If you can afford private education but remain in the state sector...

[TheseJeansHaveShrunk]

It's going to be hard to avoid this becoming another state v private thread, but what I'm interested in is a slightly different take on that debate. It's not "which is better?" but "if you think state school is better even though you could afford private education, then why is that?"

The question is based on the assumptions that the DC in question is/are reasonably bright (so might benefit academically from academically selective education), that the state school is non-selective (as most people don't have access to grammar schools), and that you hope for your DC to go to a good university (to make the £££££ fees worthwhile!)

I've been mulling this over ever since I heard some maths professor from Cambridge talking on the radio about the age-old private v state inequality of Oxbridge admissions. He was all for improving access for state school applicants but said that the simple fact was that for maths, even the best state schools generally teach only to the A-level syllabus, whereas the best private schools take their maths/further maths A-level candidates well beyond the syllabus and so the state school applicants are at a huge disadvantage - they simply don't have the starting level of knowledge required for the course.

This made me wonder: with this sort of unequal playing field, if you have the choice of private education, what reasons might you have not to take it?

Would be interested to hear from those who've made this choice - how it's working out, or if your DC have finished school now, how did it work out? Did they go to good universities/get good jobs, etc? On the other side of things, if you paid for private schooling but now regret it, why?

My DC go to a state school by the way.

.

Absolutely, mumzy. I always find it strange to read threads about Private Schools, State Schools (in all permutations), as if all private schools are the same. Additionally, the needs are each child are the same, and lucky is the parent who has some choice is where to send that child. By choice, I certainly don't mean private v state, but school v school.

I am lucky to live in an area of London with 9 primary schools within a 15 minute walk distance. That number more than doubles if I include a very short car journey. These range from outstanding state (3-4), non-selective private, French conventionee, French homologuee, Swedish, superselective private, special measures state, and everything in between. I am also lucky to not have to worry about school fees and also to not have any baggage attached to going to any sort of school bar religious or cult (the Steiners) so can look at schools based on what they offer my child.

I have chosen private for the same reason wordfactory has, the schools which my children go to offer things beyond my capacity to fill in gaps. In the case of my elder son, his school (the prep school to one of the schools mentioned above) offers things which less than a handful of other schools could give him in the country. The younger one is getting a bilingual education - also something I could not get in the state sector.

"What I do get from these threads is how varied schools are both in the state and private sector and you'd be daft to make your choice just on that basis"
What I get from this thread is that in this, as in most things, the rich and/or privileged have vastly more choice than the poor and/or disadvantaged. And that is something we should be ashamed of as a nation.

Seeker, your generalised rant against the rich and/or privileged is not correct. It should instate be rich, privileged, or with clued-up parents. Being a clued-up parent is not limited to any socio-ecconic class, at least in my world.

should read socio-economic

and instead ( am a rubbish typist!)

OP - one of my mates got the best Maths degree in his year at Oxbridge. (came from Watford Grammar, a state school).

He said categorically that the universities are battling to keep their degree levels up against the double whammy of plummeting A Level standards and fewer people doing maths A Level in the first place. So first year students attend catchup courses - at many univs, not just Oxbridge.

Private schools don't pay much attention to GCSE and ALs any more, because universities and international education don't. So they run a curriculum aimed at these universities, in UK and abroad, and one that matches international education standards to boot.

The state system lags, not just because of lower results, but because the qualifications they teach for are no longer respected.

seeker happy new year and too everyone else as well. Just to pick up on a point you made earlier
"Don't stand for bright children being bored at school- sit on the Head's doorstep til something happens" we for our DS have sat on the doorstep of heads in both the state sector and private sector with absolutely no success. We are highly articulate and determined parents in one state primary told "they didn't have the time money or motivation' to help" and at another the counties most sought after primary we were told only the independent sector could meet my DS's needs! IME at prep level (admittedly small non selective but intake above average intelligence) they too are equally as crap at educating the super bright. I now realise that only those geared up for the super bright can educate them effectively. We have also very recently sat on the heads doorstep and the chair of the governors and the LEA's doorstep for my other DS a bright but significantly under performing dyslexic DS and have met with a wall of non co-operation. We both work full time and are exhausted and bored with the endless struggle. You will be pleased to know that I doubt it would have been any better in the independent sector.
So yes you are right there are good state schools and bad one crap independent schools mediocre one and good ones and then there are a relative handful who are if they work for your DC are in a separate league of their own.
You are also right that the poor and disadvantaged are the ones who suffer not because the independent sector exists but becasue the state sector is not as good as it should be.

This is a really interesting thread. I have taught in several state schools - two of which were classed as 'outstanding' and now teach in a top indie. Frankly the difference is huge and I did not expect it to be a massive as it actually is - in fact I was a bit 'anti' private ed before I worked there. Not any longer.

The quality of teaching is superior and the breadth of the whole educational experience is breathtaking. We are told that our pupils must be pushed well beyond the confines of the exam board specifications which is a joy to do as they are so keen to learn. There is a culture of high achievement which, even in some outstanding state schools is missing. Academic standards are far, far higher than any school I have worked in in the state system.

State schools are struggling after so many years of being a political football and it is to our shame as a nation that they are in such a poor state. Schools that practise streaming rather than setting are doing damage to pupils of all ability - setting is the only sensible way to address the individual needs of pupils. Yes I understand that some pupils in state schools are put on the gifted and talented register but what some parents do not understand that there is no national standard for this - it is done within every school and is relative to the ability level within that school. Hence, the school that I worked at which was in SM had a g&t register with pupils on it who would not have made the g&t register in the outstanding school I worked at and those pupils would in no way be seen as g&t in the school I work at now.

I speak as one who supports state education but until it is sorted out then I feel it is a dangerous choice for some pupils and parents.

Just to add that I KNOW that there are poor indies and good state schools but market forces dictate that poor indies cannot limp on where this is not necessarily true of state schools. I agree with the poster above who state that only schools geared up for the super bright can teach them effectively.

Although all is not lost for society, because of the people in history who have come up with phenomenal ideas and theories, very few of them credited their excellent school career for their genius... I'm not sure any school caters well for the highly unusual mind, albeit some jump on those who have a highly developed core set of skills that are easy to work with.

I am unsure what you mean by schools which 'jump on' pupils in this way.

Would you rather I said "welcome them with open arms," then?

No I was merely asking you to clarify. You sound rather cynical.

Of course there are schools which welcome the extremely bright, eager and articulate with open arms.

No, not cynical, just pointing out a fact. The easy to teach are not the only ones worth teaching, nor are they the only ones with interesting things to contribute to society. However, it is easiest to see what they are likely to contribute to society and therefore feel that any effort put into them is likely to bring a reward.

Interestingly we were talking about this last night with some friends who send their children to the local state primary school, but to a private high school.

The state primary is one of the best in the country - in the top 50 and there is absolutely no point in paying for private primary education. Sadly the high schools round here aren't that great.

I like what mominatrix said about clued up parents. There is a way to access private education if you push hard enough for it. If you can show that your child will benefit from their school. It's by no means easy though.

"What I get from this thread is that in this, as in most things, the rich and/or privileged have vastly more choice than the poor and/or disadvantaged. And that is something we should be ashamed of as a nation."

That's life, seeker. Get over it.

bunbaker what many don't appreciate is what provisions are provided in top prep schools compared to top state primaries. My DS's has specialist teachers from year 3 in all subjects, properly equipped science labs for science, MFL taught 4-5 lessons a week language labs music departments staffed by music teachers a geography dept streaming from yr 3 for mainstream subjects and yr 4 for all others tiny classes for MFLs (8-10). The rationale for this isn't just when you pay pushing £7000 a term you expect this but also most will sit CE at 13 and this is necessary to achieve a "good mark". I've read quite a few times that children leave prep at 13 two years ahead of their counterparts in the state sector (IM not commenting on the need or not for this) and that CE is pretty close to GCSE but this achieved due the way these schools are organised from such an early age. However outstanding a primary is it can never compete with this.

My children go to a bilingual school where they learn (they're p5, p6 and s1) through the medium of Gaelic. Despite the fact that dh and I are monolingual, all our children are bilingual. I couldn't buy that. It's not available in the private sector, my children are educated in the state sector because it's the best way to give them all they need!

I agree that specialist teachers and small classes make a massive difference to what small children achieve.

Living in France, I don't have the option of small classes at school. However, there is thriving shadow education sector and some of the (100% private and unsubsidised) "extra curricular" provision in Paris is of extraordinarily good quality. I am stunned by the art and music provision here, for example. But it is very hard work taking children around to different classes - a one-stop-shop prep school à l'anglaise is so much more efficient.

until state education is sorted out ....

Has anyone in this thread been a school governor - not as a teacher but as a parent, community, or business member (or maybe as a church nominee, as I was in a CofE primary)

State education is largely informed by socialist principles, whereas private education is informed by capitalist principles. Therein lies the difference in quality.

I was a school governor in the same primary that told me that they hadn't the time motivation or money to help my exceedingly bright DS a complete waste of time. All were either nice upper middle class villagers with no kids at the school ditto with kids at the school and good for nothing lazy teachers primarily concerned about non contact time and being asked to do thier own photocoping (God forbid) who felt they were doing a fantastic job and blamed the children/parents when it didn't go their way and when before I joined the school went into special measure on the weather on the day!

I think you are correct happy. I chose my DCs prep school by happy accident but can now see with hinfsight that the small classes, proper setting and specialist teachers from year 3 have had an enormous impact. There is no way I could have tried to replicate that experience using a state school and top up.