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

Did you not read the post? Some people receive bursaries (up to 100% of fees). Are they rich? No, otherwise they wouldn't qualify for a bursary.

And no, I don't live in a bubble thanks.

Absolutely not. I went to private from from primary through to 18yrs. Unless you are VERY wealthy (my parents weren't I was on a bursary) you can spend a lot of time feeling like the poor relation - my parents couldn't afford all the branded clothes etc that were the uniform of a lot of other girls, now I know how shallow it was to feel like that, at the time of the excruciating teenage years it was awful. Also the monstrous sense of entitlement that so many of my peers had was vile, the total lack of realisation of how very privileged they were. No way will my children turn out like that. State school all the way here.

i dont give a toss about personal statements on UCAS forms. If my son is undertaking voluntary work with those who are less fortunate than he is it is for only one reason; to give back to society. He is lucky that we have a reasonable income and through a bursary is attending a fantastic school but he knows that there are many out there not in his situation and who would love to be and he also knows that we feel he has a moral obligation to assist them.

Oh yes, sorry. Mainly rich children, and a few very clever children who aren't rich. Good social mix.

Anyway - not what I want for my children, so in answer to the OP: no, no and thrice no.

Wouldn't you rather he went to school with those children, Happygardening, than helping them out in a lovely noblesse oblige fashion? Or is it better to see poor people as people you help, rather than people you know?

I'd rather select the best school for my children (whether state or private) rather than be prejudiced against one or the other because of snobbery (inverse or otherwise).

I will never think it is best for my children to be segregated by wealth with a few clever kids who aren't wealthy but are clever. So I wouldn't want them at private school. I would never ever think it was best.

I would not have done for Primary, but DS1 is now 12 (year 8) and I would send him to Private school if we could. He's at a pretty good State school and is doing very well, but I think he would do that little bit better at Private and reach his full potential.

We may consider private 6th form if we sell his little brother

If I chose to send him to our local comp he still wouldn't have friends/know people from disadvantaged back grounds because of where we live.

Shorthand I suppose - lazy, I know, but I guess I think it will be understood. My dds have some boden, to be fair, but I suppose when I say Bodeny I mean 'mum and kids wear boden, they're on the PTA and they drink lots of Bottle Green and order from Ocado and go on holiday to Devon and Brittany and wear White Stuff and Boden and drive old people carriers.'

Of which there is a fair contingent at my dd's primary, but, as I say, it's rather more dispersed at secondary.

But, happy they would be the people from the community in which he lives, which I still think is better.

DS and I wear M&S and shop at Aldi - sounds like your primary is posher than ours! Maybe they'd be able to afford the school fees if they changed their shopping habits :)

Oh yes, that's right - it's all about where you shop. There are some people who wear a lot of boden - there are plenty who should shop at scuzzy old m&s all they liked - like me - and still not be within spitting distance of affording private school fees.

Maybe you shop at Aldi out of inverted snobbery, though?

Anyway, I struggle to see why the middle class contingent of my daughter's primary school is the issue - as I've said, that changes dramatically at secondary, and I haven't bailed yet.

No, just because it's cheaper - nothing whatsoever to do with snobbery.

My daughter's primary is not as socially diverse as some - so it goes. There are lecturers kids, and some kids from the council estate, and some kids who live nearby. That's the way it is there. It isn't like that at secondary, as my year 10 daughter could tell you.

So do you think if anyone shopped at Aldi, they could afford school fees?

Why is it better for him to mix with the people in the community he lives in?

Anyway, if I were to claim that this broadly middle class primary, where the non-white kids are the children of PHD students and lecturers, is in some way realistically 'socially diverse' is as ridiculous as a private school parent saying their school is socially diverse because it has rich chinese children, rich Indian children, rich Russian children and rich black children in it. And one or two clever but poor children.

I know it's not as socially diverse as it could be - but I think it evens out at secondary, when catchment areas get a tiny bit bigger. And there are some children who are neither rich, nor clever, nor middle class, nor white! How does that venn diagram reflect itself in private school, I wonder?

Because he lives there.

No, I was just making the point that not everyone who goes to private school is wealthy. For some people, it's about reprioritising spending. I couldn't afford the school fees without making cutbacks in other areas.

You're quite right - they're not all rich. One or two are just very clever. Again - smashing social mix.

But 31 weeks a year he lives in his school community. We live in a globalised world its better that he mixes with a variety of people rather than just his neighbours. Surely thats how prejudices are broken down?