Mumsnet Talk

Ok, just to add to all the other threads like this today.

DS1 got into the private school he/we liked, but no scholarship. We will also almost certainly have a place at the local state school.

PS is lovely, not super-hot house, but high-achieving. Fees are a lot though & would have an impact on our family life (and we'd really feel it if DC2 went private too). It's about 45 mins, an hour journey each way. He would probably enjoy it there & hopefully it would polish him off a bit. I'm slightly worried that it leans more towards humanities than sciences (not good for DS1) BUT I could be wrong about this as it was just an impression I got on Open Day.

SS is great. Streaming. Latin. It has a very mixed intake but those who do well, do well IYSWIM. It's only been good for 2-3 years though, before that it was awful. If he knuckled down DS1 would do well (that is a big 'if' BTW). I do like the idea of sticking within the local community though, & we could afford tutoring if we felt he needed topping-up.

But are we just being stingy at not taking up the opportunity for the private school? The thought of not having to worry abut school fees is very very tempting...

No brainer. Go state.

Echoes Seeker.

What's your gut feeling?

We are in Yorkshire so not super selectives and hot house type places here.
DD has had three offers: 2 independent (one selective, girls only. with entrance exam; other non selective, coed, but an assessment/getting to know you day before offer) and the catchment state school (good school, does well, etc)

But DD knew almost immediately after getting the girl's school offer that is where she wanted to go. DH was also very keen. I am happy to go with her choice. So, we accepted place their on our gut feeling rather than the finances, etc. Accepted yesterday, before actually getting state option today.

"SS is great."

So why pay a second time for what you have already paid for in your taxes?

If you had no decent state options, it would be a harder decision. But you have the option of giving your children a good education, without harming the rest of family life struggling to pay for it.

No brainer. Honest! Don't convince yourself you are being stingy, you are being sensible, and keeping that much money back for all the other wonderful things you can do for your family.

OP, I think an almost two hour journey daily would really make me think again. BTW I have no axe to grind against private education. You should call them or if possible visit again and clarify your impression about leaning towards humanities, which if true may not give the breadth and depth of science and maths that your DS1 needs/wants. On the financial side, do you qualify for a bursary?

On the SS, I wouldn't worry at all about it used to be awful. It's turned around and now is great and it is highly unlikely to fall back again. I think the fact that they offer Latin is an indicator of high aspiration. Presumably, you have checked out their science curriculum and you approve?

Another consideration is extra-curricular. Private almost always has the edge over state on this. But many SS, rather than offering a huge variety of activities, focus on a few (an excellent music department, a purpose built art studio, a great playing field etc.). If their focus matches your DS1's interests, you'd be in luck.

I'm sure you've considered this, but FWIW, if the SS is great, then think about how much you could offer if you don't have to pay school fees. Think of the travelling you could do, as part of his broader education. If he's into science, you could take him to CERN for a weekend, for example, something you'd be hard pressed to do on top of school fees.

Get a little more info, and then go with your gut feeling. I wish you all the best of luck.

Thanks.

Those of you who are saying Go State! are kind of echoing what we think deep down. We earn way above bursary level so 1 set of school fees would impact on how many/ what kind of holidays we take rather than take bread from our mouths (2 sets however is another kettle of fish!). If we went Indy, DS1 wanting to go on the school ski trip would make us go Eek! The State school trip wouldn't be a problem at all. So yes, as a family we would have a better quality of life. Plus we could save for university/first home.

My gut feeling says, State. No financial stress, ability to afford great experiences as a family etc etc. I suppose emotionally I yearn a bit for the dreaming spires , flapping gowns sorta thing. Which is daft. Both DH & I went to private schools BTW (I was an 11+ child).

Great thoughts from all of you - thanks again.

I don't think 'thinking with your wallet' is necessarily a problem anyway. School fees will impact on your family (particularly as you have two DC). Looking at the impact of them on other areas in your life is just being realistic - it doesn't turn you into an uncaring parent.

And if it's tight to afford two sets of fees what will happen if your financial situation changes even slightly? Would you still be able to afford private education?

Well if DH lost his job I think his family would step in, fees-wise as I think they are secretly appalled that we are planning to send him state. They put a lot of pressure on us to apply for independents - without that we probably wouldn't have bothered.

The distance was a significant factor in my advice - mine wasn't a 'state v private' answer, it was a local v miles away answer, and also, if your local state school is good and will suit your child , why look further?

That DS's school is 10 mins walk away makes a huge contribution to the quality of our lives.

Yes, Blu I agree, especially as DS1 would probably do a fair bit of after-school sport. Slogging home then homework... Hmmm...

I think given you can't do it comfortably, you'd have to work out what exactly you would be getting for your money.

Only you can decide that. What one values is highly subjective and there is no point someone else sticking their size tens in and saying that x or y or z isn't worth it.

For example, DD's friend's family really push the boat out for private school. I mean, really push it out. It leaves them very little. But for them it is worth every penny as she was hideously bullied at her last school due to unmanaged SEN.

For you, it seems there might not be too much that would make it worth the sacrifices you would have to make?

Exactly wordfactory. Although so many people really scrimp & save to send their children to private school it seems churlish to moan about any sacrifices we'd have to make as we'd still be fairly comfortable - we'd just have to think twice about some things, that's all. I don't know how anyone affords to send more than 1 child though, god knows what they earn.

In our case I'm not sure there is ultimately enough difference to justify the expense: it's not like we're talking about Westminster vs Sinksville Arts & Media Academy.

DS would love Sinksville Arts and Media Academy, Scamp!

Go State
and spend the money you save on all the trips / extra curricular / interesting holidays
that make life really worth living

I was chatting today to a sixth former who moved to our ( independent) school after GCSEs from a state school deemed Outstanding by OFSTED and which is also a Teaching School and has an excellent reputation. I was interested to discover her impressions of 'us', as a relative newcomer, and why she moved.

She said that although she did well at the previous school she didn't get the impression that the teachers cared enough about exactly how well she did and whether her potential was being fully realised. There was a lot of emphasis on reaching the gold standard 5 A*-C grades in the school plus maintaining and improving their league table position. There were also issues of 'crowd control'.
She said that she felt she now has teachers who will spend quality time on her, encouraging her to express ideas and showing her how to learn in a way which suits her. Plus she likes the shared sense of academic purpose in the school and the relaxed atmosphere.

I don't actually teach her, and she may have been saying what she thought I would want to hear, but I don't think so.I don't have a downer on state schools being a product of one and having taught mainly in the state system and I like to think I always care about my students, wherever I teach. In the end it comes down to money ( obviously) and what will suit a particular child. No school is perfect for everyone.

I think you have answered your own question, really. There doesn't seem to be enough advantage to the private school to justify the expense or the travel time.

You would be thinking with your wallet if you had a suitably sciency private school 5 minutes from your home but decided to send your ds to a state school 45 minutes away in order to save money. As it is, you weighed up the pros and cons and decided that, taking everything into consideration, the state school would be the more sensible option.

You are so lucky to have a viable SS option! Grab it with both hands! If you are unhappy at any time along the way, you can always reconsider (as you have a DS, presuming 13+ or 6th form entry could be an option?)
There will be a lot of people very jealous of your situation this evening in particular

remember that even having the funds to consider private schooling puts you and your DH in the top 5% by income in the country.

not a critcism
just something to be aware of

I (and all my 5 siblings) were at private school, the 2 youngest boarded
BUT
with the current relationship between property / incomes / school fees
blocking out those with parental help at some level
private school is only open to less than 1/20

which is neither good for them (reduced competition) nor the rest of us (reduced options)

Yes, Talkinpeace I am very aware of that, but this is a section about secondary education, and I'm far from being the only parent on MN who has this option. This isn't a political issue for me right now but a personal one. FWIW, I wish there were no choice, and everyone went to the school nearest them, and said school organised itself as it wished according to its intake. But it's not like that is it, and one wants to do what is best for one's children.

Talked to DS1 over dinner tonight & we are definitely going for the state option. I can order the new sofa to replace our current collapsing one.

good choice

now book your eater holiday (our villa is on Crete)

Indeedy! Not going away at Easter but have planned/booked really lovely holiday in France in August to celebrate DS1's last primary school summer and to make up for hideous summer last year spent swotting

And a good long holiday, getting him to go and buy the lunch picnic in the shop, order his own meal at a restaurant, try different foods and learn and explore

is what makes the choice the right one
because its the stretching sideways that is the best bit of education.

I have chosen private school not because I can afford it. It is because I am afraid of my DD being lost in the system. If ypur child is academic or supremely confident. I dont think it matters.

A private education ensures that your child is given the best oppurtunity to shine.

Smaller class size and more attention.

Kenlee private education in general does not guarantee anything at all, There are both good and poor private schools just like there are good and poor state schools.

At the state school my DC attend, most GCSE classes have 20-25 pupils in them. In DS3 science class there are only 12 other pupils in his group (as most take double science and he is taking separate sciences). Neither he nor any of his siblings have been lost in the system.

It is an extreme contrast, but there is a private school near me (a Brethren school) does not let students use the internet at all, and only teaches the bits of biology that do not contradict the bible. Not sure that private schools is giving their pupils the chance to shine.....

creamteas
TBH I would never compare a Brethren school with a normal private school - they do not allow Women to take paid jobs either.

But I do agree with your point about Fees being no guarantee of a good education.
The crammer I went to made a fortune out of the failings of top top schools.
My own (fee paying girls) school neglected to tell my parents that I was in the building but not actually attending lessons for weeks on end.

"A private education ensures that your child is given the best oppurtunity to shine. "
No it doesn't 't!

talking I did say it was extreme! But it does illustrate the point that there is a huge range of private schools, and not all of them give a good education.

Most people on MN accept that the state sector varies, but a lot less seem willing to admit that the private sector does as well.

Glad to see you have chosen the excellent state - i really don't think you will regret it.

We did the same for DD and she has never looked back. She is very academic, is at excellent comp, achieving very highly and very, very happy.

The state school sounds good. TBH, I'm pretty sure that any bright child with supportive parents will get similar results in state or private. But we're going for private for the environment. NOT, as so many MNs assume, to keep away from oiks, but because there's a stronger peer ethos of admiring and cheering on hard work and academic excellence at the private schools we looked at than the state schools we're near. Same results but less alienation for going for them. Won't be true of all schools.

Paying fees doesn't guarantee anything. But it does maximise the chances of you getting what you want, precisely becuase it affords you choice.

Going private affords more choice on what you get from the school.

Then again, if money is limited, having to spend it all on school fees will afford you less choice on educational activities outside of the school.

I think in this situation it boils down to if you want the school to organise everything educational for your ds, or if you have plenty of your own ideas of doing things for your ds which you want the money for.

Personally, I like the idea of having a bit left over if it turns out that children have unusual gifts which cannot be catered for even at a private school. Or just so that you can do fun and educational things as a family and have those shared memories afterwards.

Hello Scampa I've been wondering about you because I remember your message from before (the private and the state begin with same four letters?). I queried your confidence that ds would get into the private since it's so competitive but clearly it was justified!
I do know a lot of families who are opting for that particular state over selective options and they seem really pleased with it. Such a joy to walk to school and have local friends and for us it's been one of the great benefits of going to our local primary.
However, I'm curious as to why you put your boy in for the private? It's a stressful process and not one that can easily be done with no investment (emotional, time, tutoring etc) so there must have been some reason for doing so given that you didn't need a safety net since you were pretty sure you were in catchment?
As for thinking with your wallet, I think parents feel very squeamish about allowing money to be a factor in any choices they make for their children. However, if you think of not as money but things that the money could buy you, it can be clearer. Eg money could buy you ability to work part-time and thus be around more, the freedom from student debt for your children, the time for them to be able to do internships or a longer course like medicine, and as said before the holidays which can be so precious.

Hi farewell thank you for remembering me! A good question, why did we embark on the private thing. Various reasons: 1) Family pressure 2) Bright but lazy child - would he get pushed enough at a state school? 3) needed reassurance re the state option as it's a very recent turnaround in fortunes as you know 4) (pathetic reason) When I went to see the private schools with a couple of them I got sort of sucked into the Bridesheady atmosphere But, you know, it's 2013 not 1913, and I like the thought that we'll remain part of the local community and also hopefully DS will in later life be able to get on with people from all sorts of backgrounds. Only time will tell!

I think I remember you saying you had children in yr 5 - what's your thinking at the moment?

Hi Scampa, I know you've already made the decision, but can I ask: did your DS have a strong preference one way or the other? We are in an almost identical dilemma, except the private option is only 25 minutes' drive rather than 45. We feel (after hours of discussing/researching) that overall, the local state option is best for our family as a whole, but having broached that with our daughter, she has expressed a preference for the private option. She can't really give a clear reason. We don't want to ignore her wishes, but we're not sure to what extent a 10 year old understands the longer term implications of the decision!

What longer term implications are you thinking of apart from the obvious ie fees? (just curious)

Financial implications - less spare money for holidays/clothes/presents etc, but also longer term for helping with university costs/first car/first house etc.
Losing touch with local friends and local community.
Increased travel time eating into spare time/relaxation during the week. Earlier start in the mornings affecting bedtime so less of an evening for various family members.
Decision to send this child affecting the decision on school choice for second child.

NowIncognito No, he wasn't really sure which one he wanted. He was a bit concerned about some of the science facilities at the private school but loved the sports. Unless he's putting a good face on it I think he's fine with the decision. We involved him completely. Were quite honest about the financial implications without, I hope, stressing him out about them.
BTW, it's only a 25 minute journey by car but about 45 by bus. I had no intention of ferrying him there & back twice a day (bit impractical with another, younger, child to consider anyway).

I think you need to gently push your daughter into articulating the reasons for her preference. It could be something as daft as preferring the uniform, or maybe someone she doesn't like is going to be at the state school?

Don't forget that he would be mixing with kids from a broader range of backgrounds at SS as well, which is an education you can't pay for.
Also, if he goes state, he can hold his head up high when he's grown up and say he achieved what he has through talent and effort, rather than through his parents money.
You can use the money you save from not sending him to private school on activities, lessons, traveling, etc which will enrich his life.
I am unapologetically pro state in this debate.

My state school catchment is predominantly white low middle income. Hardly a broad 'range of backgrounds' mint. So I've never really understood this argument.

he can hold his head up high when he's grown up and say he achieved what he has through talent and effort, rather than through his parents money.

Of course Mint, because the children who go private don't need to use their talent or effort... It's enough with going to a private school, they never have to study! That's because their parents money pays for GCSEs and A levels results, A* being the most expensive option. They didn't even have to put any effort in getting a secondary place through a ruthless exam against another 800 children - something some state educated children never had to do.

I am not an advocate for private education per se, but your remark is so not serious you pushed me over to the other side.

One of the advantages of having gone to a non selective state school
- even for a couple of years -
is that it give kids an insight into how the unmotivated, uneducated and unintelligent behave : both parents and children

if more politicians had that insight they might not make so many stupid decisions

Some of our friends are products of the private system. Now that they are parents themselves they are putting their DCs through the same system.

When I interact with them I don't come don't come away thinking that I have a greater 'insight' on life, the universe and everything because of my WC state school background.

I agree that many of those attending public schools like Eton live in a privileged bubble and are worst off for it. However, its kind of naive to lump all selective educated people in with families whose wealth is beyond the experience of the majority of the population.

The fact that this is how you see Life suggest that your non-selective state school education hasn't exactly imbued you with the insights and experiences that you are holding up to demonstrate the advantages of going to a non selective state school

"One of the advantages of having gone to a non selective state school
- even for a couple of years -
is that it give kids an insight into how the unmotivated, uneducated and unintelligent behave : both parents and children"
Wow. State school as anthropology. Not sure what to make of that. I'll reply when I've dropped off my unmotivated, uneducated and unintelligent children. If I can be bothered, that is.........

I don't see why you would choose private in your case. My kids are at private school because I think the school we send them to is vastly better than their state alternative. Fees aside, it seems like you prefer the state school, so why would you spend all that money when you don't have to?

Love the idea that those of us from comps can hold ourhead up high! That we so wonderfully well rounded and empathetic etc But then in the next breath the op is told to spend her wonga on other enriching stuff that will give her dc a leg up.

Seeker surely Talkin's got her tongue firmly jammed in her cheek. It is equally insulting to those of who pay to read "Also, if he goes state, he can hold his head up high when he's grown up and say he achieved what he has through talent and effort, rather than through his parents money."

Scampa, I think the fact that your state educated at primary got into a pretty competitive school against those who are a) privately educated and b) tutored to the nth, means that what you've/he's done so far has worked. In which case, continuing along the state route with home support (and an extra two hours a day to play with because there's no commute) would seem like an excellent option.
My eldest in y4 and so I'm thinking about the whole secondary thing. I don't think we're in catchment for the one you're opting for but another that is doing alright. I feel mine are doing so well and are so happy in their primary I wonder why I'm even considering private at secondary. But I can't quite let go of the idea because where I live almost everyone in private housing goes private from the age of 3. The stubborn up-yours bit of my personality thinks, sod them, my lot are going to the state school and will whup yours so there. But then the neurotic side of me kicks in.
We don't have any financial reasons not to go private, but whilst we can afford it, I do wonder quite how rich one would have to be to spend best part of 300k (for all of them) for something that doesn't seem so much better. The kids I know from similar backgrounds but in different sectors seem to come out the same - same accents, aspirations, universities, careers...

"Seeker surely Talkin's got her tongue firmly jammed in her cheek. It is equally insulting to those of who pay to read "Also, if he goes state, he can hold his head up high when he's grown up and say he achieved what he has through talent and effort, rather than through his parents money."

Does she? Actually, yes, she must have had, mustn't she? Sorry, sense of humour failure. Her post was a bit too close to day to day mumsnet reality for my early morning irony detector to go off!!! Agree that the head held high comment was daft. Impossible to deny that life is easier at some schools than others, though!

Yes FtA I know EXACTLY what you mean. It is as though it's received wisdom almost: You are of x social class and earn z money therefore it is a given that you will educate privately. When we turned down that private school place it seemed very counter-intuitive. Our children are at different schools (I think - yours are at WT?) but where we live has so many contrasts in lifestyles that I think people are almost scared of stepping outside boundaries. It's a leap of faith almost! Coupled with the fact that until a few years ago the state secondaries here were atrocious - tbh I'm just grateful I don't have to move to Muswell Hill!

My dp's colleagues think he's some sort of communist because his children are at state school.

His colleagues must be a bunch of seriously posh people

There are about 30 in my section at a City firm and the norm is state school. People mostly live in the burbs, far from the problems of inner city state schools, so I'm guessing that there isn't the pressure to go priovate even if you can afford it.

Actually my tongue was nowhere near my cheek.

I was at selective private education until the age of 21.
The real world of work was rather a shock
and I have spent the last 25 years of my working life dealing with legislation written by upper class twits who have NO idea how the real world lives.

I think it would be a VERY good thing for every child to do a terms secondment in a non selective school (that applies to kids like young Cleggy and of course the right on Millibrains)

"choice" in education, healthcare, energy, you name it is all utterly ridiculous to most of the non political classes and the 80% of the population who never go near fee paying or selective schools (most of MN seems to be full of the remainder 20%)

MN is full of the remainder 20%???

People who accuse others of not being as competent as themselves shouldn't make such silly 'observations'.

Talkin - I am confused. Up to the age of 21 you was in selective private education. Unless you had several stabs at passing your A levels I am assuming that you went to a private university.

Are you saying that apart from yourself such people are twits?

MTS
I was indeed one of those twits
and when I went to uni I was one of the 5%

I've worked with enough people who have gone through selective education, naice universities, straight into consultancy companies
advising other people how to run their lives
when they and everybody they socialise with went to boarding school

diss me if you like, but the statistics bear me out
Lord Neuberger on Radio 4 yesterday afternoon was even more categoric than I about the problem.

A state secondary that does Latin!!! For me the decision would be made on the Latin alone.

Always amused at this idea of Latin being a benchmark of some sort......

Talking - Forget about making sweeping statements about the 7%. You seem to be saying that you are an insightful and enlightened soul and that the rest of your cohorts are just twits.

If such thinking is the product of your selective education then I guess you are proving your own theory.

I did Latin at a state school and think it's just...well.....beautiful..and, er it's really helped me in life....with....pub quizzes

Personally, I think un-worried parents are worth an awful lot in a child's development. So if the private school would cause worry, and the state school is great, I would go state.

OP, you are not me, and you have a very clear picture - if you are leaning towards one, distrust guilt and distrust all our advice, and trust your gut

It's not that Latin is some magic thing (although I do think ancient langauages and cultures are A Good Thing) it's more that DC, all DC, should be given the opportunity.

Like triple science.

Why do some schools feel they can justify offering no latin or triple science? Why is that okay? Why are we preapred to excuse that and settle for less?

It's as if people just want to make excuse after excuse for limiting choices.

Talkin - Milliband was state educated. He went to a comp.

I know what you're saying. I knew men at uni who went to a cloistered prep, cloistered boarding school, onto Oxford and then into Lincoln's Inn. They were representing people whose experiences were utterly beyond their comprehension. They had lived with views of neat quads and mellow stone pillars all their lives.

But I don't think you have to go to a comp to mix socially. My DC will go private for secondary but a lot of their friends are going to state schools, we live on the edge of a housing estate and they mix with the children from there all the time.

And I totally agree, wordfactory - the issue lies with the unambitious provision in too many state schools, not in the aspirations of those who send private in order to secure a really strong education for their DC. (Those who send private to keep DCs oik-free are another breed altogether.)

racingheart
the Millibands : there are comps and "comps"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211962/Hardly-bog-standard--Ed-Milibands-days-Eton-lefties.html

Thing is, my kids ARE at a comp and we do not socialise AT ALL with the kids from the poor parts of the catchment and out of catchment.
The kids segregate themselves, but they are aware that there are different types.
THe Cameroons and Gideon Osbournes of this world have genuinely never spent time with "the great unwashed"

racing that's what I can never understand.

Instead at looking at what is good in the private sector and insisting we offer some of it to all pupils in state education, people endlessly make excuses or say it's not necessary, or its actually a bad thing...

It's as if their aversion to private education makes them blind.

Latin, oh no, waste of time.
Triple science, oh you don't actually need it.
Smaller class sizes, oh there's evidence it's pointless.
Setting, oh there's evidence it doesn't work.

To quote Ben Elton from his hey day 'I sometimes think the British like things to be a bit shit so they know where they are.'

I have no aversion to Private : I did well out of it after all - but financially its not an option and I'm lucky enough to live in a part of the country with enough MC kids at the state schools to keep standards high

but I totally agree
there is absolutely no excuse for the SMT in any state school to have low aspirations for their pupils.
Wilshaw and Gove plan to advertise how many kids from every state school (including those that stop at 16) get into RG Unis.
Good thing too.
BUT they should also publicise the percentage who do not go onto education beyong 18 and are in permanent work (the plumbers, hairdressers, farm workers etc)

I have met narrow minded rich people who think that people are poor simply because they don't work hard enough.

I have met narrow minded white MC people who thinks that there is no such thing as racism in the UK and that the legal system isn't biased against poor people. Double so if you are poor and black.

I have met narrow minded WC people whose only exposure to anything foreign is a curry from their local.

Narrow minded people exist up and down the economic food chain so it's a bit stupid to try to make the point that the other guy is narrow minded because they were state educated or privately educated OR because they are rich or MC or WC.

"Narrow minded" is also lacking in education.
Havng never encountered lower class or non academic people until I was an adult, I genuinely did not comprehend that some people are just NOT academic or organised, and nothing will make them be so. T'was a bit of a shock starting work at a Building company ;-)
BUT
I have worked in places witha huge range of people.
Those who leave private school and go into the Law or the City or Politics never meet those people so do not understand them.

And as an immigrant (albeit a white one) I see some of the stranger attitudes in the UK

Talking - sorry for being blunt but if, at the.age of 21, you wasn't aware that there were people in this world that are not organized or academic then that says more about you than the system that educated you.

"Latin, oh no, waste of time.
Triple science, oh you don't actually need it.
Smaller class sizes, oh there's evidence it's pointless.
Setting, oh there's evidence it doesn't work."

Do people? I thought most people think triple science and setting are a good idea- I certainly haven"t seen many people on here who don't.

I remain unconvinced about Latin- although it is fun. And I am also unconvinced about small classes. Particularly very small ones.

Any child can leave any school state or private not understanding a range of people. Plenty of urban dwellers dont undertsand the lot of those who live in a rural location, the rich don't undertsand the poor and the poor don't understand that being rich is not the be all and end all. What one hopes is that education makes you open minded and non judgenmental of all. Reading some commments on MN it seems to me that there are as many state educated people who are narrow minded when it comes to the type of children at and produced by private schools as there are privately educated people who are judgemental about those from the state sector.

Tripping- I agree with you- up until ". Reading some commments on MN it seems to me that there are as many state educated people who are narrow minded when it comes to the type of children at and produced by private schools as there are privately educated people who are judgemental about those from the state sec"

"up until" that comment? What don't you agree with?

I am very convinced by small classes - but by that I mean about 16 - 20. I don't think that you want smaller than that because you don't have enough people to bounce ideas about, have choice for group work and it is very easy to be spoon fed. If they are too small it can be difficult with the friendship pool and it is very easy to get the 'big fish in the small pool' and friendship clashes if you get two of them.
I used to think that Latin was a waste of time but now I really wish that I had done it because it is so helpful for other subjects.
I would go state and have the money for other things to enhance the education e.g mine had some really good trips to Russia, Canada etc that we couldn't have afforded if they were private. You will also need it for university.
If it has managed to be good for 2-3 years it is jealously going to guard that reputation- the Head and staff will want to be teaching in a good school and not a dreadful one!
Private would worry me in that circumstances might change e.g. friend's DH, in very good job, called in on Friday lunchtime and made redundant with immediate effect- no warning, no inkling.

seeker i can assure you that there are certain posters who will argue that anyhting and everything about private school is bad. On principle.

Go to any thread about double/triple science (there are a couple running at the mo) and there will be lots of psoters saying it doen't matter and giving examples of people who only did double and went on to become nobel prize winners. Completely and utterly missing the point of course!

People will tell you their 'outstanding' comprehensive only offers double as if that proves the point. I mean really. How can a school that doesn't value science enough to even offer its most talented scientists a triple option ever be described as 'outstanding'?

As for Latin, it doesn't matter what you or i think about it's relative merits, what matters is that those DC who are interested in classical civilisations should have the opportunity to learn about them whatever sector they find themselves in. Again, how can any school justify this?

We should be hauling these schools over the coals...not awarding them certificates of merit.

I think only offering double science is a bit rubbish. But the fact remains that it is all that's required to go on and do science A levels. The people saying that are right.

And why just Latin? Why shouldn't every child be offered the opportunity to learn Greek? Or Hebrew? Or archaeology? Or silversmithing? There's a private school near here that does beekeeping. Ds's school does horticulture. I really don't see why Latin is this touchstone of excellence. There are thousands of interesting/useful subjects in the world- choices have to be made.

seeker offering all that is required and no more is crap. Really really crap.

As for Latin, we could debate all day, why it's an important choice. The fact is that the vast majority of private schools offer it. Certanly the academic schools all offer it. I suspect most gram,mar schools offer it. So it is widely valued (as opposed to bee keeping ).

So essentially what you have is the wealthy having the choice to do it. Everyone else...not so much.

So the divide grows and grows.

If we excuse schools from offereing these things, aren't we just colluding?

Or perhaps we're not. Perhaps the majority don't want triple science. Perhaps they don't want Latin. Perhaps I am part of the band of outliers, and the currrent divisions simply reflect the desires of differing communities?

If I could take things from good private schools and give them to all state schools, it wouldn't be anything academic. It would be the extra curricular opportunities. Privileged/well off parents can give their children the same artistic/cultural/sporting opportunities whatever school they go to, but disadvantaged / poor parents usually can't/won't. So privileged kids get the opportunities wherever they go to school, disadvantaged kids don't. That's where the real divide lies. School is supposed to open the world out to you, not shut it down.

I completely disagree.

I think triple science, Latin, setting etc should be available to all students whatever their parents bank balance and whatever their post code.

And while these things remain optional, parents like me, who do think they're important, will go private.

Private schools win on sport etc because the parents pay for it. The state system can't offer the same for free. e.g. teachers are not going to want give up weekends and after school for sheer goodwill-they have homes and families and a life.
They used to do far more when I was young but the work load wasn't as heavy. It isn't even as if parents appreciate that it is goodwill and not part of the job. There is a current thread where a Beaver leader has been shouted at by a parent because her DC didn't get given a badge-(never mind the fact they didn't get the badge because they didn't do the work)and I think that she was told that she was doing a crap job!!! The sort of thing that makes you think 'really-why on earth do I bother?'.
There have been threads where parents have got upset when a primary school has cancelled an after school club because the teacher is off ill-forgetting (or not realising) that it isn't part of the job, it is goodwill and other teachers can't just step in, they may be running their own, have a meeting etc. It isn't childcare like the actual After School Club run for that purpose.
State schools do get experts in, but they have to be paid for and then parents say that it isn't fair because they can't afford it. There have also been massive threads where parents hate the fact that expensive trips are offered because they can't afford them- and they don't like anything out of the ordinary as in dressing up because it costs money and if not money it takes effort.
There was also the very weird thread where teachers were supposed to have short holidays and give childcare and activities as part of their job. This was all supposed to be free in the state sector but it seemed OK that the private sector provide it all, at a price (and a high price).
The PTAs do a great job at raising money for all the extra activities and then they get vilified on here and are jealously supposed to do it so that their DC gets the star part in the play!! You have to wonder why anyone gives up free time and makes any effort.

I don't know the answer. The state can't provide all the wonderful experiences for free and when parents are so entitled and critical you wonder why they bother to do as much as they do! A simple thing like the teacher telling a child that 'now isn't a good moment to go into the classroom to get his spellings' gets a long diatribe of 'complain to the Head' or 'don't put up with it-barge past with your DC and tell him he can get his spellings'! This is despite the fact they know nothing at all except the teacher's words.

Actually, having written all that it makes me wonder why, if I had the money, I wouldn't just pay for all in the private sector!

seeker - are you seriously suggesting that your DC having free ceramics class or gymnastics club or karate classes should take priority over in-class learning activities where limited funds are concerned?

I totally agree that we have a responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry but that doesn't mean I want to pay for someone else to eat lobster because everyone should have the same culinary exposure. Likewise with extracurricular stuff.

As for Latin, I've no idea why it is held up as a measure of how good a school is (my DD is doing a GCSE in Latin). If triple science wasn't available I be but Latin...??? It's just a subject like photography or sociology ie your future prospects isn't going to suffer because you don't have the choice to study Latin.

Gosh. Latin does not a great school make. In fact, I rather tend to shudder at schools that offer Latin unless it is some kind of tiny sideline that has to be done at 8am or 7pm outside normal class times. Schools that make a big deal of Latin have something to hide, IMVHO.

Going back to Scampa - you're so right about our area being so full of contrasts and it's one of the reasons that I'm pro state. I'm so much more relaxed about the 'hoodies' because I know their younger siblings, whereas before I had this ridiculous fear that any teen hanging on the street might want to mug me. Some of the parents who have children in privates are so fearful that's as though they've become imprisoned. One was telling me she doesn't let her 10 year old play football in the square because it's full of 'rough kids'. I think she might have been referring to my children! But it seemed to me that for all this child's privileges, he was lacking in the wonderful privilege of freedom.
PS this is not an anti-private school comment, it's a comment about the particular area that Scampa and I live in which is v mixed.

bonsoir well that would mean every top performing school in the UK is hiding somehting ...

look, I'm not saying it makes a good school. I'm just saying that a good school should at least offer it. As it should also offer MFL, triple science etc.

But why word? What is so special about Latin? I mean, it's only spoken in Latin America

Not really, wordfactory. Latin is not a high-featuring subject in most private schools. The reality is that parents expect to see it there but it is of little use to pupils and schools know it. Managing customer parental expectation is of course also a large part of managing a school.

Farewell, you may find you are in catchment for HG. We're only a 5-10 minute stroll away but I know of some children who have got in on this round who I would've thought live too far away - one lives the other side of New North Road/Essex Road. It's a while away for you yet but do feel free to PM me (not that I know how that works!) if you want a view from inside in 18 months or so.

For those of you arguing about Latin, it was done as an extra-curricular thing at the school I'm talking about but now due to pressure from pushy parents I think it's been introduced as a subject proper. And this school does do triple science.

Latin teaches exact and logical thinking. The computer industry was built by classicists as they had better programme-building brains than students of maths or technology.

Latin is also the root language of so many languages and so much of our vocabulary. Knowing Latin means your children can understand words they've never come across before, as they can translate the stem words, and can spell more acurately. These abilities are sought after in law, medicine, industry.

No it doesn't! Latin is difficult and was used for a long time as a proxy for intelligence testing. Clever DC were pushed into doing Latin as they could demonstrate their intelligence that way and move ahead. Fortunately these days we have better uses for our DCs' innate logical thinking skills than endless translation of Latin texts...

Ah mts others speak for more articulately on the subject than I.

To paraphrase my DS' HT (who I think was paraphrasing Charlotte Higgins): Latin gives us an insight into the mechanics and structure of language in a way a living language cannot. It lest us look at language in its purest form.

Latin gives us access to a lost world. A wolrd that formed the very basis of many of the cornerstones of modern civilisation.

Latin is purely study for study. It won't be 'useful' in the modern sense. It won't help create more little useful consumers. It isn't utilitarian. It simply asks us to use our minds for the sake of using our minds...that in itself is reason enough to study it.

I don't think offering Latin makes a school outstanding. But I don't think a school can conside ritself outstanding if it doesn't value it IYSWIM.
In the same way I don't think triple science makes a school outstanding, but I don't think a school can consider itself outstanding if it doesn't offer it.

But I am clearly in the minority. Which is fine. I can afford to send my DC to schools which do value Latin and do offer triple science...I can afford to be an outlier. But it's a bugger for those DC whose parents can't afford it.

If MFL are properly taught they give pupils far more insight into language than Latin ever can...

Latin is a marker of privilege. Like spongebag trousers, funny hats and kilted skirts. And in extreme cases, mustard coloured knickerbockers.

Parents love seeing Latin on the syllabus- it's reassuring for them. Like spelling tests in primary school. Both equally ineffective for teaching anything except Latin and how to pass spelling tests..............

Talkin - comps and comps? Seriously? Are you truly judging Milliband for having gone to a successful, thriving, highly aspirational comp?

Do people need to go to schools that aim low but are full of nice ordinary people in order to qualify for understanding fellow members of the human race?

And, wordfactory, the HM of your DS's school is an Anglo-Saxon classicist and I very much doubt he has any meaningful grasp at all of MFL...

Actually, Anglo Saxon would be a good thing to do at secondary school........all that sex and violence. Maybe state schools could do Anglo Saxon and private schools Latin, to keep the demarcation.......

<disclaimer- that was a joke>

Unfortunately, those who uphold the teaching of the Classics in English schools very rarely have any grasp of MFL and so, when they compare the educational value of the two, they do not have a frigging leg to stand on!

As someone who toiled her way through Latin (most important subject in my bac) and four MFL before giving up on languages to be an Excel sort, I have pretty strong experiential data for the value of Latin!

Actually, I truly hate this attitude to Latin. Not because I'm an old crusty who thinks it's a lovely posho subject for Racing Moniors to have on their cV. But because I teach children who hate school, who refuse school, who come to me absolutely down trodden by the way literacy is taught.

One of the first things we study, from day one, is etymology. I teach them the Latin and Greek roots of words and their spelling rapidly improves. They suddenly spot connections between words. Their brains start sparking in ways which interest them. Latin isn't dead at all. It's embedded in our language. But (the way I see it) little chavlings aren't meant to know such things. When I was at state school, we little chavlings had no need of grammar either. Now it is being reintroduced, thank goodness. My DC at state primary have a far better grasp of grammar than I had aged 16.

I don't quite think of it as a conspiracy theory, but not far off, this educational shift towards the notion that ordinary folk don't need a solid education, nor one that underpins their knowledge, grounds it, gives it structure. Itty Bitty learning in little bite-size chunks that don't link up - that's all the masses deserve. That's how this attitude comes across to me. I've never taught a child who didn't adore etymology and learning Latin stems. They love how it opens up their own language and demystifies it. These are the children who are dismissed as low average but reaching targets (ie not thriving but not going to cause the school much grief) in class. I've had entire classes of low achievers running into their form teachers gleefully spouting ancient Greek and seen the teachers eyes roll and glaze over. The kids were proud and excited at what they could do. the teachers squashed them.

I get angry about this hatred of deep learning, dressed up as "ooh ain't you snobby" if you try to challenge it. I'm not pro or anti state or private schooling. I am pro great schooling and anti complacent, pursed-lipped mediocrity. Like wordfactory, I think state schools could offer more of what academic private schools offer in the way of an educational grounding.

Ditto everything racing has said on this thread.

Latin and Greek are not the best ways of teaching English spelling or grammar, however. They are the traditional ways of doing so (which explains why, in the past, little English spelling and no English grammar were taught to DCs who didn't study Latin).

It's like teaching morality. If Religion is the traditional vector for the study of morality and you stop teaching Religion (with good reason), you need to find an alternative way of studying morality, not revert to Religion.

racing - Gates, Jobs, Dell, Ellison were all classicists? I didn't know that

50 years ago only posh kids went to university where they inevitably studied
the Classics. So you be hard pressed to find a great thinker of that time who wasn't a classicists.

But fast forward to today, the innovations are being made by science or business trained people. Even MI5 are looking for linguists and political science graduates as opposed to English Literature graduates.

The era of the gifted generalist has passed.

My father is a Classicist. Did he choose to be a Classicist? Absolutely not. His prep school and then his public school directed him towards classics because he was very clever and classics would allow him to demonstrate his intelligence. All you needed to do in the past was get a degree from Oxford or Cambridge in Classics - your cleverness was demonstrated and no one thought you should arrive on the job market with any sort of useful skills - those were learned on the job. This is no longer so.

Even MI5 are looking for linguists and political science graduates as opposed to English Literature graduates.

A linguist is as if not more likely to have some knowledge of latin that and English Lit grad. And the reading of ancient latin texts gives you an insight into everything we now call politics.

"And the reading of ancient latin texts gives you an insight into everything we now call politics.

This is very true - BUT you need to go an awfully long way with Latin to get the point where you are able to discuss the political insights of the texts in meaningful way. A few years/GCSE won't get you there.

"Privileged/well off parents can give their children the same artistic/cultural/sporting opportunities whatever school they go to,"
Your statement revels how little you really know about the opportunities available at some independent schools. Unless I purchased a helicopter I couldn't even provide my DS with half the opportunities my DS participates in at his school and if I lived in central London and had nothing to do all day I still doubt very much if I could provide the depth and breath that he has on offer and as part of a normal school day.

"50 years ago only posh kids went to university where they inevitably studied
the Classics"

Really? My dad went to Oxford in 1950. He came from a council flat in Wandsworth, where my grandma spent the rest of her life.

Admittedly he did study classics though.

My mum went to Leeds university in 1950-ish, to study modern languages. Also from a working-class family.

Oh, happygqrdening- yes I do know that for boarders at Eton they have the most extraordinary extra curricular events.

But I was talking about most people at most schools.

Nothing wrong with a spot of Latin. My older daughter is doing it (compulsorily) at her non-selective comp, along with French and German. She'll also do triple sciences when it comes to it, in same local comp.

I do wish people could grasp that exceptions prove rules- rather than discredit them!

Motherinferior- surely some mistake! <fans self> You're absolutely sure that's not a private school? <narrows eyes- gets bright lights ready>

Not just Eton seeker.

I don't see the connection between being able to read ancient Latin texts and having an insight on relations with China.

The diplomats and senior Foreign Officer staff from yesteryear were mostly Oxbridge Classicists. And didn't they do such a wonderful job with Israel and Palestine?

As I said, the era of the gifted amateur has passed. Employers read the various reports that have gone on about how the Taiwanese and South Koreans are out innovating us because they are churning out science and engineering graduates while we are churning out "well rounded" generalists.

Triple science also offered at our comp not all do it but its there. No latin but three if not four MFLs and all encouraged to do one as we were told its required by many RG universities.

Happygardener- there is no more point comparing the top 3/4 public schools with the average private school than there is comparing the average comprehensive with some drug- ridden gang controlled comprehensive in a channel4 drama.

I think 3/4 is not being very generous most big name boarding schools will have a lot of extra curricular opportunities although I do accept that a small handful may offer an even broader and more extensive range.

Notgood - The fact that you know someone who was WC and went to university 50 years ago doesn't invalidate my statement. There are always exceptions.

^the Taiwanese and South Koreans are out innovating us because they are churning out science and engineering graduates while we are churning out "well rounded" generalists.

Is that all we want our children to become? Someone able to out innovate a South Korean or a Taiwanese? If this is the direction we all want to go, I'm getting off the train. Sorry for being so last century.

The Arts are a big sector in the UK - we would be crazy to turn our backs on them in schools and not nurture the skills and talents of the next generation. But Latin is not the money spinner.

"Is that all we want our children to become? Someone able to out innovate a South Korean or a Taiwanese?"
And lets add in the Chinese, Indians and lots of others. I think UK PLC would like us and in fact needs us to out innovate all of these if we are to maintain our global position economically.

"Notgood - The fact that you know someone who was WC and went to university 50 years ago doesn't invalidate my statement. There are always exceptions."

Two someones. In any case, it wouldn't invalidate your statement if you had qualified it by saying that this was general case, but you didn't. You said, "Only posh kids went to university."

And actually, thinking about it, happygardener, if I threw Eton fees at the situation, I could probably recreate an Eton level of extra curricular activities for my children!

Hear hear to Bonsoir. By all means lets support the scientists and engineers more effectively - and provide triple science for all - but not at the expense of the arts.

Fifty years ago was 1963. It was precisely the time when working-class kids, who'd had access to state education (albeit the grammar school system, which is for another discussion ) were all going to university. On grants. It's when new universities - like the one my father taught in - were exploding across the UK. It was the advent of the campus novel, and the student movement. It was not purely the preserve of posh kids. You're going to have to locate that further back. You're historically inaccurate.

" It was not purely the preserve of posh kids. You're going to have to locate that further back."

Or project it forward a few years.........

And I am ROFLing at the idea that only Classics was being offered by universities. Are my father's French/Spanish degree and my mother's in English (both from Oxford in the 1950s) non-existent then? What about all the academics who were around at the time?

"We are churning out "well rounded" generalists"

Actually, I don't think we're churning out those, either. The one problem I have with the dc's state schools is the rejection of culture. I'm not a religious person, but I enjoyed singing two hymns every morning when I was at school. I feel that knowing the words of Jerusalem, or even We Plough the Fields and Scatter all adds to my... roundedness.

When I was a school governor I suggested that the pupils of the school, who ate their lunch with a background of pop music, could perhaps be played some different genres of music too. Oooh, light blue touch paper... The Deputy Head quivered with indignation and spouted that the children couldn't access classical music. And other music was explored in "units" in the proper music lessons. Sigh.

The next time a thread gets started about how the British Establishment is dominated by well off Eton/Oxbridge Classicists I'll sit it out while you wheel out your family anecdotes

I'm not just wheeling out family anecdotes. I'm pointing out quite a lot of inaccuracies about what happened '50 years ago'.

Hardboiled - Ship building is gone. Steel and coal is gone. A lot of manufacturing is gone. Simple assembly jobs are gone and semi skilled job is following. The Internet and email has meant that a lot of office jobs are being outsourced.

If we don't out innovate South Korea & Co then 'culture' isn't going to put food on the table in 50 years time.

Oh Racing! What an excellent post at 12.20.

"I'm not a religious person, but I enjoyed singing two hymns every morning when I was at school. I feel that knowing the words of Jerusalem, or even We Plough the Fields and Scatter all adds to my... roundedness."
Interesting point lainiekazan my staunchly atheists DS attends compulsory chapel every Sunday even he admitted being moved by the quiristers who sing in chapel.

Thank you MrsShortfuse.

Lainie: 'can't access' - how did you hold your tongue? I want to scream my head off at the lot of them. I go into a primary school on a nearby estate which is one of the most deprived areas in UK, and give the little chavlings bits of 17C John Clare and Shakespeare to read. Guess what? They absolutely love these authors. I teach classical Greek poetic metre to them - really complex mathematical stuff. They love that too. Why do they love it? Because it's intrinsically interesting. It engages the brain.

At one school with a largely Muslim population we read Rumi and discussed how and why he was one of the greatest poets ever. They came in next week, eyes shining, saying, 'My dad couldn't believe we learned about Rumi at school.' They went on to write stunning Rumi-esque poetry. It was individual, expressive, precise, thought through. Because this tough classical literature which was deemed over their heads really stretched their brains and children love having their brains stretched.

Oh Lord I could rant on and on about how much I despise people who think children 'can't access' certain kinds of music. For goodness sake, they all watch the Simpsons, and the Simpsons is absolutely littered with brilliant music from Bach to Pachabel. They'll probably all hum along and ask what's that tune? because they recognise it, and then they might even start having conversations about musical styles and developing their knowledge or some such banned activity.

I hate hate hate the attitude that the masses can't possibly process anything beyond what is instantly familiar and digestible.

No one can acces anything if theyre not exposed to it this is what drives me mad. If your given the chance to listen see or read something and then say you don't like it thats fine (I personally can't stand my DH's early organ music that he loves to play) but children and adults need to be given the chance to access it in the first place.

racing - you are obviously a teacher that is very passionate about what you teach. Is it possible that the kids are responding to that as opposed to a love of Latin?

Personally, I have no interest in the literature that floats your booat. I prefer crime thrillers and science fiction. I prefer country and western over classical music. As for Art, it has been decades since I have set foot in a gallery. In your eyes that probably makes me an "un-rounded" person.

But I can hold my own in any conversation about sociology, government and politics, history (last 100 years), cinema, technology and business affairs.

The point that I am trying to make is that a lot of (older) MC people subscribe to the view that their traditional view of what constitutes a "well-rounded" person should be the universal measuring stick. Instead of Latin I would rather kids take Sociology or International History. Understanding the modern world IMO makes for a more "well rounded" person than understanding a dead language.

This isn't meant to be a "bashing" post so apologies if this is how it comes across.

..... Just to be clear, I am NOT saying that kids shouldnt have access to classical music and literature, and art. Merely that it doesn't make a person a more rounded person just because they can quote Plato or some other long dead guy.

"Instead of Latin I would rather kids take Sociology or International History. Understanding the modern world IMO makes for a more "well rounded" person than understanding a dead language."
MTS why cant they learn all of these and art history, all styles of music and mediaeval literature etc. why do we have to limit learning the brain has an infinite capacity to learn?

racing your post chimes with me. Utterly.

I resent the very idea that people from certain backgrounds cannot access anything deemed challenging. And that the great masses should only learn things which will be useful...

And anyway, how can we say that learning about the past and those long dead isn't useful?

To paraphrase a greater writer than I 'I may live in the present but the past is a second heart that beats within me.'

happy - I am not making the point that we should restrict what children have access to. Hence my follow up post to clarrify my position. I obviously didn't do a good job.

I too believe that kids should have access to a wide range of options. Some would like that to include Latin, Art, Classical Music and the like. With me it's social and international history.

In a perfect system, our kids should have an options list that includes all the above . However, this clearly would only be practical at some super sized school but that is for another conversation.

All that I am saying is that your average school can only offer so many options and I am questioning why some see certain subjects as the benchmark for a good school or a well rounded child/adult.

MTS I too dot understand why Latin is seen as a bench mark for a good school although it is I understand considered by many to be academically I suspect its more of the this how things used to be in on the pre WW2 or 50's 60's 70's (or any other period viewed by some as halcyon days) when education was so wonderful ethos.
Im not sure you need to be super sized to to have a broad range of options many top independent schools offer a huge range but few are larger that 700- 800.

Meant to say I too dot understand why Latin is seen as a bench mark for a good school although it is I understand considered by many to be academically rigorous.

For a bunch of people touting their open minded-ness you are being very narrowminded.

Some people place the emphasis on learning useful stuff because they don't have the luxury to do otherwise. To you, education is about self actualization or personal growth. Fine but for a large proportion of the proportion of the population it is about paying off student loans and getting a job that pays a salary that a family can live off.

And it's kind of patronizing to take the position that not being into the classics or art somehow makes me/us lesser people.

happy - there is a reason why a small pub can't offer the same food/beer choice as a large Weatherspoons. Why do you expect schools to be different?

My DS has 150 kids in his form year which I believe is relatively large. It would be great if he had 10 languages to choose from but the reality is that the school can't afford to retain 10 language teachers. But if you had a 500 form year .....

A student I know has just moved from a local private school into the local state school - one which is turning itself around and on the up but some people are still dubious. His opinions of the differences - in the state school the staff really care about the students, really want them to do well and will do everything they can to make sure students achieve their best. In the private school - staff are doing their job well but no more -less of a feeling that they really care about the outcomes.

Well obviously the private school he was at was not a school with good teaching and leadership, be it private or not. I have heard the same exact remark the other way around. There are good and bad schools, both in the private and the state sector, that is plain abvious, and that's why we spend months posting questions and making decisions.

Decision - it's not personal but It narks me greatly whenever someone holds up a not so good private school and compares it to good state school. The observation is no more valid than me holding up your private school and comparing it to some failing state school.

There are bad schools/teachers in both sectors and comparing individual schools proves nothing.

happy - I forgot to address your 'huge' comment.

My DCs had lessons in 4 MFLs (5 including Latin). Of this they elect 2 to go forward with for GCSE. Art is divided into 3 specialisations. Design and Technolgy is also divided into 3 specialisations. They pick one specialisation from each subject. However, I would describe this as 'extensive' as opposed to 'huge'.

I would love to see Mandarin, Sociology, Politics, International History and Economics on the list of subjects being offered. That, to me, is a 'huge' range of options.

"Im not sure you need to be super sized to to have a broad range of options many top independent schools offer a huge range but few are larger that 700- 800."

BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOTS OF MONEY!!!!!!

Sorry for shouting, but really!!!!!!!!!!

"I resent the very idea that people from certain backgrounds cannot access anything deemed challenging. And that the great masses should only learn things which will be useful..."

I agree. That's the main reason I am so opposed to both private and selective schools. They perpetuate the view that clever/privileged children need to be educated in a separate school so their cleverness and privilege can be nurtured away from the mass of the population who won't appreciate the finer things.

But if state education won't offer the things I want for my DC (and it's clear that a. they don't, at leats not where I live and b. most people/parents don't want what I want)...then what are you saying seeker?

That my DC should be denied the education I and they want?

If I am an ouitlier in wanting what I want, then why not leave me be? Why is it better that my DC join the majority in what they want?

People say join your local school and help improve it, but how, iof the other parents don't agree with me? What if they're perfectly happy with what they've got?

Aren't I just better off sourcing my own eductaion for my DC rather than mucking up everyone elses?

seeker - from what I've read, you are only against selective education for other people's children so let's not go down that road eh?

I hear what you're saying, Wordfactory, but many of us want a certain education for our dcs but ain't got the loot to pay for it!

I do agree that it's hopeless if someone ponces into their local school and asks for Latin, fencing, debating society, whatever, when none of the other parents or pupils are remotely interested. I suppose you could argue that the school should just provide these things so that pupils have exposure to them and can then decide whether or not to participate. But that's expensive and I don't think many schools could afford to retain a Classics teacher if only two pupils wanted to pursue this subject.

"seeker - from what I've read, you are only against selective education for other people's children so let's not go down that road eh?"
No no no no no no please God not this again!
Why do you need lots of money to get visiting speakers in, choir masters, organise drama after school art, talks by teachers with any interests art music politics sociology international history and anything else you could mention. In a school of all graduates why cant teachers their friends and anyone else for that matter be encouraged to give a up the occasional bit of time to broaden the curriculum? What about that university of the third age crowd they give talks to each other for nothing I'm sure they'd love to talk to children about their work interests etc. I'd happily talk to children about my work as would my DH and many others we know Im not talking about a weekly commitment just an occasional one.

"I do agree that it's hopeless if someone ponces into their local school and asks for Latin, fencing, debating society,"
lainiekazan why cant you have a debating club in a state school? If I as much suggest that my DS2 school offers so much more than even a outstanding state school certain people on here nearly have apoplexy and tell me I'm talking crap but you seem to think that most state schools wouldn't even have or for that matter want a debating club?!

happy I heard Robert Peston talk about that. He said he was constantly asked by leading private schools to come and give a talk on economics, but never state schools.

So he contacted a few and they were very reticent. Worried about CRB checks, payment (he didn't want paying), what he might saye etc. He's now set up an organisation (I'll try to dig out a link) which basically puts people willing to speak, in touch with schools.

lainie I hear you, but what's the answer? Prevent my DC having it because others can't afford it? Ensure no one gets it?

I would be of the camp that says every school should have Latin, and triple science and setting. I'm sure it can't cost that much.

I completely understand that there are things that private schools can offer thet state schools can't because they simply cost too much. But I do think some things should be non-negotiable.

I also think a lot of money could be saved and redirected if each and every school didn't replicate the same thing.

My local comp offers latin and debating and they have the same funds than every other state school. It is not that expensive, really.

Oh, no - I'm not in the camp that advocates reducing everything to the lowest common denominator. That is so depressing but a pathway seemingly favoured by a few teachers - even ones on MN. I am forever scarred by the poster who said she would never have times tables in her classroom because some of the children had problems memorising things. AAAGGHH!!

hardboiled exactly.
If one school can offer it, then there surely is no good reason whya nother school can't.

It's simply unfair and ridiculous that what you get offered depends on your postcode.

Probably one reason more schools can't offer Latin is there aren't enough Latin teachers, because not enough people get to do Latin.... all a bit self-perpetuating!

I think Latin's a good thing too - I wish I'd been able to do it, and I wish it was on offer more widely. I wish it wouldn't remain the preserve, and the signifier, of wealth.

nit never a truer word.

I really wish we wouldn't leave it for just the posh boys, and I say that having one of my own.

I'm a big fan of private education at secondary level but I wouldn't do an hour's drive each way, I'd make em board, and also you will have to send dc2.

dd1 did a year of latin, struggled, and is now doing classical civilization which she loves. I enjoyed it at school but she didn't and I really can't see why it is such a big deal.

My kids did Latin at their primary for the princely sum of £2.50 per session so it's hardly the preserve of posh kids.

I can't help but think that you (general you) are perpetuating the myth that Latin is posh by making it an issue that many state schools don't offer it. State schools don't offer a lot of subjects for practical reasons. I don't see anyone making a deal out of any other subject (apart from triple science)

I do, MTS, but was scared to say it...PHILOSPHY!

Philosophy is available at many state schools- lots of kids do A level philosophy.

Philosophy's a really popular A level round our way... Not a facilitating subject, though!

The trouble is, you can always find subjects that it would be great for a school to do. it's only arbitrary that we learn the subjects we do- there are loads of others! ds's school offers Horticulture, which I think is fantastic. And a loval private school does bee keeping, which is also fantastic. And I bet a lot of the kids from private and selective schools would benefit from some practical subjects as much as the kids from some comprehensives (note use of some) might benefit from a wider range of academic subjects. I am always amused that it's other people's children that most people think would benefit from practical, hands on subjects!

No, no seeker, not just other people's children. We rejected a local free school for DS because they didn't do D&T!

Sorry, I meant philosophy as of 14 and compulsory, as in other european countries. I warned you I was last century.

Happy, just because lainiekazan doesn't want a debating club at her state school doesn't mean that many state schools don't have debating clubs. They do.

Nit - I did Latin and I loved it. If only because kids could jump up and down at cricket matches yelling Hubris! and Nemesis! it should be compulsory for everyone .

seeker DDs went to a girls' indie, both know how to put up a set of shelves and change a lightbulb thanks to the amazing wonderful RMT GCSE I think it was known as woodwork and metalwork in old money. I think that provision of those subjects is fairly standard in the private sector?

Hmm I understand that but if I was spending money. Would I send my DD to a private school like that? Whereas with a state school its all rather pot luck where you are sent. Im sure we have all heard the argument its not the school but the child that determines if they will be successful in life. I still feel that a private school does not only teach my child the academic but also life skills.

Most private schools have better facilities for this. So its not just about results its about how my daughter will precive the world when she finishes school and goes to University.

I dont want her to be another dysfunctional degree holder who can not think...but can only do well in exams.

MTS - I know a posh school that doesn't offer music A level. Which is outrageous.

Where on earth did I say I didn't want a debating club at ds's school? Bizarre. Because they have one.

I was talking generally about the pupils and parents of quite a lot of schools probably couldn't care less if certain things were offered and possibly few would support them. Of course they might enjoy them if they were encouraged to participate (e.g. The Choir/Gareth Malone - though I don't know if it's still going without his support) but in ds's school quite a few clubs have died a death due to lack of ongoing interest from both staff and pupils.

My dcs are at a state primary that puts quite heavy emphasis on philosophy for children.

Has MFL and specialist music teachers

Local non-selective state secondary offers Latin, French, german, Spanish, Russian and mandarin Chinese. And triple science.

Not necessarily potluck, Keller. We are in suburbia. Dd has option of 3 good state schools. Catchment of all three has historically covered our house. And a further 2 may with a fair wind be options too. As well as a selective secondary.

Ds will have option of selective secondary (if he passes) as well as 3 good secondaries (not necessarily same as dd because not all are co-ed).

And that's not taking into account the grammars in the neighbouring LEA (too long a journey IMO).

Of course some of the possibilities at secondary are better than others in terms of reputation (there are preferred secondaries) but having looked round last year in preparation for applying next year, would be happy with any of them.

I went to a school that on paper was "bad" - poor local reputation, in a state of transition from single sex to co-ed. poor results. Major behaviour issues. But I did well, achieved my potential and got into good RG university to read the subject I wanted to. So much depends upon the expectations and influence of parents and family.

kenlee - don't know where Keller came from!

Sorry Lainiekazan I was replying to happy who said (to you) you seem to think that most state schools wouldn't even have or for that matter want a debating club?!

I took it that she was representing your view rather than misunderstanding it, this obviously meant that I misunderstood it too.

Russians - and the luxury of being unnerved by things sounding a bit like dies irae..... sigh Wish I'd of 'ad a Neducation.....

creamteas

Why would I want to pay for my daughter to attend such a private school? The reason why I choose a private education is so I can select which private school best fits her. State schools do not give you that choice.

Futher more I would also like my daughter to not only be an exam machine but to be exposed to many different things. A boarding school offers all these opportunities to help her develop.

I understand some state schools do well...and I am happy for you that your children are in a good state school.

Nit - things that should be compulsory: 1. Latin. 2. Lord Peter Whimsey. 3. How they brought the good news from Ghent to Aix 4. How to spot a spy 5. Gondal.

6. How to be nice to your sisters, however unappealing. 7. Basic feminism. 8. A working knowledge of the Tradentine Mass and the Manichaean heresy.

But we don't know anyone who would pass 6. Tr*I*dentine.

As an aside - I always thought the Merricks were being a bit silly. Never got why they were all so hot under the collar. then they changed some of the words again last year, new translation blah blah just a rouse to sell new missals I reckon. But it's meant getting new hymn books too and all the new hymn books have wrong hymns in them. And I am going all Merrick so I am. All 'if it was good enough for my mum....'

I can spell, honest. After all, I did Latin. No idea where that came from!

Actually, it was obviously a Feudian spelling mistake -trad-dentine, geddit?

pooka that's grand you have such a great choice. How very nice for you...doesn't much help kids in neck of the woods though.

Unless you have cash. Which I do. So...

I can see the argument for being allowed to buy the education you want, obviously. How about you can do it, but politicians can't? I just fundamentally dislike the way education divides the nation, and perpetuates privilege.

You might find it distasteful, seeker, but the alternatives are so much worse.

I'm none too keen on that either seeker to be honest.

But it's a balance. And my DC's eductaion wins out.

I'm a lost cause, I'm afraid- this is the sort of stuff I was brought up on!

You are an adult and free to renounce the values inculcated in your childhood.

Ah seeker I'm currently writing a novel where the Aberfan disaster plays a prominent part...

The thing is most state schools really aren't that bad, are they?

And even if we private school parents did use our local schools, whose to say that we should import our educational values? Who says we're right? It's clear from MN that a lot of folks just don't want it...and who am I to say they're wrong?

"You are an adult and free to renounce the values inculcated in your childhood."

Why would I want to? The mean spirited, looking after number one mindset currently driving our national identity isn't getting us anywhere very much, is it?

It's European social democracy that is causing us to fall behind, seeker.

Feud-ian is a good Freudian slip too Seeker. Sigmund would be proud.

"I am always amused that it's other people's children that most people think would benefit from practical, hands on subjects!"
I be happy for my DS too learn some practical skills.

"Philosophy is available at many state schools- lots of kids do A level philosophy."
Why do it A level wouldn't it be more interesting just to do any of these things just for the sake of it. This is one of the problems with education in this country its always has to be attached to exams the quickest way to put a child off IMO.

Thing is, I can teach my DC to cook and put up shelvesv and change a tyre but physics and German, not so much.

It's not that I mind them learning practical skills but if there's a choice to be made, I'd rather they learned practical stuff at home.

I send my DD on courses where she learns practical things - sure, she does so at home and with my parents, but there's always someone who can go beyond our range of skills. Plus learning languages - of which I have no doubt she will do a great deal - is very productively combined with sewing, cooking etc.

wordfactory You have not known the joy of having a child who has done RMT in the household, I actually can put a bookshelf up, but not like they can, and as for changing lightbulbs, whatever the electrical challenge I can leave it to them.

As for putting up shelves or changing a tyre versus Physics - DP is unbelievably useless at manual labour (fortunately my father can show a better example) despite impressive muscles that ought to shame him into at least trying, but is redeeming lay gifted at Physics and Maths. What you outsource really just depends on your own weaknesses!

Even though I cook reasonably well I'd still like my DS to learn basic cooking skills at school. I have gone through my whole life unable to put up a shelf and frankly dont see why he needs to be able to do this but can wire up a plug at a pinch and can not only change a wheel on a car I doubt few can change the tyre as this requires specialist equipment I can also do the oil water check the brake pads air filter oil filter and much to the surprise of the RAC man check and correctly change the fuses oh and let's not forget the essential for all clapped out car drivers correctly jump it! I'm an expert at basic car first aid!!
I think all children before they leave school should undertake a basic child protection course (level 1) because as a society we have a moral requirement to protect children so therefore we all need to know what to look out for and what do to if we're concerned.
Again enthusiastic parents/teachers/local do gooders could teach many of these skills I don't see that money is necessarily required.

it's European social democracy which is causing us to fall behind

Do you have any thoughts about possible solutions Bos
Bonsoir?

Sorry typing error

I HATE cookery or home economics or whatever its called - total waste of time IMO, it is perfectly poissible to learn to cook at home or, heavens above, when you leave home and have to fend for yourself as I did. We have a lovely cookery teacher and she seems very good but I, and dd, still resent the fact that dd has no choice over doing it. Ditto IT.