Discuss.

Well, within reason but I'd stop short of flogging my house to pay for school fees.

I am struggling with this at the moment. I fundamentally disagree with the statement and always thought that I would send my children to the local school but as the time draws nearer seems that most of ds1's friends are going to go private and I am starting to wonder whether I will be making him suffer for my principles.

"you have to anything in order to ensure 'good enough' education for your community."

nooo, i'll be here all day...
but i think this obsessivelness on schools is somewhat hysterical and a bit bonkers tbh.

People find their level and learn when they need to learn.

I have a vocational degree taken when i was 19-24yrs old and at the last count was as happy and had the same earnign power as my dh who left school at 15 no quals and he did a million jobs- even played ina band at glasto.. he did his degree at 40 and now has had a great job for a good few yrs.
we are both happy with the way it worked for us.

you just can't out all your eggs in one basket and slave to send a child to a certain school as if it were the only chance they have in life.

Maturity and experience has shown me that i have had a number of different opportunities and places to make decisions and so has dh, and it doesn't just all rest on 3 a levels etc...

and just to get it in before the others arrive (you know who you are!)- earning power does NOT equal happiness.
Unless, of course, you are a materialistic person. n
there, will go away now
(prob not)

I do believe that education is very important, but it is not everything. I'm not even sure how to define "best education". I would not put myself or dh under excessive strain job-wise or put ourselves at financial risk (eg in debt) for dcs education. I would perhaps move house though to get into a better school.

Would you profess a faith that you do not believe in, and if you would, what are you going to say to your children when they are grown up and ask you about it? Or are you planning a dark night of the soul and loss of faith when your youngest reaches 18?

Your own behaviour is extremely important in the education of your child

I wouldn't pretend to a faith I don't believe or am ambivalent about, to get my dd into a better school. I wouldn't be able to sustain the pretence apart from it being morally wrong my scale of things. I woluld probably move house if that would tip the balance.

I would fully agree that later educational oppertunities are there, and people take them to great effect.

I also feel that supporting and encouraging your child to get a wide range of qualifications helps to make things easier for them in later life. It is far easier to get a degree when you are 18 with no responsibilities, for example, than to go back to education when you have a job and/or a family to support. Which is not to say that it can't be done, or the door is closed, but it is a heck of a lot easier.

seeker, my beliefs are personal to me, as my children's will be to them. By going to a church school they have the opportunity to learn about the religion that is part of their cultural heritage as well as a set of beliefs. It is about the wider family/community, not what I personally believe. I want them to have the opportunity to learn and make a decision for themselves when they are older.

And it always seem to frowned on to choose a church school over a non-faith school when the church school is better academically - do people feel so strongly about someone choosing to send their child to an undersubscribed church school which is no better than any other school in the area?

It is such a personal choice where you send your child to school, nobody has the right to say you should go private/state, its your decision.

We have sent DD1 private because I wasn't happy with any of the local schools (moved here 4 months before she started reception so my choices were limited). It costs us £350 a month to send her and we are going through some financial difficulties atm after doing a full renovation of our house BUT we do without other things, £350 is easily spent on crap, takeaways, clothes you don't need, magazines so its all about balance.

She absolutely loves her school, not had one day where she has been unhappy going in so I know we have made the right choice.

I think people's definition of 'best education' is subjective as well. There are schools with crumbling walls and great teachers and vice versa, ime. I think the best thing is for you make your choice - based on whatever criteria you want to set - and then do all you can to support the school. Be positive, respectful, get involved, show your children you are interested in what they are learning and what the life of their school is like. They will have a much better attitude to their education then. I know parents who have fought to get into a 'good' school but still do nothing but carp and whinge about every tiny little thing. Their children are not the high achievers at those schools - I've been a Governor at two Ofsted rated outstanding primary schools now and the correlation between badly behaved children and middle-class parental whingeing is really clear.

Sobernow very interested in your comment

'I've been a Governor at two Ofsted rated outstanding primary schools now and the correlation between badly behaved children and middle-class parental whingeing is really clear. '

Can I ask you to elaborate a little? Are the parents whinging about poor behaviour of children in the school? Or are the children of whinging middle class parents poorly behaved?

I think that a parent makes a greater difference to a child education than anything else including the school. A child who has not be taught how to behave will do badly at any school.

Grapefruitmoon, because of the National Curriculum children learn about religion - particularly Christianity - at all state schools.

And if a church school was undersubscribed, parents wouldn't have to produce a Road to Damascus conversion to get a place - so that situation wouldn't arise.

The second one.

I have had lots of conversations with people who have moved house, and even city, to get their children into the infant school I was a Governor of for 3 yrs (not because I was a Governor, obv!) They complain about the colour of the walls, not enough French being taught in Reception, not enough after school music/dance/sport clubs. They also complain when the Head asks them not to take the children on holidays in term time and when they receive letters about persistent lateness.

My children were at this school and I could see that the ones who were difficult to manage and who were disruptive were in many many cases the children who must have been listening to kitchen table conversations about the inadequacies of the school and staff - despite the incredible service these parents were receiving for their children. They can't have had any other schools for comparison or they would have known how well off they were.

My point is that I would never have a negative discussion about the school within earshot of my children because I believe that parental support for what they are doing is vital for the children's progress and confidence.

If you don't like what's happening, fair enough move them. But don't send them in every day knowing that you don't think it's good enough.

Agree with you 100%

The desire to have the best for your child is totaly understandable (and praisewrthy to a degree) but to demand perfection is somethings else I think. Not only will it never happen, teachers being human and all that, but it is counterproductive

think you can expend you energies and resources inefficiently in the pursuit of a 'good education' for your dc.
the schools i went to didnt do much for me, but my bf, and a small handful of others in the year group of about 200 kids did v well. they werent smarter than me, but clearly better equipped in one way or another.
my bf had self confidence and determination.
so maybe spending time helping your child to build these would be more effective than working yourself into the ground to pay for an education you cant afford.

What is 'education'? The stuff schools teach to get those pieves of paper? Or the stuff you learn through day to day life that makes you wise?

I don't think that the two things need to be mutually exclusive.

Working in a classroom can teach all sorts of 'non curriculum' stuff, like groups work, taking turns, sharing, basic manners etc.

The difficulty with (and for) some children is that they don't come in with the fundamentals for this sort of stuff in place. And in some cases the parents actively encourage the children to ignore some what is going on in the classroom.....small numbers granted, but the effect of these children can be considerable.

I'm thinking of a case of a bay who was very disruptive (at the age of 11) in a particular subject. When I discussed the issue with the father and the boy the father excused the boys behavior totally because 'Well I didn't like that subject when I was in school either' . At which point both he and the boy smirked. So I told him that while I couldn't expect his son to like everything, I could expect him to behave, if for no other reason that he was wrecking the class for children who did like the subject. This possibility had never occurred to the father, and naturally had never occurred to the son.

I have done the 'buy a house you can't afford close to best school' and was a pain paying the mortgage for something you were never going to stay in but it did the trick.We couldn't afford a holiday though for 2 years and also got us used to an area we couldn't really afford to settle in!But if it is important to you you will do anything and principles go out the window

What depresses me about our very good primary school is the number of little princes and princesses there are. These are children whose parents have obviously never said no to them. They live in nice houses and have all the 'stuff'.

"principles go out the window" Really? What does that teach children about principles?

It taught him that where his education was concerned I had no qualms about getting myself in it a bit to fund a house in the right area rather than send him to a school where I though he would achieve less and probably be fairly unhappy.I am not advocating a total priciple bypass I am merely stating what i did.

I think there's a difference between 'a good school' and 'a school where your child will fit in'. Its been proven that children from stable backgrounds with no learning or behavioural difficulties, do well no matter what school they are in. They will still reach their potential because schools are structured to benefit those children.
Making changes in your life to get your child into a school where they will have their needs met (whatever they might be) is different. But I think we should all think carefully about what those needs are and what needs are important.
However, I still wouldn't send my children to a church school. Dont' believe in it. Goes against all my principles.

I'd agree with something riven said, that education isn't just about what you are taught to get bits of paper with qualifications on.

I would agree that I probably would do anything I need to do to give my son the tools that he'll need to have a happy and successful life. By this I mean things like how to hold a conversation, being thoughtful and kind, how to keep a house (am sure future wife will be pleased with that one) and how to manage his financial affairs. I'd also expect to teach him how to appreciate diverse music and culture and things like that.

I guess the right school for him might help, but I think that families are the key success factor, not necessarily the school.

In general, I would have the attitude of wanting a "good enough" education for my boys. Mainly because I was pushed way too much as a kid, went to a great private school and I then completely bombed at University because the second the pushing stopped I had no motivation of my own.

That said, I do love learning now and will learn stuff just for the sake of it (I just never want to do another exam ever again). So I'm keen to get the dses somewhere where they have the opportunity to enjoy the process of school and learning (which rules out more traditional private schools from the off).

Now we've been lucky that purely by accident (we didn't even LOOK at schools when we moved) we're in the catchment for a lovely primary. Ds1 adores it there, his teachers seem to give 150% and their enthusiasm for everything they do is catching. Such a nice environment.

Secondary worries me though, as the feeder & catchment secondary is dire - the results don't worry me, the continual bullying and disruption that I hear about concerns me greatly. Also of the reports of the inability to retain staff. I'm not quite sure what to do when they reach that age, tbh.

My choices seem to be: attempt to get them in to oversubscribed mediocre but "good enough" secondary, find religion, or pay for pushy traditional private (assuming they pass the exams).

Now given that I'm a broke atheist with principles, that narrows the field considerably

Agree with riven's point about 'what is education?'
I certainly don't think it's helpful to become obsessive about trying to achieve the 'best ' education - it puts far too much pressure on children (and parents) and there are no guarantees anyway. Children are unique - what suits one won't always suit another. I would certainly want a school where the teachers are bright, enthusiastic and caring, where they are interested in the whole child and where they are in teaching because they love teaching, not for any other reason. But totally pointless getting hung up over %of A grades, whether the buildings are old/modern etc. I know people who on the face of it had a 'top' educational experience - ie fee paying school etc but they arent happy in their adult life so quite frankly whats the point. The person in my dept (I am middle manager in a school) who is best at her job (and incidentally is great fun, relates well to staff and kids) left school at 16, worked for a while in sales, then returned to academic learning and got her qualifications and is fantastic at what she does. There are many different routes these days to where you want to go. thank god the days of dividing children at 11 into 'academic grammar school' or 'non academic secondary modern' have disappeared. I know there are some poor schools around, but generally things are so much better than they've ever been. The key ingredient is a supportive home life where reading, conversation, having an enquiring mind are valued.

seeker, learning about different faiths in RE is not the same as going to a faith school and being brought up in that faith.

In an ideal world I don't think the faith or lack of it in a parent should be a barrier to a child being brought up in that religion, providing the parents were supportive of the ethos of the school (and I think a lot of priests would agree with me). Obviously in oversubscribed schools some criteria have to be set and that is where problems/moral dilemmas arise. What about families where only one parent is a believer in the faith of the school - should they be excluded?

People have very limited ideas about what "the best" is. There seems to be this culture of entitlement among the middle-classes that, where there are "good" schools and "bad" schools, they should get the "good" schools, hence the shock and outrage when they don't.

What winds me up is the "we believe in getting the best for them" attitude. You know, "Oh, we wouldn't consider anywhere other than St Ponce's because we want the very best for Jonty and Tilly."

Of course, other people who don't have a choice are vocal in their desire for the mediocre, aren't they?

surely if they 'wanted the best' they'd home educate. Various studies have show HE kids head academically by at least 2 years (Rothermel cant recalll dates of this study)

I recall reading an article about middle class parents and each one said that the school their child was at was the 'best'. Even when it wasn't (although I'm buggered to know how that is actually measured) and would pick one or two things about it to put down other schools with.
When I lived in Malvern parents would pretend to go to church to get into a certain school and brag about it non-stop. Then it came second to another school that they considered 'lower' class. Twas very amusing lisetning to the 'oh but they got help/didn't do all the SATS' or whatever excuses.
A quote from Mark Twain 'I never let schooling get in the way of my education'

I feel a new thread bursting forth.

The best education is of course at home. Most education of children is at home. It is often more the example of the parents that counts- are they loving, diligent, hard working, kind or whatever plus the child's genes (thus in a sense whom you marry may be matters as much as whether you beat the child or read to it).

But in addition I am sure I chose the work I do in part because I wanted to buy my children as good an education my parents bought for me if not better. And they have ogne to some of the top 10 schools in the country and I believe those very academic selective private day schools which very mixed cultural and religious backgrounds of children united simply by a similar high IQ have served them very well.

In other words the best way to get your child that good education is for women to stop picking low paid work and take their proper place in well paid careers so they can afford to pay for their children to go to good schools.

Xenia - oh, where do I start....

Why do people persist in assuming that an education you have to pay for (again) is automatically better than the state one. This idea that 'you get what you pay for' and that that is bound to be a superior service is just not true.

you contradict yourself there Xenia. Yes, the best education is home education....but ssomeone has to stay home and do it.
I don't think most of us 'pick' low paid work. Fairly often there isn't a choice.

She didn't mean that, Riven. She meant that the best education is a home situation where the mother is a hot shot city type who works all the hours there are. Surely you realise that all women who are not lawyers or doctors are doing their children a disservice?

'The Top Ten schools in the country' - are they the ones that produce our politicians and church elders - who are all well balanced, incorruptible and who live by the morals they preach? Oh, why did I forget to send my children there....

I think that there isn't much academically to chose between the 100+ top schools anyway - I mean is there really much difference between a school getting 93% A-C at A level and a school that gets 97%? I bet statistally there isn't, and so much depends on the abilities of the childen (ie the selection citeria) in any case.

For me the best school is the one where my children are happy, make good friends and where their interests are catered for and nourished. That should lead to both good academic results and well adjusted children. Obviously with home support too, so the school ethos has to match or complement those of my family.

thanks be... a thread where the sensible opion seems to be the majoruty
Shessls, rivena nd lllbgrub (sorry- in a rush)
I just love you and agree wholeheartedly.

and unquietdad, love st ponce's

My DS1 starts school on September. How on earth do I know at this stage what "the best education" is for him? It's far too young to tell what sort of environment will sit him best.

I may well pay later on if it is required - somewhat concerned about the increasing number of unqualified teachers in secondary schools - but I honestly can't see what a private school can add over a good state primary (in a very middle class area to be fair) at the age of four.

you have to do anything to get what you consider the best for your kids in EVERY way.

i think that's true.

i'd do ANYTHING and i mean literally anything to stay where we are now because of the general quality of life here, including the school.

no one will give that to them. i have to do it. that's for me to do, no matter what it takes.

so that's it.

I think Xenia was referring to 'home education' in the broadest sense of most of a child's learning taking place within the home. I agree that having a supportive home where reading, the arts, an enquiring mind etc are valued is probably the most important long term factor. Home education in the sense of having one parent at home to provide education is just not a viable option for many of us because we want to be using our own talents and skills in the workplace as well as through raising our children.

I will read thread in a minute, but want my response to be untainted by the response of others.

I want the best overall education for my child however that includes social development. I put a high value on being able to walk to school, on having friends who live a few doors away. Academics are important but not the be all an end all of discussions about education IMO

I am open minded though, if in a few years time it looks like DS1 has more academic potential than the school can develop we would look to changing the choices we have made.

<wanders off to read whole thread>

Yes, I meant in the broad sense. But if you can also pay for them to go to say Manchester grammar or Westminster under school or Haberdashers or whatever, those very good schools even at primary level are obviously going to be much better for them if you have a clever child who is academic than any state school in the land. It's why nearly 50% of parents would pay if they could afford to.

I think the US study on child outcomes seems to have concluded whether a parent works makes no difference but low birth weight and being adopted to, that a child will do well if a family values education and careers highly and has a good work ethics and if the parents are highly educated and intelligent they tend to have bright children, IQ has a genetic component. Whether the parents stay together or not has had no impact. Apparently it's in this US study but I was just reading a summary of it.

nces.ed.gov/ecls/

I agree with MB - opportunities are there for life long learning but of course I want to make my DC's passage through life easier and support them as best I can.

Which does include flogging myself harder than I should in order to pay school fees

My child's education happens just as much outside of school as in it.

I am still very interested in an earlier question I asked - what do people say to their children in later life if they have "done anything" to get them into the "best school", if that "everything" includes lying about their address or their faith.

I have done my best to get my DCs the best education I can. My first priority when buying a house is the schools, I wouldn't buy my dream house if it was in the catchment area of a poor school. I wouldn't go to church to get a place and I wouldn't pretend an address. I would only pay for education if there was no reasonable choice. I think it is a better preparation for life to mix which a whole range of backgrounds. I don't pay attention to league tables and I am not too keen on 'reputations'as they often way out of date and wildly inaccurate. The only way is to visit the school on a normal working day and ask dozens of questions.It could be a wonderful, high performing school but be unsuitable for your DCs. Mine wouldn't cope in a highly academic school and I am certainly not keen on those who only want high achieving pupils.In the newspaper yesterday it said that some Independent schools were preventing pupils from entering some exams if they were likely to do badly because it would lower their position in the league table. I would hate them to go to a school where their league table position is more important to them than an individual pupil.
I am probably a bit different from a lot of people, I moved away from an 11+ area and I am very much in favour of Comprehensive schools.
I wouldn't lie to get into a school but I wouldn't send them to a school with poor discipline and staff-I would home educate in preference.

I haven't had to do that as I bought the education instead. I doubt any children would resent that sort of a lie. Anyway local authorities check addresses and in terms of faith parents have to attend church and that's not deceptive. Indeed it can make some parents return to their faith so in a sense it's win/win - the church gets back people who had dropped out, people get spiritual comfort, the children get an hour away from the TV on Sunday sitting still which always does them good anyway.

It is OK, Xenia, if you then keep up the church attendance once you have the place, otherwise it is not a message that I would want to give my DCs.

Personally I'd abolish all state religious schools as in US and French schools and ban religion from school. My mother (and me) thought she could educate us as Catholics out of school and did not send us to Catholic schools (except for my first few years). You don't need religion in school to be religious.

'the children get an hour away from the TV on Sunday sitting still which always does them good anyway.' eh? why does sitting still do them good? And what makes you think they're all watching TV. Mine are usually running around the park or the garden.

I think that being able to sit still, be patient and listen is a good thing for children to learn. All part of learning reasonable manners.

Actually listening skills in kids coming into school at 11 tend to be quite poor. My last year 7 form couldn't listen to a story for 10 minutes (the Demon Headmaster, not War and Peace or anything!)

I do think some children aren't ever made to keep still and listen even when they don't want to. Something you need to do in school and if you're used to doing it in church and even used to having to do something you don't like that's a gift in a sense a parent gives to a child.

I see your point, but I hardly think thats an important reason for going to church! However I'm with you Xenia on the abolishing church schools. Religion if for the family and for church. School should be completely separate.

I don't know about the best. I want my children to have the same sort of education I had. I was lucky to go to a very good state grammar. I pay for my children to go to a top 50 independent school and I think it is pretty much the same education that I received free of charge.

That's exactly my situation Swedes.

BTW you're offspring are particularly good-looking aren't they

your

Cammelia Thank you.

Surely the "best" is the best education for the child?

We sent DS1 to St Crammer at vast expense for a little while. He hated it. He is much happier in School Local.

Query whether I will be able to be this relaxed about his education at secondary level though. School Local is actually a very good school indeed, but the state secondary near us is not at all good. Sounds a lot llike the one near Rubber Duck actually....

We're prepared to do what we can to get dd what we consider to be a good enough education. We are about to move house to that end. We live on the edge of a rather grim area and the secindary school is the grimmest in the county. So we are moving. Not to the best school - to the best we can afford to live next to - one which doesn't seem to ahve any major problems. It looks good enough to us - we feel able to do the rest.

In theory, I could go back to work FT and pay private school fees but I'm not prepared to do that. I would be fine with a faith school (in fact I think that will be our local primary) as long we can be clear about our atheism. I went ot a faith school myself and came out unscathed - and it was a but school than the other one up the road. My mother was a Serious Believer though.

When it comes to the good of the community vs the good of my child, it is unlikely that I would choose the former over the latter.

Crikey - lousy typing even for me - must be because I'm sober. 'A better school' etc.

I would be happy to share this reasoning with dd when she is older.

"I am still very interested in an earlier question I asked - what do people say to their children in later life if they have "done anything" to get them into the "best school", if that "everything" includes lying about their address or their faith".

Still interested......but obviously no one else is!

I think it's the "new found faith" people that interest me most. When do they stop going to Church? What do they tell the children when they do - or do they keep going for the rest of their lives?

We moved house while DS1 was on the waiting list for a school, and told the local authority our new address knowing fine well that meant DS1 would never make it to the top of the waiting list. It was just the right thing to do. I don't think I can take much moral credit for this though, because if the state sector doesn't work out we are lucky to be able to afford the private sector instead. As it turns out I now consider School Local, where DS1 ended up, to be better than the school for which he was on the waiting list.

Can't help with the faith point though, and I don't know anyone who's tried it.

DH travels a lot to India, where very poor people do everything they can to send to their children to the evening school run by volunteers, but which is not 'free'. We have just returned from Egypt, where education is valued above everything - even shoes for the children. Very poor people who have nothing in dire situations are prepared to make scarifices because they know edcuation is the only way their children have out of poverty.
Here in this country where education is 'free' to all, it appears to be very poorly valued by those whose children need it most. All of us who post on mumsnet are by definition internested in education, and doing our best to provide our children with what we consider to the best education available to us in our own circumstances. The real concern is not actually the edcuation of our children, but those who do not se the value of it, and deprive their children of the opportunity to learn, and by conveying that attitude undermine the efforts of whichever schools their children attend.