Has this board always been dominated by questions about private schools?

[minifingerz]

... and the Education board?

I'm sure I remember this board being relevant to most parents even as recently as last year.

Wouldn't it make sense to have a separate board for private education, rather than having these ones silted up with queries about fee paying schools, given that it's of no relevance to 93% of UK parents?

Mumtrying
"If you are questioning the selection criteria of the various schools mentioned on that thread, what fair selection criteria would you suggest a school uses in the event of oversubscription, wealth perhaps which is what all indies/privates use?"

"Which of my posts did you read that suggested I was questioning the selection criteria?"

You say in the last line of paragraph I've quoted that wealth is what independent schools use in the event of over subscription.
Re. fees, AnotherNewt is right. I meant that each school sets fees - and these fees vary from school to school - which are the same for all parents except those whose children have a bursary or scholarship.
I don't know if all independent schools have an entrance exam but they don't select pupils by offering places to the highest bidders.

Dapplegrey1 Tue 23-Feb-16 19:36:20 AnotherNewt is right. I meant that each school sets fees - and these fees vary from school to school and why do you think some schools have higher fees than others?

Clavinova Tue 23-Feb-16 16:45:01 semi-selective which allocates 15-20% of places to out of county children but only guarantees 10% of places for local children even though there is a sink school in the same postcode)

Can I ask which school this is?

Mumtrying " and why do you think some schools have higher fees than others?"
I don't know. Boarding will obviously cost more than day schools. I think I'm right in saying that Millfield offer quite a few sports scholarships so the fees are higher to pay for these.
I also don't know why fees have increased well above inflation in the past ten years.

Mumtrying "and why do you think some schools have higher fees than others?"

Different costs of almost everything in different parts of the country. Different levels of staff numbers. More / less facilities to upkeep. More expensive staff - eg a cheap cricket coach or a senior County Age Group coach. Also some schools include more things in their fees compared with others - eg lunch may be included, school trips etc.

Fees have increased above inflation because costs have increased above inflation - staffing & pensions in particular. State schools have found costs rising also but on their budget they are forced to make cuts, swap in cheaper teachers, increase number of pupils without proportionately increasing staff.

I have never really understood how the sums add up for the hypothetical situation of abolishing private schools as a means to reduce inequality. The unpalatable argument would be that the state school sector actually benefits from the status quo of private schools. Even excluding the effect on reduction in tax savings from private school places (plus a loss in GDP including from overseas pupils and students) the government spending powers for the UK state school budget is certainly not magically going to increase to accommodate all those extra pupils. The net result is that as well as the problems of physical space (with requirement for capital costs of building projects) the spending per state pupil will be even less than it is now.
Should that be remedied by strongly encouraging forcing voluntary donations to the state school for example by those parents who would be able to afford private school fees for at least one DC? If those donations were to the individual school those would replicate the inequalities of private schools. If the donations were redistributed nationally that would be fairer but no guarantee that it would translate to improvements in state school education particularly in view of the cost of a further administrative layer to manage them.

It is also very likely that ex private school parents would simply transfer the inequality to 'out of school hours' programmes to top up their DCs education and extracurricular opportunities as many MC parents do now for their state educated DCs
If there is an obvious solution I would love to hear it.

Agree with you OP, but only because private schools wind me up so much that at least if there was a whole board dedicated to them I could hide it.

Agree with you OP, but only because private schools wind me up so much that at least if there was a whole board dedicated to them I could hide it.

Agree with you OP, but only because private schools wind me up so much that I would love to be able to hide an entire board about them

Whoops, didn't think first post had worked! Bloody app.

The idea that forcing the movers and shakers into the state system would improve it is optimistic.

For one thing most private school parents are not movers and shakers.

Having money doesn't mean you have any influence on a macro level. Or that you would have the time, energy or inclination to make an impact on a micro level.

And even if that were the case, why assume these parents would shake and move in a way you approve of?

My years on MN tell me that what I want from a school is very different to what mini or bert want. If I had my way you might be even less happy than you are now! Be careful what you wish for .

EricNorthmanSucks Wed 24-Feb-16 06:32:09 For one thing most private school parents are not movers and shakers

So are you sayig that most movers and shakers (particularly in the political and legal professions) have DCs in state education (and I don't mean the super selective state schools)?

what I want from a school is very different to what mini or bert want.

What do you want from a school if you are not interested in your DC getting a good education?

Eric I agree. IME many private school parents choose the private system despite it being a stretch for their income precisely because they have neither the time nor the inclination to have a major input into the education of their DC. They want to trust the school to provide the education and extracurricular opportunities; they don't want to be educators. They would therefore not have the time or expertise to mediate school improvement but more likely they would add to demands on teachers' time.

No mum I don't think most movers and shakers have DC in state school. That's not what I said.

As for a good education; that is highly subjective. What I consider a good education for my DC will not necessarily accord with your views.

sendsummer this is true. Whilst I have always enjoyed supporting my DC's education on an individual level, I do not wish to be involved on the decision and policy making process of the school. Or at least not regularly.

I want those decisions and policies to largely be in line with my wishes. I don't want to have to fight for them. So I choose a school where we see (mostly) eye to eye.

sendsummer Wed 24-Feb-16 04:25:43 I have never really understood how the sums add up

You do realise that an increasing number of state schools are now seriously struggling financially as the "sums don't add up". To me this suggests that private education doesn't "make the sums add up" it simply hides, and as your posts suggests, excuses the fact that sufficient funds are not forethcoming for state schools.

I think you have a very strange way of looking at things if you think that the private education sector is a good thing because it remidies the failings of the state education sector (which it doesn't it simply allows people to underplay the problem).

sendsummer Wed 24-Feb-16 04:25:43 Even excluding the effect on reduction in tax savings from private school places

Not what you mean by this point tbh

Should that be remedied by strongly encouraging forcing voluntary donations to the state school for example by those parents who would be able to afford private school fees for at least one DC?

Oh, that's right your DCs attend a private school. Do private schools not ask for annual voluntary donations/contributions? It might interest you to know that this already happens and some schools do put pressure on parents to pay up.

schoolsweek.co.uk/parents-group-says-no-to-cold-call-for-donations/

If those donations were to the individual school those would replicate the inequalities of private schools.

Again, is already happening.

ex private school parents would simply transfer the inequality to 'out of school hours' programmes to top up their DCs education and extracurricular opportunities as many MC parents do now for their state educated DCs

Really so you think a lot of ex private school parents would give up their high paying job to taxi their DCs around?

mum huge swathes of DC at private school have a SAHM or a nanny.

No one will need to give up a job to ensure their DC attend after school activities.

You would also see a huge increase in expensive residential holiday courses. Most parents could not afford or access them.

Really so you think a lot of ex private school parents would give up their high paying job to taxi their DCs around?

Goodness, you're thinking very small. Do you honestly think that, in the event of every independent school in the country being wiped out overnight, the only option for parents suddenly finding themselves 20/30/40k richer would be to give up their jobs? No. Such families would employ people to provide the educational services they had lost. For many it would be a case of flying people in rather than taxiing children around.

I'm still, to be honest, worrying about Bert's assertion yesterday that families who send children to independent schools have little understanding of the way the system impacts on the rest of us. I suspect it is an acute understanding of how the system impacts society as a whole that prompts some families to take the decisions they do.

I for one am all for a separate private schools topic/section. It's so hideously dull when an OP asks a specific private school question and the usual private bashing posters congregate to (1) bash or (2) say but have you considered all your state options. Yawn

Indeed if those posters who hate the thought of private schools so much spent half their time and energy fighting for better state education they might be happier and less chippy.

MumTrying are you equating the existence of private schools with insufficient funding per state pupil? I am not sure of your economic argument for that (if any).

BTW individual donations in state schools go to the schools the pupils are at. As I said above extending that to all patients who can afford to pay donations increases inequality by favouring MC areas and if enforced would be an extra tax.

This is all going a bit round in circles now.

One point I would like to add is that not all private school parents are the same so don't tarnish them with the same brush or especially the same financial clout.

I know a wide range of parents at the 2 different schools my sons have attended from people with £200m in the bank to rich ex-footballers to at the other end of the financial spectrum those propped up in the school by 100% Bursary and a whole mix in between of people that can afford it comfortably to those struggling each time the bill comes through.

SAHD I have bored myself silly on MN endlessly reiterating that the very wealthiest independent schools (the ones that make people angriest) are likely to contain a relatively high proportion of children who would have no access to the lovely and desirable state schools that posters reference as a reason to denigrate the paying of fees - because their parents could never afford to move into those catchments.

I agree with PP that private school parents would divert the money spent on fees to supporting their DC if private schools were abolished. If my two didn't attend private school I would be able to buy in a significant level of extra help, if I chose. I expect there would be a plethora of homework clubs etc set up with substantial entry fees, tutoring, children being ferried around to sports clubs by nannies.

My brother went to a private school over 30 years ago simply because the local secondary school at that time was dire, my brother was easily led, and my parents genuinely believed that he'd get dragged down in the allocated secondary school (in those days before choice!).

My parents weren't rich, or "movers and shakers". Father worked in a grocery shop, mother was a secretary. To pay for his private education, we went without holidays, used buses or walked because we couldn't afford a car, and had a generally very frugal lifestyle. My parents couldn't afford a private education for him, but did it anyway and scrimped and saved to make it happen, including my mother getting an evening job on top of her full time day job!

Just goes to show, how things never change. Despite all the hot air, a generation or two later, it's still the same. Some schools are still crap, and some parents value a good education for their kids and are willing to find the money to pay for it.

Rather than arguing about private education, why don't people put their efforts into actually improving the state offering which is very patchy to say the least.

And even if that were the case, why assume these parents would shake and move in a way you approve of?

Good point.

I am hardly a "mover and shaker," but I've had a fair amount of influence at my children's state primary because, relative to the average parent there, I'm more educated, more articulate, better informed and with the time to devote to pursuing my own agenda. The things I have wanted and advocated are definitely not what all parents want. I've wanted a faster pace, a bit more homework, and a more ambitious curriculum. I can assure you there are many parents at the school who don't feel those things would be appropriate for their children.

My oldest is now in a selective private day school for secondary. I leave that school alone completely. I don't have any complaints, I don't think I can do it better, I just write the cheques.