are generally over subscribed. And secondary moderns admit on catchment only, so no competing necessary. I won't comment on what effect the scenario you suggest would have- but I would love to have a look how it effected the league tables. Where are you talking about?

Affected- sorry. Auto correct, not ignorance!

I'm talking about Bexley Seeker.

It's hard to stick by our beliefs when it comes to our children. I don't believe in private health but have used it once because it was convenient. Charming consultant aside what did we get? The only plus we could chose the date for the operation which is why we did it the actual nursing care and even the facilities were I thought mediocre at their best.

I seem to remember (on another similar thread) that there was someone who had dug through the statistics and shown quite clearly that AVERAGE edcational achievement in selective areas (GS / SM) is lower than in areas with similar demographics but with a comprehensive system. It's hard to do the comparison in e.g. London and its surrounds because so many DCs move across county / area boundaries for schools, of course.

If you were that statistically-minded poster, would you mind linking to it all again??? Thanks.

I actually didn't know that, I wonder why it is? Do you think the top grades would have been the same in a comprehensive system, while the lower and middle ones might have been higher? Interesting, anyway.

If I were to speculate I would say that the top grades will be the same wherever. And maybe the lower grades as well? But the middle grades will be lower in the secondary modern school than the same cohort would achieve in a comprehensive, because if you're at the top haven't got anywhere to go it's harder to stay motivated.

Or else, even if some top achievers actually gain higher grades, it's cancelled out by the lower ones being lower than otherwise?

I suspect seeker's suggestion that the middle grade students fare worst in the selective system is probably true. My stepfather always talks about his experience of going to a sec mod (obviously yonks ago) and that it was brilliant for someone like him who got to be top of the sec mod (just failed 11+ and would have been a second set student in a comp) and his confidence was boosted accordingly.

One point, however, is that years ago when there were only O levels and CSEs, it was a tough thing to be stuck in the wrong half of the system if you would have matured and done better later but wouldn't, for example, even be taught the same subjects. And the same has again recently been true for many students where if 'stuck' in a sec mod then there wasn't the same access to separate science or languages, or being 'encouraged' down the BTec route etc etc, and this is obviously unfair if a child is capable of much more academically but just had a bad day on 11+ day or, indeed, blossomed later.

All this is an indictment of the selective system (as well as other things - I don't want to be accused of only focussing on the able child).

However, I do believe that when we're discussing comprehensives as the alternative, we all must acknowledge that they're not one homogeneous lump in which all is equal. Some comps (maybe with a more deprived intake or a smaller intake in a rural area) also do not offer the same quality of education as the best comps in the best areas. Some have been pushing easier qualifications onto bright students because there are still not enough top students to warrant triple sciences etc etc.

There has been a recent Ofsted investigation (or ongoing) into why some authorities with the same type of system (comp) and the same profile of population vary so wildly in their outcomes and this is very interesting.

pugs I really don't understand your argument that selective and sec mods schools compete for your business and comps don't. Surely competition amongst schools is predicated entirely on surplus places, availability of transport, parental income - to move house - and aspiration and entrance criteria? (Might have missed some)

There should have been a 'on the other hand' in the first para before 'my stepfather'.

And I meant to summarise by saying that we probably won't be able to prove one way or another whether all selective or all comp is better or worse purely on results as there are only two fully selective counties so it's not a fair sample...

Also, talking of comparisons, E.g. Richmond in greater London does not have grammar schools but huge amounts of children go to independent schools at secondary so the system isnt truly comprehensive.

However, surely if selective education is better, it should show in the results of the two fully selective counties? I realize it's not a statistically significant sample, but even so......

Good morning!

This really is a geninue question Seeker. Why did you let your children take the 11+ if you are so against selective education?

A lot on here not answering the original question...

We manage one child in private school out of earnings. It is a personal decision and appreciate that some are not able to do this. I personally went to a state school and am in a well paid job. I live right on the edge of a catchment area with excellent state schools - hugely competitive and people move just to get into them. For me, part of it was about certainty - there was no certainty of getting into the local state school - the tiny private school my son goes to is 100 yards away

Isn't that a bit like asking why did you let your child sit on the top table for maths if you don't agree with streaming?