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

Oh, I bet she wouldn't, peachy!

I don't like the idea of buying, or indeed being able to buy, any of those things - most especially 'the segregation of the clever from the rest' or an education driven by market forces and customer/client type expectations.

Which is why my answer 34 pages ago, now and for always, will be 'no', and probably I should learn not to get het up about the side issues when that's all it really boils down to!

If private school were an option, I would choose it on the basis of the broader curriculum, a wider range of extracurricular activites and for the ethos that being bright and achieving high grades is a good thing and something to be admired. The last point especially is something that I found completely lacking in my state education.

I like the segregation of disruptive from those very engaged with work

TBH I'm in agreement with that. Its so sad when you've got a class where some really want to work, and most would work given half chance, but a few tossers won't let them. But, there has to be some way to do something constructive and re-engage the disruptive kids, not just sinbin them.

I'm with you ElaineReese it was 'no' when we could afford it (someone else willing to foot the bill) and 'no' now that we cant. I do believe that it is wrong.

Sounds like Xenia!
I do notice that your grammar and spelling has improved from your previous posts (maybe prompted by subject content ). They all sound important reasons for you. How did you decide on single sexed schools? I did look at league tables and noticed the schools at the top are nearly all single sexed. What was more important that they are single sexed or are that they near the top? Did you view any other schools?
My ds would hate single sexed (all his friends are female and older than him) so I could never do that. I noticed class sizes are not mentioned and pastoral care does not seem important.

She might, plenty like here, hence no private for a distance then you get famous one.

But Xenia and I- well we know each other's views and that they won't be changing, no point in contributing to climate change with wasted hot air.

She is funny though!

I spent 2/3 of a year going round loads of schools before choosing the one I did. I think she just looked at a league table.

I have 2 sons and 2 daughters so for me, single-sex schools were out. I wanted one school which the family could focus one and where brothers and sisters could learn today. I think it's more reflective of the real world.

I also rejected the most academic local school in favour of one I saw as more rounded. Still excellent results but not totally focused on academic success as the only success. This is despite having a DD who would have soared academically in the girls only, highly pressured environment that was available where we lived. I wanted something more rounded for all of them but her in particular.

That should be together rather than today!

Well a post from xenia is enough to remind me why I don't want to send my kids privately.

It's the all rounded approach for me to . There were other schools more academic but me and DH couldn't leave fast enough. One school I commented on them not having enough toys! I think if they are happy that's what counts. Academically DS would do fine anywhere (I think!) so we chose on extracurricular activities and where the children were all smiling and playing.

Sorry the school without the playtoys was an academic private school they had the money they just spent it on different things. Second on the list was a great state (but housing around it out of our price league).

I'm steeped in knowledge of the education sector . My mother was a teacher in the state sector. My children 's father is a teacher and has worked in both sectors. I think I know a lot about all kinds of schools. I have had 5 children at quite a number and ma now in about year 24 of having children in a private school. So I think we did make good choices and informed choices which were certainly not just based on league table positions although if the best schools with the most rounded education also have the best results and children best at sport and music etc it is a fairly easy choice.

If the best private school in terms of A levels in the country had 20 children in a tin hut I am not sure I would then pick it.

I threw out that list quickly. I certainly have not given i t a lot of thought and there are probably lots of other reasons . I am not too worried about class sizes. In fact in very small class sizes children get sick of each other and there are fewer to bounce ideas off. Classes where everyone is fairly clever can manage fine with 20 - 25 children a class. Mother taught classes of 40 after the war without an assistant but that's certainly a bit too large.

I was going to write "pastoral care" is for wimps, but it might not go down very well. I want my chdilren to be robust. To learn valuable lessons at school about children who dislike them, teachers who take against them and how to deal with things going wrong for them. Also I have only sent them to some of the best schools and if you're pretty good I suppose your pastoral care (whatever that phrase means) is good anyway. I tend not much to contact schools. They have far too many fussy parents getting in touch all the time when the school is just trying to do its job.

Wow mega thread. I think I would like to keep my children in the state sector if at all possible .I was the one of about 10 high achieving girls in my year at a comprehensive .I went on to study medicine at a Russell group university .

My Dhaka was privately educated and quite frankly some of the attitudes exemplified during his school days are truly shocking .I think society needs doctors,lawyers and MP s who have been to normal schools . If my children have what it takes then great, if not I don't want them housed.

Having said that if they are unhappy or bullied and the only alternative is fee paying then so be it

I can't imagine for one second that your children are anything BUT robust Xenia!

Wow mega thread. I think I would like to keep my children in the state sector if at all possible .I was the one of about 10 high achieving girls in my year at a comprehensive .I went on to study medicine at a Russell group university .

My Dhaka was privately educated and quite frankly some of the attitudes exemplified during his school days are truly shocking .I think society needs doctors,lawyers and MP s who have been to normal schools . If my children have what it takes then great, if not I don't want them housed.

Having said that if they are unhappy or bullied and the only alternative is fee paying then so be it

Sorry mad phone meant my dh not Dhaka

Hot housed not housed Important going to stop mining from this.phone

depends on the school.
ds's school is fantastic so no.
dd's is ok so maybe depending on if it was a better school or not.

I don't contact the school Xenia. The education of my child is up to them . He is very advanced so oddly enough it can be a handful for them and I do think small classes and the 1-2-1 they arrange for him helps (probably his teacher as much as him!). I do think he would be lost in a larger environment and with such small classes everyone can be good at something and can be encouraged.

lovingthecoast -

Yes, Peachy, I agree but the 'right education for all' argument is used too often by grammar school advocates who actually don't give a damn about what sort of provision or funds would be available to those schools where the 'others' would go.

But there is no difference in funding between grammar and non-grammar schools. In fact non-grammars are likely to get more due to pupil premium and having more children on free school meals etc.

Why does this lie persist that state provision is somehow unfairly biased towards grammar schools? It isn't. The difference between grammar schools and comps or secondary moderns is the students in them - and the types of subjects and courses focused on, which are chosen to reflect the needs and strengths of those students.

The great tragedy in the history of grammar schools is that they never got around to building most of the technical schools that were supposed to complete the system.

' In fact non-grammars are likely to get more due to pupil premium and having more children on free school meals etc.' depends- we have 3; I now this as I found the forms in the high street (luckily am CRB checked, volunteer at school and handed them in but ffs)

No Grammars here and probably never will be; we were considering moving somewhere with a fairly well known Grammar system- no chance.

I would/ might consider it in future.

1. Because there tends to be less disruptive pupils in the class, better self discipline.
2. Better at developing social conscience, charity work etc
3. Get better academic results generally due to smaller classes and more children who are expected to achieve by their parents.
4. Better facilities and broader scope for hobbies - sport/ music
5. Top facilities i.e. language labs in prep.

Boarding facility which we may need. High expectations from teachers regarding classroom discipline, behaviour, deportment i.e. more ladylike (which I can't teach dds! )