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.

.

Mordion - I find it quite amusing that you and Yellow are getting quite so het up about it. You both seem very keen to patronise. But as a working class woman I've been patronised and beliTtled by the best of em and have generally found the best course to simply do my thing. If you want to say that oxbridge is doing just fine with its diversity, that the current mix is fine, that all state schools and leas are well representedn then that is yur perogative.

Bonsoir- your quality of intake is of course another issue. Widening acess while maintaining quality.some departments see this as quite the condrum (hence the comment by op about maths) others less so.

20% is not accurate for here. It is way more than 1 in 5 of ds mates more like 1 in 3

wordfactory - the issue of quality of intake was referring back to Yellowtip's post about the quality of intake of the school.

Apolgies Bonsoir - am on my phone and can't see many posts at any one time.

I think it is also important to bear in mind that there are some highly selective schools with very large cohorts which have made it their primary focus to get as many pupils to Oxbridge and other top-tier universities for many decades. That is their business model - it's what they do, and that is what parents choose for their DC. It is unsurprising that they are successful. And we are never going to get to a time when all schools work as hard as a handful at doing that.

It happens in all countries, too.

Interesting what you and noddy say about university not being all that for a lot of sudents. I can anticipate that the difference for DC and I will be huge. For me it was my first opportunity of life outside. For my DC, not so much.

@word on the contrary it is you who have been, and who continues to be, patronizing. I particularly enjoyed the bit where you told me I was out of date.

I am indeed het up about your vested interest in presenting state schools as so much worse than the posh schools your DCs attend. Which apparently provide so much more than you possibly could (what is that actually supposed to mean, hmmm? Surely most people are only experts in a few areas of the curriculum. If that). There are some dreadful state schools but there are some excellent ones too, and there are people going to Cambridge every year from many more than a handful of state schools. So why do you persist in pretending this is not the case? And why make it all about Tiffins (a school which hardly needs the publicity and which nobody here is connected with AFAIA. I've only ever actually met one person who even went to Tiffins and he went to UCL not Oxford or Cambridge).

Sorry crossed bonsoir. Yes that is true too. When DS went for his interview at school he was asked 'oxbrige or ivy league'.

Some universities in the UK are working very hard at broadening their reach when recruiting undergraduates in order to make themselves cosmopolitan and more attractive to the jaded youth that I was and your DC will be, wordfactory .

Which I actually think is a very good thing and DSS1 has only put that type of university/course down on his UCAS application.

Oh get a grip Mordion. This is highly boring! Let the debate move on...

@word I don't think anyone has said Oxford and Cambridge are doing fine with their diversity. I certainly haven't. I have just taken issue with your agenda-rich attempt to misrepresent the number of state schools that have sent pupils to Cambridge in the recentish past. It is as purposefully misleading as the statement up thread that posh schools are always better at maths or the statement that selective schools 'don't have to cope with' pupils with SEN conditions.

And as for your 'as a working class woman' outburst Thanks for that, I needed a laugh.

@word yes it can move on now that I have refuted your latest insult.

I went to a boarding school myself, have taught for 10yrs in state sector and am now teaching in private sector. You can get amazing and terrible teaching in both sectors, and there is no easy way of identifying that from the outside until it is too late.

What I would see as the big advantages of private sector education are actually the extra curricular opportunities that are available (and in many, compulsory) which give students an edge when it come to writing UCAS references, university interviews etc and of course just widening their range f experiences outside of the classroom. That is not to say that these are not available outside of private education- just that they are provided for you without either students or parents having to have the time to take the initiative themselves to locate these things.

I truly don't think that there is a "right" answer- what is perfect for one child can easily be entirely wrong for another. If your child is happy i their current system and is making good progress for their ability then why change it? If they are not, then where is it lacking, and which schools seem best able to address that for you?

"What I would see as the big advantages of private sector education are actually the extra curricular opportunities that are available (and in many, compulsory) which give students an edge when it come to writing UCAS references, university interviews etc and of course just widening their range f experiences outside of the classroom."

Indeed, it is the one-stop-shopping experience of English private education and Waitrose that I so sorely miss, living in France.

Bonsoir - can I ask out of sheer curiosity why your Dss has chosen the UK over France

Oh he hasn't chosen yet! He's applying to five UK universities and to however many prépas he's allowed (I think there are six choices in France but the applications season isn't open yet and anyway DP deals with the French side more than I do) and will see what he gets and decide strategically. There is one course in the UK he would really like to do, probably more than any prépa/grande école route, and the rest are more much of a muchness with the French route.

Back to the OP.

Can easily afford private. DH and I both in the City where we are in a very, very, distinct and small minority by having chosen state (so far).

For primary, state is quite simply better. Its local (5 min walk), free, part of the community (DCs have friends just a little walk away), outstanding, etc, etc. What's not to like? Sure my DCs have to mix with a huge variety of types of people (and we are noticeabily wealthier than the circle of friends we and our DCs have made) but really, so what?

The local preps are less "local" (even the local parents do a car run), and certainly much less diverse. Thomas's and Newton Prep are those within easy reach of where we are. I certainly did find Thomas' (in particular), when we looked around, a little bit too "blond" (not even just white) for my tastes - inner London after all.

Will likely change to private for secondary though since feel that the local comps (non-selective area) do not have enough of "high attaining" cohort (and in the nearest school, that cohort does particularly badly). It is very clear that in what is a highly diverse primary school - the top tables are 80% white MC (with loads of the cultural capital talked about up thread). The difference is stark. As years 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on have clocked up, many of the MC families have upped sticks and moved to Kent or done religion or are doing rentals in catchment (to move back alter), and so on....

I think my DC are particularly bright (don't we all?), and certainly they have very motivated and aspirational parents. I think that in the local state secondaries on offer, he would be in a very small minority certainly academically but also (I think) socially. I truly wish it wasn't the case, that that paritculary viscious circle had been broken before we got to where we are, but it is (and it didn't).

OhDearConfused, such a shame you feel like that- I can't help feeling that you like many inner London mc parents, get slightly caught up in the hysteria that goes around about secondary comps in London. In my ds's primary, the vast vast majority of mc kids went on to private secondary because their parents were told by other previous sets of parents that this was for the best. Such a shame as this just then uneccesarily contributes to the London social divide. The things that people thought about ds's school were terrifying but honestly unfounded.
He is doing very well academically and has had a rich experience of diversity that he just would not have got in a private school.

"If they are not, then where is it lacking, and which schools seem best able to address that for you?"

Hmmm I feel the extra curricular activities which give the 'extra edge' are lacking at DDs schools-have looked around for other options and the local private school seems to fit the bill - only problem is I can't afford it. So much for choice, eh?

There seems to be an assumptions that a child's school is its only experience of life, and diversity, but they are at school for less time than most of are at work and there is life and friends outside school, in the same way that nearly all my friends are not people I work with.

I'm very much with you OhDear in that we could relatively easily afford private (though I think we'd have to be a lot richer than we are to spend 300k on private primary just to get better wraparound care or better MFL or whatever the advantage is).
Anyway, I'm really happy with my children's education and any hassle that I may find in organising these extra curricular activities is nothing in comparison to the fact that I'd have to drive them to a private school and at the moment they walk (and oldest takes himself on his own).
But like OhDear I'm really vacillating about secondary. Our experience in the state sector has been so great I wonder why I can't apply the same principles to secondary and I completely agree with Twisted that I'm a victim of the 'oo inner-city comp' ridiculous paranoia and propaganda. I would also say that, unlike OhDear, the high achieving kids at my kids' school are not exclusively middle class at all.
And yet... I have the fears that OhDear has about my local comprehensive being truly comprehensive and a reflection of the area. We're already in a tiny minority (9/10s of those in similar housing round us don't even look at my kids school) in going to local state school and by secondary I've noticed that children similar to my own in terms of current achievement nab themselves music places out of borough, go private, get a bursary, find some other way of not going to our local school. This means that the local school feels a bit like a secondary modern problem.
And I know that if we do opt out then people like us are only perpetuating the problem.

Attending our local comp has allowed my DD to participate in MORE extracurricular activities than when she was at a top girls private, not less.

The school itself has a wider range of interesting activities and the fact that we live a short walk from the school means she has time for local dance and drama groups even after taking part in school extra curricular clubs.

I agree carrots, my children are all at state schools and there extra curricular activities range from fencing to sailing which are supported by the school - although they more outside if school as well. Partly because we have extra money.

FTA - I agree that you would be perpetuating the problem but I suppose the problem is do you want to risk it? I speak as one who was very bright and sent to the local (dire) comp and was bullied relentlessly for years as I was clever. Eventually I learned how not to draw attention to myself academically and when I got to university virtually dropped out and got a poor degree (2:2) because I had lost all of my confidence. I never told my parents this until recently as I did not want them to feel bad for sending me there. It was horrible and hard and I struggle with confidence now.

Carrots and Aris I am impressed that your children have more extra curricular options open to them not fewer but would venture to suggest that this is probably quite rare.