to wonder why people send their children to private schools?

[TheStripyGruffalo]

People I know have done it for various reasons a) because they want their children to get all A* grade b) because they don't want their children mixing with the people at the local comprehensive and c) because they think it looks good to have children at a private school.

If you send your children private do you mind saying why? I'm genuinely interested (and I'm not a journalist). We didn't choose private schools because we thought our DC would not be comfortable being amongst the poorest families there.

I think you are more likely to find friendships from a similar background as you perhaps do similar activities and have much more in common.

Some are sink schools usual. Or are you under the illusion every state school in the UK is equally good? And pray, do elaborate on what you wish to convey by says it all really.

I'm not willing to use ofsted ratings or league tables as a way to define whether a state school is good. There are schools that aren't good on paper that nevertheless are wonderful, and equally some good or outstanding ones on paper that aren't any good.

Sorry, what exactly is a "sink" school?

usual I'm not trying to have a diversity competition, I was just outlining the fact that the %age of children on FSM is definitely not the only measure of diversity within a school, and that it is possible for private schools to be more diverse than state schools.

Long-winded and somewhat feminist explanation coming up but it's a truthful one...

I wanted to keep my full-time job and pension and not go part-time.

DH contracts (which can be patchy) so can be anywhere in the country and so I have to do the school run. Having spent 12 years in post-school education and another ten getting postdoc experience and a good position I was blowed if I was going to drop everything I'd worked hard for, just because school hours are a nightmare for working parents and because everyone expected me as the woman to do just that.

We couldn't find a childminder willing to start at 7am so I could drop off and commute while she did the school runs, feed DS and got him ready for collection at 6pm. I also didn't want to have a child to then outsource him completely.

I tried working out the timings with pre- and after school clubs for all local schools but none of them would permit me to get to work on time. It's a niche job so I can't just up and move jobs as about two come up in the UK a year. And could be anywhere in the UK.

I realised it would only work if we could choose a school close to my job, so we travel together and I drop-off straight to breakfast club. Of course state catchments won't allow this given the distance involved. So he goes to a prep close to work. And we talk in the car, he does his spellings, reads, all the stuff he'd have to do anyway at home where there are more distractions.

It works very well for us, and we have more income with me working F/T and DS going private than we would if DS went state and I had to give up my job and pension and I'm not bored silly.

But how many of the students there will go on to become estate agents, Usual?

For us it was the wrap around care and the quality of the facilities. We both work full time in demanding jobs. Sometimes we need to drop early and collect late, the local school did not offer the hours we needed or the level of 1:1 interaction we wanted for our children. I could have gone part time but had already taken a 3 year break to spend at home with my DC and wasn't willing (selfishly I suppose) to impact my career again. My DD's are really happy in their schools and I have a career I love. Interestingly, having made that decision a few years ago I have now managed to climb the ladder to a position I am now able to drop off and pick up far more often and to also work from home at least once a week. So for us, the school provided a service that enabled us to focus on our careers and in turn that has provided the flexibility in our roles to now be able to spend more time with the DC.

I went to a rough, North London Comprehensive, lived on a council estate and loved every minute of my childhood. My decision was nothing to do with not wanting my DC at the local (lovely) school and purely around what worked for our circumstances at the time.

But the fact that it is the reality does not mean that it is right, the system should be fair, schools should be better and provide a better education for our children, diversity does not make the school good or bad, we live in an area with a low number of families form ethnic minorities so state or private it is not hugely diverse, we also have a low number of FSM at most of the schools, it's just how it is, it doesn't make the schools any better which I think some people do believe is the case.

Currently it depends on where you live and unfortunately our LA schools are awful.

I've considered it, my DS has 35 children in his class. A few of those children have hearing impairment so there is an additional teacher in his class to support those children but the class size is just too big imo. Having said that my children are doing well but as long as they are reaching the grades they should be the school doesn't stretch them at all. We could afford to send our children to private school but I think it would comprise our quality and standard of living, if it didn't then they would most definitely be at private school.

usual and maybee. I don't define a sink school by its league table results or fsm or whether it's on or near council estates. None of that bothers me at all. Dds state primary ticked all those boxes and more, and I'm very happy I chose it over the outstanding good on paper but actually shit primary.

A sink school is my local. Crap leadership, high turnover of often unqualified staff, better a-c or equivalent than another local school because they prioritise league tables (and still do badly) over individual children's needs, major bullying issue, habit of reappropriating funded and statemented 1-1s into general riot control, shocking Sen provision ( funny how many kids with sn become unmanageable and often violent there who do perfectly fine in other secondary mainstream), missing deadlines for coursework, either through oversight or losing it, bollocked by ofsted about things that are actually important but don't change, so undersubscribed kids without places from miles away, and often other boroughs are bussed in, a general all round shithole.

Nothing to do with morals of the students here.

The private school pupils were far more accepting of my DD's interests than the state school she was originally at.

Most people gravitate towards those who they have more in common with. It's the same with children.

"Weird because there's much more diversity at our private school than the local primary."

Same here. Our independent school may be all MC but at least it's not all WMC.
When I initially checked, FSM was 3%. This equated to one family at primary.

And the MC bubble may be honest for that poster but why would I pay to be in a MCbubble? They're in it anyway. This is Cheshire; the kids using state school are still horse riding and playing tennis and rugby. It's just that they're doing it outside of school. Their parents are still paying £200 a month for David Lloyd membership and having Ocado deliver.

My Dc all went/go to small village primaries.Fairly regularly children from independant schools join (mainly because they have moved and there are no independent schools within easy travelling difference) and parents are a bit shocked that their children aren't 'ahead' of the others.
My older children are at GS and we have been just been looking round local secondaries - independent, ( high achieving) comprehensive and grammar and you know what the most striking thing is? how they are all the same in terms of what they teach, facilities, behaviour and opportunities.
Disclaimer: course we didn't look at 'sink' schools and I might have thought differently if I had.

2 x S - prep school until age 11

1. Better teachers, who really cared and participated in lots of out of school hours activities
2. A head you could pick up the phone and call about anything that concerned you 7am to midnight 7 days a week, and he listened.
3. Small classes
4. When I worked long hours they could go for breakfast with the boarders and I collected at boarders bedtime.
5. The work ethic was firmly instilled, never had to remind either to do homework etc.
6. Good behaviour imperative.
7. Less risk averse, mine had large grounds to play with and tree climbing was encouraged.
8. They had loads of fun.
9. Educational standards very high, so minimal coaching for 11 + required.

I think if you invest in early years and have good state secondary schools it is very cost effective, and you get all the encouragement with good manners etc. at an age when it really matters.

I am sure they are brioche. It's not just having the facilities, but what you do with them.

Both my DD private and state had similar facilities. One utilised them one didn't.

p.s Brioche. I went to a state (C of E ) primary, 14 pupils in 2 classes, 3 teachers including the vicar who took PE, French and did a bit of Hebrew and Greek with the "brighter" children. My father, grandfather and 2 of my cousins benefited from this school too, sadly schools like that no longer exist.

Just remembered another big benefit of my son's independent school - big open fire in the hall in the winter, parents just sat on the fender to keep warn waiting at the end of the day.

p.s Brioche. I went to a state (C of E ) primary, 14 pupils in 2 classes, 3 teachers including the vicar who took PE, French and did a bit of Hebrew and Greek with the "brighter" children. My father, grandfather and 2 of my cousins benefited from this school too, sadly schools like that no longer exist"

Gosh, you're very good at typing for someone who must be about 115.........

We want them in schools where high expectation is the norm

Nothing snobbish about that. That is just wanting the best for your DC who only get one chance at an education. Parents of any class background can have high expectations of their children if they choose to.

"We want them in schools where high expectation is the norm

Nothing snobbish about that"

The snobbishness comes from the assumption that such high expectations are the sole preserve of private schools.

yes it is a bit insulting to suggest that just because someone doesnt have the money for private school, then they must have low expectations.

Fair enough BertrandRussell but if observation of the schools and local information suggests that expectations are higher among the pupils - and therefore their parents - at the private than at the state school, it is perfectly right of any parent who can to act on that.

But not to then extrapolate to all private and all state.........

Bertrand, from my post do you accept that in some areas, the prep can be more diverse that the local primary? Certainly in terms of race. Also that in some areas the middle class bubble is not something gained by paying fees as those children would be part of such a bubble whether or not their parents opted to pay.