I send my child to private school because....?

[jabed]

Well, I don?t actually, I just work in one. But it seems to be a constant source of questioning on MN and given the current news articles (I have been reading the DM and Tory graph online) about how many of our left wing leaders hypocritically claim to be egalitarian and socialist whilst buying education for their children , or have had education paid for by their own parents. I just wondered, what is it we expect from education, and why is it some of us are willing to pay for whatever that is and how they see that as worthy of their money.

There you go. :)

I know lots of old people, and have no trouble contextualising what they say, but I don't consider Jabed to be so massively old that he shouldn't think a bit about which words he uses.

Chandon and adeucalione are right the majority of independent school are not about snobbery, making contacts, getting a leg up, stupid boaters etc. those that fit into this category are a very small minority in the grand scheme of education in the UK. For those who have the money and lets be realistic many don't I think choice in fact as importantly freedom to choose plays a large factor in their decision. There will always be a independent school somewhere that will take your DC and I suspect many find this preferable to the state system where faceless bureaucrats make what according to many on MN appear to irrational and incomprehensible decisions. Independent schools can offer a personal touch that people want. You can meet the head on a one to one talk to teachers/children HMs matrons people in charge of admissions bursars and the whole admissions process is more personal and may give many parents more confidence in the individual school.

Ok, so the hammer and sickle is such an awful and distasteful and horrid image that grinning at it is out of order.... but it's closely associated with using state schools and that's ok to say?

Xenia who I don't always agree with is right to summarise; we send out DC's to independent schools because, when they're good like NLC, Eton, Winchester Westminster, SPGS etc they are just simply better in fact in a completely different league to anything that can ever be offered by the state sector.

think a bit about which words he uses.

Accepted but puerile comments from posters aren't constructive but instead of debatie, the arguments seem to descend into ad hominem arguments which just don't do the job.

Pianomama- I was not, as would be immediately obvious to the meanest of intelligence, grinning at the concept of the shadow of the hammer and sickle. I was grinning at the suggestion that using stare education was tantamount to signing up to a totalitarian state!

and instead of debate sorry

...and in the last instance, there is ample evidence on here that several of us are happy to have attended the (county) council school before the days of the LEA.

The facts that Xenia states are absolutely correct. It is much much harder to succeed in sport etc if you come from the state sector. Opportunities are offered at private school, whereas at state school you have to seek those opportunities yourself.

My dn is in state education and is an elite sportsman. He plays the sport for his school but his progress to elite level has been done outside school and down to my db's dediction in ferrying him all over the country to play. If he ends up playing for England (a real possibility) it will be in spite of his education not because of it.

Jabed you must be rubbing your hands in glee at the can of worms you have opened here...

IMO there is only one valid answer to this - "because I choose to". (I choose not to, btw, though we can afford it) Any other arguments are pointless as, for every "opportunities are better/ teaching is better / it's better for sporty kids" etc there will be someone with examples to prove that is not necessarily the case.

At the end of the day, education is down to parental choice. I know people who scrape around for school fees because they think it's the most important thing to spend their money on, and also people who have the money but choose to spend it on other things. It's a choice, and frankly there's nothing worse than the "if you're not doing what I'm doing then you must be doing something wrong" brigade.

Sports provision is why a friend of mines boys went to private school.
She can very easily afford it and it just made sense. She spent her life adding to global warming traveling to after school clubs.

Personally, I'm perfectly happy to admit I'm jealous of those who can truly afford to send their DCs to private school. They are better than even the best state schools.

However, if I do question whether the parents who can only just afford it have made the right choice.

Our state schools are good, if those highly motivated DCs and parents used them they could be totally outstanding.

All local children would benefit and so would the community.

Initially their DCs might lose one MFL GCSE and a bit of sport, but they would gain an enormous amount of understanding of the real world and go out into it better people.

These are very bright children, they want to be Doctors, lawyers, vets, dentists and accountants. Long courses that may well need money already spent on school fees.

They will end up as consultants, Gps, head teachers, magistrates, councillors and school governors etc.

All things they'd do just a little bit better if they'd been educated with a real mix of peers.

exotic, it is not about competition and trying to "beat the rest".

It is when they live in an 11+ area and they want to avoid 7 years of school fees!

I thought that Xenia's summary was pretty good. I am just pleased that I got most of it for free (obviously not all but it left the cash to fill in the extras in other ways).

There were church schools and then in 1870 they filled in with Board schools if there were no church schools. They were never council schools.

Exotic fruits you are talking round your hat and trying to make mountains out of molehills. You are clearly ignorant of education history in England. Go and read some books and learn something instead of trying to pick an argument

I would like to know exactly in what way I am ignorant of education history in England and the 1870 education act.

xenia sport and music tuition cost money. In our top ten Olympic sports, we have equestrianism, rowing, sailing, cycling, tennis, shooting and skating, all of which are 'elite' sports.

At my school, the 'middle class' children play musical instruments as their parents can afford the lessons. As a consequence of this, these children will benefit from being members of the orchestra; they will become confident in public performance and, eventually, will be lucky enough to earn Ucas points for music exams and be more likely to get into the 'right' universities.

Meanwhile, the majority of children in the country have parents who can't afford horse riding lessons, who can't afford expensive bikes, who have no means of transport to out of school lessons and who have no money to pay for instrumental lessons. These are the children relying on publicly funded sport and music schemes, now being culled by our arrogant and blinkered government.n

Music and sport opportunities are just examples of the shocking inequalities in our country. (Quite honestly it makes me cringe when I cycle past Eton school golf course or Eton school observatory.)

I believe that all children should be given equal opportunities, and, if they were, our Olympic teams and orchestras would have their fair share (ie 93%) of state educated people.

And no I'm not a a socialist and I absolute believe that people should be able to pay for education and medical care.

Sadly there are many areas of the country with small school catchments where I would scrimp and save every penny to the local sink school.

But this is a rural area and we are lucky enough, as I was as a child, to have schools with a real social mix.

To avoid

"Initially their DCs might lose one MFL GCSE and a bit of sport, but they would gain an enormous amount of understanding of the real world and go out into it better people."
Can someone please tell what hard evidence there is (not anecdotal third hand stories) to back up this idea that children educated at indepednent schools are completely out of touch with the rest of the world and that state educated children are "better people"?

I was going to send my DS privately when I lived in 11+ area and that was regardless of whether he passed or failed. However I then had 2 more DCs and couldn't afford it-added to the fact that it had great comprehensive schools and so it wasn't necessary any more.

In equality in extra curricular activities is another thread.
One of the advantages DD1 gets from us not sending her to private school is the funding for her very expensive "hobby".

This is related to what she wants to do at university.

seeker - Hammer and Sickle association comes from your parenting tip you gave me on another thread about music and playing rough sports :

You will join in with the life of the community you are part of. And that sometimes means doing things you don't necessarily enjoy. You may not enjoy sport- Fred may not enjoy music practice. But that's no reason for the two of you nof to do it . Because we are aiming for robust well rounded people:"

Sounds familiar?

This would be enough to give one nightmares...

StarBallBunny one of the many advantages that my DS get from going to his independent school is that he able to participate in three sports that are either would unavailable to him or would require me to drive a 60 mile round trip! And lets not forget 4-5 plays to watch a term 35 + concerts a term to listen too, weekly lectures by world renowned specialists in their fields, 60+ extracurricular non sporty clubs numerous sports activities from team sports to niche individual sports.

But happy - shouldn't that be available to all children? A child isn't born with a status tag hanging around his or her neck! And a child doesn't choose it's parentage.

However, immediately a child takes it's first breath, it is the parents' economic, employment and housing status that dictates it's educational path.

I don't think extra-curricular activity is a whole other thread, as it is brought up as a reason for sending a child to private school so often on these debates. The many opportunities offered to children at private school shower a feeling of well-being and prestige on all pupils, whether they participate in the sports or music or not. It is the success of the school that instils the pride, and the sense that everyone is being given the opportunity to participate. A term's lessons from a provider in tri-golf aren't going to have the same effect, although the intentions are good.

To pull other children out of the gutter, we need to give them inspiration and aspiration by offering them all the same opportunities, all of the time.

The sport my dn does isn't expensive at all. My db regrets not looking at senior school scholarships for him. I assume he didn't as he is very much against private education, but now dn is nearly at the end of his schooling it is a regret that db has but can do nothing about.

Ds is at private school and will have opportunities that just do not exist in our local state schools. He could have carried on singing in the church choir but it would be very difficult for me to work full time and ds to get the same level of musical education that he will get at private school.

Happygardening
I'm not saying that state can ever compete with the very best of private education.

Only that I wish a certain section of the MC would not dismiss it out of hand.

As for private school pupils being out of touch, I can only give anecdotes.

Except to say that our privately educated London centric MPs have obviously never tried living in either a city or a rural area on very limited money.

I have done both and their housing and transport policies are a joke.

Yes it should be available to all how you propose we achieve this? Would you like to pay significantly more taxes? Or perhaps our government could make cuts in other areas obviously not going to war in unwinable situations might help but who has the political influence and muscle to achieve this? Nobody so far. Perhaps we could spend less on rubbish collection benefits health elderly care (a big one) or double everyone's council tax. The fees at my DS's school are pushing £33 000 PA thats what that kind of money buys you. I don't believe that there are millions in the UK prepared or able to pay more either directly or indirectly to enable every child to have access to the same thing that children on top independent schools have.