Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Poll? State or fee-paying schooling for your primary children?

247 replies

ArsumLardis · 09/04/2006 08:57

State for us.
I don't want to start a debate (other threads for that!), just wondering where the percentage lies. tia

OP posts:
SueW · 11/04/2006 17:36

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at OP's request.

LIZS · 11/04/2006 17:50

Anyone know the national stats as a comparison ?

zippitippitoes · 11/04/2006 17:52

I think it's around 9% but of course it's hard to compare as this thread sample is self selecting so may not be scaled up to represent mumsnet

Roobie · 11/04/2006 18:06

Mine will go to state primary and then probably private secondary unless they are lucky enough to get into the grammar schools.

snorkle · 11/04/2006 18:20

They said 10% children were in private ed. in the budget, but it might be less for junior age.

SueW · 11/04/2006 20:50

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at OP's request.

goldenoldie · 12/04/2006 10:35

More than that for London tho.

Passionflower · 12/04/2006 17:42

In Jersey it is 30% in private, I believe that they all get a govt subsidy to the tune of about half the fees. Nowhere hear as high as that here in Guernsey though, and only subsidised at secondary £2k a year per child except 50 (25 boys and 25 girls) 11plus scholars who get full fees.

expectingsummerihope · 13/04/2006 11:21

Well it will be state for ds. Don't agree with private ed. I do concede however that my morals will be harder to stand by when ds requires secondary ed. Hope the local schools improve by then.

Cam · 13/04/2006 15:59

Private ed is immoral? Don't think so.
Why is home ed not included in this poll, those children are also outside of the state system.

Passionflower · 13/04/2006 20:37

Cam, take a deep breath and walk away, OP says no debate please.Smile

expectingsummerihope · 14/04/2006 11:02

No it's not immoral Cam - I said it was against my morals. I don't judge other people for their choices.

Mamapossum · 14/04/2006 11:47

Agree with Locket & co. DS only 8.5 months but will be state. There are excellent and poor schools in the private system AND state system. Private does not automatically equal better, I guess it just comes down to what values and life experience you want your LOs to get out of school, and how important it is to you that their classmates are representative of the wider community they live in. I suppose it's about what you believe education is for (I guess that's a whole other thread!). Interestingly, research suggests that the parental input has more of an impact on academic achievement than teacher input... so if you are committed to your child's education and actively involved in it (which of course all MN-ers are Smile) then most of them will do just fine, wherever their school is in the league table!

cod · 14/04/2006 11:49

who started this thread

springintheair · 17/04/2006 19:52

I'm sorry I just don't buy this 'I want my kids to go to a state school to experience real life' argument. If you saw or heard about that 'Schools lottery' programme or have had a look through the 'What would you do to get your kids into a good school' thread then you would know that middle-class mums don't send their kids to their local school unless it's high up in the league tables (which statistically is likely to mean it has an affluent catchment area or is a faith school). The 'Schools Lottery' programme confirmed what I already knew - that middle class mums will often do anything to get their kids into a good school (lie about their religion, move and mortgage themselves to the hilt etc etc) These middle-class mums then wsmugly go on about their 'morals' and 'principles'whereas in practice parents with a low income, poor education and poor aspirations (the very ones whose kids need the best education) have very little choice or opportunity. And the mums who choose private education are at least being honest about their choices and saving the tax-payer some money.

expectingsummerihope · 17/04/2006 21:18

Well if you saw it on tv then it must be true. You're very rude to rubbish other parents choices. Some parents really do want their kids to go to a state school (and don't lie about religion/move house etc)and if you don't want that for your kids that's fine, but don't tar everyone with the same brush. You can carry on being smug about saving the tax payer money ffs.

AngelaD · 17/04/2006 22:24

Actually it doesn't save the tax payers money at all, the schools only get funding for the number of children in attendence at the school so it actually lets the government fiddle the figures and spin more bull shit about how they are spending X per child and schools are so much better off.

Passionflower · 17/04/2006 22:38

Err, yes it does save the tax payers money. If you pay for your childs ed, then the government doesn't have to, thus tax payers money is saved. Just because the govt does spend this on education doesn't mean tax money hasn't been saved.

lockets · 17/04/2006 22:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AngelaD · 17/04/2006 22:48

The other children within the education system don't necessarily benefit though, that was the point i was making, you should get a rebate if you educate privately IMO

Passionflower · 17/04/2006 22:48

Well obviously! When does the govt ever give money back.

lockets · 17/04/2006 22:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AngelaD · 17/04/2006 22:52

Well yes actually, now you mention it.

Passionflower · 17/04/2006 22:55

To clarify my post was agreeing with lockets, not agreeing that private ed'rs should get a rebate, though it's be nice Wink.

lockets · 17/04/2006 22:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.