AIBU to worry because I can't afford to privately educate my children?

[LaydeeStardust]

I hope this makes sense-I've had wine!

We've got 4 bright and happy children,aged 4 and up.

DS2 is 14, and is apparently extremely bright and attends our local inner city state school which gets average results

Both his own school teachers and two friends who teach at different private schools have told us that he should attend a private school to give him the best possible chances in life.

One of his teachers actually said we are letting him down by not sending him to a private school

We earn too little to pay for private education ourselves so he'd have to apply for an assisted place (we both work in social services and health)

we honestly believe in the state system,but maybe we can't really say that because we don't earn enough choose?

DS2's done his own research and is now worrying that he won't be able to get into a good uni, or get a good job etc if he doesnt go to a private school....and I don't know how to reassure him!!

I'd be so interested to hear other peoples' views on this-both me and DH went to state schools then uni, but if anyone feels I'm living in cloud cuckoo land to believe that our children will achieve whatever they want without a private education please tell me!!!

Thanks in advance!!

Under the current government nothing will change either, there will be no revolution until people are starving in the streets.
Whilst they are collecting their tax credits every week and being beaten by policemen when they protest people will put up and shut up.

Man is greedy, end of story for their to be a winner, there must be a looser just do all you can to ensure you and yours are not the loosers.

Oh whereeverilaymyhat, sorry but your last post is quite distasteful to me.

An every man for themselves attitude isn't good for anyone. Collective respect and responsibility is crucial otherwise society breaks down.

We go private for school and have private medical insurance but I'd balk at the idea of paying less into the national coffers for these services even if it were possible. It is as much my respoinsibility to pay for these as every other citizen. But then I'm a socialist so the idea of each to their own makes me uneasy.

I know myred, as I've already said it never will be fair as human nature decrees it can't be, but still there's a lot could be done to make it a little fairer imo. Am a bit amused that you and whereverIlay think I'm being revolutionary, though I appreciate abolition of private education is massively
contentious. I just happen to believe having a private education system increases the differences in society, so would prefer it if it didn't exist. I think that basic idea is so hard to argue with that it's almost a statement of fact. We don't have to turn into a communist state though to achieve it, we surely just have to step back from our own insular worries about our DC (I include myself in that!) and agree on a radical change for the greater good.

Socialism is a great idea but it's funded by capitalism so when that goes pear shaped the collective have to pay one way or another be it saving banks or cutting public services.
If anyone can think of a better way I'd be more than happy to give it great consideration but it strikes me that whilst I'm happy to fund a basic NHS and education system, that is all that's on offer so anything over and above that has to be paid for. It's naive to believe anything else.

I agree with you Red about wherever's last post. But you're saying 'each to their own' makes you uneasy, but that's what you're doing too isn't it? Okay you pay your taxes, but I'd bet wherever does too. I'm talking about the bigger picture. We sit in an unquestionably unfair education system and are failing to question it aren't we?

On a very personal, local level I don't think I am, because my local state school is excellent and in a catchment of 500k plus houses. The kids and the parents there are no different to us, just making different choices (and yes, I would say that for the vast majority of them it is a choice). If my kids went there, they'd just be another 3kids of professional, interested parents who work hard and learn to their best. Just like all the rest.

As I said further down, I believe there is far less difference between the independent schools and the very good state schools, certainly at primary. Whereas the gulf between excellent state schools and poor state schools is huge.

Oh and I don't believe that socialism and capitalism need be mutually exclusive.

I believe that a capitalist market economy can be run within the realms of socialist principles.

I don't believe we're doing that though, sadly.

I could not be further from being a socialist , but I too find whereverilaymyhat's post deeply distasteful. One of the many things I like about my children's private school is the emphasis on being kind, helpful and considerate to other people, and thinking the best of them. The idea that life's winners should just go ahead and trample on life's losers is pretty foul, and is not representative of the attitude of the vast majority of private-school parents!

I don't think anyone should be trampled on and that's not what I said, however you are paying for what you believe to be an advantage over your child's peers please don't try and kid anyone it's anything but that.
I'm honest about my motives that's all and maybe that comes from having grown up on a sink estate and having spent the first 18 months of motherhood on one too.

LadyHH, I'd like to think it was not representative of the vast majority of the country, whatever their political leanings.

I would genuinely feel that I have failed as a parent if any of mine grew up to believe it was ok to scramble over everyone else on their way up the greasy pole.

I think teaching your children to be kind and respectful are two of the best qualities you can give them.

I agree LadyHooHa - of course Private school parents aren't tramplers. Whilst I despair about us as a society, most people (I maybe naively believe) are inherently good, rational, nice even, no matter where they school their offspring.
Myred - you're right about what you're doing on a local level, but I'm thinking bigger - about the country as a whole. It's sad we can't feel more part of the fabric/ creation of how our bit of the world is run. We live within a system and as Wherever says - whether we like her tone or not - we mostly do what she says, ie do the best for our own. Isn't that what you're doing? That's my point really. We all negate personal responsibility for the system. I wish we didn't. I wish I knew how to make it other though too

Ah, now I too grew up on a sink estate so no magic insight there.

I'm not paying because I think they'll be better educated in an academic sense or to give them some sort of long term advantage. I basically pay for their enjoyment. Everything this particular school offers just makes their whole school experience fun and stimulating in a way that I never had.

I have no expectation of them getting higher grades at independent school or of playing celo by the time they're 6. Fundamentaly, I want them to enjoy it and they really do.

(I do however, see a big advantage in the small class sizes. Being a teacher myself I know what an effect this can have)

I don't have the answer either, Smee.

I just think it's important to explain that not all fee-paying parents have a 'don't give a fig about the state sector' attitude.

So you are paying to make education an enjoyable experience ? Which will have the knock on effect of them continuing with it beyond compulsory education, which will in turn increase their earning potential.
At least be honest with yourself.
I skipped out of school at 16 and it's been a hard slog ever since, I'm paying to ease the path of my children, there are only so many places at grammar school, at university, at board level and I acknowledge I'm buying them a leg up.
So as I said before for everyone that becomes CEO, there are many more who don't and probably aren't happy about it, that's life.

re:Liverpool - not sure how far it's wealth, and how fair it's the fact that on the Wirral side of Merseyside they still have a few grammar schools, and nearer the city it tends to be two or three of the state schools (one of which is highly selective, Bluecoats) that have the reputation for good academic results. and IIRC one of the GSDT schools, Belvedere, has recently become an academy, so back in state hands now anyway.

Well I bloody hated school and was frequently beaten up because I was the only girl from our estate in the top set.

That had a pretty good knock on effect of making me want to stay on beyond compulsory education too.

At our local comp we have a seriously low drop out rate at 16. A large proportion stay on to Alevels and go to uni.

I want them to be happy and fufilled. If they want to go into a less well paid but fufilling public sector job then I'll feel I've got my money's worth. It's not about them earning the most money or getting to the very top. It's about being happy kids and then happy adults.

My son's prep school has streaming from 7. No point in the more able kids doing the same work as the less able ones.

Fundamentally it's a necessary concept, unfortunately the left decided 40 years ago that any kind of differentiation was evil and so they tried to make true comprehensive education, something which is now almost universally regarded a complete failure.

TC, that makes sense. I was quite surprised by the high Manchester figures because the affluent suburbs (bar Didsbury) all come under either Cheshire, Stockport or Trafford. Though Manchester obv has MGS and Withington, a great many of their pupils travel in from around here (Cheshire)

Obviously MGS has it's exceptional bursary scheme and blind admission scheme but I'm still surprised that those boys lift the Manchester percentage to 8.9.

Someguy, the vast majority of comps do now stream accademically.

And actually I think the comprehensive concept does work in the more affluent areas where teaching and facilities are good.

Where it fails is in areas where the bright kids are penalised or stigmatised for working hard. Where teachers have to teach to a lower level than some kids require or spend too much time dealing with discipline issues.

Someguy, hate to say it but you are absurdly out of touch. They stream even as young as reception in all state schools.

Ladyhooha - you don't believe that "a good child will flourish anywhere" then?

There have been studies that show home life adds up to 6 times more "value added" than school, so maybe governments should be concentrating on getting the poverty gap narrowed rather than offering spurious educational "choice".

If all schools were "independent" how would that work?

I would cautiously welcome a system which offered a genuine alternative to the state. But never, ever one whose quality is predicated upon the parents' ability to pay. Of all the criteria one could choose, if you were making independent schools from scratch, that should be WAY down the list. The fact that it is the Number One factor is obscene.

Someguy, hate to say it but you are absurdly out of touch. They stream even as young as reception in all state schools.

No I'm not. I was talking about the left-wing ideology that destroyed the British education system 40 years ago.

They did try to make everything comprehensive, it was a disaster, and we're still trying to repair the damage now.

I went to a comprehensive school in a very affulent area, but they still had four streams and it was totally necessary.

I wasn't talking about the past SomeGuy, just picking you up on now. They stream in the state system across the board. It's just a fact, that's all.

Of course it's necessary. They stream in independent schools too, even selective ones and grammars.