Private schools, times a changing?
Discussion
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.
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.
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 f
kwit 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.kwit 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.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.
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. 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).
What we are discussing is independent schools, really, not public schools.
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. 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).
What we are discussing is independent schools, really, not public schools.
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
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. 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).
What we are discussing is independent schools, really, not public schools.
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.kwit 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.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.
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.
ettore said:
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.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.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff