If you can afford it, would you send your children to an independent school?

[Fiona2011231]

This is a hypothetical question, and I would greatly appreciate your insight.

My question is based on this assumption: In England, if you want your children to have a better chance in life (great success, joining the elites, etc), a good independent school is a requirement. Of course, few have enough money to afford it.

But suppose you have enough money, would you send your children to an independent school? Or would a grammar or a comprehensive school be good enough?

Thank you.

So, come on Fiona, are you a journalist?

Bumped into a former colleague at DS's school at parents' evening. He said 'It's against my principles, sending the kids here. You shouldn't have to pay for education.' My reply was 'It's against all our principles, isn't it?'

I absolutely agree that private schools are anti-meritocratic and intrinsically unfair. But if you want a proper academic education, proper sports facilities (both mine are sporty) and decent music (DS is musical) there really isn't an alternative.

I got myself into the line of thought that I was being unfair to the kids by not sending them independent, tbh. Because I could afford it, was I squandering money on stuff that is irrelevant rather than investing in their education ...

It is easy for me to value education because it has brought me very tangible benefits. I do wonder if you live in an area of high unemployment where most jobs are zero hours/NMW if the benefits of staying in school and studying hard are so easy to see.

Motherinferior you have an odd attitude to education. I wouldn't feel cocky about having a better degree than my Dh. I wouldn't feel cocky about having a better degree than anyone. With your attitude I really hope your kids do exceptionally well at their 'scruffy comp'
I do see it must be hard if your ILs are very unsupportive about your choice of school and perhaps your Dh didn't enjoy private education.

If you have sporty kids then our local state secondary is a complete no no.

It's not just the sports and the music. It's the academics. To be in an environment where it's cool to be a swot. To see them competing to be top of maths or whatever. To see them working really truly hard and getting the best they can out of themselves.

I do see the difference because DD is at a state grammar school following private at primary. The intention was for them both to go there - but the state grammar was and is just terrible. Fabulous grades at GCSE but frankly, which school wouldn't have when they cream off the top 5%? At said state grammar, they teach to the test rather than teaching the subject, the range of the teaching is poor, the teachers themselves are poor and unreliable (DD had 8 French teachers over two years) the facilities are terrible, the attitude to school work is worse ... I could go on, I really could.

wuldric
everything you say about the private school I see at DCs comp
including celebration of and no bullying of the really bright kids
and the sporty kids - national level competitors some from council houses
and the musical kids - national competitions etc

Wuldric. Education or lack of it for your children is too important to go all
principled about, even though most believe in state education and the principle that everybody should be educated by the state.

The state does not provide the required diversity in terms of academic or vocational education. It is the duty of any parent to give their children as good an education as they possibly can, if that is a private day school then so be it.

What i don't like though are public schools, that are there for the sole preserve of the elite and keeping their club going. No matter how successful
or bright state school kids or even bright kids from normal private schools
are, they won't get into their club.

Why cant we have boarding grammar schools specifically set up to cater for pupils from inner city areas. This could take them out of their environment and place them in to a "Safe" place where being bright is not fraught with danger or bullying.

I think by 'public school' you mean the big-name boarding schools. DS is actually at a public school the definition of which is that the heads attend the Headmasters' Conference. See here for a definition. There is no way in hell that I would send my children boarding. I like them! And I'm foolish enough to believe that they like living at home too.

Soul2000
Why are you against the segregation by wallet of private schools but in favour of the segregation by narrow test of grammar schools?

I like comps because children get to understand the diversity that makes up society even if they have progressively less to do with them in class because of setting and exam choices

Ds' school (which celebrates academic achievement, sporting prowess and musicianship although not necessarily in the same pupils ) is an inner city one %23justsayin

Talkinpeace. what do you mean by highlighting council houses. Most of the best sportsmen/women come from council or the lower economic categories.
The only sports they are not the best at are the ones they have never had a chance at I.e, Horse Jumping/Tennis/Motor Racing or LAX. I suspect you knew that though.

soul2000
what do you mean by highlighting council houses
because ours is a "leafy" comp and the constant accusation that kids only do well because they were MC beforehand. Our catchment is VERY mixed, as well as the hundreds of kids who are out of catchment.

You really are intent on misreading me, aren't you. My partner, for the record, rather liked his private boarding schools. His aunt's disapproval of our choices doesn't particularly bother me at all - why on earth would it? I don't give a toss about my parents' views either, I'm an adult woman - and I'm not 'cocky' about my degree but it is useful to demonstrate that particular point.

And come off if, you're secretly hoping my kids crash and burn to prove that my selfish sacrifice to my political principals has been a disaster

Principles, sorry

I am not against private schools that serve a role the state does not. As you know better than me, "Public Schools" are a different animal to private schools.

As for boarding grammar schools specifically set up for bright urban or inner city kids,these kids need to be taken away from the diverse culture they are in and placed into a rigid system. Diverse culture is great for middle class kids who only see its positive ways, but not in the educationally limiting way it can be for some kids from urban areas.

In the last show of Educating Yorkshire, there was a girl called Hannah a bright girl who in her mind thought she was "Thick", so did not really try "What's the point" type attitude , I end up doing Hair and Beauty at the college (Nothing Wrong with Hair and Beauty) but i think a lot of that is down
to not knowing anything different. Towards the end of the show she goes in to she the head of year to discuss what she is doing next year. He sarcastically suggest she does A Level Further maths , she Laughs at the suggestion. It turns out she ends up with 8 A-C grades without really working or believing in herself just doing what her peers and social circle do.
Hannah is capable of doing A level Maths (Does not know it) will probably get to 30 or so and realize she is bright.

Selective education is needed for the Hannah's of the world , whether VR and the current tests are the correct way to select who knows.

Hannah is the type of bright child who though her environment is brought down to mediocrity and under achievement (Though She won't know it).

Motherinferior - How odd. Of course I don't hope your children do badly! What a completely bizarre thing to suggest! I apologise if I have touched a nerve. You are extremely defensive and quite rude for someone who is completely happy with their choices in life.

Yes from reception to senior and then one of the brilliant local grammars or to another independent

Soul2000

I saw that episode and I thought that the head of year was shockingly sneering. Clearly a clever girl.

Sadsometimes - I too read your comment to Motherinferior as having a go at her for being "cocky" - your word - about her degree and with an undercurrent of hoping for some sort of comeuppeance about her kids at her comprehensive school. Maybe the tone in which you wrote the post could be misinterpreted but I for one read it the same way she did.

Thank you Sad. Hannah in the right environment would probably have got 8As . She is the type of girl who needs to be in a strict academic school that is full of as bright and brighter girls than her to achieve.

I remember some people on this site saying how pleased they were that Hannah got 8 A-C Grades. I just felt sad and a waste of potential.

Talkinpeace

I think living in London gives us all a head start in diversity compared to rural settings. But, much more importantly, the attitudes an politics of parents have a much greater bearing on a young person's attitude to socio-economics or multi-culturalism. I have never bought the idea that schooling at a comp really makes a difference either to the rich kids and their attitudes to poorer peers or visa versa. I've seen little evidence of it at our state primary where parents and kids seem to stick to their "groups". In fact some parents seem to despise the presence of wealthier families at the school.

That said some of my best mates are toffs and others are scum

I never understand the point of these threads. Some of us will think going to private school is the morally right course both in terms of our duties to our client and also in saving the nation the cost of educating the children.

Others will think it's wrong to pick private eduction but do so anyway (they are probably the worst ones morally).

Others will choose state education when they could afford private on principle because it benefits less fortunate children to be educated with theirs or whatever the reason is.

Others again (i.e. most of the population, at least 90%) could not afford the fees and their children cannot win bursaries so they go state and many state schools are fine.

As long as you are happy with the school your child is at - private, state grammar, comp there is no problem at all. No need to argue over it.

I think selection by IQ whether in a state or fee paying school tends to help brighter children get on most and gives them a good education and that is what I favour. I can/ could (3 of mine have graduated) fees at top 10 /20 schools and was lucky enough to have children able to pass the entrance tests without coaching and it seems to suit us well but 50% at Oxbridge are from state schools and many of those children do fine too.

Elizabeth, I would say there is another category.

We could afford private, and I have no ideological principles against doing so. But the private school would need to be better in terms of ethos, results and value added. In our case, the local comps are better, so we simply do not see what we would gain.

As to sports, we have great facilities in town and boys are at cricket club, tennis and karate.

Private school is not always better. There are people who therefore don't choose private, despite being able to.