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

[happygardening]

Thought I repost the OP although the debate has moved on a little .
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.

.

Competition for state schools from private schools is an excellent thing. State monopolies do not good industries make...

You all do know that most middle class children go to state school too, don't you? It's only on mumsnet that state schools are for the undeserving poor! (the deserving poor, of course, get full bursaries to private schools, which are all bastions of charitable endeavour, as evidenced by their tax status.....)

"State monopolies do not good industries make."
Im not opposed to the free market when it truly is a free market but in practice of course it rarely is. I also think that some industries are better left in the hands of the state and possibly reputable charities e.g. the hospice movement especially all those involved in health prison/detention child protection etc. When your share holders expect a profit then corners inevitably have to cut.

Which is a very good argument for private schools' charitable status. For-profit private education is a complicated thing.

"You all do know that most middle class children go to state school too, don't you"
Well thats good then and assuming all are happy there is no need for all this independent ed bashing leave those who want to pay alone.

There hasn't been any private school bashing!

"the deserving poor, of course, get full bursaries to private schools,"
At Winchester the average bursary is 60% putting the fees in line with many day schools (some obviously do get 100%) but this would imply the deserving middle classes are also getting bursaries.

"There hasn't been any private school bashing"
I cant be bothered to read back through the entire thread(s) but there certainly has been extensive independent ed bashing on MN in the past.

Maybe one way of increasing lower income families' interest in education is linking educational success of the kids to financial renumeration? Don't they sometimes do this in developing countries, whereby charities pay you money for keeping dc in school longer? Let's say dc is primary school age. SATs show that he/she is better than what is expected for that age group, leading to an additional payment of XXX for the parents each month. Parents may not always value education per se, but they will always value money.

And why exactly can't we have small class sizes in the state sector? Is it purely financial as well???

Sorry- another occasion where an "irony" font would have been useful.

If I was bashing anyone in that post, it was mumsnetters (not you, happy gardening) who exist in the "everyone goes private at 11" bubble. Who genuinely think it is a choice for more than a minority. And who persist in believing that the only obstacles in the way of poor/disadvantaged children's their own fecklessness/lack of aspiration/lack of determination.

No bashing on this thread, HG. Oh, apart from the awful "scrotes at the local comp" comment, and fortunately the perpetrator of that gem hasn't come back.

"And why exactly can't we have small class sizes in the state sector? Is it purely financial as well"
i think so it would require more teachers therefore more money. I read somewhere that my DS's school or somewhere similar has 1 teacher for every 7 children. The state doesn't have the money for this unless teachers were to change their working practices, longer days for staff half the children go to school in the morning till say 2.30 pm and other half do 2.30 -7.30 change/shorten holidays some on holiday some at school but I suspect there would be a mutiny from both teachers and parents and it probably still wouldn't create classes of the size seen in some parts of the independent sector.

I don't think ANYONE on mumsnet has that attitude do they seeker?

Yes seeker where is that irony smiley? I do hope your son is happy at his school by the way [no irony genuine question].

bahana the appalling word "scrotes" was indeed used.

Banana- somebody on this thread actually used that expression. It shook me badly. I have heard some pretty grim attitudes to state schools and their pupils- but never anything like that.

happy - they teach like that at the school of my mum's goddaughter (again, not in the UK). We did find the early shift / late shift notion a little weird at first. It works when teachers don't mind and it's a day school whereby kids arrive at 8.00, leave at 18.00. In the time a certain cohort is not taught, they do homework, etc.

Help My DS2 is now at a super selective up and till yr 9 a non selective prep but intake above average. They were streamed from yr 3 for all subjects (which were all taught by specialised teachers) it was not until he went to a super selective (he's very bright) did I realise what a difference it makes to him. At the prep he did well but now in this very stimulating environment he's doing really really well and he in himself is happy and content. . He rubs shoulders with a surprisingly broad section of children OK more at the top end of the pile but his school is significantly more multicultural than my DS1's state school 90% white MC.
I teach both in work and I used to outside (Im fully trained in both) I'm articulate passionate and committed most of those I teach are there by choice some used to pay me but I cant teach the brilliant and keen talented with 10 yrs of experience and the slow or unintersted or the beginner at the same time so God knows how teachers in schools do it.

HelpOneAnother - On social groups it's because kids learn early on which group they belong to, and they stick to them later on, because that's who they feel comfortable with.

My primary school was catchment-based, and in the poshest part of town. Hence, people who went there were often the wealthy types. Everything was very blond hair, blue eyes... if you weren't white, you became a bit of a celeb. I have a mixed background, and I can remember that the only people with black hair were me and a pair of Iranian twins. Kids were generally brought up to behave well, etc. My teacher - I still think of her dearly now. Anyway, primary school seemed to shape my world in what I thought was "appropriate" or not.

My middle school was not dependent on catchment area, and somehow, my parents decided to send me to one where 80% of the school were the kids of first generation immigrants. Some of them, you immediately knew despite the language barrier that they came from families that would otherwise be seen as MC although in the new country, they probably weren't. Given my previous school, I tended to automatically flock to them, because I felt "safe" in their presence. I used to think the "others" were rather vulgar/bolshy, etc.

My high school was not dependent on catchment area (first come, first served) policy. Diverse population. I saw a few familiar faces. Guess who I ended up being friends with - largely a group also present at my primary school or at the very least were part of its catchment area.

When I came to the UK... same thing happened despite me not knowing anyone here!

It is very weird because it's almost as though what is MC and not is taught to you without you really taking classes in it, and it seems as though it transcends globally... in that you may move countries, but you take "your place in society" with you. Not too different from religions, in fact.

Its human nature we naturally migrate toward those who we feel are "one of us".

bahana ah! yes, I did wonder if you made a distinction between primary and secondary. But, you see, I may well do the same at secondary...

We have a variety of (what other people clearly think of as good) private schools in this area of London, and only one local comp. Which was definitely not good, but is improving pretty fast. But the decision will come (as it did for primary) by looking at all of them, taking dd to see those we would consider, and letting the school fit the child. And if the comp wins, so be it!

^^ So, adding to my last paragraph above, how do you define DIVERSE?

Some MC left-leaning parents boast of sending their kids to a school with a "diverse" population. Different ethnicities can be found on the school ground. And apparently, Poppy X fits straight in with the crowd [cue parents grinning proudly].

But let's look at the school intake, shall we? [I'm going to go to stereotype now - but sorry, it's necessary to make my point.]

Poppy X: Dad - GP, Mum - BBC Journalist
Sonia Patel: Dad - Accountant, Mum - Teacher
Lila Kim: Dad - Banker, Mum - SAHM
Ben Adeyemi: Dad - Lawyer, Mum SAHM
John Chang: Dad - Cardiologist, Mum - Entrepreneur

You get my gist...

Would the same MC couple be beaming with joy if Poppy X was at a school where 99% of the population was white, but her schoolmates were:

Ed Stone: Dad - Unemployed, Mum - Cleaner
Chantal Samson: Dad - factory worker, Mum - Unemployed
... and so forth. Highlight on "Unemployed" rather than SAHM on the second child...

What do you think???