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

I agree with the balance. (You obviously need a huge top end because it pulls everyone up).

I normally agree with LeQueen, but I am trying to imagine (and failing) with what would happen if DCs were good at maths and were in with the average or below average. Parents wouldn't stand for it.
DS was in the top Maths group-he got the top grade at GCSE and A'level-he wasn't the best by any means. The best got one of the top scores in the country at A'level.

When DS1 was 9yrs we deliberately moved away from an 11+ area to an area with good comprehensive schools-it was one of the best things that we ever did.

Those written off at 11 had a huge struggle to get to university, fivecandles-I was one of them!

In fact, there's very little mixed ability teaching these days.

I'm not sure there is any-bar PE and similar.

Academic isn't the only definition of intelligent. The tests are geared towards a certain mind-set and also depend on the ability of the child to perform well in an exam setting.
Isn't it sad to write off a whole sector of children at the ripe old age of 11 and educate this "cream" separately?

Lots of mixed ability teaching at our local comprehensive. in fact, setting only takes place for maths and French. This is a comprehensive with a huge spread of ability, including a significant proportion who enter year 7 with a NC level of 3. As much as we would like to send DS to our local state school, we know it is not the right school for him so are looking at private schools for secondary.

lovingthecoast on Thu 29-Sep-11 @ 20:25:56 you said:

"But Genevieve are they ever going to be a truly mixed demographic if the comp demands a house price in excess of 400 or 500k?"

My advice to you would be to relocate to a decent town with a range of different sorts of housing, but affordable house prices for those on working class incomes, and make sure the town has only one state secondary school.

That's what it's like where we live and there's a fantastic demographic mix at DS's school and we live in a house worth about £160K.

I think your view sounds pretty home counties-centric to me.

Comprehensives vary wildly both in terms of their intake and their performance. It is true that you cannot generalise. Even Xenia will always put (not all) after generalising about comps.

But I think it also has to be accepted that private schools vary too. Some are very 'old school', very traditional with sat morning classes and stuffy uniform. Others are simply small enclaves of social segregation where parents pay to keep out what they consider the 'undesirables'. Others are highly academic. The academic levels of the child are all they are interested in. The children are constantly stretched and pushed and the whole ethos is about exposing every last drop of potential. These are the schools that Xenia has chosen for her children.

And then there's the type of school that I and many others were looking for. No stuffy uniform, no excessively long days, no boarding, no Saturday school, no snobby parents. Fees are used for facilities to enhance the learning experience in a way that the state system could never afford. Standards are high, they are selective but they select no purely on academics but also on personality. Results are also high but by default due to small classes and enhanced lessons esp in the junior section rather than by picking only the most able.

Genevieve, that demographic was actually based on where we were living in Cheshire so fairly far away from the home counties. But yes, it's what we experienced in Surrey too. But my point was that there are lots of so called comprehensives in these parts of the country where attending the local state school simply doesn't guarantee a social mix.

I can really only speak for the comprehensive my sons attend and there there is now very little mixed ability teaching. My older DC are now adults and I'm sure they were only set for maths and MFL in year seven and most other subjects by year 9. But this was nearly 20 years ago. Things move on (or maybe back!) and my youngest 3 have been in different ability sets for nearly every subject. Those who struggle are in small groups with TA.........I know this because my sons have need lots of help with english. It works too DS4 got english language and lit. The more able are pushed. My youngest is 14 and in the top group for maths and science and french and he's having to work.

lovingthecoast, Cheshire is considered an affluent county which is home to some of the most affluent areas of Northern England.

On that basis I think it's fair to say that, from a northern perspective, your view is still pretty "home-counties centric" given that, ultimately, the same factors are at play in Cheshire as they are in Surrey.

It's therefore unsurprising to me to hear you say that attending "so called comprehensives" in Cheshire and Surrey "simply doesn't guarantee a social mix".

If your only experience of "so called comprehensives" is in affluent counties overwhelmingly populated by white, middle class families then I'm astounded that you're surprised it "simply doesn't guarantee a social mix".

Go and try living in a county that has more of a social mix and you might find that social mix mirrored in the comprehensive schools there.

Someone mentioned the Dutch system where there are 3 different types of schools to focus on pupils' different abilities and needs. Switzerland and Germany have that system too, and it is really rare for anyone to go to a private school - it is always assumed tht those who do have behavioural problems or can't cope with the pressure in the state system. I think the vast majority would be better off if things were also so in Britain, instead of so many thiking (probably rightly)that the state system will fail their children. That just doesn't even occur to people in other countries.

My advice to you would be to relocate to a decent town with a range of different sorts of housing, but affordable house prices for those on working class incomes, and make sure the town has only one state secondary school.

Does this win the prize for most idealistic but most totally impractical suggestion of the thread?

Almost.

Xenia's suggestion for every woman to get of her arse and earn £200K a year wins.

*off

It does Grimma, although I'm tempted to move to Holland...

"Does this win the prize for most idealistic but most totally impractical suggestion of the thread? :o"

No, I discounted Xenia's - its impractical, but (in many peoples eyes, I would guess) not idealistic.

And can you imagine, if we located this paragon of towns - which may exist, but I've never come across one that fits the bill - and then we all move there! (Sorry, the idea is just so lovely but subject it to scrutiny and it collapses into an MN ghetto)

My advice to you would be to relocate to a decent town with a range of different sorts of housing, but affordable house prices for those on working class incomes, and make sure the town has only one state secondary school.

"Does this win the prize for most idealistic but most totally impractical suggestion of the thread? "

_

Not to a woman whose previous counties of abode were Surrey and Cheshire it's not.

Something tells me that the woman in question has no intention of ever sending her DCs anywhere near a state school though - no matter how well balanced the social mix...

Oh you really don't know me at all!
Firstly, my point was to illustrate that the argument that sending your child state ensures a good social mix isn't the case in all areas.

I have absoluetly no issue with state schools whatsoever as a principle. I have taught in them for 20 odd years! When we first moved down here to Sussex from Cheshire my children went to the local state primary because I was very unimpressed by our nearest independent school. Fur coat and no knickers as they say where my DH is from. Which incidently is an estate in Glasgow called Easterhouse, a notorious slum if ever there was one! So neither of us are what you seem to have in your head as Surrey/Cheshire people!

But yes, DH earns a lot of money and yes, we are very fortunate to be able to live in very lovely parts of the country even if his job does take him out of the country altogether for weeks at a time.

But a snob I am not. I don't give a fig about keeping my kids away from those less forunate or about any perceived networking that supposedly goes on in some public schools. I am more than happy that a large chunk of my fees goes towards providing bursaries so that bright kids who would not otherwise have the same opportunity, do so.

I know, as a teacher, that young children do better in small classes with state of the art facilities to enhance their learning. I know that the range of opportunities they will get on a daily basis in a good private day school will always outstrip what the state can afford. I am lucky enough to be able to afford to provide that daily experience for them so I do.

Is it fair that my children get this experience when so many other do not? Of course not! But neither is it fair that they have 3 holidays a year and an acre of garden to run around in. It is and will continue to be very much part of my parenting role to ensure that they grow up fully aware of how privileged they are and never to consider themselves better than anyone else based of something as shallow as where that person went to school.

You have to look at all schools and not make assumptions. There are wonderful private schools and dreadful private schools with everything in between and it is the same with state schools. You also have to work out which school suits your DC-not every school will-however wonderful.

I would consider private in order for my dc to get an education where the teachers as professionals are allowed to teach as they think fit and not to be ordered to do a politician's bidding. Nowadays the state education system as with the NHS is a political football used by politicians to collar votes from the electorate or for social engineering purposes. New labour massively dumbed down the exam system to create a feel good factor with everyone having A grades, the coalition will no doubt put their oar in as well for their own gain. With the state sector be it comp, grammar, free etc you are always at the whim of politicians whose aims are to be reelected in 5 years times and as a result their policies are usually very short term.

I have always wondered, about Xenia's suggestion, who she expects to teach in her wonderful exclusive private schools if all woment should be off earning £200k+?

Would she be prepared to pay the fees if all the teachers were paid this amount?

Or would she be happy for all the teachers to be of that 'substandard' species of human who are 'unfortunately incapable' of earning that amount?

Surely not - surely she would accept that some very bright, very capable, very highly qualified, very well educated men and women will do the important but perhaps somewhat less well paid jobs in society, including educating her children? (I am, as far as I remember from a discussion on another thread she was on, more highly qualified / educated than Xenia - but I have chosen to be a teacher, rather than to 'do the proper thing' and maximise my earning power)

LeQueen,

The thing is, the grammar / secondary modern system works well for those who fit in the middle of the ability range for each type of school - for those who naturally fit into an academic system, and for those who very clearly have a more vocational and practical bent.

The children it works less well for are those at the margin between the two - the child who could perfectly well do academic subjects but slightly less well than the grammar school norm so are not allowed to show their academic ability by being forced to be in a vocational school, or the child who has a mixture of academic and practical talents but is stuck in a wholly academic type of school.

Also, in the past, funding for grammars was much higher than for secondary moderns. That meant that those children who perhaps needed the greatest help - those with SEN, those who needed additional support to access any education at all, those who were maybe looked after children or abused or came from complex home lives - were predominantly at the LESS well-funded institutions rather than having extra money put in to allow them to make the maximum progress.