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 mind do you mind if i ask why they are in different schools we have ours in different schools for various reasons we may end up with our third in a third school and I'm struggling to imagine it TBH!!

My fairly long comments further up referred to what I feel I buy when I pay school fees which is a vast range of things. One issue which is coming out of the grammar school debate (and selective education in general) above is whether you can teach clever children in the same school. Most comprehensives set and yet most places at RG universities go to children from independent schools and state grammars. That suggests setting in an academically mixed environment may not work that well.

I also like to have my children segregated from children of the same sex for their education which is hard to find in the UK state system.

I also want them with other children who speak English properly and who are from homes where the parents value education so much they are prepared to pay £10k a year of school fees and all the sacrifices that that entails.

If everyone in the school is bright and motivated and will go to a good university it is more likely your child at that school will do so.

All teenagers are noisy and often are disruptive in all schools but I believe schools where all the children are bright and their parents are paying a lot to keep them there and the children know it and mostly therefore are from fairly stable homes are likely to behave better in class. That one issue is the biggest difference between some comprehensives (not all) and most private schools. It is the issue of behaviour in class. One child who talks, texts or tries to disrupt the lesson can ruin things for the rest. We tend to be presented with a rather one sided view of schools on programmes like Jamie's school programme and that Essex one but I do think from what I've heard from many people from the less good state schools that class room disruption b y difficult teenagers who are not wanting to learn is the biggest biggest problem of all. If I can pay fees to ensure we largely avoid that I am delighted to work as hard as do to do so.

In poor state schools disruption is an issue however I don't think it is a huge issue in most classrooms. I teach my lessons and for the most part they are not disrupted. If a disruption threatens the learning of others they are removed.

While I think there is, for better or worse, no question that paying school fees is one of the major predictors of your child's academic success in the UK (and therefore ambitious parents should think in terms of earning an income that will allow them to pay school fees), in France there is increasing data showing that the children of the economic élite are losing out to the children of the cultural élite when it comes to gaining places at the very top Grandes Ecoles. A whacking 50% of students at Polytechnique (the most prestigious and competitive engineering school) and HEC (ditto business school) have at least one parent who is a... teacher. Why does this correlate with children's success? Because teachers know the ins and outs of the educational system and, crucially, work short hours (albeit for dreadful pay) that allow them to devote a great deal of time to their children.

I do agree with lots of what Lequeen says but secondary moderns were awful places and provided more factory fodder (at 15) than trades people. The repetative factory work is done abroad now. I have older cousins who failed the 11+. They were late developers and didn't come from homes with lots of books. They are clever and went on to have children who did pass exams and go to university. Also boys had a greater chance of passing than girls because the pass mark for them was slightly lower. An old headmaster friend of the family assured us that boys did get grammar places with less marks than girls taking the same exam who ended up in secondary mods.

Yes, they used to equal it out so that 50% of grammar places went to boys otherwise many more girls would get in. That was done all over the country.

'where the parents value education so much they are prepared to pay £10k a year of school fees and all the sacrifices that that entails.'

If only it were just £10k per child. Round here, for highly academic day schools, it's more like £12-£14k plus.

Oh and I didn't mean that £10k wasn't a lot of money, too. Sigh. It is!

Secondary may well be £12k. It depends on the school. It is not that hard to earn more money although I accept some people just don't seem able to start a business and plenty cannot even get bar or cleaning work in a recession.

If you have a choice of putting your children in a truly comprehensive group which will have many children with an IQ under 100, many with no proper attention from parents at home, parent in prison, child in care, a smattering with behavioural difficulties and a good few who think education is a total waste of time that is bound to be a less good environment for learning than putting your child in a group where every parent has worked very very hard to pay fees of £10k or even £12k a year.

Oh Dear Xenia, you might just be a bit out of touch...in London (which is where I believe you are from), the decent (i.e., get great results for secondary) private primaries charge UPWARDS of £15,000 per annum.

Just looked up fees where I live (bearing in mind the private secondaries here are less good than the state ones - only one (an internationally famous girls' boarding school, and that only very slightly) does better than my local comprehensive).

Prep school fees at my 3 nearest prep schools:
£15,630
£15,183
The third is so coy it won't even tell me.

All multiply up significantly more for the senior schools. For example for the first two schools above, day fees in the senior school are over £22,000 per year - the third finishes at Year 6.

So Xenia, given that you have so much expertise, how come your knowledge of fees is so out of date??

In London though GDST which are academic schools are £3400 per term for junior and £4300 for senior school. NLC is junior £4092 and senior £4841. The latter I believe is where one of Xenia's daughter is/was.
So although Xenia is maybe not up to date the schools she has used are not as expensive as your area teacher. Schools in our area are more expensive sadly.

I pay fees. I just make wise choices and live in the SE. Habs girls Herts - top 15 school 9843 a year junior annual fees. Seniors 11 949 - one of the best academic girls' schools in the country.
North London Collegiate arguably the best Girls' day school in the country - £12k annual fees.

Ah I see goings post above. That's right. Those were my daughters' schools. I wouldn't mention any of my children still at school.

ISIS says a erage day fees are £12,870 a year.

So my knowledge of fees is spot on.

As my job and my husband's are where we live, living in the SE would not be wise for me, Xenia!

I appreciate that fees are different elsewhere. But why should I pay £22,000 for a worse education than my DS can get for free??? (And that's the comp, not the grammar)

Lequeen, in fact there are very few kids who are not going to get ANY meaninful qualifications. Isn't it now roughly 60% of pupils who gain 5 or more GCSEs in grades A-C. Also, there are so many more vocational qualifications on offer that I dispute your picture of masses of kids trapped in schools learning nothing. And I would argue that any child who is incapable of learning anything or engaging meaninfully in school life is likely to struggle with any meaningful occupation for their whole life. So the idea that any system which segregates 'non-academic' pupils into vocational schools or non-grammar schools is going to benefit those kids or society in any way is quite frankly utter tosh.

At my dh's school kids who are struggling academically are bused to teh local college to do courses like car mechanics or hairdressing but are still able to do GCSEs in English and Maths. Even a car mechanic and hairdresser needs to be literatre and numerate. Quite frankly most of these kids are never going to make very car mechanics or hairdressers either. Also vocational courses tend to be entrench gender stereotypes as I've exemplified.

They do set in a comprehensive school LeQueen! The top set would be in a grammar school if there was such a thing. If they can't handle the work they are not in the top set. The boy that I know who is brilliant at Maths was working with the 6th form in year 8. (having already done GCSE)

If there are no grammar schools and people can't pay the DCs go to the comprehensive, and in our area there would be hell to pay if their DC was getting extension work and not being taught! How on earth would they get to Cambridge, Warwick etc to do Maths with that system.

Sorry-I missed part of the sentence-all the high flyers are in the comprehensive with parents who have high expectations.

There is no such thing as 'the' comprehensive. People will persist in equating it with the inner city, with all bright DCs creamed off!

"If you have a choice of putting your children in a truly comprehensive group which will have many children with an IQ under 100, many with no proper attention from parents at home, parent in prison, child in care, a smattering with behavioral difficulties and a good few who think education is a total waste of time that is bound to be a less good environment for learning than putting your child in a group where every parent has worked very very hard to pay fees of £10k or even £12k a year."

Depends on what you want your DC to learn Xenia.

My DS has learned invaluable social skills mixing with such children in his primary school.....to me it's about getting a balance.

Ah, so that's the real point lequeen, not that there will be a benefit for the 50% + of kids who don't make it into the GS but that they won't be 'holding back' the ones who do

I also think the picture you paint of comprehensive schools is at odds with the reality. In fact, there's very little mixed ability teaching these days.

And what about the horrible experience of those who are written off at age 11 as second best? I do not get the need to further entrench the privilege of the already privileged elite at the expense of the majority of our children.