to consider private school even if...

[stella1w]

... it means no holidays, treats, nice clothes etc etc ever for the next 18 years?

My parents scrimped and saved to put me and my sister through private school even though they had a very low income.

I also have a low income but feel I should make all sacrifices necessary.. on the other hand, I don't think putting myself under severe financial stress during the recession would make me such a good parent either.

Feeling guilty either way..

Bright spot is local infant school just got "outstanding" ofsted report, though the juniors was only "satisfactory"

OP do you have a training contract? How far through are you since I would imagine you have a fair few years to go until you could afford private school fees if you're on a trainee solicitor income and I certainly wouldn't advise that you commit unless you have an NQ job lined up.

Have you considered the fact that there are still lots of redundancies going on in the legal sector and what happens if you don't have a job in a year or two? Plus do you actually know what qualified solicitors earn in your local area? Many are surprised to find its not nearly as much as they imagined.

Speaking from bitter experience here since I have two DCs at private school and am facing the possibility of redundancy in the very near future. The school fees are a massive commitment. My bill for this term alone is £6k.

If you have a good state school option then that is the sensible thing to do.

Not at all. And yes I'd be quite happy to say "bring back the secondary moderns" too! I just think it makes sense for children to be educated alongside others of similar ability, whatever level that happens to be.

Yes, very intelligent children do need good schooling - as do all children. Yes, many do well at comprehensives but could do so much better if they weren't having to wait for others to catch up much of the time. Equally what's the point of being in a class where the work is too hard and the teachers doesn't have time to help you catch up? Why should we pretend that one size fits all?

"The 'bring back grammar schools' always makes me laugh-said by people who assume their DC would get a place!"

A weak excuse, as this will only apply to those who were around borderline level, not the majority of those taking the 11+.

It should not be beyond the wit of man/woman these days to come up with a testing system which measures intelligence and potential, regardless of parental input.

"Grammar schools may have been fair in my day-but not now thatparents invest so much in it-and it isn't a level playing field."

if i could afford it and it meant moderate sacrifices, I would do it no question

Saying 'it's about school not sector' is like saying 'it's about apple quality not country of origin' would have been in the 80s. Either you have principles or you don't, and if you do you wouldn't buy a Cape Golden Delicious however nice you thought it might taste.

There's nothing wrong with principles.

And as I said, it's an invidious myth that you will only find a good state education by buying an over-priced house near one.

Our area is probably among the cheapest in the city. When we moved here, it was what we could afford. It so happens that the school nearby is excellent (for children not worth anything better, of course) and we (my state educated partner and my state educated self with our Phd and Cambridge degree) couldn't be happier with it.

I think this happens more than some might be prepared to admit.

Cereal - even in the good old days the middle classes were over represented when it came to grammar school intake, as were autumn born children.

The 11+ was not infallible, as evidenced from the number of children who 'failed' it and then went on to do well at university.

Malcontent, well said!

I'd be more comfortable supporting the 'bring back secondary modern' campaign if i felt for one moment vocational courses would be as equally valued as academic courses or...if transfer between secondary modern and grammer was possible.

Since I don't believe either of these things will happen, the comprehenisve system does me fine. There, you can move between sets and between courses as your development takes you. Far more flexible.

Its not possible to find a definitive way of measuring potential because the human brain is far too complex to understand....

...so the 11+ will always be flawed.

just because it isn't the case where you live (lucky you!) doesn't make it a myth. It is the case where I live. I don't think it's the same everywhere, I just know it happens. There's about 40K difference in comparable house prices in and out of catchments here :-(

Not at all. And yes I'd be quite happy to say "bring back the secondary moderns" too! I just think it makes sense for children to be educated alongside others of similar ability, whatever level that happens to be

You are the first person I have heard say that!
It is a crude exam that separates the top from the bottom-at some point it draws a line between two DC with equal ability. (I say this as the person who was 2 places below the line). It also depends on numbers-if I had lived 2 miles away, on the other side of the river my marks would have got me a place. It takes no note of late developers. And the thing that annoys me more than anything is that although people went up they never ever went down. They got a place at 11 yrs and however they did they stayed there. Many left at 16yrs after taking a place from someone who then had a battle to get to university.

The comprehensive is fair. Pupils go up and down.They are not waiting for slower pupils! Why would they? They set for subjects-according to ability. In the many areas with no grammar schools -the top isn't creamed off. Where do you think all these bright DCs go if there are no state selective schools and parents can't or won't pay? The comprehensive.
Parents would kick up a hell of a fuss if DCs were all educated together in one size fits all-they want the best.
One size doesn't fit all. They may be mixed ability for games but they are not for Maths, English, Science-academic subjects.

I simply don't believe that you would be happy to have your DC in a school where the top end have been creamed off into a grammar school cereal-I think that you are saying this from the assumption that your DC is creamed off with all the choices. The 11+ system failed so many DCs-I got to university -as did my friends at the secondary modern-but it wasn't easy.

If there is an 11+ they should move DCs up and down between the schools-depending on performance.

However they don't need to-the comprehensive allows for movement up and down within the school.

That is bad.....however according to the poster earlier annually the bill, after tax, for two children is about £34,000.... your claim that private schooling is cheaper than state in this sentence Although it sometimes seems that you need more cash for a good state school than than a private school these days...is not actually true, is it?

I think you are misunderstanding just how exclusive a private education is.

Mmmm, I could run a sports car on lease with all associated costs for 12K a year. Now that would be smug imo.

But nope, instead I'd prefer to choose to pay for independent education.

This shouldn't be a bashing thread. The parents who send their children independently clearly don't consider themselves 'wasting their money' just as the parents who send state "on principle" don't think they are 'ruining their children's life chances'.

Everyone posting on here seems to make their own decisions based on what information/income/prejudices of whatever persuasion they have.

The OP wanted opinions, presumably from people who have made that choice between could afford it with making sacrifices and prefer not to. Clearly she'll get replies from both those who chose to and those who didn't. Stop bashing those that chose to in the past and are happy to stand up and say they are pleased they made that choice (while also accepting we do feel lucky that it was a choice we could make... and we could afford it with sacrifices).

Killercat! I think if Op had wanted opinions s/he'd have posted in education. don't you?

stella, entirely your choice and that of their father (although some grandparents pay, I was talking to one on Fr iday who does so that might be another option).

If you're qualifying as a solicitor you will know the best of those will earn £300k - £1m a year, some even more. If you had a good education, will work hard and are very good and are ambitious and dont' go into a very low paid bit of that career then surely you will be able to afford school fees.

I feel like a good education is one of the most important gifts we can give our children BUT the memories of time with you, holidays and fun is also very, very important. If you really have to entirely lose one to have the other I think the sacrifice for the child is too big.

Well I think it is both unreasonable to deprive your child of what you could give them in terms of holidays and time together - after all, home life is always going to count for a lot - and unreasonable of anyone, ever, to opt for private education.

On that basis, I feel I can offer my own opinion that yes, on every count, that would be an unreasonable thing to do.

I've known people who were privately educated at enormous sacrifice to their families, parents working all hours, too small house, no holidays etc.
Not only did they miss out on so many things outside of school they were always the poor kids in school, which does no one's self esteem any good.

If you are having to really scrimp, I wouldn't do it .
It's also quite possible to get an Oxbridge First and earn six figures with a state education. But I'm sure you know that .

here, there is a nice private primary for 2K a term (only have one child), or find 40K to move down the road so I'm living in spitting distance from an okay (not even outstanding school). Or same amount to live near decent school in wider area, or stay put and send DS to terrifyingly bad school (really, whatever your principals, noone is happy to get this particular school unless they don't care very much about their children at all , and I'm not just going on Ofstead - dose of salt already applied!).

for for the next few years at least yes private would be cheaper than moving to get an ok state school. But of course then there's the issue of, what if our income doesn't increase enough enough between now and then to sustain it etc etc..... and at the moment we don't have either so all a bit academic

anyway we can afford neither, so are searching an ever expanding radius in the hopes of finding somewhere that we can afford to live, still work, and that has a school that my child doesn't have to live in fear in.

I'm not doubting that your circumstances are as you say, why are you so sure I'm missunderstanding mine?

(FWIW the state secondary my DC could get into is okay, we've only looked at the private primary to be informed just incase he ends up only getting a state primary which is DANGEROUS and we cant afford to move at that time)

BUT BUT BUT fingers crossed we WILL find somewhere nice like you have where we can afford to live and my DC is happy and safe at school

I don't wanna do private for reason's already mentioned, I dunno if I could sustain it plus it would rule out extras. I'm optimistic that we will find the a nice state school, and whilst we can't make a massive leap up in house price (and can't downsize any more to change area, ALREADY in a flat), we are in a position to move and can be semi flexible with area so I'm not really complaining and I'm sure we'll get there, just saying that it's not a myth, say, for people who live where I do and can't for whatever reason move

but not ruling out private either, if it ends up the best option with all factors considered...

Forgive me, I am more than usually evangelical about state education at the moment.

I do some support work at a state comp in the city - not the one my kids go to, not our catchment, though I wouldn't mind if they did. Not outstanding, either, fwiw - and went to the INSET day on Thursday.

The head said 'I hope lots of you saw X in the paper the other day after results: so great to see him with a big grin on his face, having got a C in something-or-other and a level 1 in his ASDAN. This is not a child, as we all know, who ever found school easy [laughs at massive understatement] and he has had a lot of problems over the years, and to have come out with this, and be off to college and be able to feel proud of himself, is worth so much. Can you imagine a world in which he'd left school with nothing and had nothing to do? [laughs]. The city would be a scary place. At the other end of the scale, Y was in the paper with his 12 A*s and 2 AS levels, and god love him, I don't know how he does it: he makes life look easy, always been popular, always on sporting teams, a lovely polite lad who's worked really hard'.

That, to me, is what is beautiful about the comprehensive system. Did Y lose out by being in the same school as X for 5 years? Did he do any worse than he could have? Will he have been done a disservice? I can't see anything that's not positive about that from either lad's perspective.

Or, if Y had been 'worth it', should his parents have made sure he only consorted with other Ys for 5 years, and lived in a bubble where Xs just didn't impinge on their world view?

I say again, this is NOT a school with an 'outstanding' at OFSTED, and it does not have a massively affluent catchment area.

Truly, what's not to love about that?

Exactly malcontent.

We had just the same talk from our head of KS4.

If you think your children will get a decent enough education in the State sector to be able to get enough GCSEs to go onto A levels then I'd opt for that.

Maybe you could save to send them to a private A level college so they could get some funky grades for Uni.

No holidays for 18 years? Yikes! Do you calculations include fancy school trips?

Do you think your children might get some sort of scholarship or bursary?