to think there is not much difference between private schooling and moving into catchment area of a good school?

[knowitallstrikesagain]

Lots of people I know consider themselves to be against private education. But the vast majority of them aspire to live in an area with a good high school. These area are more expensive to live in, so basically they are talking about using money to get their children a good education, they are just going about it in a different way.

AIBU to think you should not be 'morally opposed' to private education if you move into a desireable area just to be near good schools when you are well aware that other people cannot afford this location?

flowers it is normal to take schools into account, education is important to many parents. And you may have looked at areas which were all comparitive in price but where the standard of schooling varied greatly.

It is having the understanding that you can afford to choose your area and do not have to move to the cheapest. It is recognising that you may be willing to adjust your lifestyle, a little or a lot, to part with more money for a house in an area with a desirable school. It is knowing that you can afford to part with a bit more money than others may be able to afford to live in a place with a better school.

Anyone who purposefully moves into a good catchment area where house prices are above the average must realise that they are giving their children an advantage that other parents cannot afford?

Yes I do realise that knowitall, I just disagree that it is as bad as paying for private education.

It's interesting isn't it. I would baulk at moving up the road purely to change catchment area, or at renting in a better catchment area.

But I think when relocating a fair distance anyway, it would be a bit silly to purposely not look at schools and would feel like sacrificing the children on the altar of my principles a little too much, almost to make a point.

I guess we all draw our own line don't we?

I asked a question about this the other day. Lots of people spout on here about Private schools being against their principles, but I wonder how many of them have private medicine cover.

My kids go to a private school, yes there are people there with a lot of money but they are not the majority there is also a huge percentage where grandparents pay the fees and honestly lots and lots of normal people in normal sized houses etc...

Lets face it the school system isn't fair, it is all about money.

those who can afford to move to a nice area will do, to get into the good catchment areas. There are lots of people who have no way of moving and have to use Whatever their nearest school is.

I can't see how people don't realise it's the same thing.

Laurie, I have loads to respond, please bear with me. Firstly, thanks a bunch, you're about to cause a divorce. I now want DH to sell his house and for us to move to that first one, not for the schools but for its location in South London.

More seriously, the guy who lived, for example, www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-35681966.html in the 2 bed here may quite possibly be unable to afford the rent. My point is that it's all relative. It's all very well you saying hey GT, you screwed up, see, you can find an affordable rental within reach of the village but it ain't affordable to the guy in Bermondsey, Nunhead, Walworth or whatever. So where's the equality there? Where is he obliged to send his children to school?

The other thing is personal choice. That house is a tiny shoebox with a yard for a garden for £1300 a month. My previous house was a large three bed semi with an enormous garden in god's own picture postcard village and it cost me £450 less a month than that. Which would I have preferred? State school and a £1300 shoebox or independent school and a cheaper rental in the beautiul countryside? Pay an estate agent or pay a school? It was a no-brainer to me. Personal choice. A valuable thing, imho.

flowery

That's the point. You're not prepared to sacrifice your children to your ideology but if you had your way other people's children would be sacrificed to your ideology.

That's why it sticks in the craw. It's what so many on the left call the "I'm all right Jack" mentality when they object to other people using private education.

Lots of people I know consider themselves to be against private education. But the vast majority of them aspire to live in an area with a good high school.

But that allows Total Moral Superiority :)

YANBU. In my opinion its fine to use money you have to your advantage if that's what you have to do to do your best for your children, but don't be a hypocrite and say you are opposed to paying for education when that is exactly what you are doing by moving catchments.

Well I guess lots of people probably think I am sacrificing my own children by not sending them private. As I said, we all draw the line somewhere.

"if you had your way other people's children would be sacrificed to your ideology."

I don't understand what you mean by this? What's "my way"?

Lol, private high school near us had a lower GCSE and A level pass rate than the nearest very high performing comp.

The letters of rage to the local paper were a treat

Unless its Eton,Harrow or some simular famous school it basically isn't worth it.

Do what rest of us do and move house.

flowery you can afford not to sacrifice you children's education. Some can't. So you are putting your children in a more privilaged position than others because you have the money to do so.

Morals are all well and good as long as we are not expected to apply them to our own children.

And flowery I am not judging your choice, I would do the same. But I would not criticise parents who choose to live in a smaller house and part with hard cash for school fees when I can recognise that my children have the potential to go to a better school than other people's because I had the cash to move into the area.

As you say, we all draw the line somewhere but anyone who can afford to choose where to live, and through this choose where to send their children to school, is privilaged. Many cannot afford this luxury and we should recognise that by moving into a good catchment where property is more expensive, you are paying for education, even if it is to a lesser degree.

Yes I realise that, knowitall, and I'm not claiming any different

Our catchment is extremely mixed as it happens, so there's no question of it only being well-off people who can live here.

I just think all else being equal, refusing to even look at schools would be a bit silly. I also think being against private education and being against using money to get your child any kind of advantage are not the same principle. Just my view.

X-post there. :)

knowitall as I described earlier, a truly comprehensive school addresses some of your concerns regarding advantages for the wealthy, like the one my children attend.

However if a parent does select a state school which is selective by virtue of the local property prices, there is still more chance of a wider mix than private schools in terms of wealth and backgrounds.

My local area has 3 well respected independent schools and 3 great comps, I know parents who refuse to send their children to the local comp not because of low academic achievement, ( they are all between 70% and 80%) but because they are scared of the cultural and economic diversity of the children.

ARGH! But thebody, if you're moving house to provide a better education for your DC then you're doing the same as the private school parent, the only difference being that you're paying the estate agent/removals company/council tax department/new carpet and curtain salesman for the privilege and not a school! And still that means that you are contributing to educational inequality because although you can afford to move the lone parent on income support in the shitty backstreet estate can't, she's stuck with the crap catchment school.

Added to that, so what if your local independent is low-achieving? The whole point about paying (or moving!!!) to give your DC a good education means that you don't have to send your kid to that low-achieving school. In this case I'd guess that if the school has nothing to offer which offsets its low grades it won't survive long anyway. It's a shame that the same can't be said for low achieving state schools.

Yanbu. Absolute hypocrites.

But flowery in both circumstances you are using money to get your child what you see to be a better education. By using your money to pay fees or by using your money to buy a house in the right area for a good school.

What is the difference? Why is one ok and the other not?

we rent in the catchment of a good school and I don't see it the same as private schooling at all the only difference is we have the choice of doing so I suppose and some people don't have the choice as the rents are higher than say 10 miles down the road. But that's life isnt it? Some people have more choices in life than others and it's a sliding scale.

However, my children have been to many different state schools in different areas and apart from the safety aspects at one school which was a special school, I have had absolutely no problems with the state sector at all and my children have thrived, i don't think that is down to luck, I think the level of education in this country isnt as poor as the middle classes would like to believe

Dulwich village house £1300 opposite the infant school

Actiually, thats a good example - you can buy the same thing at half the price if you live a mile away in Somwewhere Not Dulwich, and thats c £650pm to go towards one of the very good private schools in the area

Emphatic - "I know parents who refuse to send their children to the local comp not because of low academic achievement, ( they are all between 70% and 80%) but because they are scared of the cultural and economic diversity of the children."

You know the reasons I hear most? It's not about the cultural/economic status of the families within the state schools, it's about the manners, the behaviour, the standards, the social confidence, the extra curricular activities, the fact that the school doesn't follow the National Curriculum. Never, ever, as a pupil or as a parent, have I heard anyone say that they opt for independent over state for reasons of cultural/economic diversity.