Why are independent schools so influential in the UK?

[modernista]

Yes the trouble is there are many types of middle class. What is common to all most acedemically selective private and grammar schools is parents who place importance on their childs education. They may support their children outside the school in many ways or rely more heavily on ability to pay (fees or tuition), either ways their DCs have an unfair advantage.

However, blaming private schools is pointless. We live in a capitalist society and people have a freedom to sell the service of education and other people have the right to buy. The same people who blame the reckless lending of banks wouldnt really prefer a world where house prices hadnt risen astronomically because of it. I cant help thinking if I had bought a sports car or spent the fees money on my mortgage people would have been less critical.

[Yamin151]

I cannot argue with as much eloquence and studied knowledge as Amber or others, but I do see a little of both sides. Completely agree eh that complete segregation is not a way to go and that it is indeed driven by the 'middle classes' (and class does not always have to do with income, it is also a state of mind. We are one of many families we are friends with who are not high income earners or living in chi chi homes, but DO have these aspirations for our children). We do not want to create an underclass either, if we aren't already doing that! In utopia, if such a thing could exist, you would have all non selective schools, with streaming, the money to stretch the very able, help the less able, and have smaller class sizes for the mass in the middle, which would mean that 1. Those getting more able could be picked out and given more and 2. Those beginning to 'fall off' would be noticed and helped and 3. Effort could be rewarded for all, having a small enough class for no one to hide.
For me, and many like us, it would NOT mean a homogenous grouping with large classes where everyone gets on with it in the belief that the 'cream' always rises to the top, (in terms of academics) because it doesn't, always, with the distraction that different characters can find in schools, or the loss of motivation from not being pushed etc. Don't want my childrens education to suffer because we don't want to face that a child may do better in a less able stream, and therefore the whole class goes at the speed of the slowest. That does no favours to anyone. However, there should be a robust system in place for moving children to more able groups, or indeed the other way,as necessary. And in truth I only think this can come with much smaller class sizes, which means a huge amount of investment. This is where indies win out for me.

[Yamin151]

However, blaming private schools is pointless. We live in a capitalist society and people have a freedom to sell the service of education and other people have the right to buy. The same people who blame the reckless lending of banks wouldnt really prefer a world where house prices hadnt risen astronomically because of it. I cant help thinking if I had bought a sports car or spent the fees money on my mortgage people would have been less critical.

Yes, that's interesting! The fact we drive a 10 year old car and don't go on foreign holidays is ignored but we are declared 'rice and posh' because of having a child in an indie. Never mind that many of the critics go to Cape Verde every year and drive a new car every three years, lol!

[tiffinboys]

Yes, that's interesting! The fact we drive a 10 year old car and don't go on foreign holidays is ignored but we are declared 'rich and posh' because of having a child in an indie. Never mind that many of the critics go to Cape Verde every year and drive a new car every three years, lol!

For me, and many like us, it would NOT mean a homogenous grouping with large classes where everyone gets on with it in the belief that the 'cream' always rises to the top, (in terms of academics) because it doesn't, always, with the distraction that different characters can find in schools, or the loss of motivation from not being pushed etc. Don't want my childrens education to suffer because we don't want to face that a child may do better in a less able stream, and therefore the whole class goes at the speed of the slowest. That does no favours to anyone. However, there should be a robust system in place for moving children to more able groups, or indeed the other way,as necessary.

Could not have put it better.

[Herts-Dad]

Amber I am one of those poor kids that went to a comprehensive. I came from a poor family, in a poor area and neither of my parents went to university. I had dinner tickets, and grants to help buy my uniform. I spent every moment at my comprehensive bored, as did all the other bright kids. We were there, apparently, because our being there would somehow help the less bright kids to do better. Instead, three of us out of the 200 kids in my year made it to uni. The average A level grade at my school was a low D. Still is.

The school taught in mixed ability groups. It was a nightmare. The teacher had to focus on getting everyone to a certain minimum level, and that meant that brighter kids, who reached the level ten minutes into every lesson, were ignored. The pace was glacial- it had to be all things to all people and there was no time for it to be otherwise. Inevitably it served the average ability kids pretty well, and no others. There was a little learning support, but what there was was focused on bringing low achievers up to a minimum level, not extending higher achievers.

Not only that, the brighter amongst us had to pretend not to be. In these kind of mixed ability settings being bright is not seen as a good thing, it is seen as a fast way to single yourself out for bullying. Hence we were bored and disruptive and dumbed ourselves down to conform.

So yes, I want more grammar schools. It would have changed my education entirely to be taught amongst other bright students, and to have faster paced teaching, and educational aspirations beyond not standing out. It would have meant that my poor but bright friends and I thought of university as somewhere we might go, instead of somewhere other, richer people go. Yes, I want more secondary moderns too. Why? Because many poor bright poor kids will get into grammar, go to university and achieve where they otherwise would not have done. Many poor less bright kids were never going to do that anyway. Secondary modern is the right place for them. Within that secondary modern I want setting, so that kids have the ability to achieve good grades even if late developers. My one proviso is that I want the grammar selection to be based on more than a single 11+ exam so that being tutored doesn't confer the same advantage -also making it based on the rating of every class teacher a child has through the years with teachers asked to highlight children from poor families who might benefit.

There is a truth, however unpalatable, that many low achieving poor kids are low achieving because they aren't very bright. Their parents have low educational backgrounds because they too were not very bright and it is genetic. Hence why educational background of parents is the biggest indicator for attainment. That is about intelligence, not poverty mostly, in my experience. The answer for their children is not to try and make them achieve "good" A levels, it is to help them into paths that are right for them- a well paid trade for example, or careers that need other important traits- empathy, physical skill etc but don't require you to be academic. Secondary moderns should do this.

Not everyone can be high achieving in academic terms. Forcing everyone into a one size fits all education in an attempt to make it 'fairer' or more equitable won't achieve that, nothing will. Genetics aren't fair.

The only outcome from my experience of comprehensive education is that I will do everything in my power to ensure my children never have the same. In my area that means paying for an independent, selective school. If grammar were an option I'd probably choose that. What I will never do is put my child in a senior, mixed ability class. I would hate for them to have the education I did and which has held back so many of the children I went to school with.

[moved]

Centres with consoles for learning. Tuition delivered online, identical material available to all. Children work at their own pace or all complete the core modules. Teachers used to support those who need it and to pick up those not meeting their potential.
Is that Utopia?

There is a large home schooling community that uses online lectures as their academic input.
There are tablet schools in Holland and some very high-tech free schools in the UK.

Aside from the above the state education system is highly prescriptive and the new curriculum even more so.
If we want to even the score between independent and state school perhaps the independents should have to teach the state curriculum as they do in many other countries.

[Herts-Dad]

If we want to even the score between independent and state school perhaps the independents should have to teach the state curriculum as they do in many other countries.

Why would you possibly want to do that? If independents are doing better than state schools why would you want to make them have to teach the same as state schools? Surely you'd do the opposite, unless this is purely about envy?

[Guest55]

Hers-Dad - I'm sorry you had such a poor experience of a comprehensive but they are not all like that.

I taught for many years in a comprehensive that regularly sent students to top unis, including Oxbridge.

You just cannot generalise and condemn a system without wider evidence.

Private schools are doing far more damage - the 'elite' remove their children from the state system and, particularly politicians, make decisions without knowledge. Private schools are maintaining the class system which allows people with the 'right contacts' to get into jobs they are not the best qualified for - the 'old boy' network.

When everyone has to attend a state school there will suddenly be more resources and politicians might pay attention to people like Amber who are knowledgeable.

[Yamin151]

You just cannot generalise and condemn a system without wider evidence.

Private schools are doing far more damage - the 'elite' remove their children from the state system and, particularly politicians, make decisions without knowledge. Private schools are maintaining the class system which allows people with the 'right contacts' to get into jobs they are not the best qualified for - the 'old boy' network.

When everyone has to attend a state school there will suddenly be more resources and politicians might pay attention to people like Amber who are knowledgeable.

Does your second statement not contradict the first? Because I agree, you cannot generalise. But aren't you doing that with your second statement? I know we've been here before, so nothing personal at all being said, but its just an interesting contrast between your first and second statements. I am sure you are right and there is a thriving old boy network in some cases. Just as there is a thriving 'failing' sector of secondary moderns. Most half decent secondaries up to grammars and some more ordinary indies are all doing a pretty good job, but all of them suit different students.
Surely if we got rid of indies then those 'old boys' and below them the more monied population would simply find another way to tip the odds in their favour? And would closing those schools necessarily improve the funding for the state schools? I'm not sure it follows.

As in all things, when we talk about extremes (awful state schools like herts dad or over privaleged public schools like those carrying the old boy network) we are clouding the issue and failing to properly address the improvements that could be made or more sensible discussion that could be had by looking at the vast majority of schools inbetween.

[tiffinboys]

Private schools are doing far more damage - the 'elite' remove their children from the state system and, particularly politicians, make decisions without knowledge.

Is this reference to Tony Crosland and Shirley Williams, both educated at private schools, and instrumental in the demise of grammar schools? Private schools got bigger after that blow to our education system.