private or state?

[malumbu]

Question is will your children thank you? Ours went state (there was never any likelihood of private) and then decent universities where they were very aware that there was a private vs state snobbishness. They held their own so no issues but demonstrated that choices on secondary education can be divisive and may not always encourage one nation Britain.

The middle classes are those most anxious about their children's education with the least to worry about - supportive families and if push comes to shove will do something about it. Not my words but from a Radio 4 documentary, sadly don't have the link.

[redjam]

I think it?s also a little simple to assume that state schools don?t offer the things you mention. My daughter has had (free) one-to-one music tuition throughout her whole time at her state secondary, ample opportunity to do competitive sport (do you really think they don?t do ?actual competitive sport? at state schools?!), and three of her subjects at GCSE level have fewer than 20 kids in her class. Extra-curricular activities on offer range from Debate/Model UN Club to Japanese to Engineering to Journalism. There are countless sports and clubs on offer ? my daughter even did a term of horseriding arranged by the school (again free). I?m not saying all this means all state schools are brilliant ? some clearly aren?t, the OP?s particular dilemma relates round the fact she?s not in the catchment area of a good one ? but it?s ignorant to suggest that no state schools offer good extra-curricular activities on-site.

My point stands: I can see that private schools do offer more than state in terms of facilities and generally smaller class sizes. Is that worth forking out ?20k a year per child, even if you?re lucky enough to be able to scrape that kind of money together? Not personally convinced, sorry.

Somerset Wrote:

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

> I think is is a little simple - it?s not about

> fancy buildings. How can you compare class sizes

> of 20 vs 30, endless facilities including early

> teaching of languages, music and actual

> competitive sport with a state school? And given

> the majority of parents are working, ferrying kids

> to extra curricular activities during the week is

> impossible - a private school offers all the on

> site. You can only cram so many clubs in on the

> weekend...

>

>

[Whoeveritis]

On a side note, does anyone have any experience of how hard/easy it is to go private? Do the children have to pass tests to show they are academic? Can the fees only be paid termly or yearly versus say an inheritance left by a grandparent? Would they except that? Some 20 years ago now, my neighbours child was turned down for Dulwich College as his job wasn?t consistent even though his wife had a constant high paying job. I?m not sure how far into the process he was, but is this still a thing? Or only certain privates? Does anyone know.

[motorbird83]

It depends on how selective the school is but most (certainly the local Dulwich ones) will test children's academic ability at all entry points. Some are also heavily oversubscribed, particularly Alleyns.

I don't recall anyone asking about personal finances at all during the application process for JAGs or Alleyns junior school. The local Dulwich senior schools all offer generous bursaries and various scholarships so an able child can attend even if their parents can't afford to pay the fees.

[redjam]

motorbird83 Wrote:

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

The local Dulwich

> senior schools all offer generous bursaries and

> various scholarships so an able child can attend

> even if their parents can't afford to pay the

> fees.

Though this from The Times, day before yesterday:

'The study found that out of 176,000 pupils who received bursaries of some kind [of 142 private schools studied], only 6,118 received full scholarships. The average scholarship amounted to only ?1,000 a year, the researchers claimed.

?Given the levels of fees, the overwhelming majority of scholarship students still require very substantial family contributions,? [Dr Malcolm] James said. ?Many scholarships may, in practice, be awarded to middle or upper-class families. Scholarships may therefore do little to make schools genuinely more socially inclusive.?'

So I'm happy to be corrected if the local schools are doing something substantially different, but I don't think it's generally the case that it's easy to gain entry to the private system if you're an able child from a poor family.

[Whoeveritis]

I think you?re right redjam. Unless I?ve read it wrong, which I may have, Alleyns have around 100 secondary places for those not already attending the school according to the website. Surely this means they can be really selective which children they chose. If a child is exceptionally clever from a council estate he?d have no chance, but there must be a few token examples somewhere in the private system

[motorbird83]

@redjam Bursaries are completely different from scholarships.

Bursaries are need based and are up to 100% of fees at the local schools. Most bursary students at the local schools are receiving full or near full reduction on the fees and make up between 10%-15% of the total student body.

Scholarships are provided entirely on merit rather than financial need. These are up to ?5,000 a year at the local Dulwich schools. A student can get more than one across academic, music, art and sport.

Some bursary students get financial aid plus a scholarship as part of their overall package.

I hope that clarifies things.

[motorbird83]

@whoeveritis, that's entirely incorrect. There are many students on full bursaries at Alleyns. Alleyns is also in the process of raising additional bursary funds with the aim of having 20% of all secondary school students being on bursaries in future.

You can find out more information at the links below:

https://www.alleyns.org.uk/community-partnership/bursaries

The school is also actually part of a new pilot project with central government taking in students who have been in the care system in addition to the bursary places they fund via their endowments.

https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/private-school-to-pilot-project-to-offer-places-to-kids-in-care-2/

[redjam]

Hmm, according to the link you provide, Alleyn's offer 66 full bursary places. Out of 1,250 kids. There are many valid reasons to defend private schools (and I'm not rabidly anti-private, however I may come across on here!) but I don't think their accessibility to low-income students is the one I'd pick.

[Whoeveritis]

.

[motorbird83]

@redjam

I wasn't defending the school, I was just answering the question. Someone asked if a student can get in even if they can't pay the fees and I explained how and to what degree. You asked about how much scholarship support there was and I explained there were scholarships and bursaries including up to 100% of the fees.

However, just to be clear on the stats:

There are 1,063 secondary school pupils, 109 of which are on bursaries so roughly 10% as I mentioned. Of those 2/3rds are on a bursary that covers 100% of the fees and 85% are on bursaries that cover at least 75% of the fees.

Again, that's only to clarify the question you asked about fee support being only ?1,000 in private schools based on the study you saw. I wouldn't want someone who was able to get in not to bother applying because they read on the forum that there aren't any bursaries available when that's not the case.

[Townleygreen]

I would add the Alleyn's is intending in the long term to have potentially 100% bursaries available to anyone who needs them. Obviously that would cost a fortune and is a very long term aim

Also, if you do get a 100% bursary then you would also have your uniform sports kit and lunches paid for. School trips would be funded by the school also.

[Orange owl]

Why is taking the cleverest kids from local state schools a good idea or the sports kids .it seems like it?s just to maintain there charity status and keep their results up

[Whoeveritis]

It could be to give the best prospects and open some privileged doors for them, but yes I see your point and I?m not really believing it would be accessible to a kid from a housing estate parents on benefits.

[Soylent Green]

JEG1 Wrote:

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

> Hi EDN

>

> When you say you live in a secondary school dead

> zone, do you mean you're not in the Charter

> schools catchment areas? Just interested, as there

> are other very good state schools in the area as

> well. I think the best thing to do is visit as

> many schools as possible schools with your

> children (when restrictions are lifted). You might

> be pleasantly surprised by some of the other local

> state schools.

>

> But yes, if you can afford private and you think

> your children would be more suited to that

> environment, then go for it. Keep all your options

> open. We're lucky to have an abundance of

> brilliant schools, both private and state.

This thread seems to have gone off-topic, but to summarise the poster is looking for ideas on state or private education. My recommendation would be to look at both and decide what you like and what you would be comfortable with. Then apply to both state and private and see what places you get offered.

In my opinion, if you think you might feel you are short changing your kids with the state system, then go private. Whichever you choose you have to buy into it and believe in it. You may find yourself frustrated with the state system if you feel your children are not supported enough or not getting enough homework, but the way to manage this is to have a tutor who can provide that extra lift and support. It works out much cheaper than school fees and you have more control as you get to choose who works with your children. Alternatively, with the private system you might find yourself having to go without some of the things that you would wish your kids had if you are financially stretched and that the kids are resentful that they do not have the skiing holidays/latest tech etc that some of their friends have.

[WorkingMummy]

I had my eldest two in private school for their first 7 and 4 terms of primary school life respectively. Looking back, I was silly to fall for the hype. I moved them to our local primary for non-financial reasons. We were coming up to 7+ Prep school exams for my eldest and the talk in the playground amongst parents (and from the staff, trying to guide me as to where my SIX year old?s academic talents were) made me want to run for the hills. When I realised parents at this private school (which was actually lovely in some ways, and not major league) were ALSO paying for additional tutoring outside of school to get their six year olds through the 7+, I was out of there. The pressure, competition and expectation on children in the private is sector is, IMO, unhealthy.

When I moved the children to state, I have to say, the quality of their education improved. The curriculum was the same. State schools often have better class sizes. (Classes can be too small as well as too big.) We found a better mix of friendly, diverse families. And: we found better teaching; a broader, more creative approach to learning topics.

As for secondary state schools, the ?outstanding? ED state schools are so oversubscribed and the catchment areas/chances in ballot so tiny, that my eldest now commutes to a ?needs improvement? school in Lewisham. She loves it. She?s doing very well. She has, for example, completely fallen under the spell of her dynamic English teacher (whose hair cut, never mind her politics, would probably exclude her from ever being considered for a post at a private school), and is now talking (aged 12) of wanting to do a degree in the subject.

I would say, as long as a secondary school streams (not all do), you are most likely wasting your money going private. Don?t be fooled by exam results as so much of that depends on the ?standard? of intake, not the quality of the teaching or what your child, with their abilities, will achieve. If there are extra activities (music theory, oil painting, Ancient Greek) your kids are up for, it?s way cheaper (and possibly more inspiring to them) to pay for these outside of school. Clubs abound around here. And. Lockdown and zoom has made the prospect of top-up tuition even more affordable as many out of London tutors now advertise for London pupils from as little as ?20 per hour.)

In my view, the whole private system is a wheeze: they ruthlessly select not only the kids that will do ?well? - but the kids you can already be sure will do ?well? by 11 - which is a tiny subset of kids. And then they cash in on the achievement of those ?dead-cert? children to sell themselves to incoming parents. My kids are bright, and quite demanding in terms of what they themselves want from school. I came to the conclusion I would not put them through the ringer of ruthless selection processes, just for the ?privilege? of paying a school to take the credit for (bright, interested) children?s results at 16 and 18.

I?d also say, if you do go private your children will miss out on the absolutely priceless experience of learning and growing in an environment that truly reflects the society/country they are actually living in. It?s a very narrow strata at selective and fee paying schools.

[hpsaucey]

Aw WorkingMummy.

I LOVE your post.

We've had good experiences with local state schools (FWIW I hold strong objections to private education for many reasons).

HP

[Whoeveritis]

When I see the boys coming out of dulwich college I think to myself it?s these kids that will go on to be our doctors and surgeons not the kids from Harris

[RoundTable]

I?m not sure the data supports that view anymore

https://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j4239.full

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/record-number-of-undergraduate-admissions-at-cambridge-with-no-required-deferrals-and-highest-ever

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-04-oxford-shows-continued-progress-state-school-and-ethnic-minority-student-admissions

[Digbina]

Whoeveritis Wrote:

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

> When I see the boys coming out of dulwich college

> I think to myself it?s these kids that will go on

> to be our doctors and surgeons not the kids from

> Harris

I'm sorry to say that now when I see boys coming out of Dulwich College I have a different set of thoughts entirely.

[DuncanW]

It depends how you interpret those data, of course.

The BMJ article, or at least what I saw on the front page says that state educated students do better at medical school. I think it's widely understood that state educated kids as a cohort need to be more talented and work harder to achieve the same results as peers at private schools. So state educated students will often accelerate beyond the private ones in higher education assuming identical levels of attainment on leaving school.

That supports the view that private schools do offer an advantage. I would say it also supports the view that many top HE institutions have: that they should skew their admittance processes in favour of state to compensate for that.

The Cambridge Uni bit says that 70% of entrants this year will be from state, leaving 30% coming from private.

7% of UK kids go to private schools, so that could be read as students are over four times as likely to go to Cambridge if they went to a private school.

That stat on its own is only informative to an extent. It would be really interesting to know how many of the state educated entrants went to grammar or super-selective type schools, which we don't have locally and in my view are at least as problematic as the private system. And therefore, what percentage will be coming from state, comprehensive education?

I'm not saying this in support of Private as a system, but I'm not sure those sources dispel the view that private schools offer some level of academic advantage.

[Dulwichteacher]

But of course the majority of private schools are to some extent selective, some extremely so, while the majority of state secondary schools aren?t, so you would not necessarily expect to find 93% of Cambridge students coming from the state sector (even ignoring the fact that the % using private education is higher than 7% by 16 as fewer families use it for primary). We also know that students with top grades at state schools are less likely to apply to Cambridge. So it is not necessarily that private schools are offering an academic advantage, but that they have a more academic cohort of children to start with, and their families/teachers are more likely to encourage them to apply to Cambridge or they are more likely to choose to.

[Montaguech]

We went for state with good sport/music provision- third child will be joining the same school. Our children are happy, interested, with a nice group of friends. Two couples we know went for private education, because they don’t feel their children are academic or sporty  It feels like the « sporty-academic go to private school stereotype » is shifting. They also drive their children to school, instead of trusting pt or cycling. Also cycling is dreadful for children in Dulwich.

[Tinkerbellionx_]

The first seven years of life form many of the critical foundations and so choosing the right school now is a great start. If you are not happy with the state school options (and lottery of getting a place) have a look at the private schools nearby. Not all private schools are hot houses.

I went for private as I liked the small classes, facilities, opportunities, lack of necessity to follow the national curriculum and the associated tests (although children have to take the 11+, 13+ if changing school then). The incidental learning was also very powerful, I do have an academic child but the focus wasn’t always purely academic, especially at prep. My daughter didn’t have to do any extra prep to move to senior school and as every other child was moving it was a natural progression.
 

The fact that teachers have more time with each child helps to ensure your child is understood and supported. The majority of children go to state schools and many many do very well indeed in finding their place in the world. You have already set out what is important to you, have a look at schools to see which is more aligned to you and crucially your child. What the school portrays is what they at least aspire to provide ie if they focus on academia or sport or music that is where the focus is. Enjoy your journey! 

[Soylent Green]

I have been reading this thread with interest and appreciating how hard it is to evaluate the unknown.  Ultimately, the type of school you choose should be a balance of what your child likes (he/she will be more motivated to do well if they feel good about their school), what you feel most comfortable with (see other threads on here where parents express their disappointment and frustration that the state school they chose is not meeting their high expectations) and what you can comfortably afford (taking into consideration that means the life-style of private school, not just the fees.  Other things to consder are whether your children would be happier doing activities outside of school rather than just mixing with their school peers (can be a sanctuary if there are friendship issues in school), and if they would be happier having parents working less hours to have more family time, which is a choice you might be able to make if you choose a state school. 

It's a lot to consider and I am grateful that my kids are now in university and that their Kingsdale education got them into top unis.  Feedback from them now they are part of a cohort comprising state, private and grammar educated students, is that the privately educated ones have a lot more self confidence, more contacts for arranging internships and a better understanding of the rigors of academic work, such as Harvard Referencing.  These are all good things to have that have not previously been mentioned.