Private school or bigger house?

[joric]

Less AIBU more WWYD....

Will keep it short...

60/70k will put DD through private school and we would stay in our modest house
or
we could increase mortgage by same amount and buy a similar standard of house in better area with v good state school nearby.

WWYD?

Prud - can only refer you to Spotty's post above.

Got it now?

Regarding extra curricular activities - my DD has been offered the choice to study Latin for GCSE which will be taught by the teacher from the local private school. This has been offered to her free of charge in addition to the rest of the curriculum (one evening after school and one lunchtime per week).

Many private schools do offer loads of 'extras' because a lot of pupils board and they need to provide activities (usually music/sport related) to keep them occupied.

However, many of these 'extras' can be found and paid for as additional activities for state educated children. For example, our local private school offer fencing classes to their pupils and pupils from other schools who just pay to attend the classes. Local stables will offer riding lessons. You could go skiing together as a family. There are loads of options really.

faire was it you who posted a thread asking about ISSP Latin a few weeks ago?

I am more than a bit working class myself and I am certainly not raising my kids to believe they are superior. Though dh and I are acutely aware of how privileged they are which has nothing to do with their schooling.

spud

'I think what you mean is 'social justice doesn't matter as long as you and your DD are content"

I asked earlier if you had any first hand experience working in schools some people choose to avoid ? As my point was that the avoidance comes from the knowledge that the SMT arn't responding to the needs if the pupils and therefore, pupils were becoming despondent and results were dropping... Class is only a minor part of the problem.

Malcolm no, DD just came home with a letter

Spud - I can see that argument, but I also feel if we are talking about the brightest students for a minute (separate in some ways from those that can afford it), they benefit from being amongst other bright students - otherwise is it not merely encouraging mediocrity?

I don't necessarily agree that this is an argument for private vs state as much as against dividing children into 'sets' based on ability - a method I believe enables bright children to achieve more and less able children to gain self esteem from perhaps being near the top of 'their set' even if that is not the highest.

I have no background in education (except my own) so just interested in opinions rather than venturing a criticism!

Spud- your last post, good point but state schools set in most subjects so therefore mix isn't as 'mixed' as you say,

Sorry faire - thinking of someone else then - my dd is doing the latin thing too.

Spud, another point... Private children are absolutely not always the most gifted, therefore mix theory flawed again :(

Ba8y - crossed posts! Agree!

"I asked earlier if you had any first hand experience working in schools some people choose to avoid ?"

Yes - I worked in a comprehensive whose intake was primarily from a white working class estate close by. In a borough with a large number of private and selective grammar schools. The children at this school were aware that they were at the school that nobody else wanted to go to. It was absolutely tragic. It was a very, very hard place to work because the children were so challenging. There was no levening of the mix with kids from more educationally supportive backgrounds.

"Class is only a minor part of the problem"

It's not. Having a disproportionate number of children from backgrounds where people don't value education makes schools very difficult places to learn in, to teach in and to manage. When they do manage to turn these places round they generally tend to do so by dint of an unusually brilliant super-head and a HUGE injection of funds. This is what's happened at my dd's school, which at one point a few years ago had a 17% of children getting 5 A to C grades at GCSE. And eventually more middle-class parents in the area will stop being snotty about it, send their children there and the results will improve even more.

But it's a self-perpetuating problem. Cream off the children who're easy to teach and the only way to keep standards from biting the dust is to pour money into the place. And draft in the rare, genius heads who've got the energy and drive to pull the place up out of the gutter. But while all this is happening there are many children whose education will go by the wayside.

When I was at independent school (a little while ago now!), I used to get teased for being posh and rich by the other children. Most families were fairly average - their parents made big sacrifices to send them there. The overwhelming feeling was that we were incredibly lucky to be there, not that we were better than other people.

However, not all schools are like this. There are independent schools that parents send their children to for snob-value, not because they offer an excellent education.

If the OP's independent school is the 'right' sort of school for her daughter, I would go for option A. If it is going to add nothing to the good state option other than the snob factor, I would go for option B.

Excellent post, Spudulika.

Ba8y1, I think if you disagree with private education because you see it as devised and unfair then logically you must disagree with the grammar system too. How can you possibly think it unfair that a child has access to a certain level of education based on wealth but not think it's unfair to have that same access based on intelligence? Are poor less a academic children any less deserving than poor bright children?

Unfortunately, in many cases, the grammar system does not work to raise the self esteem of those in the 'top set' of the lower ranks. All it does it teach them they weren't good enough for the shiny grammar. It shouldn't have to be like this but in most areas it currently is.

Spud, I agree with a lot of your points BUT can you see that this huge problem in education as a whole is EXACTLY the reason people opt out of state?
The problem is so wide spread and has so many contributing factors that it is quite a simplistic argument to blame the failure if the entire education system on people taking their children elsewhere.
What came first? Poor standards, social deprivation, poor management or snotty parents going private?

Joric - I was left speechless at your ability to say what I did so concisely!! Genius! Will watch and learn!

Oh and good luck with your decision - I'm sure you will make the right one (whichever that is!) for your family

I am sure this thread has got really complicated and argumentative but may I just say ...house. Thanks.

I have often heard parents complain that schools have not lived up to expectations after ofsted reports. They are not all they're cracked up to be. It's a good idea to visit the school on an ordinary day (not open day), and more than once, to be sure you're seeing their true colours.

Spud, I also agree with many of your points. However, who wants to risk their child's education, just to 'leven the mix'?

Spotty - I take that on board. These arguments always make me wonder who is sticking up for the bright kids who want to be more and more intellectually challenged and are in some ways held back if there isn't some sort of divisive system based on ability, that's all. It's not about being more or less deserving.

The problem is, Spud, that such a senario is only possible in very urban areas with very mixed catchments. In the shires you get far less of that as my example shows. We lived in Wilmslow. It had one secondary fed into by a host of local primaries. Whilst some of the primaries were in 'less' affluent areas, they were still only in less affluent affluent areas if that makes sense. So there was no real social mixing, very little fsm and again very little parents who didn't value education.

joric to summarise, am I right in thinking that you have rejected Option 3 (bigger house, ok school) and are now just considering private/state. Sorry if I've got that all wrong, bit confused now.