To find people say X public School is OK because

[NoComet]

It gets DCs into Oxbridge and RG universities, a daft justification for choosing a school that costs £15,000 plus a year.

We have a local secondary (not even a true comp as there is some creaming off of bright DC by Grammar schools) that is in Special Measures that has just got two pupils in to Oxbridge.

And this is hardly news, bog standard state secondaries and sixform collages all over the country send DCs to Oxbridge and RG Universities every year.

My very ordinary Welsh Comp sent someone in the year above me to study medicine at Oxford, there were others at prestigious med schools and, now, RG uni's me included.

Yes, private schools are very nice, yes DC avoid some DCs with a bad attitude to education, Yes DC get good sports facilities and yes DC may study a wider range of subjects, esp. MFL.

But in the end your DC will, quite likely end up at exactly the same uni, doing the same course, just with poorer parents!

Steaming nit - your children have obviously been successful and happy with your choice of school. Just because I chose to move my son to a private school for his well being doesn't mean that parents who don't do the same are neglecting their child's welfare. To even suggest that from m post is ridiculous. I was clearly stating that MY child was coming home crying daily and not learning at the school that HE was at and these are the factors that influenced my choice. If you want to twist my words to make it sound as though all state school kids have uncaring neglectful parents then go ahead.

There seems to be a real myth surrounding parents that choose to send their children to private school that automatically we are (a) snobs and (b) suggesting that all state schools are abysmal and (c) suggesting that all private schools are wonderful

But nobody has said that, though. I think someone said yesterday it was usually snobbery, to be fair, but that is not what anyone's been discussing for the last few pages.

Obviously you are doing what you think best for your children - I would just like people to stop with the myths from the other side that all of us would send to private if we could, or else that we all bought expensive houses for excellent schools. It is perfectly possible to

1. like some things and dislike others about your own children's school:
2. live in an average semi in a mixed area
3. value education
4. have a fundamental problem with the whole idea of private education and know that it would not be an option you'd ever choose.

No, Running but these emotive posts about 'why wouldn't anyone want to do the best for their children' keep coming up, don't they?

Don't we all 'things we know we'd never want/like'? Mine would be, off the top of my head:

1. To live in Dubai
2. To have a dog
3. To live anywhere isolated
4. To go to Disneyland
5. To take a husband's surname
6. A private education for my children.
7. Sky Sports

Agreed nit - all about assumptions innit

But why wouldn't a parent want to do what's best for their children and what's emotive about that?
For some children the best thing might be state school or home ed or something else.
I only have one of my children in private school as it wouldn't be a suitable environment for my other child.
See; I chose what is best for each of them.

Of course a parent wants to do what's best. I would never think of a private school as that for mine. That is all I'm saying.

It's not emotive to state that most parents would do the best they can for their children, including give them they best education they can.

It's just normal. Even if you have no intention of ever considering private school, you still look round schools and apply using the one you like the best as your first choice.

It's only an emotive subject for someone that isn't happy with their own choice of school, or the schools available to them. But that's an entirely separate problem.

the examples you are about yourself and what you want feel would benefit your and your family, not just your child/children

Actually I think having a good education system isn't just about me, or my children, or my (shudder how I hate that word) family. It's a wider issue. But as you were...

What is emotive running is some people suggesting you don't want what's best for your child because you've done something different. Some people refuse to acknowledge that what's best for one child isn't best for another.

I've said in my previous post that I wouldn't send dd to a private school because it isn't what's best for her as an individual. Yet there are people who would suggest that I don't want what's best for her if I don't send her if I had the money. All hypothetical as I have no option other than the local school. This doesn't mean I don't care either because I'll support her as much as possible.

School choices are about what you feel would benefit the whole family as well, though.

I'm sure there are local private schools in which my children would absolutely flourish. I have not, for a number of reasons not all of them economic, considered them.

When I say 'you' below, I mean it in the plural, not at any one person....

The point I am making is - don't tell me I would if could; don't tell me where I live and what it's like and don't tell me my principles would fall down in any of the extreme situations of 'unbelievably shocking' schools you want to paint pictures of for me! And don't tell me that, because they wouldn't, I don't care about my children!

Nit that's a position I've heard from other people many times and I find it curious, so if you'd be willing I'd like to hear more from you on that point.

Many of my friends who say this will never be in a position for it to matter (eg they are Catholic in catchment for the successful and highly regarded Catholic state school, and/or they won't ever have sufficient income to go private even if they wanted to) so IMO it's moot.

The standard MN position is that one should find the best fit school for one's child(ren) and that if a school turns out not to suit a child, either because of its educational focus or its pastoral care, all reasonable available steps should be taken to secure a place in another school.

Obviously what's available to some families isn't available to all - you might not live within twenty miles of more than one secondary school, the schools might be single sex halving your choice, they might all be horrifically oversubscribed, etc.

So I genuinely don't understand the position where a parent would rule out the only suitable school (hypothetically, and I'm sure it's a genuine dilemma for nearly nobody) based on the parents' political principles rather than the zillion and one practical/logistical/financial considerations.

I'm not sure I hold any political convictions strongly enough to imagine a hypothetical situation where my child's well-being wouldn't come first. I give to food banks ... once my children are full. I give to Oxfam ... once our bills are paid. And so on.

I firmly believe that although there are technically second chances and opportunities for almost every educational step, the disadvantages of missing out first time round are huge and I wouldn't sacrifice my child's chances on the altar of principle.

Runningchick
I want the very, very best for my children's education.
I expect the highest standards from them and try to give them excellent opportunities.
Paying school fees is not part of that equation the way it turns out in my household.

Well, as you say, it's a genuine dilemma for nearly nobody - and as such, I haven't considered living somewhere there are no state schools and one private school, I'll be honest.

As for the rest... well I wasn't in the position you describe of Catholic with great RC school, just, y'know, schools. I didn't dismiss private (though absolutely certainly with the tightest savings could not have afforded it when dd was year 6) because I had a safe option. Just not on the radar as well as not something I'd want.

Only one secondary school within 20 miles - well, I did say I'd never want to live somewhere isolated! That to me would be the kind of set-up I'd already have rejected years before (and did). I don't know: if circumstances really forced me into a rural situation like that, I'd still roll with it and the state school.

Of course, if there was genuinely not a place to be had, I'd fight that tooth and nail, but I truly can't see myself using a private school then either.

The thing is, I'd never see it as 'sacrificing my child's chances': in a bad situation I'd have to do more, and fight more, but I wouldn't just think 'well if they go there, they're fucked, but at least I have my principles'.

Errata:

I didn't dismiss private (though absolutely certainly with the tightest savings could not have afforded it when dd was year 6) because I had a safe option - I mean, that's not why I dismissed it: I didn't have a safe option.

That to me would be the kind of set-up I'd already have rejected years before (and did) - I mean that I rejected it cos I like living on a street people walk up and down and not having to get in the car to buy a stamp, not that I rejected anywhere because there was one school 20 miles away. That's never been suggested.

Fair enough And it does sound like you've avoided the dilemma by making sensible choices along the way - choices which aren't available to everyone, as I'm sure you'll concede - and presumably by having obliging DC who so far make a good fit with the available schools

I'm suspicious of anyone who says "always" or "never" in relation to politics. You'd "never" vote Conservative? Even if they changed their policies so that every single one was matched up precisely with what you say you believe in? That sort of thing.

If there isn't an "unless " I reserve the right to raise an eyebrow.

Addendum (since we are going all Latin):

I think there is a difference between "I intend never to x" and "I would never x". The former acknowledges that there could potentially exist extenuating circumstances.

Then they wouldn't be the Conservatives, would they?

But ok, in that spirit, yes I would send my children to private school if the private school stopped charging fees and was funded by the state instead, and stopped selecting academically, and just let in everyone who lived nearby. You know.... if they had a comprehensive basis? You found the chink

I don't know about 'sensible choices' - and I don't think anything I've done is unusual either (ie living where we work and not in a hamlet miles away from it - like we could afford a house in a village anyway!).

I'm also not sure my children are 'obliging' - they're different from one another and from lots of other children, in lots of different ways. That's the thing about a comprehensive - you can't really say there would be such a thing as a 'good fit' for it. Cos it's comprehensive.

Our biggest, absolutely BIGGEST criteria was class size. Having DD who is slightly delayed physically and gets very nervous and worried in a lot of hustle and bustle.

She would have "coped" in a larger class environment but I don't want her primary years to be about coping. I want them to be about happiness and fun and gentleness and delight in her education.

Both dh and I went to (the same) RG university - Edinburgh.

I did a strong subject course (Geography) and later did a pgce and I'm a teacher.

Dh did medicine. Now he tutors medical students through his work (as a GP) and never in a million years would he suggest Edinburgh to them if asked - the best place in Scotland for medicine is Dundee (you can hardly get further from RG!).

Sending students to anywhere if you don't know where is best means nothing. I probably could have got into Oxford for Geog, which at the time was the best uni in the uk for it. I went to Edinburgh (at the time it ranked #2). Cambridge was well down the list!

There's no point saying "ooooh yes Oxbridge" if actually they're not good at the subject.

My other point about schools is opportunity. We could afford private education if we wanted - it's been hard to explain to my dad why not as it was his dream to send me and my siblings private. We choose not to. Partly we don't agree with private education, but there's more than that. Our dc go to a bilingual school (English/Gaelic) and are totally and fluently bilingual. We started with it as we lived in a Gaelic-speaking area but after moving kept it up as it gave the dcs so many advantages. I honestly couldn't buy, no matter how much money I had, the education my children get in a state school.

And ds (currently 11) is planning on going to Dundee uni for their IT courses - future game designer!!

My ds has just started private prep, 2nd day today because quite frankly the local state school was, in our opinion, full of parents and the other is a church school and we're not religious.

Tbh I don't feel at all guilty if it gives our son an unfair advantage over another child, he's our son and the only one I'm actually interested in. Life is unfair, earnings, housing and schooling is just part of that.

Can you imagine the squeeze on resources if they stopped private schools! And the government had to find places for all children.

The system is the way it is and all you can do is what you think is best for your child.

What's wrong with the local state school encouraging parents to get involved racmun ?