Private school fees (merged)

emsywoo123

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

That'll be both.

This is all smacking a little of jealousy?:rolleyes:

Rikki

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

:rotfl:How can poorer kids compete with kids who have expensive tutors and expensive prep schools? They can't - which is why these schools have been scrapped in most of the country and only exist in a few strange pockets of the country.

I thought it was said the state system was equivalent to the private system. Children do well in both state and private schools, all children an equal chance.

Now we are paying for the advantage? You can't have it both ways.

emsywoo123

Rikki wrote: »

I thought it was said the state system was equivalent to the private system. Children do well in both state and private schools, all children an equal chance.

Now we are paying for the advantage? You can't have it both ways.

Excellent point, methinks someone is arguing for the sake of it!

Doom_and_Gloom

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

That'll be both.

I know I'm not really a part of this but I've found this very difficult to read without getting involved by what you are saying.

My sister went to grammer and I after going to a state school up to the end of year 10 went to a private school/college. Are you saying we both had an unfair advantage? She didn't get private tuition but as I didn't get into grammer my parents made sure I did so I could do just as well as she did (somehow children with less points than I had got into the same one I wanted to get into. Only difference was that their GRAMMER skills were better than mine :mad: ). Parents will do all they can to make sure their child(ren) get the best that can get for them, it's no secret I'm sure you know.

Rikki

Let this discussion remain about the choices of education available to children and the differences rather than an argument of an individuals personal choices.

This is the first time I can remember a debate like this moving along without name calling.

Lets debate the pros and cons of both systems and ask question to try to understand the parts we don't.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

emsywoo123 wrote: »

So are you suggesting that all the bright people in the country hvae been privately educated? Your argument is littered with personal opinion and prejudice.

No, I was suggesting that Grammar schools do not provide equal acces to all candidates because of the existence of tutors and prep schools. A child' access to said tutors and prep schools is based on their parents' ability to pay. My view represents that of the majority since these schools have been scrapped in almost of the UK bar a view pockets in England and a few in NI.

Rikki

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

No, I was suggesting that Grammar schools do not provide equal acces to all candidates because of the existenence of tutors and prep schools. A child' access to said tutors and prep schools is based on their parents' ability to pay. My view represents that of the majority since these schools have been scrapped in almost of the UK bar a view pockets in England and a few in NI.

It like parent who move into catchment areas for good state school. (Parents financial ability to move and buy the catchment house)

Parents always want the best for their children and we all find different ways of trying to provide it.

Discodee

emsywoo123 wrote: »

This is the most ridiculous statement by far on this thread. Academically clever children will get to grammar. End of.

Right, my heckles are up!!
I stumbled upon this as went to PM a member and clicked find all posts by instead and HAD to read this!

Sorry but YOUR statement is ridiculous and in brief I'll explain

Both my children are very clever and top of their classes.
They did not go to private school.
BY STAYING AT HOME AND NOT GOING TO WORK IN ORDER TO FIND FEES TO PAY FOR THEIR SCHOOLING I had oodles of time to walk to school with them, counting things, looking for colours, shapes etc etc, play with them, read with them, and they both by 5 had an academic age of 8. THIS IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE TIME I PUT IN PLAYING WITH THEM (But teaching them without them realising) WHICH IS FAR MORE VALUABLE THAN A SNOOTY PRIVATE SCHOOL.
So, it comes to year 6 and we choose high school for my DD. She is very bright and there is a grammar school nearby, so she takes the 11 plus. I do not agree with paying for tuiton; I believe if a child cannot do it on their own, they shouldn't be at grammar school.
I look on an 11 plus webiste and people there are tutoring for 2 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
I gave my daughter a few practise papers to familiarise herself with the type of questions and talked her through them.
She took the 2 exams and scored 277 out of 282 (98%)

She is now in year 8 at grammar school.
She is the only child in her class who wasn't tutored
She is a whole level above everyone else
Some kids in the class have regular help with reading
Most of her class cannot spell, speak correct English or do simple maths. (One got 4 out ot 40 in a mental maths test)

So sorry, grammar schhol is NOT full of bright kids. My daughter marvels at how poor the academic ability of some of her peers is. These kids got into grammar school purely and simply because their parents paid to tutor them, and once you've been tutored 2 yeats a blind elephant could pass the 11 plus

My friend works at a private school which boasts a 100% pass ratefor 11 plus and that says it all, does it not, as you cannot make a well below average child into a clever child, but if they're all passing the 11 plus, it shows anyone can be tutored to pass it. They do papers daily from year 3 and from year 5 go in every saturday to do them
My son spends his saturdays playing football not sitting behind a desk.
By the way my son is nine and is cleverer than most of the 13 yr olds in my DDs class at grammar school
I rest my case. Rant over
As an adage, kids benefit more from on hands parents and a bit less cash than 2 parents at work and a private school
As someone said "poorer" kids will be bullied in a a private school

Pupils tutored to pass 11 plus will struggle at grammar school and would be better in mainstream. You have to ask, is it a status symbol for YOU, or are you doing it for them??

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Rikki wrote: »

This is the first time I can remember a debate like this moving along without name calling.Lets debate the pros and cons of both systems and ask question to try to understand the parts we don't.

I definitely havn't called anybody any names. I'm merely expressing my view.

emsywoo123

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

No, I was suggesting that Grammar schools do not provide equal acces to all candidates because of the existence of tutors and prep schools. A child' access to said tutors and prep schools is based on their parents' ability to pay. My view represents that of the majority since these schools have been scrapped in almost of the UK bar a view pockets in England and a few in NI.

But I do not understand why you are so anti prep schools and tutors? It is only an example of where someone chooses to spend their moeny? I have never been on a family holiday abroad-we cannot afford everything, and sacrifices have to be made.
Different people may choose to spend their money on having a flash car-should I demand that we all drive the same cars as someone with more money could buy a better one and overtake me on a motorway?:rotfl:
Many children gain access to grammar schools without tutors or prep schools.