Charter vs Private school

[Otta]

For those that would suggest removing the sibling rule, imagine having two primary aged kids (don't care about secondary, any secondary aged kid without a SEN should be able to travel to school independently) in two different schools a couple of miles apart which started at the same time. It just wouldn't be workable, especially for those that have no local support from extended family or a good circle of friends.

I know it's a system that gets abused, but at the end of the day, entitled arseholes with find a way to play any system.

I say this as someone who is very much relying on the sibling rule to get my second daughter in to the same (not overly popular) primary as her sister, having moved to a different borough. But in my defence, we sent child number one to the closest school to home, having no idea that we'd be moving within 6 months of her starting.

[flocker spotter]

fortified Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I always think the 'catchment' thing should mean

> 'within a catchment, but not proximity priority'.

> That would stop some of the silliness, because you

> couldn't be guaranteed a place by plonking

> yourselves down in a house on the school's

> doorstep.

Do you mean a defined geographical catchment? How can that possibly work? The number of children eligible for places could vary massively from year to year. Places on proximity exists because schools have a defined number of places per year. Changes to intake are part of a much wider plan and funded accordingly. It is a logical system - and probably the fairest.

[landsberger]

That's the theory confusedbyitall, the reality is quite different.

[landsberger]

In terms of a defined catchment areas, you have to be really careful with this, and check the implications, pros and cons of each.

There was a secondary school in Ealing that operated this, and the 'catchment area' missed out (and completely surrounded) a sizeable Council estate, because the school (cough) 'wanted a balanced intake' and 'there was already a school on the estate'. So, nothing to do with socially engineering your intake to boost your results, then ? Unsurprisingly, the Adjudicator disallowed it.

[Taliah]

What's the big hype about charter

And to compare to any privAte schools in the area it had no reason to be in the same sentence When looking for a school go at break times and end off school travel with children and that will tell you everything you need to know to make sure your child will be happy in there most valuable years at the end of the day I don't think private is best but have a look there is more than charter I have worked in schools I have 3 grown up children so this is not an issue f me sorry for rant

[Sol]

I know there are good state secondaries in Dulwich but I am wondering why none of them are on these lists:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/archive/00354/LONDON_354976a.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/10246791/A-level-results-2013-results-from-400-state-schools.html

[brezzo]

The A level data is not reliable - there are a number of schools with an A*-B rate higher than 38% that don't show on Telegraph list.

Regarding gcse data from 2012, big clue on titles -most of these schools are grammars and hence highly selective. To get a better picture, if you go to DFEE website and search for Charter results compared to similar schools nationally, they come 4th. Can't speak for other local schools, but I would think they were also pretty good

[landsberger]

Sol Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I know there are good state secondaries in Dulwich

> but I am wondering why none of them are on these

> lists:

>

> http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/multimedia/arc

> hive/00354/LONDON_354976a.pdf

>

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/leaguetables/

> 10246791/A-level-results-2013-results-from-400-sta

> te-schools.html

To be honest, I would look further than 2 Conservative Party supporting newspapers when looking for a 'good school'. They are much more likely to choose a school that reflects adherence to their particular philosophy rather than anything else.

ALL Southwark Secondaries are either Ofsted "Good" or "Outstanding" rated.

[Sol]

Great! Thank you for the info; will look at other sources

[Curmudgeon]

There is a big difference between selective schools who cherry pick on academic ability, family background and wealth, lack of SEN etc and State schools which accommodate all children no matter their ability and background.

I know which kind of school I prefer to send my children to and I know that they will achieve as bright individuals and develop friendships with a wide range of people.

You have to pick the right type of school for your children, your family and your political beliefs and then select the ones that you like and stand a chance of getting into.

[landsberger]

Amen, Curmudgeon. There are a few aspirational primaries (strangely enough, mainly academies) around who encourage parents to apply for schools their kids don't stand a cat in hell's chance of getting into.

[LondonMix]

This isn't correct. State pupils with the same grades as privately educated pupils outperform them at uni. This suggests that the state pupils are brighter than private pupils with similar results. It's clear it's the private education that is allowing privately educated pupils to do well on A-levels which gives them access to better universities than their equally bright state peers like for like.

There are many valid criticisms that one can levy against private education but failing to provide value add in educational terms isn't one of them.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/jun/06/universities-urged-lower-entry-grades-comprehensive-school-pupils

Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> brezzo

>

> I agree it is difficult to directly compare

> private schools academic results data with state

> schools results as the private schools do not

> publish value added data.

>

> But I think you are wrong to say comparing the

> data from the gifted and talented group at charter

> to the whole year group for the independent

> schools in this area is skewiff. If anything it is

> more likely to be the other way round as the

> independent schools are selecting a small group on

> a mainly academic basis from an area comprising at

> least the whole of South London if not further (

> See TImes report in Feb saying this year Dulwich

> College took 17% of those who applied and kids are

> travelling from up to 90 minutes away!) Plus of

> course this is a self selecting group who apply

> and are more likely than not to be academically

> above average.

>

> The gifted and talented group is about 10% of the

> year group at Charter , and of course the Charter

> is selecting not by academic ability but by those

> live nearest.

[LondonMix]

I have very mixed feelings about the private education sector in this country but it's attitudes like this that are at the root of the entrenched class system In the UK. Britain has one of the worst records on social mobility and I'm convinced it's this 'know your place' attitude that is in part the cause. Wanting your children to have more than you do in this country is seen as crass which is nuts and why this place still has a ruling elite that hasn't changed much in decades...

landsberger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Personally, I think unless you are an incorrigable

> snob or social climber, private schools are a

> complete waste of money.

[landsberger]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have very mixed feelings about the private

> education sector in this country

There's no need - they are poison, pure and simple. They take state trained teachers and contribute almost nothing to the education economy. Whilst they may improve the life chances of a few high fliers, the low and middle achievers are poisoned by their presence, their hogging of resources and the fact that the 2nd and 3rd tiers within the private schools actually do commensurately worse than had they remained in the state sector.

> but it's attitudes like this that are at the root of the

> entrenched class system In the UK.

That's a fairly unreal reading of the situation. It's private schools that contribute to the class divide, not people who criticise them.

> Britain has one of the worst records on social mobility and

> I'm convinced it's this 'know your place' attitude

> that is in part the cause.

Typified by, er, privately educated people and the people who run their schools

> Wanting your children to have more than you do in this country is seen

> as crass which is nuts

So, not wanting to send your kid to a private school is not "wanting your children to have more than you" ? That's a fairly oblique reading of the above.

> and why this place still has a ruling elite that hasn't changed much in decades...

Mainly because the private education sector is only open to the chosen few.

[LondonMix]

I think using the term social climber as an insult for any decision someone makes about their children's education is indicative of the issue I outlined above...

I agree that private schools are a huge part of the social mobility issue in the UK which is why I have mixed feelings about them.

You are incorrect in stating private schools contribute nothing to the education economy. The parents who send their children to private school have a right to use the state system and don't. If every privately educated child transferred to state education as is their right, schools would be massively strained both in terms of physical capacity and funding- remember those parents already pay taxes even though they use private education.

I personally think the entire system needs reform and attitudes also need to change about 'social climbing' as you call it.

Criticising parents who make decisions within an unfair system seems harsh and also missing the greater issue.

[landsberger]

> You are incorrect in stating private schools contribute nothing to the education economy.

Aside from taking teachers and other resources out of the system?

> parents who send their children to private school

> have a right to use the state system and don't.

And schools are paid per pupil, so if the mass of privately educated people moved into the state sector the money would follow them.

> If every privately educated child transferred to state education as is their right, schools would be massively > strained both in terms of physical capacity and funding- remember those parents already pay taxes even though they use > private education.

Or you could just take over the existing schools and run them on more egalitarian and accessible lines. Just a thought

> I personally think the entire system needs reform

People who say that usually mean "bring back selection"

> and attitudes also need to change about 'social climbing' as you call it

There are people who send their kids for private schools because they can. There are people who do it because they think (and it is occasionally true - perhaps 10% of children? - benefit from the facilities private schools provide; there are people who send their kids to private schools because they believe in all the horror stories in the gutter press about state education. There are people who send their kids to private schools because they are snobs. Or sometimes a mix of two or more of the above.

> Criticising parents who make decisions within an unfair system seems harsh and also missing the greater issue.

What is the greater issue, please ? I have every right to criticise parents who send their kids to school for snobbery reasons and/or because it damages and removes resources from state education. You have every right to counter this.

[DuncanW]

Schools might be paid per pupil, but where do you think that extra money would come from?

Where on earth do you get your ideas from about parents' motivations for sending their kids to private schools? To me it just seems like inverted snobbery. Which is just snobbery. Do you also think these people all have gold taps on their baths?

In my mind, private education doesn't win on every count but it has some clear benefits. Invariably the facilities are better and the class sizes are smaller meaning they get more input from the teaching staff. And yes, there is going to be a difference in intake and some parents will understandably see value in their child being educated in a cohort where the ability levels are higher and the pupils and parents are highly motivated.

I?m not entirely unsympathetic to the view that private schools are not a wholly good thing for society. I get that. But I can?t get past the fact that we live in a free country and I really don?t think it would be right to say to people who have already paid their taxes and made their contribution to the state system, that they can?t use their own money in the way that they see best and pay for their own children?s education again. The level of harm done by the private system just doesn?t merit that sort of limitation on other people?s rights to do what they choose with their own money.

The practicalities wouldn?t work either; the private system would just move offshore, to Ireland for example. And what about home-schooling, would you outlaw that as well?

[Coach Beth]

I think it's such a complex issue and we're all just trying to do the best we can - as imperfect as that may be sometimes. Really, there needs to be a systemic change in education IMO

[toffeese15]

People are entitled to send their children to private schools, but please don't try and tell us - like some of you are - that you're doing it for virtuous reasons. In the process of buying advantage for your children you are supporting an unfair system. To suggest otherwise or to imply that you are unburdening the state system by going private, is highly disingenuous.

[Otta]

Well said toffeese15

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Wanting your children to have more than you do in this country is seen as crass which is nuts and why this place still has a ruling elite that hasn't changed much in decades...

I think that''s a nonsense to be honest. I want the best for my kids, as I'm sure does everyone. But MOST people simply don't have the choice of private education even if they save hard. Even those who say "we've made sacrifices" are still wealthy compared to those of us who couldn't afford it even if we didn't eat.

It's a system for the wealthy and it maintains the social devide in this country.

I'm not judging the people that do it, if I won the lottery and felt it would be best for my kids I might even do it too, but I'd admit that it is what it is, education for the privileged.

[LondonMix]

I am making several points (poorly it appears).

1. It is a fact that private schools provide an economic advantage to the pupils that attend. I think that the fact that the rich can buy this advantage for their children is a problem that limits social mobility. I believe the education system needs to be reformed to address this inequity.

2. Based on the above, I don?t think one has to be a snob to want to send ones children to private school. I also don?t think anything is wrong with social climbing and I applaud people who want their children to better than they did.

3. I think its hypocritical to condemn any parent for buying advantages for their children because everyone single person does. If you moved to a neighborhood because it has good schools, then you have bought an educational advantage for your child. If you enroll your children in enriching activities such as music lessons you have again bought a social and economic advantage for your child. These middle class expenditures have a huge impact on cognitive development and is a large part of the class advantages associated with academic achievement. Some people have more money and spend even more on their children (move even closer to a school/ send them to private school etc) but it?s a spectrum of totally normal human behavior.

4. The greater problem is the inequity in the quality of the education on offer between different state schools and between the public and private sectors. There are countries where private education provides no advantage academically and is therefore a very unpopular choice even among the wealthy. Equally, if all state schools were equal to each other, then parents wouldn't move to certain neighborhoods (or even streets) to be near a good one (again exercising economic power to buy education indirectly). These are the problems. If state education was as good as private and all state schools were as good as each other, there would be no issue at all regarding social equity. That is what parents should be fighting for rather than fighting each other.

5. My point about the economics of private education and state school funding was simply factual. I was making a factual statement correcting someone else?s mistake. No one pays for private medical insurance or private education altruistically. Nevertheless, it has a net positive impact on state resources. Any doctors or teachers in the private sector would still need training to work in the public sector if the private sector didn?t exist. In both cases, the impact is simply that you have people paying for a service they are entitled to for free from the state.

6. There have been studies that show that historically children in the private sector with the same A-level results as those in the state sector were more likely to attend an elite university. The study in part concluded this was to do with 'aspirations' or social climbing as others have called it. This isn't just a historical problem. My (much younger) brother in law recently met a friend of mine who is a pilot. Afterwards he said he couldn't believe he was a pilot because he seemed so normal (i.e. not posh). My pilot friend is actually very working class but was told he would have to lose his heavy cockney accent to become a pilot and he did. Its depressing on so many levels that certain professions in this country are simply not seen as being available for people from working class background. Working class people like my brother in law and posh people (like the person who told my friend he?d have to change his dialect) both have the same view of society. This is part of the problem that needs to change.

[mybaby178]

I do not usually enter into these types of discussions as in my view everyone is entitled to their own opinions, however some of these comments regarding private schools has triggered a reaction from me.

Some of you state that some of those that choose to send their children to private schools are snobs- this could be true however your continuous criticism of private schools and the way you look down on them makes you no better than those snobs you refer to.

You do not find as far as I can see people using the forum whose children attend private schools coming on here and being really negative and calling state schools poison so what gives you the right to do this about private schools.

Before anyone questions me- yes my children do attend a private school and I do not have to justify myself to anyone as to why we made this decision nor do I expect anyone to have to justify why they have sent their child to a state school.

[Otta]

I'm not one of the people that called anyone a snob, but I have no.idea how you could call state schools poison or turn any of the anti private school arguments on their head against state.

You're in a position to send your kids private either because you're minted or because you're really tightening your belts. The majority don't have that option even if they put all their spare resources towards it, so you need to accept that you're in a privileged position.

I make no judgement on that, but that is how it is.

[madmum]

How many of you have actually been through the inner city state school system?

Forgive me if I have this wrong, but it's not just about being in a position to afford the fee's, your child has to sit and pass an entrance exam and an interview before they are even offered a place at an independent school. You cant just roll up in your Barbour jacket with an overpriced sour dough loaf in each pocket, waving wads of cash at the admissions office(NB if this can be done then watch out DC this Barbour wearing,posh loaf buying inner city mum is on her way)

Where will I be sending my kids? If they pass the entrance exam then private all the way. Judge if you like cos quite frankly I'm not bothered.

[Otta]

If you can afford private, then you can probably afford the tuition needed to get them through the exam.

That's not judging, it's stating a fact. You're clearly in a position to afford it, so good luck to you.

When you say "How many of you have actually been through the inner city state school system?", do you mean as pupils or parents? And are you suggesting that it's just so terrible your boy would stand no chance?