to find it incredibly irritating when in certain circles school fees are talked about as if they are a necessity, not a choice?

[emkana]

Like Emma Thomson currently on the Women programme on BBC 4, or very often in the "Style" section of the Sunday Times.

if it was about being sarcastic, half of the posts on MN would have to be deleted. More likely someone at HQ is on a power trip

Emkana, I already have

Many state educated DC do brilliantly, just as well as their counterparts in the independent sector, but it does depend on the schools they are lucky or, indeed clever enough, to attend.

Unfortunately if a child is of 'average' intelligence, I would wager they will get much better results in the independent sector, after all that is why people pay (along with all the other stuff, wrap round care, no disruptive pupils etc etc.....).
And that is what is so wrong, that it depends on their parents income as to the type of education they receive, which translates into the opportunities/careers etc open to them.

I know of a number of 13-14 year old children around here who were at "successful" state schools yet begged their parents to remove them to a private school so that they could learn in peace without every lesson being disrupted. Another child with AS issues was hiding in the loo through every break and lunch (even eating her lunch in the loo area) because she so afraid of being cornered in the playground. These are about 6 children I can think off the top of my head who are now doing extremely well in private schools. Some of them were happy enough in their state schools but knew they were not learning as much as they could be. Obviously their parents had the financial choice to be able to move them, but I wouldn't say that for any of them paying for fees is easy.

Unfortunately though parents who want their children to do well at state school are seen as heartsink parents by staff if they ask too many questions- I know this because I've been on the other side of it. I loved the wonderful supportive parents of a fair few of my pupils but felt very scared by their expectations of what I could achieve for their very motivated children in a highly mixed ability environment. I did my best, working 60-70 hour weeks for two years and have ended up with long-term health problems (dodgy thyroid which went dodgier from stress) from it. I was seen as a "good" teacher, doing my best for all my pupils, but honestly it nearly killed me and I hardly saw my own children for those two years. I honestly don't think you can expect anyone to give up their entire life to the unachievable ideal that is mixed ability teaching.

I actually would put my children back into the state system in a flash if proper and flexible setting (ie from the start and in every subject) were introduced and compulsory in every school, alongside a dumping of the "one page ahead of the children is good enough" idea. That is why I pay. Can't speak for anyone else though.

I agree entirely Emmmma. It has been my misfortune to have three of your DS variety.

Although middle child seems to have grown out of it and is now very popular and self-confident and go-getting. I suspect that she could easily have gone the other way.

oh you know, Bibs, occasionally I get like a terrier with a rat

what I find most annoying is the point where we have usually got to some kind of live and let live consensus on a thread, then some egocentric twat barges in, ignoring the entire thread shouting something like "send them down the mines, lazy sods!" and I feel I must reengage.

And thank you emkana and kitty. Its nice to see my state school education was not an abject failure!

Kitty did you mention someone's brother again?

BTW don't worry, you know you've arrived when you've had a post deleted.

I don't get these posters who argue it by saying "It is a necessity, because a decent education is a necessity and I can't get one for my children without paying."

Do other people who live on your street, who send their children to the local state primary school, not consider it a necessity then? It is somewhat distasteful of them not to have more money? Is it neglectful of them to send their children to such an inadequate school?

Duh, Balliol, I went to Cambridge from a state grammar school (no,not a great advrtisment for state education, terrible, clapped-out, provincial, suburban, underachieving, unambitious, narrow...I could go on) and, although I send my child to a private school and hope he will do the IB and aim high for university education, he will apply to Oxbridge OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!

Well, that's a bit extreme - but really, having raised him in two exciting cities, I'd be a bit disappointed if he wanted to go to those dreary little dumps, with their yakka-yakka, gymkhana hordes and expensive, inefficient models of education (I mean the supervision system). Hoping he will aim for LSE or Imperial or UCLA or KCL.

Realise that this post probably doesn't make much sense out of context - I had just read a post by Balliol that implied that, unless your privately-educated child went to Oxford or Cambridge, rather than any of the other RG universities, you'd feel you'd wasted your money. To which my answer is, not so, pet, not speaking from my own experience anyway.

Quite, Unquiet. The state provides an education free of charge at the point of use for every child in this country. Therefore paying school fees is not a necessity.

None of us private school bashers need to be told that those of you who choose private school have good reasons for doing so, nor that it can be a struggle for all but the mega rich. Because we know that.

But if God forbid you lost all your money tomorrow, your chid could still go to school. You may lose your house and everything you own and end up living in a hostel. But you child would still be entitled to an education.

And if you had your wits about you and were a supportive parent who was engaged in your and helped and encouraged them at home - they would probably do extremely well in school and quite possibly end up in the same University as they would had you never spent a penny on their education.

UQD - there are many people who cannot afford to but decent, well fitting shoes for their children. They wear second hand ones, or ones with holes in.

Does that mean that a decent pair of shoes is not a necessity?

Actually UQD, in our case we had the choice between two most excellent primaries. One is a very small country school which had no room for our three when we arrived here when they were 7, 9 and 11. The other has won many many awards for excellence, and is a flagship Dof E school, but I had very extreme reservations about their educational model, which involved all the children spending a large proportion of their day on the computer. I know that this is supposed to be a good thing, but feared for their eyes (short sight in the family). Sounds lame, I know, but I just wanted them to be doing more running around and active stuff than was offered at our catchment school.

marais- I went from French state school to Cambridge and felt like I was coming home. Can easily say had never been happier until then. Yes there were a number of public school arses, but they were very much in the minority in my experience and I didn't have that much to do with them- honestly they were the ones who came across as a little sad and out of their depth. I think it depends very much on your college.

Look, I'm sorry, but all these well-meaning analogies just fall apart. None of them work because education is bot an item you buy in shops.

The state does not provide shoes for all children. Your purchase of shoes of a certain kind is not seen as a judgement on other people's second-hand shoes, nor does it involve a decision not to go for your shoes where 93% of your neighbours do.

is NOT an item , that should read....

Marisfrance, point taken. I took an arts degree but I knew people taking maths and science who chose to go to Imperial or Manchester because they were better (twenty years ago. I suppose what I should have said is that if I had paid £200,000 I would like them to go to the University of their choice, not one that would accept them.

Message withdrawn

My point was that it was not substandard at all, it just didn't deliver the extras you desire. That's all. Academically it probably beat the pants of most Independents today.

Yes, I was sorry to see someone be so rude to you also. Unnecessary and bitchy.

We all do want the same things, in varying degrees.

Bloss - completely agree with you about your aspirations for your children's education. And I have found your contributions to this thread thoughtful and articulate. So don't feel sad!

Duchesse - I'm glad you enjoyed your time at university. Of course, I didn't wish to suggest that no-one could be happy at Oxford or Cambridge: I was making a point, rather floridly, in response to Balliol's implied conclusion. But - since you're a bright girl - I think you knew that, didn't you?

Granted, I did receive my university education in the mid-eighties, and granted, it was perhaps a more embattled and polarised decade than today. But I think it's fair to say that the dominant culture of the university at that stage was that defined by very privileged, upper middle class, former public school children - I'm talking about 3 or 4 generations of established privilege. I think there's a distinction between that and the kind of middle class person that I, with my subsidised state education and expanded opportunities, have become. So, the institutions that defined the university - the Cambridge Society, Footlights, Stop Press, the Pitt Club, etc - were dominated by former public school pupils.

Now, that might well have changed in the last 25 years (although the stats suggest otherwise). But I think it would be a pity if my son, who has had the benefit of a multi-cultural, multi-lingual education in London and Paris, were to settle for that as his university experience. I hope he will aim high, for something different.

Yes, we ALL agree (well most of us) WHY some people would choose a private education.

That isn't the point. The argument is whether it is a necessity or not. And clearly no-one is going to agree on that.

IMO justifying one's reasons for choosing a private education is different to it being a necessity.

I don't think that a private school is a necessity here in the UK. Not at all. Do many people?

I don't view it as a necessity.

It's something that we do because we can afford it and believe we are giving our children more than they would get at the local school not only academically (teachers who actually turn up for most of the lessons at A level is a start) but also extra curricularly (Ten tors or the host of outdoors opportunities through the CCF for example, which bloddy hell yes does offend my pacifist sensibilities but when I see how much they do through it I am slightly reconciled to it).

And yes of course they could do most of these things outside (although ime they wouldn't be well-enough prepared for ten tors in any other setting) state school hours, but I would spend my life ferrying them around and actually would hardly have any time to work. Work that I think I ought to be in a position to do now that they are all secondary school aged.

Bloss, that person is being investigated by hq as they have come on a couple of threads recently just to vicious randomly to people- don't see it as a reflection on you.