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 have never said all women can or should earn £200k a year. I have said private schools on average cost £12k so if you go back to work full time and perhaps take a second job you can afford them if you are currenlty a housewife and split child care costs with the children's father and that plenty of women could set up businesses and earn more money if they bothered to do it. Or they could train to be a teacher and teach in a private schoo so there chilren go there without paying fees or get a scholarshiop etc etc. In other words there are ways and means.

I have never said I want everyone in the UK paid at a certain level. In fact I am in favour of how we as humans are made, competitive, in tooth and claw out to beneift and favour our own off spring, indeed prepared to starve so they live, defending them to the death in a very personalised nuclear famly way which means we read to our chilren not others, we feed ours rather than givine yours bad food whilst giving the good food to the local poor. The favouring of your own is what ensures we do the best for our families and it is that competitive ness and indeed the fact some schools are better than others and many children will do better than others which is at the hear tof our species and is the nature of capitalism. No other system has been found to work. If you live within it then you use it to the best of your abilities.

Bloody hell *Xenia? you give those of us who choose to educate our children privately a bad name! I don't think that quite what capitalism. Unfortunately the system is currently loaded in favour of the haves not the have nots. We are currently on a bursary and pay the sort of sum your talking about but we have a good income but still struggle to pay. £12000 per annum is way out of the reach of many you talking £1000 a month that you've got left over after you've paid all the other bill and tax and NI etc.

Ok the definition of capitalism a form of economic and social organisation characterised by the profit motive and the control of means of production and exchange of goods by private ownership. No refusing to read to other peoples children in this definition. What you xenia are talking about is human nature the same human nature that sent 8 million to the gas chambers in WW2 murdered nearly a million in Rwanda in 6 weeks in the 1990"s and killed millions in China under Mao.

Human nurture may be - that parents look afetr their children rather than those of others on the whole. It works very well. It des not mean we cannot also be altruistic but the desire to benefit our own children is a very good thing. The Victorians were good at this and it goes along self sufficiency and taking responsiblity for your own. It has nothing to do with men (it is virtualyl always men not women) killing in war or genocide. Capitalism reflects human "nuture"and is a force for good.

It is why parents of all income groups all round the country tend to pick the best school for their child. That's a very good thing. If people weren't bothered about their chilren schools would be even worse.

50% of UK parents if they could afford it would pay school fees studies show.

People seem to be assuming that you are either academic or practically minded, truth is there are shades of grey as teacherwith2kids says. I have a big weakness in one academic subject and a huge strength in another (did more work on the latter). I am not particularly academic and certainly not practical in any way shape or form. What would have happened to a child like me under the old Grammar system? I can't be alone.

Xenia - I do what is best for my children: I send them to the local state schools. This is because, even though I am in a town full of private schools, one at least internationally known, those private schools get less good results than the local comprehensive (and as that local comprehensive is in fact also very high in the national league tables, it is not even that I have chosen to live in the 'wrong' place).

For those who say 'well, you still aren't doing the best for them because they will have fewer extra-curricular opportunities', both of them perform to an unusually high standard in at least one such activity...they just happen to access these through oustanding specialist provision in the community rather than through [potentially mediocre] provision 'in house'.

And as a result of not being under pressure to earn vast sums to pay fees, not being in thrall to piles of homework or ultra-competitive peers, having a mum who is at home some of the time, enjoying having local friends etc they are not only doing exceptionally well academically, they (and we) are also deeply happy and content...

teacherwith2kids I don't think you should make sweeping generalisations about "mediocre" extra curricular activities in independent schools any more than I should make the same comment about state schools. In my now extensive experience of independent ed. extra curricular activities are generally not mediocre especially at senior school level. Also we know from league tables published in many news papers and the recent Sutton Report that a group of independent schools way out perform all types of state schools. But on the other hand you are right many work long hours etc to pay school fees. possibly at the expense of family life. We are one of these families but when I look at my son and see how content he I too am blissfully happy with my decision and wouldn't change it for anything.

I said potentially mediocre because I realise that this is not always so.

As it happens, in all the activities that my children excel in, their 'out of school' provision attracts children from the local private schools, who have 'done that activity' at school. Again, as it happens (and I appreciate that this will not always be the case), those children are well behind the children of the same age who have attended only the out of school provision.

Which is why there is no one answer to 'state vs private'. Locally, the state schools are better than the private ones, and state school + community provision for out of school activities better still. In other areas, that position will be reversed. It is as absurd to state that private education is always better as it is to say that state education is always better. It depends entirely on the precise schools concerned, and on the child.

If my children were very gifted at polo, the private school is the best place locally to do it. As it happens, their gifts are in classical dance and football, and in those cases the provision out in the community is much better. Equally, my children are academic, and thus better catered for in the state sector, as the local private schools are placed lower in league tables and university entrance tables than the state schools. If I wanted them to meet only the children of Russian oligarchs none of the hoi polloi, then they would be better catered for in the private schools.

I said most parents do what is best for their children and that is good and how we are all made. So teacher with the "kids" not a word I would ever apply to children by the way just to baby goats... is doing so and that's good. Plenty of private schools are not good. You have to pick very carefully as within the state system.

Ah football - yet another British class divide, isn't it? So for life they will be regarded as working class football rather than rugby... gosh it's all so funny. I write as someone who never voluntarily watches any sporting even of any kind whether working class or middle class.

I'm with you on the watching sport, Xenia (never thought I'd be with you on anything, but there I agree with you). However, DS happens to have a particular skill in a particular position in football, which he finely honed when playing with his friends in the park...

Funnily enough, I would never use the word 'kids' to mean 'children' in RL either. My name on here is a nod to an (ironic) screen name I had elsewhere.

And being an all girls' boarding school (100% scholarship) / Oxbridge / Oxbridge PhD type I only have to open my mouth for it to be clear that I am as middle class as they come, thanks to the social mobility afforded by grammar schools a generation ago....

That's why I'm not a capitalist, Xenia. It may be the "heart of our species" to be selfish but what makes us human and not just animal is the ability to share, give and consider others as well as ourselves.

But it tends ot be our own family over others. I doubt any mother on here would feed a neighbour's child and let her own die. Just as I doubt you would give the best only available school place to your neighbour and deny it to your daughter

Lequeen it is hopelessly naive and desperately patronising to assume that students who fail to get into grammar school are not considered 2nd best and to argue that there is somehow a benefit to them to receiving a non grammar school education where their 'different strenghts' are catered for.

This may make you feel better about justifying a two tier system but it's still absolute tosh.

It is ludicrous to assume that those children who are not able to pass the 11+ are automatically talented in practical areas (there's every likelihood that they will also struggle in those areas too) or that in today's society they don't need the same sort of skills and knowledge as the kids who get into grammar school.

It's also almost always the case that those people who argue for any sort of divisive system assume that they and their kids will get into the grammar schools but what if they didn't? Or, worse, what if one did and the other didn't?

It is simply wrong to assume that there are thousands of jobs where people need only 'practical skills' or conversely, to assume that there are purely 'academic' jobs which need no practical skills. The reality is increasingly that people will need to be flexible in the jobs market and need a range of skills and knowledge.

We already have a system where children who are likely to fail GCSEs are able to pursue more vocational courses. This has its problems (I've already outlined a few) but at least it doesn't mean that children are segregated into the 'academic' and 'vocational'.

It is also beyond stupid not to recognise that any divisive system benefits the already privileged and disadvantages the poor.

That should say without the need to segregate children into purely 'academic' or 'vocational' schools.

A good comprehensive school will strive to provide all children with the foundation of all the skills and knowlege they will need for their working lives.

Sterling work on this thread, fivecandles, agree with you on all points

But, they're not written off as second best. It's just that their skills and abilities do not lie in the academic fields.

Utter rubbish! I was academic. I was 11yrs old-and people were deciding if I was academic .
The Head of my primary school said that I should have got a grammar school place-had I lived in the next town my marks would have got me a place. My brother failed-passed at 12 and at 13 was in the express high flyers stream. You can't judge DCs at such a young age.
My secondary modern A stream was full of academic DCs.

I got to the grammar school eventually and found that people had wasted places and left at 16yrs! I wouldn't have so much against them if there was change each year between the schools-those not performing shouldn't keep the place. This isn't a problem in the comprehensive-they can go up and down.

I simply wouldn't send mine to a comrehensive with mixed ability teaching-luckily it wasn't a problem-all the comprehensives in the area set and all come in the Times top schools list for results-not bad when they take everyone!

Many people would wish to consider others as well as themselves. There's a big difference between "I'm all right Jack, stuff the rest, it's their own fault" and "love your neighbour as yourself".

"But it tends ot be our own family over others."

It's just that their skills and abilities do not lie in the academic fields. Loads more fields for them to excel in, if they so choose?

This is extremely patronising.
Maybe they want to excel academically-why should they be stopped?

I got fed up when I failed-up until then adults asked what you wanted to be when you grew up and you could say anything-the world was your oyster! Fail and exam at 11 yrs old and suddenly they look suprised when you say 'doctor' or similar and you get 'can you still do that?' I got so fed up with saying 'yes-I have to do x, y and z' and I just used to say 'I haven't decided'. For some reason a shop assistant was supposed to be the height of my ambition . I never did want to be a doctor but I got exactly where I wanted to be by doing the x.y,z -but life would have been much simpler had I been sent tot he right school in the first place!

We shouldn't expect all DCs to jump through the same hoops and we shouldn't see practical subjects as second best-some DCs would be much happier down that line. BUT they shouldn't decide until 14yrs and people should ASK THE DC. There is no reason why they can't all be in the same school and be ready to swap routes.

Pissfarterleach

Of course there are people at Oxbridge from state schools- as a former teacher i worked with students to send them from our state school every year, but the fact is that the proportion of students who are privately educated is significantly higher than it should be at Oxbridge which is why they are always trying to recruit from the state sector- to balance it out.
You have a much higher chance of getting a place at a top uni if you have been to a private school.The statistics are evidence of this.

As a school sadly we would not employ people from what are considered less good universities, even if they had a first.
The head wished to appoint the most academic teachers who she felt offered inspiration to all pupils.

The fact is we sometimes got some very weak teachers who despite being very academic were not cut our for teaching- we also had some exceptional science teachers from Oxbridge who really were an inspiration.Academic ability is no guarantee of teaching ability.

The point is that where you get your degree from makes a big difference to a number of employees and it is proven that a private education gives you a better chance of biting that particular cherry.
We will probably send our son to state if we can find a good one, but if we can't we will try and make all the sacrifices my parents made to send my own brother to private( no central heating/no holidays except camping for 7 years etc).He got a great educationand who would not want that for their child.
As a teacher I have seen what some schools are like- not the teachers as most are good to survive, but the environment and the sheer struggle to get through the work with the many disruptions that are caused by 30 odd students, if the teacher is not an excellent behaviour manager- and even they cannot get through the same volume of work as with a class of 20 odd attentive students.

Of course you don't have to teach all children the same thing, differentiating does not require children to be taught at different schools.