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.

A lot of people do it because they believe an academically selective school will give their children the best possible education, but for ideological reasons state-funded schools are banned from practising academic selection.

Because I went to a totally crap comprehensive, would never put my dc through that if I could afford not to. I then went onto a brilliant grammar which I believe turned my life around, partially because I started mixing with children who actually wanted to learn so I did far better there than if I had stayed at the comp.

Because Dh was at least three generation privately educated, so was normal to him. (Although he mainly left the school choices up to me)

Because the smaller class sizes have benefitted my dc.

Because the facilities and clubs offered are amazing.

Because there are more choice of schools.

Haven't regretted one penny of it.

Don't be sad about what a tw**t like AnthonyBlanche might think! Come on.

when we moved house (DS age 5), it was at the wrong time of year for the states admissions process, so rather than mess about, we just went private.

My DD is doing very well at our local so-so comp and is sitting on the right grades (5 A grades at Scottish Higher)to get her into a top Uni next year, along with several others in her year group. There would have no academic benefit whatsoever in going private for her.

She's also involved and has been involved in several sports and music organisations where she comes across kids who are being educated privately. I have to say, surprisingly, that their behaviour lets them down. They're brash, overconfident and very poor at listening to instructions - in fact at the sports club, the private school girls literally play like 5yr olds when the coach is trying to work with them. I sit on the sidelines very frustrated at the amount of time that wasted on these girls. I realise that this isn't true of all privately-educated kids, but it's 100% true from my experience.

I guess that private school promotes that kind of confidence, but it's certainly not always benefit to them out in the real world.

Calling children stupid is vile. And one of the many reasons I will not be sending my children to a private school even though we could comfortably afford it. I have no desire for them (or me) to mix with people who think it's ok to refer to children as "stupid".

oh dont worry about that eviltwins, that kind of language is regularly employed by teachers in the state sector as well

(source - family of teachers)

Thanks Mintyy

I have no desire for them (or me) to mix with people who think it's ok to refer to children as "stupid".

That is an unfair generalisation.

In my experience even living in the "right" catchment isn't a guarantee of a good state school, especially at secondary. We were in the catchment for a so called great school. It was awful. Discipline sorely lacking. If kids play up in private school the school will get rid of them quickly, not so in state - in my experience anyhow. The behaviour at the so called fantastic state secondary my DCs went to was abysmal. Perhaps it improved in the older years but years 7, 8 and 9 was atrocious. It was how I imagined a poorly attaining school would be in an area of social deprivation where kids came from homes that didn't value education, utterly horrendous crap went on. But the kids were largely the products of wealthy professional families. There was a certain arrogance with the kids in that respect.

Not all the kids were like that but there was a significant element in each class - perhaps 5-10 - that mucked about to an extreme degree. There was also a high number of supply teachers used each week that did not know these kids and could not control them. My DCs suffered because of that. There was a lack of safeguarding too that they did nothing about. Perhaps we were just unlucky. We had moved from a more mixed social background in an attempt for a "good" school and I think we'd have been better off staying put and them going to that local secondary - it can't have been any worse. Anyway, private has been great for my DC. I think unless you're super rich try state first and if they don't get on go private.

The mix of kids at the DC's private school is no different from the state secondary they went to for a bit. We're probably at the poorer end. No one has ever batted an eyelid. The DC's have extremely rich friends and those from similar backgrounds to us. None of the kids seem bothered at all. The kids by and large aren't bothered about designer stuff. The teachers at private aren't necessarily better. There's good and bad in both but they can control the kids better and any bad behaviour is immediately reported home. If it continues then they're out.

I have no desire for them (or me) to mix with people who think it's ok to refer to children as "stupid".

That is an unfair generalisation.

To clarify, I mean that you are making an unfair generalisation that everyone who attends or send their DCs to private school is the type of person who would call children stupid.

That is an unfair generalisation.

You don't say?

Much like a great many other posts on this thread - better children, better teachers, better teaching, small classes, better support, worse support, better facilities, better "morals"...

Smaller classes, pre and aftercare included, always know where he is who he is with.
Range of lessons/ activities he can try is extensive.
Food ( both meals) he is fed is better in provenance and quality
I know if I get stuck on the train he is not left in a hallway or social services get called
He is an individual, headteacher knows all the children by name.

I was grammar school, DW was comprehensive. My DF was a teacher and when when we had choices to make DSis was a teacher, now retired; it was a serious choice to make.

But the public school (day - we would not have considered boarding even if we could afford it) DS went to from eight to A-Levels offered smaller classes, a high academic standard, excellent pastoral care, and good out-of school activities. It says something that he never once shammed sick to avoid going.

And yes - by definition it was likely to be stuffed full of boys (single-sex school, that was the only downside) whose parents put the same high value on education as we did.

HTH.

Much like a great many other posts on this thread - better children, better teachers, better teaching, small classes, better support, worse support, better facilities, better "morals"...

Yes but those comments were far too stupid to be taken seriously. Yours sounded sincere.

My elder child has just started primary school and I can see that she might benefit from a smaller class size at some point but it's very early days so certainly not going to move her now.

The cost is a massive factor though. Fees are £7k per child per term at the nearest private school to us. My husband and I both earn six figure salaries and would still struggle to afford to send our two. However, I have a recurring argument with myself as I didn't go to private school and have done well for myself so don't think it's the be all and end all. More limiting to my personal career prospects and earnings potential is having children at all but that's a whole other debate!

But some children are, for want of a better word, stupid. People obviously have different levels of intelligence, and some won't be as clever as others. Why is it wrong to accept this?

Although we haven't come to it yet, chances are we'll send DSs private to high school here in Australia as well. Our state (public) primary school here is very good, no need to go private - but the high school has a shocking reputation, for bullying, drugs (got into the national news when one of our local high school kids was arrested in Bali for drug possession, hurrah! Not. ), general low attainment if not in the GATS class - not what I want for my boys. Apparently one of the high school girls went off on one last week at the high school - she was 14 and on ice (crystal meth) - massive problem here :(.

So we're looking at private high school, but all the private schools here are church-based. We have a choice of Seventh Day Adventist (not keen), Anglican or Catholic. DH went to a Catholic high school (devout father) and hated every second of it, would never want to put his children through that - but isn't sure about the others either, although would accept the Anglican, I think, if the local high school doesn't improve.

Yes, it is unfair to generalise. I won't generalise about state school pupils all coming from extremely wealthy backgrounds because the one down the road from the private school has a catchment where the average house price is £2million. As you can imagine many at the independent school couldn't afford that.

Yes but those comments were far too stupid to be taken seriously. Yours sounded sincere.

No, I think those posters enthusing about the better children and better morals in the independent sector genuinely believe it.

I'm not convinced that selective schools are a good idea, state or private - I'd agree with the comment upthread about there being a great benefit from mixing with a wide range of people with different skills and talents.

I'd say that 'stupid' is a pretty meaningless term (unless being used as an insult) - some people may be very good at maths but atrocious at anything requiring fine motor skills, others fabulous at using language or with wonderful social skills but utterly bemused by science.

I see I've offended some by the use of the word stupid. If it makes you feel better, substitute the words "less educationally able" for stupid.

But some children are, for want of a better word, stupid. People obviously have different levels of intelligence, and some won't be as clever as others. Why is it wrong to accept this?

By which you mean that some children have SEN, learning difficulties or developmental delays? Right?

Think about it.

of course children have different abilities. It is just this automatic thing about private schools creaming off the top level of IQ scorers, as though these are 'better people'.

My DD is not 'stupid' just she wouldnt score high on an IQ test. Does that make her unworthy of education? Does it make herr socially unworthy?
According to some people on this thread, the answers would be yes.

Dd is first term year one at her new school. Non selective private.

Huge decision and commitment. We both lost sleep over it.

Not any longer. It was a great move and I'm so glad we have done it.

We certainly didn't do it for any of those so called 'reasons' that the Op has heard her within her circle.

I'd maybe look to widen that Op

Sensible people who send their children to private school do so because, while an excellent academic education is available in both sectors, good private schools, because they have lots of time and lots of money, are in the position to offer, in addition to the academic side, a range of sporting and cultural opportunities which state schools simply cannot provide, and which can be very difficult to fit into the time available outside a normal state school day.

Non-sensible people who send their children to private school do so for a plethora of reasons, chief among them ignorance about the state system, and snobbery.