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

Actually they're all bright as they have to pass an assessment before they get in.

I wouldn't, neither I nor any of my friends went and we all did fine. I work with a few people who did and I can't help thinking, horrible I know, that their parents spent all that money on them and they can only get a job as good as me. What a waste. I would hate to send mine and for them to end up with a normal, run of the mill job and their colleagues thinking thoughts like that about them

No, we came very very close once which is why I am certain it would be a no.

Quite, Sue. And Happy, well that's your choice, hmm?

Anyway, to answer OP one last time, I would never do that to my children, and never want it for them - not a case of 'oh I know they could do so well and have all the wrap around Latin blah blah but OH my benighted principles stand in my way'. I am very clear that I do not want that for them, and so, no, thank you very much, even if I won all the lotteries in the world, no.

I like my children to live in my house, with me, personally. Kind of why I had them. But it's horses for courses. You boot them off to live with the rich kids - they can always meet poor people through charity, I'm sure.

Well, she is in a very good primary school right now, where a lot of parents would/could proably send their kids to private school if they didn't have this school nearby, and might be planning on private secondary school. So, yes, I would, but I can't imagine ever having that kind of money.

As for "why" I would send her, we live on a council estate. I'd rather her mix with people who are going to have careers when they grow up. Sorry if that sounds snobby. There are arseholes in all walks of life. DD may as well hang around successful ones rather than ones set for lives of drugs, alcohol and crime.

I went to a large, mediocre- performing, "diverse", comprehensive school. Didn't enjoy the constant disruption, sexual harassment, general hassle and peer pressure not to try hard. Obvious funding problems, teachers striking/going off with stress/leaving, crappy buildings, large class sizes, no extracurricular activities, rubbish facilities etc etc.

People mainly made friends with people with similar backgrounds, there was still segregation, just within rather than between schools.

We will choose a school to suit my dcs, not the other way round. I'd rather send them to state school for a comprehensive education - comprehensive being the operative word. Where we live, ghetto-ised, sink schools are more prevalent, unfortunately.

If we went private, I'd make damn sure it was a school which values the social and cultural side of education, and not a hot house.

Mary I grew up in council estates, temporary accomodation etc as did my partner . We both have careers. How ridiculous to suggest otherwise .

Oh do stop - I've been honest about the fact there are more middle class parents at that school than at some, and have explained lots and lots that that's far from being the case at secondary, when the catchment gets a lot wider.

At least that's more honest that the private school nonsense about all the lovely social and cultural diversity where you can be of any ethnicity you like as long as you're rich, and there are one or two kids who are poor but clever, and you meet poor people when you do volunteering at them! And, of course, no one in state school ever does volunteering.

Anyway I have decided you have a chip on your shoulder about the boden-y primary school, which must be why you can't manage to read the points about secondary catchments. You're just jealous of the boden-y primary school, and that's why you keep on about it. Bloody chippy inverted snobbery, I dunno.

Well, I'm sending DD1 to a private secondary because, I'll be honest, I don't particularly want her to mix with kids who think education is a waste of time, who disrupt lessons, who are not the sort of people I want DD to hang about with.

I don't choose to spend time with certain types of people and I suspect that's true across the board.

All this, "OOh my kids private school is sooo inclusive, that's why we send them there!" bollox.
You send your kids to private school to avoid them having to sit next to numpties and wasters. At least be bloody honest!

I just wanted to comment on the assumption from malcontentinthemiddle about the wealth or perceived wealth of the parents at private schools. My daughter attends LEH and hand on heart I would say over half of her class are not from backgrounds where the school fees are found easily, the houses are small and money is tight. I know huge sacrifices are made by many of the parents and grandparents are helping considerably. Private schools nowadays are not all jolly hockey sticks and huge country piles. Some parents, rightly or wrongly, will sacrafice so much to give their children the opportunity to reach their full poential.
We are lucky enough to live in an affluent area of SW London and my daughters preprep was far more ethnically and socially diverse than the 2 local church state schools that many of her nursery friends went to. All the children in her equivalent year of the church states were white and happened to live in £1million plus houses which is compulsory for the 800m catchment areas. So in my personal experience my daughters education was and is more rounded for choosing the private option. Although tbh that is a by product. Whilst not being super rich we can afford it I just want to give my children every oppportunity I can to help them in life. Unfortunately with the lottery that is the state education system for us we felt that option was private but I do not judge anyone elses choices as really seems to be happening on this thread.

Are there many children at your local state secondary who behave like that Piss? What a shame the school isn't better managed .

What would you say to parents who have excellent local state schools but who still chose private? I'm genuinely mystified as to why anyone would do that...

Great post Blueyonder, I agree entirely!

It depends on how much I could afford.
I would prefer to send my kids to an excellent state school but in order to do that I'd have to lie about my religion or move into the catchment area of a fabulous school, this could cost about 100,000.

This starts to make private schools look more affordable.
I think it's really sad the whole business.
But yes, my ds has just spent years at a lovely warm friendly but academically weak state primary and I can't help but think his whole education might have been transformed if we'd been rich enough to send him privately, rich enough to move nearer the fab state schools or morally elastic enough to pretend we're religious.

The whole thing sucks but it's hard to blame anyone for what they do for their kids.

what really p**es me off is that ds's state primary HT is very weak and very very poor leader and academically unambitious. Even thought the Ofsted has pointed this out the school isn't failing badly enough to be put into special measures.
But she is failing and has failed thousands of children imo over the years.
She should never have been appointed but from what I understand it's almost impossible to get rid of an inadequate HT. She has the communication skills of an agoraphobic trappist monk.

If I could I would, I'm worn down after 2 weeks back and a teacher who thinks set theroy should be left to the parents to teach at home, whislt they also juggle veritble towers of homework.

But even if I could afford it I would only want it to be a school following the british curriculum, with actual, live British teachers, who qualified in the UK (I've worked in too many Italian private schools round my area to fall for the idea it is
really that much different to the state system in terms of quality
of teaching) and that means about an hour and halfs commute
each way, which is way too much.

In a perfect world we would have the money and freedom from resposibilities to do school in the UK, and then as a family fly "home" to Italy for weekends and holidays. And a decent state school would suit me fine in that scenario.

But my son would whinge like mad about not seeing his mates all week and I'd get an ear bashing every sunday night from the sulking Italian contingent ganging up on me, and still end up stressed and feeling like a crap mother, so maybe not that perfect a solution after all.

Pissfarterleech-

I don't choose to spend time with certain types of people and I suspect that's true across the board.

This is a point I wonder about too. The vast majority of adults choose to hang around with, get to know and develop ongoing relationships with, those who are similar to themselves in some way or another. Similar interests; similar levels of education (leading to similar cultural and conversational assumptions); similar income levels (allowing similar expectations about what to do together) etc. etc. I don't really know any adults who just go and sit in the middle of their town square, talk to whoever happens by, and tell themselves that that person now has to be their friend no matter how little they have in common with them or how uninteresting they find them.

So why do some of the same adults insist on the idealistic fantasy that this is what children should be forced to do?

Tendencies, interests and character traits grow and thrive by interaction with others with the same traits. Most of us want to nurture some traits or potential traits in our DCs and minimise others. Someone who is academic will grow in that way from being around other people who are; someone who is musical will go further being around other musicians with whom they can share certain assumptions and activities, and so on.

Now it's probably true, particularly in the posher public schools, that for some people this comes down purely to wanting to mix with the rich and well connected, and that's a very superficial way to raise your kids. But I honestly think for most people it isn't about that. I think most people who send their kids to private schools do so for the same reason we're sending ours to grammar - they want them to be around other kids from families who value and respect education, and not to feel pressured to suppress their natural appetite for learning just to fit in to a social ethos they (the parents) don't share, don't like and don't want for their kids.

Which is not to say you can't find this in some comprehensives. But unfortunately it's only some, and it depends where you live.

I am having the same internal struggle myself. Stock market dependent (so quite possibly not!) we may be able to send our two kids (ds is 3 and dd 5 months) private but I am unsure where I sit with that both morally and in terms of the huge financial commitment it will entail. Went to an open day this weekend and what struck me was the friendly nature of the school, a clear air of mutual respect between the pupils and their teachers (that was certainly lacking at my school!), and a huge range of extra curricular activities on offer. Also - importantly for me - a school for primary aged kids that actually had male teachers. Woo-hoo. Our local primary has not one male member of staff of any description. The children at the school come from a range of cultural backgrounds but I appreciate the comments that they are likely to be of reasonable wealth. It also has a Christian ethos, whereas it is unlikely that we will be able to get the kids into a state primary with a faith background as we are so far out of catchment. We have recently moved into a new area and the local school that was previously 'good' is now only 'satisfactory' (and what the hell do Ofsted measure anyway - the next nearest school has recently been re-inspected as 'good' yet has worse results than the 'satisfactory' school. How on earth do we reconcile all this information??). I'm waiting to have a visit of the local primary school (a week after contacting them asking to look round they haven't yet got back to me). From speaking to local parents they feel it is a good school but massively over subscribed - the current reception class has 42 children in one classroom, albeit with two teachers. Poor headteacher - no wonder she doesn't want another parent trooping round! I feel like its the most important decision we'll make for them and I really don' want to screw it up!!!

I am interested in the implied moral high ground of some who say 'no'.

Clearly the state would be better off if people who could afford it went private, as it would take the pressure off resources. Our local primary was DELIGHTED when I took one DC out to home educate as it gave them the chance to offer a place to another child. There was no feeling of 'why aren't you supporting our school?' I suddenly saw it from their point of view. They only have so many places. If you are a squilliionaire and still take one up is it actually maybe morally worse??

I know the argument is that nice middle class parents will 'raise the level of the school' through their involvement. I am quite sceptical about this. I think every parent will fight for their own child to get maximum attention and possibilities. I don't think the average parent can affect curriculum or ethos. Do parents gang up to effect change? How does this actually work?

Of course there's achieving social mix. But couldn't you achieve that through local youth groups/activities and still pay your own way for your own education thus giving more resources to others? (Assuming you're loaded as in OP.)

I guess you could donate loads of money to the school. But do people really?

Everyone can make their own choice but why do people behave as though it's 'better' to go to state school? Not being inflammatory, genuinely wondering, as finite resources is something which is never raised in this kind of discussion.

DS2 is at a Montessori nursery because it's the same price as other nurseries nearby but we liked it better. It goes all the way up to age 11 but he'll be coming out and going to state school when he hits reception age. It's a shame, I'd like to keep him there, partly because he's already there, and partly because I know they don't do all the religion stuff there that they do at every other primary in the area. But we can't afford it, and we have two children, one who is already at primary school. Perhaps if they'd both started there from scratch and they offered us free places.

Yes, I can and I do. DS2 has Aspergers, and was completely lost in a class of 30 at his old "outstanding" primary. The teachers had great intentions but simply didn't have the resources to offer him any one-to-one, which he now gets. When we moved to a new area a year ago, we were finally in the position to be able to afford it, so we decided to send the DCs to private school. I think DS1 would do equally as well at his local state primary to be honest - their private school is not super academic so he isn't really stretched. However, he loves all the sport and the opportunities to do more extra-curricular activities that the school offers so he is very happy. Plus, in a small school with not as many boys, he's finally got the chance to be on the football team