Private school fees (merged)

maverickangel

sjaypink wrote: »

i too find that i have always afforded what i think is best for myself & my kids.......... but i would not assume that everyone could......
and what about able kids whose parents do not hold the same aspirations as the child might? should any child be given less opportunity than another because of their parents wealth or commitment (lack of)?

I think the reality is that children's opportunities are inevitably linked to the education and aspirations of their parents. Children come from many different backgrounds, some more promising than others. I don't see it's the role of the education system (public, private or state) to attempt to "iron out" differences in upbringing.

It is a shame when promising children are held back by their parents, but unless you propose some sort of suitability test for prospective parents, then that situation will not change. If determined enough, there are ample opportunities for children to "catch up" on any education they might have missed out on during their school years.

Discodee

Mado wrote: »

If the system indeed selected these children, it would be fine.
But pages of discussion will tell you that the vast majority of children are tutored to pass the exam.
Making the noble principle of grammar schools a farce.

You took the words right out of my mouth!

Discodee

maverickangel wrote: »

Why is that a problem? I wasn't tutored to pass my 11+, but would certainly tutor my children, or pay to have them tutored, if I felt a Grammar school best suited their needs.

In this life you can always find the money for the things you think are most important.

And private education and tutoring isnt one of them!!!
Firstly, as said my OH earns 15k a year so we COULDN'T find the money anywhere unless I rob a bank and Id be no use to my kids in the clink.
Secondly my kids have both gone through state school and are doing marvellously, and to me, taking them on holiday, broadening their horizons, their experiences and their knowledge is FAR more important than spending money on a school or tutoring. (Never mind seeing the enjoyment they have had, and watching their faces on video afterwards)

Thirdly, the problem with tutoring as said already is, if kids need tutoring to pass they'll feel demoralised and thick when they get to grammar. Hardly "the best" for one's child???

setmefree2

maverickangel wrote: »

Well I disagree. I honestly think that if you are determined enough then you will find the money from somewhere. As I said before, there's always money for the things you think are most important in life.

Unfortunately, it didn't stop with tutoring. In the few areas where Grammar schools are left many of the children go to private primary schools, that not all parents can afford.

setmefree2

maverickangel wrote: »

I fail to see the problem with Grammar schools. Children are granted a place on ability, not background. Would you rather academically able children from impoverished backgrounds went to under achieving comprehensives so that parity of under achievement was ensured?

I fail to see what's wrong with comprehensives....who said that comprehensives are underachieving.

Do you think that people who went to Grammar schools have difficulty sending their children into state primaries & comprehensives? Why do you think that is?

setmefree2

maverickangel wrote: »

I I don't see it's the role of the education system (public, private or state) to attempt to "iron out" differences in upbringing. .

Sorry I disagree with you here, I do;) What do you want - poor people to stay poor forever?

thanksalot

Rikki wrote: »

This something that has been going wrong for a long time and is is why so many parents are leaving the state system and choosing to go private.

What an interesting observation.
One thing that has been going wrong in society around the same time is the breakdown of the family structure. There is strong evidence that children in 2 parents stable families do better.
Now before this turns nasty and personnal, this is an observation at societal level, not individual. Yes I personnaly know children of divorced families who have gone to great achievements.
It is just again an observation (and only that) that some of the fervent supporters of private education on this thread are separated from the child other biological parent.
So maybe, when we look at "what is best for our children" it is limited to "what is best but fits in with what we want".

maverickangel

setmefree2 wrote: »

I fail to see what's wrong with comprehensives....who said that comprehensives are underachieving.

Do you think that people who went to Grammar schools have difficulty sending their children into state primaries & comprehensives? Why do you think that is?

Well I can't speak for everyone, only me. I shall be sending my children to a state primary school. I am happy with the education provided by the state at primary level at the school in question. I wouldn't send my children to a private school because I don't think it's necessary.

Having had a highly competitive, academic school life, there's no way on God's earth I would wish it on my children.

maverickangel

setmefree2 wrote: »

Sorry I disagree with you here, I do;) What do you want - poor people to stay poor forever?

Er no! Unfortunately there is a raft of research that demonstrates that children with poorly educated parents tend to, in turn, perform poorly themselves. This trend becomes evident way before formal schooling commences. For example, studies indicate working class parents talk less to their pre-schoolers than middle class parents. This results in clear differentials in vocabulary very early on.

The point I was trying to make is that "School" is not going to enable those children to catch up. IMHO the state system provides a good level of education, but cannot make up for deficiencies at home.

I would suggest that inequalities in achievement are intractable, unless one considers some form of criteria for determining who should become parents. That's not an appropriate way forward IMHO.

Mado

maverickangel wrote: »

I think the reality is that children's opportunities are inevitably linked to the education and aspirations of their parents.

maverickangel wrote: »

Heh heh! I went to Grammar school, and as a child with dirt poor parents it was an opportunity which I would never have had unless the "apartheid" system had been in place. I am grateful to have been given the opportunity for an education which my parents couldn't have paid for.
l.

Don't you find it unfair that with tutoring and private school children manage to get into grammar school at the expense of able children who just haven't had that extra push, denying them of the chance you had? (the total number of places is limited...)
I do.