Private school extras fee dilemma

onomatopoeia99

ViolaLass wrote: »

Research shows that NOT setting is more beneficial to students.

Personal experience differs.

Going to a selective state school saved my education, I had been in a normal primary where we were grouped soley by age (so I guess you'd call that "mixed ability" as each year had a single class of 30 or 31) and I was bored out of my wits. I got in trouble for being a disruptive influence as I finished the work the teacher set quickly, then started talking to my friends that were still trying to do it, and ended up being made to sit at the front of the class on my own all the time. My teacher in the final year at primary told me I'd be "taken down a peg or two" at grammar school as I'd just be average there. She was wrong.

Secondary (grammar) school was so much better, the work was challenging but I was still top in maths and sciences and I ended up in the top O level set for maths (the only streamed subject), where I was again top of the class. It got me away from the numbskulls who were only doing it as it was a compulsory O level subject, couldn't be bothered to even try and interfered with those that did want to learn.

Comprehensive, unstreamed primary education failed me massively, it held me back for four years. My experience of mixed ability lessons as a student leaves me of the opinion that they are not at all beneficial.

borkid

I haven't read the whole thread. The trouble with the setting debate is the teachers/schools are looking at whole classes and what is best for the whole cohort therefore an average. The parent is looking at what is best for their individual child(ren) and the two are often not the same.

Setting in a grammar school was one of the best things that ever happened to me as it pulled me out of the background I grew up in and gave me something to strive for and introduced many different viewpoints and ideas.

maman

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I would hope that a decent private school (or state school for that matter) was trying to educate the child by covering subjects in a greater depth than is needed for the exams rather than trying to cram them into getting as many bits of paper as possible.

I think we'd all hope that but it's not the reality which, unless you're incredibly naïve, I'm sure you're aware.


The effect is that schools with the highest incidence of pupils with, for example, learning or behaviour problems tend to be lower down the league tables. If you glance at the GCSE league tables you need to go well down the list after the selective independents and grammars to find a comprehensive and these are in the 'leafiest' areas.


I defend the right of anyone to use their own money for their child's education either in an independent school or by moving to a home in a good catchment area. That's fine for individual parents whose concern is their own child. Government policy, however, should make provision for all children. IMO It's not fair that those without financial privilege and interested parents can end up in 'sink' schools because all the more able pupils have been creamed off.

Kim_13

The OP has returned to the thread (4 forum posts, all in this thread.)

Can we try to keep the thread to constructive suggestions for the OP, in case he returns for more advice. A debate of state vs private or other aspects of schooling would be best suited to Discussion Time.

Tabbytabitha

ViolaLass wrote: »

I note you didn't bother to read the whole of my post.

I not only read all of your post but most of your links as well - I just happened to pick out the element that I thought most important.

Tabbytabitha

maman wrote: »

I think we'd all hope that but it's not the reality which, unless you're incredibly naïve, I'm sure you're aware.


The effect is that schools with the highest incidence of pupils with, for example, learning or behaviour problems tend to be lower down the league tables. If you glance at the GCSE league tables you need to go well down the list after the selective independents and grammars to find a comprehensive and these are in the 'leafiest' areas.


I defend the right of anyone to use their own money for their child's education either in an independent school or by moving to a home in a good catchment area. That's fine for individual parents whose concern is their own child. Government policy, however, should make provision for all children. IMO It's not fair that those without financial privilege and interested parents can end up in 'sink' schools because all the more able pupils have been creamed off.

Children of interested parents are always likely to do better, on average, than those who come from families who don't value education. Trying to change that may be well meaning but it's really only a form of social engineering - all you can do is offer appropriate opportunities for all.

maman

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Children of interested parents are always likely to do better, on average, than those who come from families who don't value education. Trying to change that may be well meaning but it's really only a form of social engineering - all you can do is offer appropriate opportunities for all.

You're right which is why I don't think sink schools for some is appropriate.

It seems we're discouraged from discussing this further on here. Yes, the OP did return but didn't answer relevant questions (such as whether he paid maintenance for his child that could cover the extras) so it was difficult to help.

fred246

I am not sure I was very clear. I went to a state comprehensive that was streamed. I was in the top class of seven. We all worked hard and got top grades and went to top universities. We had very little contact with class 7. However their presence pulled our exam results down. The private schools would not have admitted those pupils. Our children were very bright and we identified that our local comprehensive had a similar very high achieving top stream. We therefore sent them there and they have gone to top universities and we have saved hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is money saving.

warby68

Just going back to the original topic, suspect OP hasn't done enough homework and has been fobbed off by school and possibly a little hoodwinked by the mum.

He needs to have a good look at all the terms and ask for copies himself from the school if needed although it may all be on the one thing he has signed. Agreeing to pay any amount for ever on the say so of one person is not something you can reasonably be on the hook for. Its up to OP to give the school contractual notice (usually a term) under the current agreement so the school is prompted to document a new one. At the moment they are just sending bills to you both and you are paying them so no issue from their perspective. Schools will be well used to parents who are not on the same page.

As others have said already, its also been our experience that the number of extras that you can't comfortably decline are actually quite small. Lunches,music and school transport yes. Vast range of already included clubs and activities. Also if you look at the number of places available on the extra paid for trips and activities its very small as a proportion of the number of pupils so being the 'odd one out' is rarely actually a thing apart from in terms of very small friendship groups.

Unfortunately OP, you just have to take control here a bit.

Mr_Costcutter

fred246 wrote: »

I am not sure I was very clear. I went to a state comprehensive that was streamed. I was in the top class of seven. We all worked hard and got top grades and went to top universities. We had very little contact with class 7. However their presence pulled our exam results down. The private schools would not have admitted those pupils. Our children were very bright and we identified that our local comprehensive had a similar very high achieving top stream. We therefore sent them there and they have gone to top universities and we have saved hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is money saving.

How you imagine this information will help the OP is beyond me.