German expat questions value for money of top English private schools

[Bonsoir]

Article

I am not surprised that people are posting to say there is no evidence of this in their children's schools, and I am reassured and delighted this is the case. These are clearly good schools run on an ethical footing. All schools should be run like this.

It would be completely unfair to say that all independent schools have sharp commercial practices, but this type of traffic lighting does take place in some schools, particularly where they are trying to build up the endowment, struggling to recruit, etc.

I've seen it first hand and also heard reports of it from head teachers. Many teachers find these practices abhorrent and will eventually leave when faced with being required to do this sort of thing, as frankly it's utterly unprofessional.

I would very much like such practices to be more widely exposed as I think there is no place for it in British society.

Boffin, is it that cut and dried? I don't disagree that there has been an increase in American style funding, not just for facilities but also to meet Government demands for bursary funding. (Perhaps better this than riase fees and exclude those stuggling to pay.) Lots of new Development Office appointments. I think I commented on a different thread that one or two London Heads can appear "blinded by the bling".

I also don't disagree that some fundraising has been pretty ham-fisted, giving a clear sense of them and us. Observation suggests that winning a place at a very selective London girls school is hard enough, but the real challenge is to then receive an invitation to dinner with the Head, and thus clear bragging rights in H. Holle type circles. Or another school which had a hugely expensive fundraising dinner where ordinary parents were only invited at the last minute when the fundraising committee failed to sell enough tickets. Teachers gifts too can be extraordinary (as in worth over a £1000 for an ordinary subject teacher from an individual child, luckily a child sensible enough to include the receipt!), and only one of the three schools DC have attended has provided parents with guidance.

Other schools, though, are far more discrete, with parent committee roles being clearly defined as not to have either a school fundraising role nor any influence on school policy.

That said both DC, and our, aim has been to steer clear of the Senior Management Team as much as possible, assuming that in all schools a large proportion of their time is spent on a small proportion of children, and DC don't want to be one of "those" children. (Ditto with the bursar. I met the Prep one for the first time as we were coming to the end of 10 years at the school and he suggested it was a complement that he did not know our names.) What matters is what happens in the classroom, and teachers generally seem to prefer (perhaps the wrong word) children who are engaged and who contribute constructively, and being on first name terms with the Head probably does not carry much weight. I would much prefer to go to parents evening and be warmly greeted by teachers who have nice things to say about your child, than to receive that greeting from the Head and something more lukewarm from individual teachers.

Indeed part of the problem seems to be an expectation that donations buy you something, when in Britain they don't always. (The Ivies have legacy applications, Oxbridge does not.)

Certainly, there are some parents who seem to get their DC recognition at school through endless fund raising, PTA work etc.

Personally, I couldn't be arsed . If I need to run the school library to ensure my DD gets Mary in the nativity, count me out!

Also, in the long run, such parents run out of things to influence. You can buy a new cricket pavillion for the prep school but it won't get your DC a place at a selective secondary if they're not bright enough. It wont get them 10A*s at GCSE or a DofE gold award, or grade whatever in violin. It won't get you that place at Oxbridge or LSE...

Agree SGADM. I think the best DC ever managed was carrying a gift for one of the three wise men. One was once a tree. We went and were obviously very proud.

The issue though is that though Oxbridge and the LSE are not going to care if you were water polo captain, US Universities are looking for breadth, so good music, good sport, leadership etc. Harvard et al are hugely competitive so candidates really need to collect the baubles. From a schools perspective it must be difficult if one child is the better candidate but the other needs to have running the Tiddlewinks Society on their CV.

True needsmore.

But schools who have pupils likely to consider Ivy, seem to understand that things work differently and steer those pupils well into building their CV (not something I relish but hey ho), whatever their parents' contributions either materially or in terms of time.

Having read the comments but not the article I was going to wade in with some indignation based on knowledge of Her Holle's local school options, and Sevenoaks in particular.

He could have had a German education with diversity if his twins had taken the well trodden path through the German School and then IB at Richmond Sixth Form College where the German students underpinned excellent results and leaver destinations (no longer available due to the LAs ironically named "Choice and Diversity" Educational Strategy which provides choice only to those willing to sit in pews or move house, and diversity only in terms of families who know how to play the game) where they would have found all the diversity going amongst the 2000 students including some serious stoners and the odd stabbing

Private London Day Schools are not a commodity and there is a lot of variation in ethos and in particular bursary provision and it's effectiveness in widening diversity. Boarding Schools even more so. All the families and indeed, staff I know at Sevenoaks have picked it for it's down to earth ethos, IB, mix of day and boarders (it is not some Ivory Towers surrounded by high walls) and innovative MFL provision (that includes some families who are from ethnic minorities).

But now I am on a device the Telegraph has not put behind the paywall I have actually read the article and find myself having some empathy with him.

Do I regret sending my DCs to Private Schools. No, and he is not doing so either for similar reasons. He says he chose to do so because he wanted the best education and he wanted them to grow up with a dominant culture. A lot of third country kids are educated in one culture for that reason. Many expats, especially ones that grew up as third country kids, around the world bring up or educate their children in a dominant culture, even if that means families being parted or uprooted, because it helps to define their identity. Insight into other cultures is one thing, not knowing where you belong quite another.

Do I regret the limited diversity in my DC's schools? Ethnically, no. There was greater ethnic diversity than in local state schools, apart from the superselectives where nearly 70% are BME (which raises another set of issues). But socially, yes, inevitably they did not mix with a cross section of society. We made sure they did outside school but whilst there was a mix of the materialistic and those with more down to earth values at school they did feel frequently a bit exasperated with some of the narrow mindedness. You have to wonder when a geography trip includes a coach tour of the valleys highlighting manifestations of deprivation including "on the left a pregnant teenager" ....... So yes like Herr Holle I do regret that they did not experience the diversity there was at my state school (in my case a Northern Direct Grant Grammar)

Do I think they had a better education at a private school over outstanding state alternatives? Yes and No. I certainly think they had access to greater opportunities to pursue their interests in school, and more support in achieving their academic ambitions (particularly in the context of SpLDs). They probably achieved marginally better results but I don't think their ultimate destinations would have been different, or at least not if I had anything to do with it (by which I mean encouraging them in their interests and ambitions, not forcing them down any particular route). There was certainly some iffy teaching along the way from teachers who could rely on motivated pupils to achieve in spite of them. It was different, but better? Not so sure (though I am sure that my daughter was right to feel the ethos and atmosphere at the superselective was not right for her).

So in the end I think that he is providing a valid personal perspective.

And with experience of London Day Schools I think that parental influence is more powerful in some schools than others and it is not always a case of money talks but also of some parents trying to impose their influence to the point of bullying. It is more prevalent at Prep School level in my experience. The Heads of the "name" schools have a lot more power to resist and impose better ethical standards.

I didn't really feel too sorry for the Prep School Head who showed me a copy of "May Contain Nuts" and sighed "This is my life" or when she got a letter from the parent who had made sure their child had a big part in every play, on every team etc starting "My child is a failure where do we go from here?" when she wasn't made Head Girl. Those poor parents actually had to threaten not to allow her scholarship to go on the roll of honour to ensure she had a main part in the Year 6 musical (which she hated because she couldn't sing or act)

At Secondary level it actually felt that it was the self indulgent hands off parents whose attention seeking offspring got the bulk of the focus.

PoisonWood very interesting to hear your Third Culture Kid perspective. Sevenoaks was great for me xxx years ago. I went to a Kent grammar school where no one got my previous Third Culture Kid upbringing but then doing the IB at Sevenoaks gave me friends who knew what I was talking about - knew that other countries existed even. Possibly grammar schools in Kent haven't changed much ?? but London state schools have that higher ethnic diversity now, as you say.

Incidentally another Sevenoaks old boy I know recently tried to send his very bright daughter (now doing Medicine) there for the Sixth form and couldn't get her in. He felt the Russian contingent had taken over the school. This is anecdotal of course. I can't comment personally. I do know I get frequent glossy mailings for the school foundation begging me to support it and their bursaries. I'm afraid my all "educational charity donations" go to Christian Aid or the likes.

The Heads of the "name" schools have a lot more power to resist and impose better ethical standards.

They may have the power to do so but not all have the moral strength required to exercise it.

There is far too much deference towards "name" schools. Many of them could be far better led than they currently are.

Mr Holle's criticisms, coming from a typical modern customer of such schools, are a breath of fresh air.

Cue the "greed is good" brigade with cries of "but the emperor's clothes are so fine!" Is that a German fairy tale btw?

Quite, Granola. Last week in the Daily Tel the social stereotype was a Headmaster and only barely disguised as Someone Who Turned A Military Academy Into A Selective Finishing School For Stepford Pupils. That says everything about what has gone wrong.

Another gripe I have re UK private schools versus Continental state schools is that there seems to be an ongoing decline in modern foreign languages which presumably are seen as too difficult. I have German relatives who speak 4 languages whereas the average English private school pupil can barely manage one and it's getting worse..

www.tes.co.uk/news/school-news/breaking-news/private-schools-suffer-more-severe-decline-languages-state-sector

I am also worried about insufficient social diversity at "name" private schools and glad to see that other parents share this concern. In my view, the answer is not to focus on increasing the proportion of students on bursaries (although it should be maintained at a reasonable level) but to manage fee levels so that the "middle" (civil servants, academics, journalists, non-profit executives, etc) doesn't get squeezed out.

I have links to academia (but am not an academic) and it is quite disturbing to me that academics at some of London's leading educational institutions (UCL, LSE, etc) are increasingly unable to afford private school fees for their children. What does that say about us as a society when highly-able individuals who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge are being punished in the form of limiting their offspring's educational options? Should they steer their talents toward money-making careers in finance, professional services, etc? (I hope not.)

Great to have you on side, Glad.

When I made similar points on another thread I was told that I should either "work harder" to earn more money or should just face up to the fact that salaried professionals were the "nouveau poor" and independent schools weren't for the likes of us any more.

Since then we have had confirmation from the High Mistress of SPGS that her girls don't "need" university, i.e, the professions which require degrees and more are just for little people:
www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Education/article1580306.ece

I do think parents should take note of where these "name" schools are heading. It is not a good place.

granola that's prety self serving representation of previous threads.

What posters have said, is that private schools were never, in recent memory, diverse. They always excluded the vast majorty.

You simply didn't mind when they they included the traditional middle classes (ie you).

In my memory (my childhood) private schools were full of the DC of farmers (small landholders), electricians/builders,pharmacists, hospital consultants, GPs, country/high street solicitors... Pretty much anyone who had been to university themselves could afford private school for their DC, as could SME owner-managers.

I think there was a big change in the 1990s, until then our newsagent (who had moved to the UK from Uganda) could send his daughters to private school. My friends who are accountants both work to send their children to private school & live in West London whereas when we were children only the father (typically) would have worked. In my youngest child's last year's at junior school only two families didn't have both parents working, with my oldest child the majority of mothers did not work.

And at that time Bonsoir going to university and having the funds made you a tiny minority.

And even today, outside the few schools that seem to attract endless consternation, there are private schools with a parent body as you describe.

It's really very simple though. If people want real diversity (as opposed to some faux middle class mash-up, that still excludes most people) then send your DC to state schools.

But frankly, the concentration upon private schools is diversionary, no? The issue at hand is not the squeezing of the middle classes, but the shrinking of the middle classes. Many people who identify as MC are actually no better off than their WC counterparts in financial terms. Yet they still believe they are entitled to the things they can no longer afford and get Very Cross that they can't.

But were they Very Cross when technology and global competition swept away the livelihoods of many of those below them? Not so much...

MCS Oxford and KCS Wimbledon educated generation after generation of the children of university lecturers. No longer. I know professors at both universities who can't afford their fees.

It's not a coincidence that Andrew Halls (""Tatler" is important") has been head of both schools.

Everyone is entitled to their views on these changes but there's no point denying they have happened or who's responsible.

The MC hasn't shrunk - it has expanded (hugely). However, private schooling has not expanded commensurate with the relative expansion of the MC.

It varies from school to school. Each school has an effective physical catchment, and in London what has happened is people living within that catchment has changed. So girls growing up in a house off Sloane Square may still go to Francis Holland, however they might be Saudi/Americal/French/Russian/Japanese rather than affluent English middle class. That English family might instead send their girls to Surbiton High or Danes Hill or wherever they live now.

(An expat friend told me not to worry about some of the affluence. The house was often rented, the car leased, and fees paid by the firm as part of the package. It was a mirage. If the job went, and City jobs do, the lifestyle disappeared. And indeed another, seemingly very affluent family, said they were opting for Putney High rather than SPGS because though they could afford the fees for the latter on income, if that income went, it would be easier to fund the remaining years of the latter through savings.)

I have observed (in MN research fashion where anecdote rules) quite a high number of only children, and quite a number of older parents. But this may reflect Central London demographics. One child, two established careers and a largely paid off mortgage makes it easier to pay fees. I have also met a number of academics at parent events.

University professors probably don't make as much money as electricians nowadays, the only lecturer I know who sends his children to a fee paying school has a partner who makes multiples of his income annually.

Lots of private schools have closed over the last 20 years as state schools have improved and housing costs have risen.

Eastpoint, this is not the case in West London, where a number of preps have opened in recent years, and several new secondaries have opened or are due to open.

Demand is there as competition for places in existing schools is sky high.

granola it is not who is responsible, it is what.

The world has changed immeasurably and will continue to do so. Periods of economic stability are rare, and those who have a mindset expecting it are fools (and ought to read more history).

The world order constantly re-shapes. And whilst its obviously tough to swallow when its your little part that's moving along, it's a bit much to cry foul play, when you neither cared nor noticed when it was some other poor sod's turn.

bonsoir the middle class did indeed hugely expand, but in recent times its contraction is its most notable feature. Many jobs which the middle class have traditionally held are being/have been rendered obsolete by technology, and what's left is facing stiff global competition.

Thrift, which might be considered the most MC of traits is now almost pointless.

Education, a MC prize, is now offered to all and taken up by the majority, thus devaluing its currency.

So whilst there are more people than ever that identify as MC, the numbers that can access the same standard of living as the previous generation is tiny.

needsmore indeed.

And many existing schools have increased their numbers considerably.

You are (wildly) overstating your case, Shes, and you aren't best placed to give a lecture on economics. You need to be careful not to sound insufferably smug at being able to look down on those you felt looked down on you.