If you could afford to send your kids to a private school, would you?

[juicychops]

or would you choose for them to go to a 'normal' state school?

just curious what your responses will be

Meant to say;I would add aport as well. Cant find my glasses!

Must find the glasses I would add sport as well!

happygardening lots of people who are highly, highly intelligent struggle to deal with , " the less intelligent".

It's not because he went to a private school!

I dunno, I don't recognise any of these state school stereotypes in me, my DH or our kids. I have never met anyone as clever or educated as DH, by the way, he wipes the floor academically with just about everyone and it would have been impossible for him to have done better in a private school.
My old Gordonstoun boyfriend hasn't held down a job for 3 years though and lives in a council flat .

All this proves and proves again is that a good school and a willing and bright pupil will work well together and achieve results. It doesn't have to be a private school.

A thick and lazy kid, well, you can't polish a turd, no matter how much dosh you chuck at it

My understanding of a Renaissance man is one who masters, or aims for mastery of, diverse areas of knowledge and expertise. Thomas More and that lot....

But then science got a whole more complicated, round about the nineteenth century, and no one person could claim knowledge of all of it once it became more rarefied.

If you mean he takes an intelligent interest in the arts, sports, and sciences, then jolly good.

I was just making the point that being privately educated does not mean that you will find it difficult to mix with others from different backgrounds. I also never said the problem was unique to my husband just one of the cons of being in selective schools from the age of 5 - 18.

Spero I know it's not everywhere and I am lucky. However I used to live in S London and most of my daughter's friends who started secondary go to schools where this is the case (i.e. they are mainly white mc and go to schools with cultural and social diversity)Only 2 out of about 80 children went on to private schools, and about 2 more to selective specialist but free schools.
I think lots of schools like that (i.e. diverse) exist but I acknowledge there are difficult areas in inner cities up and down the country.
motheroftwoboys Are they going to advise that they apply to a lower grade uni so they are not full of "snobs"! I don't think so! No of course not and I don't think the comparison is valid. There are (sadly) probably a disproportionate number of the financially privileged in the top universities, but they are open to any adult who is willing to take out a loan to pay for it. And universities are for 'adults'.
(By the way I went to a Polytechnic and there were loads of public school failures chaps on my course)

Yes (and we do)

Live in deprived area - some of worst gcse results in country. No what I would class as normal state schools catchment.

Private school fees are cheaper than full time nursery fees.

15 in a class. DD has a physical difficulty but didn't qualify for any statementing or support - I know she would have struggled in a class of 30.

Secondary not sure yet?

Move and put £100,000 plus on mortgage (few miles either side are grammer catchments but with the houseprices to match).

Or pay £8,000 a year for private till 18.

Both myself and DH state educated.

Grunge - somewhat ironic that your friend's DC's school has a "whole child" ethos that precludes mixing with the vast majority of the population, eh?

Constantcraving, sounds like you went to my school. That's exactly how I feel.

Stealthsquiggle my biggest problem was the bullying by the teachers, and who were they accountable to? Like you say it's all about choosing the right school for your children, but I don't think a private school would ever be right in my eyes.

I do feel very strongly about my children mixing with children from all sorts of backgrounds which hopefully help them to be accepting of people when they grow up.

@practicallyimperfect: "I don't want him having to sit in class after class, with all the attention being on the hideous disruptive kids. If he is bright he will be virtually ignored, as he is a guaranteed C grade.

I have worked in a few state schools, and have many friends that work in others. The money, effort and time goes to the middle ability D/C kids, or those with SEN or EBD. They needs as many Cs as possible. There is a lot of awful behaviour."

This is so telling, coming from a teacher. It's also my experience, and the experience of many of my friends. State education - at secondary level, anyway - is not what it was. This is a generalisation, and maybe not true of all secondaries, but they seem to spend a lot of their time getting the borderline C/Ds up to Cs and most of their energy dealing with disruptive behaviour.

As for people who said they want their children to be able to get on with people from all walks of life, I'd agree. Except I'd replace "all" with "most". Do you really want your kids mixing with children who are physically violent, verbally abusive, foul-mouthed and racist? If so, then your local state secondary will probably meet your needs.

I'm not saying all independent schools produce renaissance men and women or that all state schools dont but my husband is frequently shocked at how little people now about art, culture music etc and what would appear their inability to even try appreciate it.
In my experience good state school are as much exam factories as many independent schools are, trying desperately hard to wring exceptional exam grades out very able but not exceptional children this applies to both sectors. To do this other things have to go by the board. St Pauls boys is a Mon - Frid school with about 20 weeks holiday a year has a two hour lunch break every day during which hundreds of activities are organised. The day is the same length as that found in the state sector but it can only do this and still get its gob smacking results because it has selected the top 1%. who go into the school working three years ahead of their state sector colleagues.

No, as someone up thread said, I'm too much of a lefty. But we do live in a catchment area for a good primary and an OK secondary.
I went to a comp and so did my partner and we've got PhDs.
I think education in this country should be funded properly so that people don't feel they have to make this choice.

Taffeta - yes, that does rather amuse me! Apparently they actively discourage external activities so they can be fully responsible for developing the child . The one exception being cubs/brownies/guides/scouts - but in any case by the time they get home and do homework there's no time for that anyway

And the older kids broaden their outlook by voluteering/helping at the local state infant school

I nod tactfully whilst still totally failing to 'get' it

No, I would choose a very good state school over a private one.
If we had the money, I'd probably save it up for university. If we had even more money and there was no good state schools around, then probably yes.
As it it, private is not an option financially, so the choice is made anyway.

DH has was educated privately (and very expensively), and I've met some of his schoolmates. On the whole, my impression is that while it is a very good education, it is neither without problems, nor it is a guarantee for success in life. So not worth sacrificing everything in the name of private education.

Nothing guarantees success in life.

Strangeways Maybe we were at the same school - from your nickname we are of the same era! I also experinced bullying by the teachers. One foul English teacher in particular who hated women and said so on many occasions. He couldn't cope when girls were admitted to the school. I remember him saying that he couldn't imagine anything uglier than a pregnant women. He was a repulsive man - and then there was the history teacher with a fondness for teenage boys... I could go on...

Another meaningless anecdote re: teaching standards: The worst teacher I ever had (maths)suddenly 'left' our comp school one term before our O levels and turned up at my brother's well-known public school immediately afterwards.
(Thank goodness our new teacher was brilliant and scraped most of us through!)

I've just read the thread and again, the assumption seems to be that people pay to get better results or for some kind of social engineering. We pay for neither.

Nor did we pay because the local schools were failing. Quite the opposite in fact as both our catchment primary and secondary were graded outstanding with very high results. We paid because they seemed all about the results. Too much emphasis on SATS and pride in their SATs results.

I wanted a bit more music and drama and art and sport and a bit less pushy exam factory rubbish. I have bright kids, on eexceptionally so and I know as a teacher who has taught in both primary and secondary in the state sector that school would have pushed them, DD1 especially towards doing all the academic GCSEs and Alevels and advised Oxbridge etc. I wanted her esp to be treated like all the others and allowed to choose Home Ec over chemistry and arty over further maths if that was what she wanted.

So in summary, we can and do pay to avoid the narrowness of state education.

No.
We have a choice of very good state schools on our doorstep at primary and secondary level, with at least one of the secondary schools emphasising and pushing for TOP GCSE and A level grades.
I went to a private school and prefer the social skills my DC are gaining in a more mixed environment.
My DCs are progressing extremely well in the state sector.
I am not easily swayed by scare stories, competition or fear.

No I wouldn't - not even if I won the lottery.

Hate the snobbery attached to them, the general old fashioned stuffiness (use of words like "prep" for homework, dishing out half colour and full colour ties for sports and stuff and having "comem" at he end of the academic year) and the fact that they usually herd them into a church service most days (well they do at all the ones around by us at least).

They're not for me or my family.

Onetrickmummy has just proved my point really in terms of what 'good' state schools do and offer.

As for social mix, it is nominal at the secondary and was literally non-existent at the primary due to house prices in the catchment. At least at the independent there is more of a racial and cultural mix.

On principle I would say no as I don't like the idea of private education, and would prefer to support and use the state system. But if there was a lovely private school on our doorstep and we could afford it, we would probably consider it as my main priority with primary school is to be able to walk to it, and DS is at the nearest school. Not sure about secondary schools yet, they are all a bus trip away....

Oh, and I also hate the fact that they bring out the very worst in competitive parents and prey upon their fears that their little Daniels and Katherines, who've been carted from private tutor to private tutor from the age of 6, won't get 12 A* GCSEs unless they pay their extortoinate fees.

I love the fact that the fantastic education my DS is receiving at our local state secondary school isn't costing us a penny.

Genevieve, the snobbery and old-fashioned stuffiness is fairly non-existent in most day schools around the country. I think that's the preserve of old style public schools which are only educating a small percentage of those privately educated around the country.

Though they are probably the right environment for some children. Individual child and all that.

Once again...I have no fears about whyat grades they might have obtained in the state sector or about who they may have mixed with. I'm fairly certain that they will come out with broadly the same results.
There must be hundreds of parents similar to me so why the broad assumption that it's always about either grades or avoidance?