Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
AngelaD · 17/04/2006 23:04

It would be great to have those two, either or would be fantastic unfortunately we haven't, we have a postcode lottery for healthcare and a state education system that is lacking in so many area's.

lockets · 17/04/2006 23:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AngelaD · 17/04/2006 23:20

I think most of the tax payers paying 40% will be leaving this sinking ship as we become the laughing stock of Europe, i know we will sooner rather than later. I'm sure you do work very hard, don't doubt that for a moment.

lockets · 17/04/2006 23:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

chipkid · 18/04/2006 01:03

private

springintheair · 18/04/2006 08:42

Expecting Summer. 1) I am not rubbishing others' choices. If parents are genuinely sending their kids to their nearest school when they live in a deprived area and it's not doing well in the league tables or otherwise then I admire their principles (though I pity their kids). If parents have moved house etc etc to get their kids into a good school then their commitment to state education is dubious and their 'principles' are questionable. My taxes are paying for them to work the system and not to help genuinely deprived kids get a good education. What I'm saying is a lot of parents would be a lot less smug about their 'principles' and a lot less confident about the state education system if they lived in the middle of Salford as opposed to St Albans for example. Notice I said 'a lot' of parents not 'all' or even 'the majority'.

  1. I am very happy to pay taxes and would willingly pay more esp if I thought it was going towards making a genuniely equal and good quality education system as opposed to creating vile trust schools which can choose to spend my money by promoting MacDonalds or teaching Creationism to kids or towards bombing other people's kids in Iraq). I am a teacher in the state sector and would only work in the public sector.

3.) I am not just talking about a TV programme or the other thread on Mumsnet where middle class mums were willing to admit that they would and have moved house, slept with the Headteacher, adopted or capitalised on a faith etc etc to get their kids into a good school. I'm talking about statistics which show that the schools which are highest in the league tables have the lowest proportion of kids with free school meals and are statistically likely to be in affluent areas or be faith schools.

  1. I am one of those parents who would really like my kids to go to a state school just not one of the ones near me at the momenth. I don't think the kind of 'real life' they would experience there would be good for them. And I think they will experience plenty of 'real life' at their indpendent school where the majority of parents are not privileged or rich and on their street because I am quite happy to live in a multi-cultural deprived area unlike a lot of middle-class mums who move to an area which is not representative of 'real life' in order that their kids can go to a state school which isn't really representative of 'real life' either.
blueshoes · 18/04/2006 09:05

Good post, springintheair.

Bugsy2 · 18/04/2006 09:58

I can honestly say that I don't really have any moral highground to stand on or principles when it comes to my children - I just want the best I can get for them.
I would have given the vicar a blowjob, if it would have helped. I can't afford to send my children to private school, so I checked the league tables and my ds and soon my dd go to a local faith school with a really good reputation. I go to chuch to ensure their places, which I didn't do very much before I had children.
I don't know whether I'm happy to pay more tax, as I struggle to get by as it is. I do believe in education and would like to see a more equal and fair system in the UK, but I'm not altogether sure what the best way is to do that. Until that time comes, I will do pretty much anything to get my children into the best state school I can.
I know that the original poster didn't want to start a debate, but it is a very debatable subject!

lockets · 18/04/2006 09:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

expectingsummerihope · 19/04/2006 11:00

Springintheair - yes your post was good and I now understand your views better but your original post made a general point about middle class parents and I had issues with the generalisation. It would be pretty daft to send your kid to the nearest state school which was crap just to get them to experience 'real life'(lol at 'real life'). However, as far as I am aware there is an element of choice with primary schools and you do not have to choose the nearest one (just one in the same borough). My friend is a primary school teacher and says the league tables are very misleading, though she says the value added measure is good. Therefore I wouldn't base my decision on league tables alone. I pity people who happen to live in an area where there are no decent primary schools at all, but fortunately I am not in that situation.

expectingsummerihope · 19/04/2006 11:05

Bugsy2, blowjob aside, going to church to validate a school place is less dodgy if you believe in jesus, god, mary, joseph and the donkey etc. than if you are a blatant atheist.

doobydoo · 19/04/2006 11:10

Private inUK now home edded...in republic of IrelandSmile

ks · 19/04/2006 11:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Uwila · 19/04/2006 11:59

Nice post Bugsy2. I'm sure a lot more than will admit share your views.

"I can honestly say that I don't really have any moral highground to stand on or principles when it comes to my children - I just want the best I can get for them. "

Don't we all! (even if we don't admit it)

expectingsummerihope · 19/04/2006 12:09

Ah but Uwila would you give the vicar a blow job Grin

Uwila · 19/04/2006 12:24

No, I wouldn't. Yuk! Envy

Bugsy2 · 19/04/2006 12:26

Rather depends on the Vicar, does it not? [wicked, naughty, salacious grin emoticon]

springintheair · 19/04/2006 12:35

Yes, but Expectingsummer, can't you see that I'm able to make a generalisation because it is generally true that middle-class mums either live in a relatively nice area (like you?) with nice schools or move to one or adopt or exploit their faith (or give the vicar a blow-job lol!). I'm not making this up. Look at the statistics. Then Middle-Class Mum says 'Fortunately I live in a nice area so I don't have to compromise my principles and go private' without seeming to realize that this isn't an amazing coincidence or good luck. Middle Class Mum is highly likely to live in a nice area with middle-class schools isn't she precisely because of the education, income, aspirations, which make her middle-class? Which leaves the deprived and in the centre of Salford the atheists etc with very limited choices and very limited opportunities when it comes to educating their kids.

expectingsummerihope · 19/04/2006 12:37

Yrs must be a very happy vicar indeed and not eclesiatic induced happiness either Wink Does dh/dp know bugsy?

Uwila · 19/04/2006 12:42

We have a system where the only way you can get into a school that is not in your area is to do it through attending the church (failing the sexual favors approach). Non-Christians have fewer options.

However, there are also those who sign up for the COE school specifically because we want our children to have a COE based education. Not everyone is at church to get into school. Some genuinely want to be part of the church. And, there's nothing wrong with that.

expectingsummerihope · 19/04/2006 12:50

I don't know Salford. I've always lived in South London and imo areas in this part of London are defined by housing, crime, availability of parks, bars and restaurants rather than by schools. The area I live in now is considered a good area but schools are not good (by league table standards). We are moving (to buy an affordable house - as can't here)and our choice of area was based on being near a station (for convenience for dh), park for ds and proximity to grandmothers as well as being multi cultural. It is a large borough and the standard of schools varying - it wasn't the most important factor tbh.

expectingsummerihope · 19/04/2006 12:56

Maybe class differences are more obvious where you live? There are people here with money in their pocket (not us by the way as we are skint)who happily send their kids to the local (not greatly rated)state primary school then go and quaff coffee and croissants at Cafe Nero Grin. You might think this is bohemian or just plain weird, but it's true. It's commonplace.

expectingsummerihope · 19/04/2006 12:58

Oh and in South London most areas are blighted by crime (yellow police signs everywhere)so that doesn't even detract from how good an area is?

expectingsummerihope · 19/04/2006 12:58

Doh - question mark instead of full stop

Uwila · 19/04/2006 12:59

Really? Your moving and you didn't consider the quality of schools in the decision. Gosh, that would be first on my list. More important than the commute. Gosh, I can't really thinkof anything more important than my children's education... possibly safety of the neighborhood.