Have private schools changed

26 replies

ilkleymoorbartat · 12/10/2022 15:42

I went to a super selective all girls private school in central London around 20 years ago. Most parents were doctors or lawyers, but there was a lot of parents from many different backgrounds too. It was a pretty low key experience all in all. Obviously there were some super rich kids there, but I'd say the vast majority weren't. The thing that stands out now from reading these boards, is how intense the private school experience is now.

Multiple music lessons, sports teams on Saturdays, super intense homework session. Non of this really happened when I went. Again, obviously kids worked hard etc, but it sounds so much more pressurised and these days

OP posts:

FlawlessSquid · 02/04/2023 17:09

shouldntbeonhereagain · 27/03/2023 17:25

For context- I went (paid for by a full academic scholarship)to one of the ‘best’ academic private schools in the UK. I am married to a man who went to a failing comprehensive. I have siblings who went to major public schools, and will send their kids to the same ones. I also have siblings who send their children to average state schools. We have 4 children, and will not send them to independent schools. I am also a Secondary school teacher (in the state sector) and have taught in grammars and private schools.
Several posters on this thread state categorically that ‘abolishing private schooling would have no impact on the state sector’.
Whilst it would not remove all socio cultural and economic inequality, I think it is unlikely it would have no impact.
It seems pretty obvious that if your child attends a state school ( ie part of a nationally funded system), you will care more about that system, and do your best to support it. No one is suggesting that inequality would disappear. Noone is saying you should not want the best for your children, and use all your resources to help them achieve and enjoy life. It is pretty difficult to argue that elistist /selective institutions do not perpetuate a system where very narrow subsections of society intermingle primarily based on financial privilege. That is not a desirable basis on which to organise education, since education should be about much more than ensuring the financially privileged retain social captital and benefits for their own kind.
A couple of examples. Yes, people could still pay for tutors. But to say that having those children who are tutored in mainstream classrooms would make ‘no difference’ to the system isn’t convincing. Anyone who has taught, will know that a class dynamic in which bright /engaged children contribute makes a world of difference to outcomes across the board. (Which absolutely is not to say there are not bright engaged kids at state school already !)
2) Parents who are prepared to pay for school and have reaources to do so, would necessarily have more interest in, and incentive to financially and otherwise support and lobby for Government provision for State education. If education is a priority for families, their own skill sets and social capital would benefit a wider range of children (even given the catchment inequality factor) Most importantly, both weathly and less financially well off children would be exposed to a wider section of society. The private system diverts resources of all kinds - teaching /money /facilities from society. It is not a naive ‘lefty’ assertion, but common sense to see there would be a big imact for the better on state education.
In my opinion, there would also be benefits at large for the children who would otherwise have gone private !

Completely agree & a high quality state system is very important. Then more families would choose to stay in state sector, extra support for local schools, extra cash in economy rather than hefty school fees, everyone happier.

Flip

1 2