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.

.

Not sure what your point is Tasmania. Despite protestations otherwise most people know that those that choose private schools over state comps do so for social reasons (not academic). If you are in a leafy suburb with a catchment full of doctors and lawyers DCs then of course you aren't going to go private (or not unless you are seriously wealthy).

I don't deny it (being left leaning and MC, but in an inner city).

Doesn't 'diverse population' included people who are unemployed, cleaners, etc??

It does, to me. I don't want my kids to only mix with doctors/lawyers/teachers' kids. Or only with those whose parents are unemployed, for that matter. I do genuinely like the fact that they are friends with children from all sorts of backgrounds - not proud of it, but like it.

I was just saying that a lot of left-leaning parents use the argument of "diversity" to explain why they keep their kids in state school despite being able to afford private. You know... parents like this guy. What he is really talking about is ethnical diversity (despite him mentioning classes, too). Fine for kids to learn African-Caribbean swearwords, but would they have sent DC to a local comp in the north that is less ethnically diverse, but mostly working class?

I'm of a mixed background, and find the whole "high horse" attitude of some people regarding diversity quite funny. In my close group of friends, there's a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, Catholic, etc. but I actually admit that all of them are more likely to vote Tory.

... thinking of which... diversity was also used as one of the reasons to send your kids to a private 'international schools'.

Interesting. In my experience, the people who bang on about how " diverse" their school is are private school parents. "Such a mixture at St Custards" they cry.

Middle class professional people come in all colours, you know!

Elibean - yes, that's what a diverse population should mean.

But somehow, I think that parents who say they send their kids to a London state school with a diverse population do so because - yes - it teaches the kids about different cultures and classes.

However, outside of London, you often get schools that are predominantly white but may mainly attract one part of the social spectrum only (can be MC or WC). Sending DC to such a school does not make him/her learn about another culture. Another class... yes, but would the parents who were so happy about the other school be as happy about this one?

Actually, John O'Farrell is a bad example to pick on. That school really is very ethnically diverse but extremely lacking in social/cultural diversity (the MCs in clapham really do (mostly) avoid it ..... and his kids really were in a minority.)

Seeker - the article I listed above was a counterargument to this one for private schools. Nowhere does it mention diversity there...

TheWomanOnTheBus - You mean to say most people at that school are not only non-White but also not MC?

Interesting. The school looks like it has fantastic facilities, and people who've read that article often told me... yeah, that's great for him to say that, but my local comp... does not look anywhere like that [pointing at the article's picture]. And they don't!

Yep. That's what I mean. Right in the middle of one of the Clapham Nappy Valleys (Abbeville Village), but DCs there all go off to indies more or less.....

Facilities are great, and so is the reputation for discipline and good teaching, but still the MCs don't flock there.

If they upgraded other comps outside of London similarly (and improved teaching and discipline!), more people would send their kids there gladly... it's just that a lot of the comps' facilities are NOT like that, and you can't even use the argument of enriching your DC's life with other cultures.

By the way... those who say that teaching at a comp is just as good as private school... teaching languages is a major issue. From what I've seen, local kid going to local indie had a good grasp of the language she was meant to learn. Most kids from the big indies I've met learned them properly. Teachers were generally fluent in the language, etc. Fact is, it would ruin the rep of the schools if they weren't good.

But I was a bit appalled when a couple of other pupils from the local comp presented me with their homework when helping out. The teacher's mistakes were ghastly! I actually got them to hand it back with corrections (not sure what the teacher made of that). And that school wasn't even "bad". How do you let these people teach? Does no one test them?!?

"By the way... those who say that teaching at a comp is just as good as private school.....:"

Nobody does. That would be a stupid comparison. Like saying teaching is better at private school than at state schools.

The point is that teaching is not by definition good at private schools and bad at comprehensives. There is good ad bad teaching in both sectors.

seeker Yes, but bad teaching at a fee-paying school has severe, fairly immediate, financial consequences that would be difficult to get out of (repairing reputation is harder than building it up, IMHO).

However, if it's a local school, and people don't have much of a choice to take their kids out, some teachers who shouldn't be teachers get away with being bad teachers. Yes, the school may be closed at some point, but the government may drag it out, asking it to improve, etc.

Also, how are teachers recruited for schools? I'm talking particularly about the more academic ones. Do they require a first degree in the subject you're teaching? I can't see that from the job specs, and thought that this should be the minimum...

No wonder private schools hiring PhDs as teachers end up being better. No brainer, really.

Why on earth would you need a degree in maths to teach primary school maths? And why is it a no brainer that a PhD would be a better teacher by virtue of a doctorate?

And actually, judging by many threads on here, sometimes people put with extraordinary crap from private schools - somehow the mindset that they were lucky to get the place seems to blind them to the fact that their child is being let down. There is good and bad in both sectors.

I have friends teaching in private schools who wouldn't have the qualifications to work in a state school - they must bring something to the table but I think some patents would be surprised

seeker - I was about to make that point myself. It is unbelievable what fee paying parents appear willing to put up with rather than leave what they know for the unknown.

And Tasmania - I think it is a misconception of yours if you really believe that everyone who talks about diversity is talking only about "cultural diversity" (and even then, that's a loose definition on your part, since the "real" culture of a country - ie what the majority of people are like - is less likely to be found among the often more cosmopolitan, professional classes and stinking rich.... after a certain level of wealth combined with a professional/educated background, "cultural differences" appear to blur and morph into remarkably similar interests). A lot of people would make the precise point that unless you experience schooling with people from hugely differing financial circumstances and working backgrounds, you are not experiencing much diversity or gaining much understanding of life for the majority of people in the country in which you live, really. And out of sight, out of mind is not the same thing as tending to choose friends from a similar social or financial background from a wide available pool. Apart from that, arguing that you don't think true diversity is ever possible and that people will still try to segregate themselves is a fair point, because people do tend to do that, in order to perpetuate the differences/protect themselves from contamination with unwelcome practices and ideas.

ps I didn't mean to imply that all private school parents put up with a poor service, just that a surprising number do, because they are afraid of doing the wrong thing for their children one way or another. It isn't easy bringing up children and money doesn't make all the complications go away, even if it can smooth the path a bit.

Basically, I should have typed "It is unbelievable what SOME fee paying parents..."

seeker - I am talking about secondary school. When you're a teacher, you should always know more than your pupils - which is obvious.

Where I'm from, you actually have to study ,let's say, Maths as a first degree to qualify for training to be a teacher for that subject at secondary school afterwards. If your knowledge of Maths stops at A-levels, then you won't be able to expand your pupils' horizon.

And why PhDs would be better even for A-level students? Talking about science in particular, PhDs have already "practiced" teaching in seminars with undergraduates at university. Also, unless you have delved deeper into a subject, all you really see are the individual trees, not the forest. What makes science really interesting is not the basics - but current research and the things that are going on around us that may affect us. You have to get through the basics to get there, but most students won't.

I have heard people say: "Had my teacher told me about the 'interesting stuff', I would have studied more at A-levels." Problem is, how could their teacher tell them about the 'interesting stuff' when they had no knowledge of it whatsoever?

That goes back to the problem of funding for schools, though, Tasmania, and the available pool of people willing to teach when, with their qualifications, they could earn far more doing something else. Are there enough highly qualified and suitable people to fill ALL our state schools?

rabbit - Plenty do put up with it, but shouldn't. But ironically, you tend to get more annoyed, if you were paying for it... and more likely to act on that. My mum pulled my brother out of a private school due to a notorious bad teaching couple. She told the chairman (also head of a well-known company at the time) exactly why, and a few months later, that couple was "let go of". Not sure that would have happened had it been a state school. The other parents that stayed gave a silent applause.

Fair point about schooling people on different financial circumstances. But since Britain often operates on catchment areas, I'm not sure this works everywhere in the country? Some schools are often just either this or that. So if you were a MC parent living on the borderline and you had to choose between one where your kid may completely stand out and another where he would just meet people of "his kind"... which one would you choose? My intuition is that he may get bullied, if he is too different.

rabbit - Unfortunately, there won't be enough people for everyone. But what I forgot to mention was that the state sector wasn't even willing to employ people straight off a PhD programme due to the need for them to have teaching qualifications on top - which really is mind-boggling since they had been teaching undergraduates for years, demonstrating that ability. They ended up in the private sector instead.

It was a loss for the state system...

well,I want my 11 year old taught by a teacher qualified to teach 11 year olds, not just with experience of teaching undergraduates. And most secondary school teachers ^are? graduates in their subject.