Independent education: arguments in favour?

[Notnowcato]

I had a good state education in a single sex grammar school. I wasn't tutored in any way for the 11-plus and so there was no pressure about passing it. I loved learning, the company of my peers, my teachers etc. My husband had a similar experience. Before our children reached school age, we had no thoughts of doing anything other than sending our three children to our catchment-area state schools.

Sadly, after six years of state primary schools, and having visited all of the nearest state secondaries, I am depressed by what is ahead of us if we stay in the state system. The main problems seem to me to be: business managers rather than educationalists leading schools, semi-illiterate communications (head teachers' PowerPoint presentations, web sites, printed material) revealing ill-educated staff, terrible lack of maintenance of the buildings and facilities, poorly equipped classrooms and libraries, ridiculously narrow choices at GCSE and A level, absurd rules about wearing blazers at all times because this 'makes [sic] the children respect their school', the compulsion to take GCSEs in years 9 and 10 as well as 11, the sheer size of the schools ... and so on.

So ... my husband and I are starting to explore the idea of independent schools. Well, I am. My husband keeps asking why anyone would want to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds (we have three children) when education is provided by the state at no cost up to the age of 18. If you had the task of convincing a curmudgeonly old man that the cost would be justified what would you say? What are the main arguments in favour of private schools? Or don't you think there are any, in which case, please relight my enthusiasm for the state sector.

If it helps: DD is highly academic (especially literacy), quiet, well-behaved, cheerful, gets on with life; DS1 is arty, sensitive, bright, definitely not sporty; DS2 is 4 so can't say much except that he is old for his year and seems perfectly normal!

Sorry for the long post.

PS: Forgot to say. All state secondaries nearby are comprehensives. No grammars unless we move house and either change jobs or face long and busy commute.

Being able to pay for schools usually means that you have greater choice in which schools your dc can attend. It doesn't guarantee that independent schools are "better", though usually their prospectus will have been spell checked! There is certainly no other argument that I can think of that would apply to the entire field of independent educations. Poor maintenance, teaching and bizarre uniform rules can be found in both sectors, as can inspirational teaching, challenging and enriching co-curricular activities and a broad modern education.

So if you want to convince your dh, then you have to go and visit some of the schools, both state and private, to see what they offer and how your dcs might benefit. The option of going private means that my children are in fact in different schools, each suited to that child's temperament and interests.

I agree with Ladymuck. This isn't an issue between sectors (or rather, it may be but that's not the key point); it's examining the schools to which you could send your individual DCs and seeing which ones offer the best education for them and why.

Well it depends what sort of independent schools you are thinking of. They come in all shapes and sizes.

I wanted my children to have an academic education, so I wanted them to be at academically selective schools. On a recent thread, I was really surprised to learn that many/most comprehensive schools "teach" Shakespeare (for teach him they must) by showing a video and getting them to read a couple of scenes. Not the whole play, because that would be far too difficult.

I also wanted a good peer group. My DSIL teaches at a school where, apparently, there are more children with ASBOs than go on to university.

I wanted DD in particular to have a school where sports were big. The sports difference is huge, just huge between state and independent. She's a promising hockey player, good at tennis, good at netball and she's the sort of girl who just needs the physical fix of sports, and it's good that the school provide it.

I wanted both children to be in an environment where every child did a musical instrument and sang in choirs and participation was natural and normal and not geeky. I feel that musical education is neglected in state schools, and like you, I checked them all out.

There were two warning notes in your post, however. The first was the thing about uniform. The vast majority of independent schools are rather stricter on the subject of uniform than the state alternatives. The second warning note was the fact that your DH was against it. Also, it would be a significant sum of money (say 15x3x7) plus all the extras, particularly if you are thinking of supporting them through university afterwards, and maybe a deposit on a flat or whatever.

Sorry I'm with your DH I've done the sums the answer is silly.
Then you add uniform (with 300 different variations of PE kit and logged kit bag) and music lessons at 2+ times what I pay at the moment and bus fares (free to local comp) etc and it becomes really silly.

For very sporty children yes! For families where both parents work long full time hours in really well paid jobs, no before and after school care starts to make sense. Especially if the odd nights flex boarding would be useful.
For six form for a child who needs A* fir medicine or something and is borderline.
Also perhaps for a dc who doesn't want to focus on their exams.
There isn't quite the pressure to grow up to quickly at the independent girls school.

"absurd rules about wearing blazers at all times because this 'makes [sic] the children respect their school"

At DS's indie the boys can only take their jackets off while in the classroom and then only if the teacher gives his permission. Jackets MUST be worn as they move from class to class. The school is in the middle of nowhere so who are they trying to impress with their smart pupils?

"the sheer size of the schools"

DS has about 150 kids in his year.

So, silly rules and sheer size is not reserved for state schools :)

Take your DH on visits to good indies and to the state schools which are a possibility for you (there will be more of the former). If he's not then convinced there isn't much else you can do.

You could spend the money you'd have to pay on school fees to move nearer a state school you did like.

There are loads of good state schools. It doesn't have to be a grammar school.

I too was happy to send my DS to a state school until I walked into the classroom one day following some "issues" the class teacher raised. Now I would never put my DS into a state school if they paid me.

I have worked in education at many levels over my career ( which has been long since I am an "old man" as I have often been told , for a dad). I have seen lots of changes. The biggest where schools are concerned is in the policies of inclusion. This has b rought about bad and worse behaviour and poorer educational standards in all ways.

I work in an independent now. What do you get for your money? Social exclusion in one non politically correct phrase. We generally do not have the badly behaved (they get expelled). We do not take very many with SEN ( unless they are supported , parents recognise the limitations we have and we do not always teach them "mainstream").

We do not have to follow the NC and often we do not. Kids are taught and pushed to the top of their ability and sometimes beyond.

Classes are small. Classroom discipline strong. Rules strict. May not suit you.

Have you thought of home schooling instead? I was going to put my DS into my own independent school prep but for reasons I wont go into ( to do with spaces and his high ability and being very young in his year group - August born) I decided not to. MNers. suggested home school. It works well for us. I have a friend who has his 13 year old in home school. He teaches him three days and his DW two days. The boy goes to his aunt who is a musician for piano lessons and to his uncle who is an artist for art classes. The boy doesnt seem to be missing out on anything. I have also taught home schooled children at A level when they come into school get their exams for Oxbridge.

Alternatively , how about getting tutors to do the job the state school teachers are not able to do? Its not their fault but you cannot teach when you have 30 " me me me" kids in a class and probably 10 who are EBD and kick off at every opportunity. (standard state classroom - whatever people want to tell you) . Call me an old cynic.

It depends on the school not the sector. There are state schools with strict uniform rules, ones which are a bit lax and some with no uniform; the same is true for private schools.
Some private schools have a lot more money, so have nice shiny facilities and smaller class sizes. Teachers tend to have a preference for the kinds of school they work in, so you will find different teachers in private to state, but also in grammar to comprehensive, and town to country. Some private schools are highly selective, as are some state grammars. Some children will not thrive in a highly selective environment.

Btw I have never come across 10 EBD kids in a class, even when I had a bottom set of "trouble" kids. It is certainly not the norm. Anyway EBD can mean a whole range of things (including excessively shy).

Mummytime - before I worked in my current school, which was NOT a choice by the way. Being an oldie it was the only one who was willing to take me. You see I wasnt a new all singing all dancing, dyed in the woll of "edutainment" modern all inclusive, non discriminatory and whizzy education.

I did work for four years in a rural bog standard school. That was the one I descrived and you seem to feel isnt accurate. In the 1990's I worked in an inner city school which would be described as challenging. Its worse now than then. That was also as I described. Keep telling everyone that you dont get 10 EBD's in a class ( as in children with a number of emotional behavioural disorders which made them disruptive - I have never met a distruptive " shy child", although I have met many who have sufferred badly from being in classes with d*ck heads of all ages) Eventually they may believe you - until they go and see for themselves.

Maybe its your perception of what is acceptable and normal that needs challenging?

"Now I would never put my DS into a state school if they paid me"

DCs are in private schools but that is only because the only GS in the area is heavily oversubscribed. There is a non-selective state school with an excellent academic record that we would have loved to get our DCs into but we aren't off faith so that wasn't an option.

State schools obviously don't have the facilities that comes from having a budget that comes from charging £14k pa per pupil but it is a bit of a sweeping statement to lump them all into one category :)

Jabbed you just hate state schools - fine. But I can assure others that the state school my kids go to (and even the others around here I wouldn't want to send my DC to) are light years away from you experience in an inner city school.

mummytime - you are quite wrong. I dont hate state schools at all. I have always been a "leftie" who believed that all children had a right to be taught regardless of background or ability and that the most deprived needed the best teachers and a good education. Then I had my son. I just dont want my DS being part of the great social experiement that they constitute right now ( inclusion, teaching and learning, national curriculum, sex education , citizenship lessons, diversity, multi culturalism, every child matters , everyone has a prize, cocial inclusion, positive action - you get my drift?)

Experiment on other kids, my DS needs an education. So I will send him where he can get that.

I had the same problem with my DH as he was state educated in Scotland (I am told the ed system there is much better). I asked him to humour me and go to see the two local primary schools and two indies of my choice - we saw the two indies first and he was sold - didn't even look round the primaries!! We now have all three DS at our chosen Indy school. If we had the money we would pay twice the fees to keep them there.
My DH manages the local football team and is also a uni lecturer - sadly he now says he can pick out the independently educated kids very quickly and he is certainly not the 'judgemental' kind! Manners, social graces and aspirations seem to differ quite alot and although that sort of thing comes mainly from home, it still plays a much bigger role in an Indy than a state as generally they simply do not have the time and, sometimes, the backing of the parents.
Music and PE has much more time devoted to it - which is sooo important, they teach so many more skills than meets the eye. Doesn't matter whether the kids are sporty/musical or not. Our school does not follow the National Curriculum - thankfully. State schools just don't have that choice. Our uniform is fairly relaxed, but smart, and the facilities are second to none. For us the benefits are 'in your face' obvious - the attention to detail, enthusiasm and dedication of the teachers - and pupils when we looked around all those years ago hasn't changed. Ask him just to look around with you to keep the options open - and leave enough breathing space for him to be able to change his mind - if you become insistent it is likely he will not budge - even if he agrees!!

I want DD to go to a lovely little independent locally, but DH is very much a leftie and was very pro state education.

I took him to see the two schools. Our local primary is full to bursting with loads of "temporary" classrooms. He had signed her up and paid the deposit before we finished looking round the independent. She starts in the nursery in September.

What had convinced him? The class and school size, the emphasis on sport and music and the feeling of cohesion in the school.

I have committed the MN sin of having one in state and one in private. The private school has far more stupid rules than the state school for a start. Current bugbear is no summer dresses before April so my poor DD has boiled to pieces this week.

In my somewhat limited experience there is not a huge difference that I can see between the schools. The private school is not academically selective yet the children leave either to top independent schools or outstanding state schools. The children from the state school leave for either top independent schools or the same outstanding state schools. The private school seems to follow the national curriculum, the homework comes from the same website that the state school homework comes from.

The aspirations and expectations of the children are the same. The parents in the private school are lawyers, accontants, bankers, business men. The parents in the state school are lawyers, accountants, IT directors, doctors and dentists. My guess is that they have the same expectations for their children,

The arguments in favour of the private school are a) small class sizes which are incredible if your child needs it. My state school child would be restricted in a year group of 20. The emphasis on core skills such as handwriting and spelling is apparent and is a definite advantage and is something we have had to back track with for my state school child but we have overcome it and his writing and spelling is in line with similar age children in private school.

Sports are much more important in the private school and they do far more. It
Is nice, not a deal breaker though and the state school has specialist sports teaching, plenty of competitive matches against other schools and a reasonable amount of sports clubs. The rest we make up out of school.

Both schools offer children to opportunity to learn the same number of intruments in private lessons at school.

Where the state school wins hands down is in terms of it being a community school with local children and a tremendous warm spirit. That is not to say that the private school doesn't have one, it does, but it is not the same.

So, knowing what I know, do I think that private is better? Not in our case and with what we have on offer. It is far far better for my DD she is thriving in a way we could never have imagined but i believe that it would have been similar if I could have got her a place at a state school I was happy with. I love the school, it is everything I want in a school for her and am beyond delighted that we moved her there but is it worth the £11000 a year it costs to send her there? yes for her. Do I feel that my DS is missing out by not being there? Not a bit.

My DS will stay state at 11. Our local comprehensive is one of the top in the country, it is sends almost all children to Russell Group universities and is one of the top state schools in the country sending to Oxbridge. It's facilities are breathtaking, the curriculum is huge the behaviour is excellent, certainly far better than the shrieking wild children from 2 of the top private schools I see on the train every afternoon and the expectations are high. I would not consider paying when I can get that for free.

Of course, if my local state schools were as feral as one would believe if they were new to MN, I might feel differently.

"I just dont want my DS being part of the great social experiement that they constitute right now"

Now that is a "sweeping comment" I can agree with.

Our primary sports teams always got hammered by other schools because the HM believed that everyone, regardless of how many two left feet they had, should have a place on the team.

And every year, when we had the school talent competition the HM would always give the same speech about how it should be a showcase and that he didn't want there to be a 1st, 2nd, 3rd place thing but he was out voted by the parents on the committee. Every year we got the same speech. [roll eyes]

My DCs primary is the one that always wins all the LA sporting trophies, it also competes with the privates. Actually I see this as a drawback as actually lots of kids don't try sport, because they think they are useless or it's "not for them" if they can't or don't want to be in the school team. Actually the same criticism is made of a local private girls school.

You have to look at all the schools and choose based on the suitability of the school to your child.
DH and I did that and chose state for infants but now DD is in private because the local juniors was ok, just a bit, well, dull and unimaginative and DD is real force of nature and we felt the local private could cope better as it could tailor teaching and homework to her abilities.
It also offered more chances for extra curricular activites, children encouraged from an early age to perform, write their own plays, do their own videos, quite a stunningly high standard of art teaching, small classes, a lot of freedom, no SATs, proper play without health and safety spoiling everything, older and younger puils mixing regularly and a "family " atmosphere.
Also, the maths department are all nutters and complete maths obsessives, fabulous for DD who is maths obsessed also. The state sector doesn't really have that at junior level (well, not that we could find).

In my experience as pupil and parent state comprehensives are fine if you are clever.
The top set, and often the top two sets receive a perfectly good education, beyond that it falls apart. The behaviour and general disinterest in learning in the lower sets and in mixed ability groups is dreadful.
I left school with a pile of grade A O'levels 4 A'levels and a place at my first choice Russel group uni. My average DSIS left with a handful of CSEs and had to work for a year before collage, at which she excelled would let her in.

From what DD1 tells me nothing has changed

There's no way I'd now send my DCs to a state school for secondary having been through the state system myself until the age of 16.

Private schools have the benefit of (usually) smaller classes and tons of extra curricular stuff. So far my DCs are in primary (my DD has been in 2 state schools and one private - we've move around a lot) and the private school blew the other two out of the water (both schools classified as 'outstanding' by ofstead). She's at a state school now because we have no choice as there wasn't a place at the private school nearby. Already the larger classes is a factor as there is a wide mix of kids abilities and she's in that 'ignored' middle spot. Again, she's quite quiet and arty and they are the kind of kids who don't make as much of an impact. The class of 12 she used to be in was perfect for her - she just blossomed. They made them do things like recite 8 line poems in front of all the juniors and parents, to get them used to public speaking. It was really remarkable to see all these wee ones so confident on stage. Whereas the state schools has had everyone on stage for performances as there's no way they could have done that with large classes.

I don't really care about academic acheivement, I just want my kids not to be shoved under the radar and to have a lot of opportunities if they want to take them.

And strangely, I found the private school to be a better social mix. There were kids from Syria, Germany, India etc, (my DDs best friend was the daughter of a lesbian couple , whose grandparents paid for the school) whereas the state school is pretty homogenous because of where we live.

If you can pay for it without breaking the bank, I would definitely go for private. When I went at 16, finally, to a private school I realise how shoddy my comprehensive had been. So did my parents and they haven't stopped apologising for it since.
Equally, I'm sure you'll find lots of people who say private schools are a bad thing.

On principle and because I went only to private schools our 5 went/go to private schools. Also I like selective single sex education.

Just look at the stats - 7% of children go to fee paying schools and get 50% of the places at good universities because they are better, better all round, better at A levels etc. The statistics are even more marked in some sectors where you can get something like 73% of judges from fee paying schools and 10% from state grammars. Take any board, the cabinet etc etc and you can see why our private schools are the best in the world and our children do so well at them.

We as someone else pointed out above are very into music and sport too. Most Olympians went to fee paying schools in the UK. Our children are pretty musical. You just don't have state primaries doing difficult church music in latin with their classes on the whole. Expectations are lower and as someone said above inclusion has been an absolute night mare. No wonder they are failing.

If you want the children to speak well too, accent, grammar etc then you pay as well.

However if you are really against it on principle and can't afford it then do remember 50% of children at the best universities went to state schools albeit most are grammars or leafy suburb comps and not everyone at state schools grunts and says like and speaks badly.

The most important thing to bear in mind with ANY school is that the outcomes of children are around 60% dependent on the qualifications of the parents
therefore the whole "selection" thing excludes bright kids of parents who were failed by the system.

The statistics of private school kids at university has been done to death before.
As has the statistics that only on Mumsnet is fee paying education deemed normal.

Xenia
Interesting that you mention that you wanted all of your kids to go single sex as well as fee paying.
Could you name me 6 places OTHER than London where that is an option for day parents ?