Why do people openly criticise decisions to send your kids to a private school?

[scotmum1977]

I sent my Son to a private school (Glasgow) last year for various reasons and it's working out really well. There is the cost but we just do without expensive holidays etc. I can't think of a better gift for my children than a good education. I was so surprised at how offended people get when they ask which school he attends. They think it's ok to criticise you openly and make bitchy comments here and there. Surely how you spend your own money is your own business. Anyone else have this experience?

That is interesting. I just looked at the data for the 2 schools again. With the provisional 2018 figures now available, the Progress8 for the grammar school is 0.60, while the score for the comp has improved , but is still negative.

But I am sure that you appreciate that is just a comparison between those 2 schools, not 2 systems.

Also, is it a 'true comp' - ie unaffected by selective schools nearby - or effectively a secondary modern - more able pupils disproportionately attending the local grammar? Even the comp i am referring to is not really a 'terue one, as it is in a particallly selective county, though the percentage of more able students it loses to grammars is relatively small.

What are the % PP and % SEN at the two schools you are comparing? Are they comparable - ie are the cohorts relatively well-matched in terms of numbers of SEN pupils and socio-economic backgrounds of the pupils?

herecomesthesun
What is the confidence interval on those numbers?

And by the way, if its a 25% grammar, the other school is NOT a Comp (because its top two sets are at the other school)

My point on the SEN and PP - if a grammar school had the national average number of SEN pupils and of PP students, identical to the secondary modern (which might call itself a comp) serving the same area, and not only got better raw results than the secondary modern, but also higher progress across the whole ability range it served, I'd be reasonably impressed.

However, if it has a tenth of the number of PP children and SEN pupils - which is not uncommon - and these are disproportionately over-represented at the secondary modern, with all the additional support (both academic and pastoral) that would imply, then I am less impressed.

The catchments are different, but a few of the brightest kids might have gone to the grammar out of catchment.

There are also quite a few private schools locally, though I think the reasons for choosing private are complex, and they aren't selective schools.

Grammar: This school's Progress 8 score is 0.60
Confidence interval 0.39 to 0.82

Comp This school's
Progress 8 score is -0.03
Confidence interval -0.20 to 0.14

This set of results don't give a breakdown by ability.

The difference was more marked last year.

people should be treated equally, you shouldn't be able to pay to have better than anyone else.

But surely that would have been true had you been in state school too?

There are kids in breakfast club or with childminders early in the day, not picked up til after 6.

The divide between rich and poor is there in state schools, more so than in private schools. There are wealthy kids and poor kids in our local state school. The less well off are in the park after school whilst the wealthier ones are ferried to ballet classes and music lessons and French club or private tutors. If you struggled because you had more, it would have been more visible at state school. That your parents didn't spend time with you is not the fault of your private education.

I'm working through the 16/17 A Level tables at the moment (17/18 come out in a few weeks)

Still cannot find ANY selective school with more than four FSM per cohort that sent a kid to Oxbridge (de minimis 25%)
but I'll keep looking

%SEN / Pupils eligible for FSM in the last 6 years (you want to Attendance and Pupil Characteristics tabs on the DfE website)?

National averages are 10.5% SEN / 29.1% PP.

cantkeep
Oh I've got the columns up - all 2500 centres of A Level education - but the census table and the destinations table do not line up properly and I'm rubbish with databases so I play in spreadsheets

Talkin

Hogwash? Pfft. I don’t think so. If you genuinely think educational research isn’t dominated by ideology I think we’ll just have to disagree.

This is not bench science.

Talkin,

Oh, I know that you could do this in moments if you knew the schools - but interested in how comparable the schools herecomes is comparing are, using the tools that those of us who DON'T love spreadsheets use! It's as i said upthread - I find it irritating when people make comparisons that are potentially a function of intake, not the school (or rather where the intakes are so different that the potential influence of intake on results is so significant as to make comparisons meaningless)

Ruffina, however, it obviously isn't helpful to dismiss all studies as 'not bench science' and rely on hunch and personal anecdote instead .

As there are various different ideologies in play, surely it is possible to locate a good peer-reviewed study written by someone with a competing ideology to set against the reference that talkin has given?

Ruffina
If you genuinely think educational research isn’t dominated by ideology I think we’ll just have to disagree
You said there is loads of research that shows Grammars work.
Are you now admitting that you were wrong?
If there was evidence, do you really think it would not be published ?

I don't think it's a ethical thing to do in terms of our responsibility to society. If people stopped using private schools then there would be more pressure to improve the state school system. Even at a really young age it just struck me as incredibly unfair. The private school I was at had a lot of "old boys" as teachers, really creepy and weird individuals who wouldn't be teaching in the state school system but get away with it in the insular world of the private school. I don't think that the education was better than that at my state primary school, certainly not worth the money that was spent (wasted) on it.

I think fundamentally it comes down to a belief that society works better for everyone when things are more equal, and private school is a big hurdle in perpetuating inequality.

There's been alot of talk about jealousy on the this thread. Honestly, hand on heart, even if I won the lottery I would not send my daughter to a private school. Partially because of my political beliefs, and partly because its a waste of money in my experience.

cantkeep
I was doing a data analysis for work on KS2 but the same kids get older which clearly showed that all other things being equal, FSM6 correlates very closely with outcomes for the whole school
as does unfunded SEN
both negatively by the way

So any school which manages to NOT select unfunded SEN pupils or FSM pupils (especially those that are both)
will get better results
than the school that has to educate those children

so the kids at the selective school will get marginally better results in academic subjects
but was it worth the years of stress and tutoring ?

can'tkeepawayforever yes of course I know that levels have gone I'm using L5 as an easily recognisable description of attainment at primary level. For grammar school entry DC were expected to be working at a high L5 to get into our school. Only a low number of DC on FSM were attaining high L5. The assessment measures may have changed but absolutely nothing in the substance has.

No, sorry, I'm not linking to data about my own school but if you look at the top performing grammars, what they do for which demographic and what their ethos is, you'll see what grammars with good leadership can do. Th statistics from the DfE is a relatively blunt tool. I've dealt with the statistics from the top achieving grammars. There are some very poor performing grammars around - not a model to copy.

Thats Talkin.

That definitely correlates with 'on the ground' experience - at least partly because such children are never 'just' their SEN or FSM status, but come with lots of surrounding social, emotional and practical issues as well, which all take their toll on teaching and learning staff and time. Also, of course, because of public perception of schools with fewer poor children as being 'better' and 'naicer'.

Interesting to see that the data backs up that daily experience. If the effect could be quantified, it would be really interesting to see the correction factor applied to school league tables of results....

Years of stress and tutoring?!!!!

People shouldn't be rude about your choices. BUT fwiw, I went to private school for a year and it was awful (I got a scholarship). Big drug problem and very sexist. A blind eye was turned to bullying. I went back to my old school after a year as it was so bad.

Szechan sounds extremely similar to my experience.

goodbye

if you look at the top performing grammars, what they do for which demographic and what their ethos is

As a top performing grammar that I looked up for a similar thread some time ago has

cantkeep
If the effect could be quantified, it would be really interesting to see the correction factor applied to school league tables of results....
The research and data analysis is underway ... a couple more years till publication

goodbyestranger
There are some very poor performing grammars around - not a model to copy.
There are only 164 - so you reckon some of them are no good.
tee hee

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it as I haven’t read the whole thread (sorry!) but the book Posh Boys summarises all the reasons why I don’t agree with private schools. It is worth a read if you are interested in understanding why people’s reactions to your choice aren’t universally positive.

You said there is loads of research that shows Grammars work.
Are you now admitting that you were wrong?

No I didn’t. You just made that up!

But you said:

For a short window between 1948 and around 1975 it did
after that it became an arms race of the sharp elbowed
before that it did not exist

So you accept that grammars did provide a good, accessible education for the “short window” of nearly 30 years, before the system was dismantled.

My apologies Ruffina, it was goodbyestranger who wrote at 20:25
TP there are plenty of statistics to show that FSM pupils do better in grammars. You can trawl the reports yourself.
And I'm still waiting for either of you to produce any evidence to support your opinions

So you accept that grammars did provide a good, accessible education for the “short window” of nearly 30 years, before the system was dismantled.
Correlation is not causation
There were so many variables changing at the time

• the start of the NHS
• school leaving age changes
• thousands of widowed mothers investing in their kids
• the baby boom

that one part of the tripartate system cannot take the credit for all the other things that went on