Private schools, times a changing?

[GT3Manthey]

Watching this thread makes me realise how glad i am to be a few months away of no more school fees!

That said i don't regret sending both my kids in the least . Its been ( i feel )) a great benefit for both of them and also we've kept them both very grounded.

My Son now works full time and daughter off to uni in sep with 4 conditional offers so far.

I'm not suggesting all kids need private education but i feel its worked for our two.

[Magnum 475]

NomduJour said:

cheesejunkie said:

"It's open provided you pay". What if you can't afford to but have twice the ability of some privileged fkwit with rich parents? The fkwit gets the position, the one with the ability doesn't. Do you want to be a promoter of that? I think you don't but your arguments mean you do.

Two of the brightest people in my year at school were on assisted places, others on scholarships and bursaries. Grammar schools provided a route for others. You’d have to pass common entrance in any case.

Exactly this. It doesn't matter how wealthy your parents are, there are very, very, few independent schools that don't have a requirement based on common entrance. It's not strictly 'pass or fail' - but schools will set a standard that has to be achieved in common entrance exams if you want to get in.

The only exception I can think of to this is Wrekin College, who will take anyone at age 11 (not 13) - but they specialise in getting the best out of kids who probably wouldn't do well in common entrance.

[Louis Balfour]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Louis Balfour said:

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

Unquestionably. But it couldn't happen because independent schools have a different cost base, meaning that prices would not be where you suggest, and there is no way whatsoever that any government would allow it to happen. It would result in the "ghettoisation" of schools that dealt with disruptive children.

This model used to exist until the 1970s/80s. They were called 'minor public schools'.

Weren't minor public schools just not major public schools? I don't think it was a different model, was it?

What we are discussing is independent schools, really, not public schools.

[ooid]

Open day booked for Merton Court school, been told quite decent..

[ClaphamGT3]

Louis Balfour said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Louis Balfour said:

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

Unquestionably. But it couldn't happen because independent schools have a different cost base, meaning that prices would not be where you suggest, and there is no way whatsoever that any government would allow it to happen. It would result in the "ghettoisation" of schools that dealt with disruptive children.

This model used to exist until the 1970s/80s. They were called 'minor public schools'.

Weren't minor public schools just not major public schools? I don't think it was a different model, was it?

What we are discussing is independent schools, really, not public schools.

In one sense yes but, historically, there was a much wider distribution of quality and price point between the 'great' public schools as defined in the 1868 Public Schools Act and other fee paying schools. Over time, more and more of those schools were picked up by successive PSAs until, eventually, membership of HMC came to define a Public School. The requirement for investment to drive competitiveness and the withdrawal of public subsidy through the Assisted Place and Direct Grant schemes meant that all fee-paying schools had to increase their fees to the extent that there haven't really been 'cheap' fee paying schools for over twenty years. .

[mikey_b]

Luke. said:

Where's your eldest starting? My son started at Tunbridge Wells Boys Grammar in September and loves it. Had him down for Sutton Valance too, but so glad we didn't have to go the private route.

Mine is going to Weald (she’s a girl, obviously). We did very much like Tunbridge Wells Girls Grammar, but we’re just a bit too far away (wrong side of Tonbridge for it really) and it has a notoriously small catchment.

Edited by mikey_b on Wednesday 22 March 22:27

[DKL]

gareth h said:

Mine went to Dauntseys outside Devizes, we were very please with it.

Thanks. We're aware of Dauntseys but WL is quite a trek to do every day.

[Louis Balfour]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Louis Balfour said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Louis Balfour said:

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

Unquestionably. But it couldn't happen because independent schools have a different cost base, meaning that prices would not be where you suggest, and there is no way whatsoever that any government would allow it to happen. It would result in the "ghettoisation" of schools that dealt with disruptive children.

This model used to exist until the 1970s/80s. They were called 'minor public schools'.

Weren't minor public schools just not major public schools? I don't think it was a different model, was it?

What we are discussing is independent schools, really, not public schools.

In one sense yes but, historically, there was a much wider distribution of quality and price point between the 'great' public schools as defined in the 1868 Public Schools Act and other fee paying schools. Over time, more and more of those schools were picked up by successive PSAs until, eventually, membership of HMC came to define a Public School. The requirement for investment to drive competitiveness and the withdrawal of public subsidy through the Assisted Place and Direct Grant schemes meant that all fee-paying schools had to increase their fees to the extent that there haven't really been 'cheap' fee paying schools for over twenty years. .

The school that my children attend is a HMC school, is boarding, but it isn't a Public School in any sense that people normally understand. It is an independent school, though, and a very old one.

[ettore]

An interesting take on this debate:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/private-educat...

[cheesejunkie]

Magnum 475 said:

NomduJour said:

cheesejunkie said:

"It's open provided you pay". What if you can't afford to but have twice the ability of some privileged fkwit with rich parents? The fkwit gets the position, the one with the ability doesn't. Do you want to be a promoter of that? I think you don't but your arguments mean you do.

Two of the brightest people in my year at school were on assisted places, others on scholarships and bursaries. Grammar schools provided a route for others. You’d have to pass common entrance in any case.

Exactly this. It doesn't matter how wealthy your parents are, there are very, very, few independent schools that don't have a requirement based on common entrance. It's not strictly 'pass or fail' - but schools will set a standard that has to be achieved in common entrance exams if you want to get in.

The only exception I can think of to this is Wrekin College, who will take anyone at age 11 (not 13) - but they specialise in getting the best out of kids who probably wouldn't do well in common entrance.

It does matter how wealthy your parents are. If they’re prepared to pay.

There’s a whole industry built on that simple fact.

FFS, I’m not against people looking after their own but fooling yourself into thinking it’s all fair, nope, not going to fall for that lie.

[gareth h]

DKL said:

gareth h said:

Mine went to Dauntseys outside Devizes, we were very please with it.

Thanks. We're aware of Dauntseys but WL is quite a trek to do every day.

Not sure where WL is, but they’ve got quite a good bus service.

[brickwall]

ettore said:

An interesting take on this debate:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/private-educat...

Interesting article. Don’t agree with all of it, but for me this is an important point shaping the debate today:

Article said:

Before they got greedy, and fatuously obsessed with vanity building projects and courting Chinese and oligarch money, the private schools did at least impart those codes to the children of the mildly prosperous, not only the rich. Back in the 1980s, the then Headmasters’ Conference listed occupations which could be expected to pay enough for private education: there were about 20 of them, including GPs, country solicitors, army officers etc. The latest list is down to about five: banking, insurance, real estate, entrepreneurs and more banking.

Private schools have raised their fees so much over the last 30-40 years they are seen as only accessible to a global elite - and consequently there will be much less sympathy for their cause should a government decide to change stance.

[DKL]

gareth h said:

DKL said:

gareth h said:

Mine went to Dauntseys outside Devizes, we were very please with it.

Thanks. We're aware of Dauntseys but WL is quite a trek to do every day.

Not sure where WL is, but they’ve got quite a good bus service.

Thanks. I'll look at the bus but going to take even longer I'd imagine. We are about 40 mins for West Lavington (Dauntseys).

[B0bajobbob]

brickwall said:

Private schools have raised their fees so much over the last 30-40 years they are seen as only accessible to a global elite - and consequently there will be much less sympathy for their cause should a government decide to change stance.

Much as I'd love to think I am part of a global elite that simply isn't the case. I am simply reasonably well off and prioritise this over other expenditure.

[NomduJour]

cheesejunkie said:

It does matter how wealthy your parents are. If they’re prepared to pay.

There’s a whole industry built on that simple fact.

FFS, I’m not against people looking after their own but fooling yourself into thinking it’s all fair, nope, not going to fall for that lie.

So bring back grammar schools.

Next you’ll be telling us that rich people have bigger houses, better holidays and nicer cars.

[Jonathan27]

cheesejunkie said:

Countdown said:

purplepolarbear said:

Would there be interest in the following type of private school:

Fees at a level of about what the state pays (class sizes and levels of other equipment would obviously be similar to state schools as there is a similar amount of money).
Selective (maybe for the top 50%) and strict on discipline, expelling those that disrupt others.

The (low) fees would mean that only parents with some money and keen to support their children progressing would go to the school (those from problem families would be excluded). Parents on slightly above average incomes could send their children.

This would all mean children wouldn't be brought down by others less keen or able to learn (but there may be problems with the effect on society in general).

You'd be faced with exactly the same situation that State schools are faced with. You would need a high volume of student (in order to achieve critical mass), you'd have a high ratio of students/teachers which would affect attainment levels. To look at it another way - why would parents pay £7k per annum to go private when they could get the same results from sending their kids to State school?

Yip, tinkering at the edges wouldn't work in my view. You have a single system for all or you don't.

The pros and cons of selective education are well known. It worked for me but having a second tier pretty much guarantees leaving some students behind.

Since the reality is that we don't have a single system and it's not going to go away how to deal with that is a good question. Getting rid of academic selection and grammar schools is a nice idea in theory, in practice it has resulted in post code house inflation in catchment areas near good schools. I don't claim to know the solution but I can see the problems.

A better system would be what we have here in Ireland. You can send your kids to a state school, and if you do, the sate will give that school X Euro per year to educate the child. Or, if you want, you can send them to a private school, the state will still give the school X Euro per year, after all you've paid in to the system and the state has accounted for the cost of educating all children. You then pay the private school a top up sum, to provide the funding that they want.

The biggest flaw with the UK system is that the state will pay 100% of your Childs education if you go the state route, but 0% if you wish to go private.

[Jonmx]

I went to prep and private school as the son of an HGV driver and housewife. Tin baths in front of the fire, no TV and lived in charity shop clothes. Thankfully a Grandfather left his RAF pension and some other money that just about covered the fees. I'm 40 now and still speak to folks from not dissimilar backgrounds who sacrifice a heck of a lot to get their kids into a private school.
On a personal level, the local state system has no suitable SEN provision for my son (EHCP at 3 for Autism & Cystic Fibrosis) so we've had him in a local prep school and the LA has paid for a one on one to support him in class. An oft unreported fact is how much the state system relies on the private sector to cover for their lack of SEN provision. The State cannot afford for the abolition of private schools on any level. Just one example in this recent article. "Wandsworth council spends about £12million a year on sending kids to private schools outside the borough, due to a lack of places in Wandsworth."
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/primary-school-set-...

[brickwall]

B0bajobbob said:

brickwall said:

Private schools have raised their fees so much over the last 30-40 years they are seen as only accessible to a global elite - and consequently there will be much less sympathy for their cause should a government decide to change stance.

Much as I'd love to think I am part of a global elite that simply isn't the case. I am simply reasonably well off and prioritise this over other expenditure.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not for individual parents. What matters is how it appears.

The reality is £25k/year (or more) per child is seen as so far out of reach to anyone on anything resembling a ‘normal’ income that it is put firmly in the category of “only accessible to the 1%”

As you say, there will be plenty of parents who make sacrifices to afford it, or who can afford it but don’t see themselves as especially wealthy.

[GT3Manthey]

Thought I’d drop in and mention we didn’t privately educate our kids as juniors as we had a great local church school.

I know lots start their kids in private school as juniors in the hope they make grammar but grammar places are now fiercely fought so ask yourself how likely that is.

Our kids have had a very grounded schooling I feel having not always been privately schooled.

It’s a different way of doing things but I can say it’s worked for our kids .

A friend of mine has decided that if his kids don’t make grammar then they’ll go to the local comp but I think that might be quite a shock for them.

Thought worth mentioning for those now wondering how to approach things

[okgo]

I don’t know whether it’s just a London thing but the places for many of the paid schools seem hard fought too! Alleyn’s which is one we will try for is hugely oversubscribed.

Must admit I hadn’t also appreciated just how many of the paid options are single sex. Still on the fence with how I feel about that.