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.

.

"Your "if you give poor people baths they'll only keep coal in them" attitude is, frankly, repugnant."

I have not expressed that view anywhere, seeker.

Mordion, your post reminded me of how I was actively discouraged from applying for Oxford during my A-levels - not because of my background (daughter of an Oxford academic, had 9 good o levels, etc etc) but because the tutor in question (at a college of FE) was bitter, and judgemental. I applied through my old school in the end, and got in (but didn't go, preferring to get out of my home town).

My step-sister, who was at the Lycee, was also actively discouraged by her tutor on the grounds that she 'just wasn't the Oxford type' but was encouraged by her step-father, a retired Oxford don, and did get in and went.

I suppose what I'm thinking is that encouragement/discouragement is just as much to do with individual biases and judgement as it is to do with a potential candidate's background/school. All anecdotal, I know...

Do people honestly aspire for their children to become one thing or another?

I must be very naive. I want my children to have choices, but I certainly don't have aspirations for them to 'be' or 'do' anything specific. Perish the thought.

Mordion - thinking about your reply...

I started a PGCE 15 years ago (but never finished.) One of my placements was in an inner city school, where the attitude was very much 'what can you do with children like these?' Not much, was the implication. There was no question of saying 'some of these children have poor parenting, how can we overcome this?' Then again, last year: "you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear" from a friend who taught in one of the 'more challenging' areas of the town i.e. a school on a run down council estate, where the problem families get dumped.

With attitudes like that, it does seem that the cards are stacked against such children.

However, I will admit, not all schools in such areas are like this.

Elibean - hopefully you were happy in the end with the choices you made? Your step sister also. I agree with you that it usually does come down to individual bias as much as anything else. But it's sad to see. As for anecdote - at least we know we are talking about something real that genuinely happened. This thread and its predecessor have demonstrated quite well that there are stats and stats and only a true expert (knowing what biases were employed in the methodology for capturing and then interpreting the stats) can actually deploy them with any authority.

My only aspiration for my kids is to be tall. Sadly it looks like none of them will be. :( Other than that - it's their life, not mine. My job is to make sure that I do my best for them. Sadly I didn't invest in a rack. :(

My business is to ensure my children have every possible opportunity to develop fully as humans. What they then do is up to them.

Mordion

Yes, I loved my Uni days (in London, far freer than I would have been home in Oxford) and my step sister loved hers.

Tallness....ah if only...

I agree, Bonsoir. My job is to do my best to provide my children with the environment, support and opportunities that let them thrive in as many ways as possible.

Its just that someone lower down in the thread was talking about aspiring towards specific jobs/careers - which I definitely don't.

Although I know many people, of my parents' age, who grew up rebelling against, or conforming with, parental expectations of that ilk.

There was another thread, a while back, about either posh schools or grammar schools, where a poster commented that everyone in a particular class or year group or something like that wanted to be an accountant and how dull that was.

The only thing I have ever said to my kids (apart from the obvious do as I say not as I do) is that the days of a job for life are long gone and portfolio careers seem to be the future for most people, and given that, it's much better to do something you will like rather than something you think will be a safe bet, because there are no safe bets.

I expect Xenia will be along in a minute to say that everyone should aim to be a city lawyer though.

Being happy and fulfilled is the main thing. Apart from being tall. Obvs.

"I agree, Bonsoir. My job is to do my best to provide my children with the environment, support and opportunities that let them thrive in as many ways as possible."
I agree. That is our job as parents. How about our job as members of society?

Our job as members of society is (a) to pay taxes (b) to look out for our nearest and dearest and our neighbours.

What, not to express any interest in the wider world around us????

That's not a job.

Bonsoir that is really limited, so if you live in millionaires row, you don't have to care about anyone who isn't a millionaire.

I pay my taxes (and would happily pay more if it would improve things), care about family, friends and neighbours - but also want to society to reduce inequality and disadvantage.

If you have the ability to vote, then it is part of your job....

I think some people think their job as members of society is to be naysaying sucking gloomsinks of despair. Others think their job is to be Pollyanna. The truth as almost always lies somewhere in the middle but I strongly believe that articulate educated people should be careful about the way they voice their concerns and try their best not to spread disinformation - or biased information - which suits their political objectives but which may also materially affect the opportunities of other less fortunate people. Too many people focus so much on the difficulties and completely forget to add the useful information that many things are in fact far from impossible, whatever your background.

Yes Mordion but whilst misinformation is a problem, so are the very real barriers that are unnecessary.

All to often the rhetoric of meritocracy does not match to the reality. We need to both encourage those who are able, and remove unnecessarily and unfair disadvantage.

I have little faith in individuals to make institutional, top-down improvements to the lot of the least advantaged members of society.

I have great faith in the ability of individuals to support,encourage and nurture their neighbours who are far less advantaged than they are.

'Gloomsinks of despair': so gaelic! . Teachers need to get a grip and tell the bright kids to go for it and leave politics and/ or timorousness behind. Applying is only one choice of five; better to waste it at the top end than the bottom. No-one these days need feel isolated or 'different' at Oxford or Cambridge: intelligence is the best leveller of all. Completely agree about stats.

Gaelic, sorry - how rude.

I love gloomsinks. I will, if you don't mind, mordion, use it soon and often.

"I have great faith in the ability of individuals to support,encourage and nurture their neighbours who are far less advantaged than they are."

How do you do this in your own life?

Applying is only one choice of five; better to waste it at the top end than the bottom. Then there is clearing for some more choice, if necessary.

I wish a few more people had this attitude - rather than the one my headmistress had of going on an on about having a second string to your bow. So much so, that the safe choice became the main one.

I love gloomsinks too, and sense a new MN-developed-language-morphing word, along the lines of fanjo, soon to be in common usage...

Seeker, absolutely. I was talking about our job as parents (or part of our job as parents). As a member of society - oh, that is a hard one, and I've not thought about it enough. I tend to muddle through. But I do think holding all human life as essentially valuable and equal and trying to live the way I think - although frequently failing, no doubt - matters.