... to think it slightly odd that so many of my school mum friends are hung up about secondary schools already, when their kids are only 5!

[sandyballs]

It seems to be the sole topic of conversation lately - how good/bad the local comp is, how extra tuition will be needed for the local grammar etc etc.

The kids are 5/6 years old! Let them be kids!

I'm sure our parents never had all this school angst!

Xenia- aren't you going to say something about the psycho analysis of you? how do you see yourself?

I don't think it's particularly good form to mix off and on line stuff like that. I certainly have never said on here anything about whether I'm successful or not. I've never said I was posh in any way. In fact didn't I say below I was middle class? In fact I've talked about how I don't like boarding schools etc and like the more mixed schools my children are at.

I think dotty sums up what a lot of parents find. If you're brilliant doesn't matter if you're at the local comp or Manchester Grammar or St Paul's Girls you'll do well. Most people are more in the middle though and sadly tons of teenagers are led by their peers so stick a not quite so bright child in a middle class school where everyone works hard and few go off the rails and they'll coast to the average. Stick them in a rather bad school and that can be the end of them often. I think my exhusband had that view too - that it was the less bright weaker children it was really worth paying the fees for. Obviously if you can afford the fees then you might as well pay as there are loads of well documented advantages to private schools anyway but if it's a huge struggle then that's when it's a harder decision.

interesting PrincessPeaHead

Xenia we've got you sussed!

agreed that u are paying for peer group eg. majority of parents are keen etc. hence i feel safer sending my lot to private schools. But isn't the private school hype partly self inflected by parents trying to get ahead of each other and equating paying up with quality? Many of my neighbours do what I do- decline a reasonably good local state school and drive our kids a couple of miles to the fee paying schools. Given that peer group is main benefit of fees, wouldn't we all be better off if we ALL sent our kids to local school? But we are all paralysed by individual self interest.

But people rarely act in the interests of the group so you wouldn't get enough people or you'd get people who say yes we will and then secretly stay with the private schools to be even further ahead as it were I suppose.

It would all be simpler if every UK parent got a £5k voucher for schooling every year to spend in any state or private school they chose.

All that would do is allow a few more parents to leave for private schools and weaken state schools. A voucher system on it's own doesn't solve the problems?

I do see Xenia's point about a 5K voucher, but it's a bit fragile.
Government schemes for "top up" funds are often on some sort of matching basis, because that's an easy way of channelling more funds to middle class schools.
That policy is entirely independent of whether we've hard tory or labour governments.

Also "education" will also get it's definition broadened, and certainly would include sport, but at the same time whichever party happened to be in power would apply it's own political correctness to which subjects could be taught.

Blair gives vouchers for 3 and 4 year olds which cover part of private school fees at that age so it's not without precedent. Privatise all schools. Cut tax etc etc

i spose in our parents day they didnt have league tables........

Lots of prejudgements here on both sides of the debate.

I think that ultimately, all parents on this forum, just by the sheer fact that we are concerned about being a good parent to join a forum about parenting, care deeply about our children and want only what is "best" for them. Now, the definition of "best" is much more personal.

I am an American transplant here in London, and thus my outlook might be different from many of you here.

I was a product of an expensive all-girls private school, more expensive big name college (small University in the US), and an even more expensive Ivy medical school. My parents could have sent me to the local state school, as we lived in a nice area and thus had a very nice state school (swimming pool, theatre, ice skating rink, tennis courts...all at a state school!), but chose to send me to a private school because I was a very shy child and the student/teacher ratio is much smaller at a private school. They also felt that bullying and racism (I'm oriental, and they always feared me being exposed to hurtful comments caused by ignorance) would be more checked at a small private school.

They were right. I absolutely adored my school, and was exposed to positive female role models and wonderfully supportive teachers. The types of classes that were offered were amazing...for example, I took a seminar on Milton's Paradise Lost with was interclass (I was a sophmore, and there was a 2 juniors, and 1 senior also in the class) Total of 4 students and 1 teacher made up the class...it was much more like a university class than a high school one.

My excellent secondary school made it easier for me to get into the excellent college, which madie it easier to get my research opportunity at a top teaching hospital in Boston, which made is easier to get into my medical school. The key phrase is "made it easier", not made it possible.

Not all private schools are good, and not all state schools are bad. I think that we as parents shouldn't dismiss either, must make the best choice, assuming the choice is available, based on the ability, personality of the particular child, as well as personal situations.

Xenia - ''If you're brilliant doesn't matter if you're at the local comp or Manchester Grammar or St Paul's Girls you'll do well. ''
Whilst this might occasionally be true it is far more likely that the brilliant child in the failing comp will not reach their potential especially if the school doesn't even offer a full range of subjects eg modern languages.But the most likely outcome is that that child will be deeply unhappy if they have to sit through mediocre lessons run for the lowest common denominator and will be regularly bullied for being a 'swat'. It is not only about 'doing well' but about children having the right to be happy during their education.I know this from bitter personal experience.

J, that's what I thought. I had the ability through what I earn to "make it easier" so I did that. They would have probably managed fine anyway even if we hadn't paid but it has made it easier for them in lots of ways. I haven't ever really been convinced of any disadvantages of the private schools my children went to over any other schools.

im, true. I was reading an article about a gift child in the state system yesterday. At 4 he could read etc. His teacher said to him mother - that's one less to worry about then - i.e he was ignored as he was above the mediocre level of the class and then you get bored and disaffected. I was moved up a year at school and in small classes etc in a private school although not really a big enough one to have some of the things I might have preferred to have in a school like a choir but still better than some of the state options.

DS is about 2 years ahead in science, maths and reading and it is a state school with challenges (38% get free school meals, 39% have English as a second language and 75% are from ethnic minorities). So far his teachers have been stretching him and addressing his area needing development - handwriting.

I guess DS is lucky but you never know what each year will bring.

Can I stick my neck out and say that although Xenia is not my favourite poster and never will be (my personal judgement is based on some of her posts on MN), I find PrincessPea's comments totally inappropriate and very unkind (why mix real world with cyber world ?)

How would you like it if someone met YOU in real life and then made those comments publicy on MN ? It is too bitchy for words.

At least Xenia has a personality.

Yes, Elastic, that is true and "balls" too in airing her views, something that the vast majority of City legal women lack. Most of them are such fecking sheep.

Xenia thanks for your comments on boarding schools - I had not thought about it that way. Whilst I would never board my kids there is a school neaby that is 60% boarding, and on my first visit I did like the ethos and set up.

I was worried that they might be 'fish out of water' moneywise 9 we certainly do not have multiple overseas holidays every year!)and your comments have added to that, making it easier for me to chose the other local school that is not boarding but we also like and a lot of our neighbours and friend's children go to.

sy, thanks. It's a reasonably accurate description except that I don't feel better than anyone else and I'm certainly only middle class. Never said otherwise nor have I ever said anything too much about my work, I think.

Today's Sunday Telegraph has an article about the relative cost of buying a house near a good school against paying school fees and the risks etc of that approach. It concludes state but more expensive house is cheaper (but riskier as boundaries might be changed).

It is all very well if, like Xenia, your choice is either educating your children privately or buying a yacht, more clothes etc. But I know families who actually downsize their house, or make other significant financial/lifestyle sacrifices to accommodate school fees. One father I know said to me: "it's a pity we weren't just a bit poorer. If changing schools had been out of the question, she would just have to have got on with it." This was after his daughter was unhappy in the first year at the local (quite high performing) state comprehensive and they moved her to the private sector. So then they had to send dd2 to the same school when her time came.

My sister only just misses the bursary level of the school her boys may go to.
We have never had and presumably will never get uniformly similar and good schools across the whole of the UK. Has anyone looked at before and after national curriculum to see if that nationalisation and imposition of what was taught has been good for many schools?

saintyellowrose, I totally agree with you. I think PrincessPeaHead was out of order.

Xenia, you seem to know a lot about private schooling. Can you tell me if a scholarship ever pays the majority of the fees?

drosophila, my other nickname on aol is flypusher 1 i figure you'll know why that is hello!

The Office of Fair Trading have been investigating school fees pricing (now over), no fines. One issue they looked at was schools having similar rules about bursaries and scholarships I think. Schools should not agree these things. They should separately from each other reach independent decisions about them. I am sure they are all trying harder to do that now. I think though it was in the context of the new defition of "public benefit" in the Charities Act 2006 that I read about scholarships etc. I think private schools in educating my children provide huge public benefit. Just because we're well off doesn't mean education is not beneficial. Anyway that's been consulted over at the moment but the interesting consequence is that is likely that the very clever children of the rich will lose most funded scholarships.

So I think at the moment there are some for the rich (and many for the poor - Manchester Grammar I think has 25% of children with funding help but I am sure they won't be all getting 100% funding). I expect it varies from school to school. In the past parents wouldn't pay to educate girls because they'd only give up work and have babies like many mumsnetters so it was seen as a complete waste of money - you're better off teaching them sewing and cooking etc. So the boys schools have more money and foundations and more funding for places for clever children who can't afford much of the fees than the girls schools. If I had to hazard a guess I would expect a few pupils in each year to have funding help.

bascially most parents struggle to pay fees and if they have to pay 50% again to fund half a place for a poor child that can tip the balance between whether you can afford fees at all so it's not an easy issue. We might better not funding a lot of children and giving a sum to children dying in Africa etc.