Private school fees (merged)

Coupon-mad

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

I wouldn't feel bad about wanting the best for your child if I were you. I know when I have children I will be doing my best for them so I think you should do what you think is right. At the end of the day you are still paying taxes that pay for other peoples children while you still pay for your own to be educated anyway. It's like paying twice so I do not know what they are complaining about really.

They are paying twice, indeed, and that's what the posters with the opposite view cannot understand. I don't think we were 'complaining' - we were wondering why anyone would pay for a service that can be obtained for free, with just such good results (both academically and otherwise)?

And mainly, we were wondering why some posters never even looked at state schools as a comparison when their child started? Never even spoke to the headteacher of each school (except the private ones)? Made huge assumptions that discounted some very good schools in one fell swoop, most likely.

I think if you have a bright child they will do well anywhere (as long as it's not a failing school of course but you would only have to look at the school & OFSTED info to find that out).

I can just about understand why wealthy parents of dimmer children would spend the money, to try to get them up to a certain standard they may struggle to achieve in the lower sets of a state school. If they can afford to do so without a struggle.

But can't see why some parents of bright/able children think it's worth missing out on holidays abroad and family time, when their child would be excelling anyway with like-minded children if they were in the top set of a state secondary school? And their child would be learning future social skills with a decent mix of children who are neither dross nor snobs, just clever kids from average families.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

emsywoo123 wrote: »

Many children gain access to grammar schools without tutors or prep schools.

Sorry, they don't - that's the point. So if you can't afford the tutor or the expensive primary school you don't get to go. If you buy a posh car that has no impact on anyone else. If you choose to buy expensive tutors & pay for expensive primary schools that coach for the 11+ (Indeed, these schools are judged only on how many children they get through the 11+ - usually 100%) then that has an impact on everyone else. That is why Grammar schools were scrapped in most places in the UK.

Indeed, I have no idea why anyone using the private sector would support the existance of grammar schools. They,re are just private schools on the cheap. At least parents who send their kids to private schools make a financial sacrifice to pay for their children's education. Parents with kids at the few state grammars that are left are getting their's for free while the rest of the people in the private sector are making financial sacrifices.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Doom_and_Gloom wrote: »

It's like paying twice so I do not know what they are complaining about really.

Sorry private schools are subsidised by the tax payer as they are treated as charities when they are not.

Mado

Discodee wrote: »

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.
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

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??

I have to second this.
My Dd is the only one in her class who is not being tutored.
We work through the practise 11+ paper with her as well.

The Grammar school system is rotten because intensive tutoring is bringing children to the required level at the exam regardless of their overall ability to do well in such a school.

devils_advocate

Sorry private schools are subsidised by the tax payer as they are treated as charities when they are not.

Can you please tell us (i) why they are not charities? (ii) how the taxpayer subsidises them?

cells

devils_advocate wrote: »

Can you please tell us (i) why they are not charities? (ii) how the taxpayer subsidises them?

a charity gets tax back. so if you give them £8 the gov will give them £2.

in the case of a private school, if you give them £8k for the year the gov gives them £2k.


i wouldnt class them as a charity becuase the workers are well paid and the overall school aims for a profit afaik.

Lunar_Eclipse

emsywoo123 wrote: »

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

To put it mildly!

I'm surprised you haven't given up defending your position yet. The tone has become quite aggressive and personal IMO.

traciekan

you MUST factor in 50% again for all costs NOTHING is free, remember the function of any business is to make money.

Lunar_Eclipse

BACKFRMTHEEDGE wrote: »

A child' access to said tutors and prep schools is based on their parents' ability to pay.

Actually I think it rarely has anything to do with an ability to pay.

Most children who I know that are/have been tutored (primary school age) are tutored because of their parents inability to accept their child's own 'intelligence' level and thus tutor them in the hope to push them to a higher position than they would otherwise achieve. It rarely has any real benefit to the child.

This is (only) my opinion from what I have seen personally. Tutoring key subjects (Maths & English especially) at GCSE level where the child is in danger of not passing the exam would be a different proposition however.

I also think in the big scheme of things, only a minority of parents would have tutoring on their radar. It would never have crossed my parents minds for instance. It is common where I live, especially for children moving from the state to private sector at 11.

Parental support, teaching standards and socio-economic factors such as genetics and locality have more effect on a child's academic outcomes than whether their parents (can afford to) pay for private tutoring. So it really isn't worth arguing about.;)

At the end of the day, life is not fair and (almost!) all parents believe they are doing the best for their own children. And that says it all.:T

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

emsywoo123 wrote: »

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

No we're not jealous....................:rolleyes: