Does private automatically mean "better"?

[sandyballs]

Not trying to be controversial just genuinely interested in your views. The reason being, one of the 6 children in my ante-natal group is being privately educated and her mother is constantly going on about her daughter receiving a "better" education than the rest of them. I disagree. Views please but keep it calm

I am a private music teacher, and I consider that children who come to me get a better musical education than those who learn at the local school in group lessons.

But in 2 years when ds goes to school, I will want to teach at the local school giving those group lessons, rather than teaching in the evenings and never seeing ds.

So it's complicated, but I do think that your "friend" needs to choose a "better" word than "better". I hope the school teach her daughter more tact and empathy than she is displaying.

Maybe she should amend her comments to 'better for my dd'?

I think it depends. For us the after schhol clubs and holiday clubs are the reason we have chosen private for ds2. We can't use out of school ones because I need him to be able to stay in school until after ds1 has been dropped home from his special school. Our local state schools didn't offer that (nor did they offer pre-school care- which we need- again because ds1 is picked up from home). So for us private is "easier" and "less complicated" rather than "better"

I do absolutely dread mixing with people like sandyball's "friend" though. She sounds awful- wosrt type of pumped up over precious snob- sincerely hope she's not typical or I will be drawing all my friends from ds1's special school.

I totally agree with Batters - if she is "constantly going on" about it then she clearly sees some need to justify it - whether to herself or her friends I don't know. But, assuming some members of your group have sent kids to the school(s) she has rejected then she is being rude and insensitive. If she really gets your goat I'd be tempted - just for the hell of it - to jump firmly on the moral high ground, start saying that you disagree in principle with private education because it is discriminatory, and because you believe that the "best education" needs to include social skills developed in a diverse setting - and you don;t believe that a private school can equip your children with such important skills. It might draw you into an argument but maybe she'll realise then that she grates on you a bit.

Just looking around the friends I have with children going into reception this week - there are definitely some who I guess would benefit more from small class sizes, a more 'cosy' atmosphere and more one to one attention. My ds isn't one of them - he's used to being surrounded by loads of people, he's not afraid to speak up and say what he thinks, he's extremely outgoing and sociable and I feel he'll thrive on the large hustle and bustle nature of his state primary. I feel a small private school would be a bit claustrophobic for him.

I guess it helps that the school he is going to is exceptionally good anyway - results wise and in terms of 'extra curricular' activities but even so, he does swimming lessons and gymnastics class outside of school anyway.

just to dive in on the extra-curricular activities thing - I actually think that children can benefit from seeking extra-curricular activities outside school - it broadens the people and settings with which they come into contact with - it is a more accurate reflection of the big wide world - where not everything comes to you under one roof. My dh went to a comprehensive with little music, as a result he played in a big regional youth orchestra and probably got a lot more out of it than playing in the school orchestra at a private school.

It all depends on the school. Where I live the state primary schools are good (small classes, good SAT results) but do not offer the broad range of non academic subjects that the private schools offer e.g music, dramma, sports etc. There is an excellent private secondary school, its results are amongst the best in the country, our state secondary school is abover average but we also have two secondary private schools (co-ed) where the results are appalling, much lower than our state school.

I've also chosen private because the local state primary (very fgood SATS, oversubscribed) has an appalling attitude to the more complex SN (eg AS). Whereas I know a couple of children with AS who have been very happy at the shcool we have chosen. DS2 doesn't have AS, but we don't want him to see children with it being treatred badly (he has enough confusion about the whole autism thing anyway). Although mainly for us it comes down to they'll have him before and after school so someone can be at home to meet ds1 off his tranport.

One of the advantages why private would have been our first choice (before deciding on TTC instead) was the wrap around care the private school here offer. And at the school we had DD's name down for this was included in the fees. Drop off, with breakfast at 8am and after school club until 4:30/5pm. We may have to look for a childminder for DD when she goes to the state primary. The after school clubs offered a huge variety of activities and options too, all included in price

DD will start reception Wednesday at a private school in central London. I wish I felt comfortable sending her to a state school, as I agree with many of the comments about the benefits of mixing/fitting in with all different sorts of social and economic backgrounds.

But, DD's private nursery was across the street from the local state primary. Based on what I observed there most mornings, I am extremely grateful to have the option to send dd private.

I think the posts by everyone on this thread just go to illustrate that you cannot generalise that 'x is better, full stop' - we are all looking for different things for our children and that's why one size does not fit all.

Money not too much an issue for us, but still sending ds to state primary school. Small school with lots of other children in the street going to the same school. Also don't feel academics that important at primary school. Probably sending them to private school at secondary school because I think academically they are better, wider range of subjects etc.

Surely, by your logic, Hatstand, everything you spend your money on is discriminatory - not just education.

ameriscott - not getting into a debate - don't have time. - my thread did not say those things - it was a half-jokey suggestion that sandyballs should get on her moral high horse and say them to her friend

My 9yo dd is in a class of 13 (up from last year, when it was 11) with a teacher and two assistants plus specialist teachers in PE, music, science and IT. It's a state school. My other dd has just left a state senior school which consistently comes top of the league tables and has pupils who've been pulled from private schools specifically to attend this school. There are no nearby private schools here, everyone goes to their local schools, from the farmer worker's child to MSP's/MP's children.

Message withdrawn

Depends on the school and the child I think. We moved DS1 to a private school for years 5/6 as he's dyslexic and we felt the smaller classes would benefit him - he's now very happy in a state secondary. DS2 started private because his older brother was there but we recently moved him to the local state school because we felt the small school was too small for him, and a lot of the snobby parents were driving me nuts!! Horses for courses.

cod - that happens in state as well, believe me!

state school 1- top of league, lovely area, hard working childrne on whole, no problems BUT if you did get an off day with a child - very arraogant, overly confident..and a few parents were even worse.

state school 2 - low in league, special measures. poor behaviour, regularly naughty behaviour - rude, arrogant, nasty, lack of manners or respect. little support from parents on whole. But when you did have good kids - they were truely lovely and keen to work and do their best.

I have 4 kids who all started off in the same state primary. DD then passed her 11+ but the head wouldn't support her going to grammar. Because of the sort of kid she is we sent her to a private secondary (Assisted Place- very lucky!) and she flourished. We also sent DS2 to (the same) private primary in case we had a repeat performance. He also did very well and transferred to state grammar at 11.

DS1 stayed at the old primary and went to state secondary. He did very well at GCSE and is doing A levels at the grammar. DS3 we removed from the original primary and sent him to a different state primary. He also is now at the grammar.

The private school ours went to gave them a definite polish. DHs boss on the other hand took his DDS out of private school because they weren't learning anything and they did much better at the village primary.

Depends on the school and the individual child. I don't think you can generalise either way.

I think there are some fantastic state schools. There are also some AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL state schools which I would rather die than send ds to. With private schools I think they range from average to fantastic.

the local private secondary has much poorer exam results than my local state secondary. I know exams aren't the be all and end all, but I would hate to spend a lot of money on school fees and get awful exam results