Please can we have a non-fighty thread about the advantages/disadvantages of independent schools....

[insertfeistynicknamehere]

I attended one myself but it was a long time ago.

Been looking round and keep seeing references to "dodgy independents"
what are these?

Where we live there are excellent state schools but I have no experience of this at secondary, it seems quite scary - DC attend a state village one-form entry school

My oldest is only 8 so it's a fair way off yet but still...
Promise am not a goady fucker btw.

They are not scout masters, however!

Coming back to schools - I agree with the poster upthread with the point that what being able to buy a private school education gets you is choice - and in particular a choice over which you have a measure of control.

So in places where the state sector admissions round is a forest of catchment areas and 11+ scores, you can have the certainty that there will be a choice of schools willing to take your money to educate your child.

You can also choose a school based on 'what is important to you' - good music, excellent sport, boarding or not boarding, pastoral care or academic aspiration, rather than primarily on 'where you live', which is the case for state options.

Yes, there is still an element of selection for some private schools, but in many cases, for most schools, this is fairly nominal.

The 'unspoken' choice that parents choosing private schools are also making is the removal of their child from the presence of those from certain socioeconomic and educational groups - those who are neglected, those who are very deprived, those who have SEN affecting behaviour or (usually) learning - though this is of course also a choice that is being made by parents making the choice, by moving into the catchment of, honeypot state schools, so it is not unique to the private sector.

round funnily enough my detailed knowledge of the scout structure in limited .

I have no doubt however, that young people can offer their time and skills for free and be if use to the scout movement.

My point was only that this sort of local 'community' based voluntary work is not the totality of what young people can do.

Contrary to what bertrand said, there are lots and lots of charities, cultural organisations and NGOs both in the UK and abroad who are seeking young people to work for free.

Some of these organisations work with the most vulnerable people on the globe.

Chazs, I agree with you that the OP needs to still down into her needs in a school.

I just wanted to counter the often rolled-out point that is quite often made on threads like these - that in state schools (blanket statement) it's 'uncool' to be clever and there's no aspiration or expectation of university. I didn't have that experience at all. I get that others did, but I don't like the blanket 'fact' nature of these opinions of state schools.

Neither of my parents went to university either.

I agree all schools are very different but it goes both ways in both sectors.

Eric - some organisations may be doing this work, but I'm not convinced it's their 18-year old volunteers who are doing most of the outreach work with the most vulnerable people on the planet!

Are you thinking of things like the VSO ICS scheme for 18-25 year olds?

And yet again, like a stuck record, I feel the need to point out that sweeping generalisations about schools in either sector are unnecessary and offensive... Why on earth anyone ever thinks it is helpful to ask about private v state schools when they haven't bothered even to look at and research their actual choices, yet, I don't know.

Because your own experience and your own sharings/stories and your own arguments are important. Thats why research or not its important to know whats your story is!

The thing is, the 'initial determiner' of whether one's aspirations include university or not is almost certainly parents. Certainly my siblings and myself, who had very different school experiences from 11 (from highly selective private school to 11-16 comp recently created from secondary modern) all ended up at Oxbridge primarily because that was our parents' expectation and experience.

So schools - private and state - where the majority of parents have had university experience will automatically have a basic assumption about the aspiration to go to university. Conversely, those where few parents have been to university, the basic assumption will be different and the role of the school in changing that will be much more important. This will, at a first approximation, mainly apply to state schools (I do appreciate that it is possible to achieve fee-paying-out-of-income levels of income without a university level of education, or without moving in circles where being a graduate is normal, but I suspect it is rarer).

So state schools with a high level of non-graduate parents have a really big role to play in raising aspirations of further education, which they may or may not fulfil well. On the other hand, few private schools have to worry greatly about this, or be particularly expert at it (I mean pushing pupils to at least consider university), because in the majority of cases parental expectation will already have done it for them.

So it's a bit like the 'school x gets good results because it selects its intake' - private schools may have a greater culture of children going on to university because they take in children whose parents expect them to go to university. The different perception of the financial commitment that university involves may also be a factor.

Yes, Greenleave, if you are actually talking about specific schools. NOT if you think you will get anything sensible from asking about private schools in general (which range from Eton to St Paul's to St Nowheresville, to Tinyandabouttogooutofbusinessville, to Greenfields school for scientologists...) and state schools in general (which range from super selective grammars, to grammars, to partially selective schools, to single sex comprehensives, to academic comprehensives, to high schools (a new name for non-selective schools in grammar school counties), to averagely performing comprehensives, to free schools, to failing schools...). You have to do a bit of research first and then ask intelligent and specific questions.

Knowing your own experiences and your own school choice and why someone who could easily afford private chose state instead or the otherway round, chose a state out of private. Yes, it could be more relevant if they were SW London postcodes. For someone who already has couple of offers then the questions could be more specific, for the one who could move house around for their child education like me, who could afford private and will need to make the decision in couple of years then the general questions like this one from Op is still of interest

Of interest, maybe, but not really of help. What do you expect to gain from it? To be able to exclude one sector entirely from your list of possibilities? If not, then guess what - you will eventually have to tie yourself down to looking at specific schools in specific places, and then someone's opinion of the benefits of an unnamed school in an unnamed place is not really going to be that helpful to you, and nor are their general opinions about sectors, as those opinions may not fit with reality when it comes to specific examples.

Had dinner with my friends tonight whose daughter had 4+and just got an offer from Wimbledon High junior. Had I read and known more abour London/uk education system before then I would have had different choice

If money is no object for you, then you might want to consider whether you want your child in a boarding school. You might also want to consider whether you want a single sex education. You might want to consider whether you want a religious education. Or a non-mainstream approach, like Steiner. Or whether you will need to find a special school, or a school specialising in dyspraxia or dyslexia. You might personally favour small "homely" schools, or large schools with lots of opportunities. Or an academically selective school. Or a school which is non-selective but has sets for most or all subjects. Or a specialist school... You could then shortlist schools fulfilling your criteria, some of which may be state schools and some private. You might not find any school which fits your wish list! You might not actually be that fussy, in which case, just look at the local options and you'll probably find something you are reasonably happy with...

Pros -
other children tend to have a good work ethic
The school can get rid of kids easily who don't behave
Class sizes tend to be smaller
Schools don't have to follow national curriculum so can be more creative
Facilities tend to be better
Decor tends to be better
Holidays are longer - 4 weeks At Christmas and Easter and 8 in the summer in some- so that kids coming from abroad can go home for a longer length of time.

Cons
Teaching can be poor
Small independents risk having to close if numbers drop, so they are more at the whim of parents. Therefore there can be a difficulty in taking a hard line on things if you are nervous about parents withdrawing their children and the school losing money
Holidays are longer so there could be a knock on effect for the family

And just because an awful lot of wealthy London parents are hugely neurotic and competitive about which schools they are applying to get their children into, it doesn't actually mean this is because their children's lives will otherwise be ruined by an awful educational experience, it just means they won't have as much to brag about at dinner parties if they don't get their first choice. If you are wealthy, you will find a way to avoid the educational disaster zones.

My eldest's non selective comprehensive has just had 21 Oxbridge offers. I'm fairly sure it's cool to be clever and to work hard and that the school has reasonable aspirations for their pupils.

That's incredible Having - the top public schools and super selective grammars like Judd etc don't get that many.

It's incredible isn't it? They're very pleased about it. They usually have about 15 or 16 and they've a fantastic Oxbridge prep programme. The majority of the rest will go to Russell group uni's although obviously some won't but it's a very aspirational school.

we have excellent state choices and i did very well at a comprehensive but have decided to pay for dd1 because:

• i saw the impact of lack of and declining budget in her (excellent state) primary school which got worse and worse from reception to yr6
• most (if not all) of the kids in the local excellent state comp have tutors
• i wanted to feel like i could leave her education to school, i don't want to have to micro-manage, be on top of it, buy the right text books, research and book the right tutor
• i wanted a selective intake where she wouldn't be left to it as a)her mum is on it and/or b) she'll be fine so we'll focus our attention on the other kids
• i wanted her to do sport with coaching, drama facilities, lots of extra curricular
• smaller classes with more demands on her
• facilities, text books (!)

i don't actually think she'll necessarily come out with higher GCSEs than she would have got at the local state school. however i do think she'll have a more enjoyable, less stressful, more managed journey through school. I hope she'll also find what she is really good at, where her passions lie. Despite my "good on paper" education I never found that out.

TeddTess, what a very good post.

You need to look at the schools where you live and what is important to you. In my experience, it is never as simple as state v private

Where I used to live (North London) the choice was between local comps that all seemed to becoming over regimented 'academies', a couple of high performing but pressured state 'super selectives' and a raft of (expensive) private schools, ranging from relaxed co-ed to high powered single sex.

Where I live now, we have lots of private prep schools, high performing selective but not super selective state grammars, upper schools, just out of area comps and ( fewer) private schools. The private schools are mainly used where DCs from the private prep schools did mnot pass the 11 plus.

For me the pros of private schools are freedom from the national curriculum, better facilities, smaller classes, being treated like a customer, not someone who should be grateful that my DCs have a place at the school, and (in the case of some prep schools) before and after school clubs. The cons are social ( not a huge mix) and financial (with 4 DCs private education is expensive).

For us, what worked best, was private prep schools (we found schools both in London and where we live now that the DCs loved and that had masses of after school activities) and ( mainly) state secondary schools. An important factor for us was that we didn't want DCs to only have friends whose parents could afford private schools.

Teddtess, notquire: excellent posts, thanks.

Its very hard at first for some "narrow minded" like myself to understand where people who passed an entrance test to a super selective grammar and didnt go instead chose a super selective(also super expensive) private. We know them well and my situation is very similar to them as the child is my daughter's best friend sister. I used to think that people only went to private because they didnt pass grammar(I used to live in Greenwich for few years and I think it was the case there and Blackheath and Kent). We have a circle of friends who some have children in secondary and the assumption has always been: the ones who go to private because their mother's English isnt good, she is lazy and the children didnt pass grammar school entrance. And the one has a grammar offers came out like a super star(all similar financial circumstances-okish/high paid foreigner worker/exparts. The assumption was the grammar kids will definitely go to the best Univ and that was all of us's final aim for the kids. Grammar school kids are guaranteed to do better, school has excellent facility and extra cirr are outstanding.

I have to admit where I live there is only 1 grammar school within 8 miles radius, Many excellent private. Surely if we go private people will think its because we failed grammar so we still wanted to try it. However having a child go to an outstanding primary I have the feel of state education system now, I think I know what to do now

It's a long thread so apologies if it's already been mentioned, but one advantage of the independent sector for us is that, when we realised we had found a good senior school for DD but the wrong one and DD was miserably, miserably unhappy, it was relatively easy to get a place at another very different but equally good school.

I think TeddTess has hit the nail on the head and summed up my thoughts.

The extra activities are significant and real. The football coaching that DS receives at school is very good; the quality of the cricket coaches is even better. That's the difference, and is true of other areas away from sport. I say 'real' because looking at the local great reputation comp on paper you could think why on earth spend the money!? They appear to have similar extra activities etc etc. But they don't, in reality. They play a fraction the number of fixtures that DS has. It's true at others I have looked at also... yes the website talks about rugby and football teams etc etc... but there is no decent coaching, few fixtures, crap pitches etc...

or there are plenty of fixtures but only one team.

The (state school) team may often win the league but is full of kids coached outside school - the school is just benefiting from the effort/time investment/£ spent of the kids/parents. The school doesn't grow the talent and there is no depth to the sport/drama beyond the superstars.

One 'con' (or maybe just 'one thing to recognise and accept', as for many it won't necessarily be a 'con') is that it has a long term impact on the way your children see the world.

You can ameliorate this to some extent, especially if your children are reasonably inquiring and thoughtful.