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.

Yermina, I would like my son to go to a decent school because I do want to socially select his peers. I come from a deprived area and went to the klocal school where being clever or interested in lessons was a shameful thing to be hidden. The kids at my school were not thick but they did have absolutely no interest in education. I don't want my son going to a school like that.
I did gain in some ways from my school. I am disgusted by some of the attitudes of my more privileged adult peers, or just shocked by their lack of understanding of poverty. But I feel I lost more than I gained. Going to a separate sixth form college and being with people like me, who liked learning, where it was okay to be interested was like finding an oasis after a long time in a desert.

Nit I don't worry that much .

And TBH, my little flats have a negligbe impact. The family homes in catchment, price the vast vast majority of people out of the school. And there is almost no rental accommodation, certainly nothing ordinary folk can afford.

I live in a small market town which has two primaries and one secondary, so there is no real school choice. They are all good schools - not OFSTED outstanding, but good. The town itself has a mad mix of the relatively affluent (though not mega-rich) and the very deprived, which means the schools all have a similar and mixed intake. The primaries take in, on average, cohorts of children who are below age expectations and turn them out at or slightly above. This continues in the secondary, which seems to cater well for all abilities. They tend to do particularly well with high achievers, so I'm happy to send my DD1 there and DD2 will be going too.

When we bought our house, the school was on the edge of special measures - we bought what we could afford and weren't thinking about school catchments.

I believe that there is a very big problem with school choice in large urban areas though - I'm not far from Cambridge, and there's a definite pull towards some schools and away from others there.

Absolutely!

(but I don't have enough money so it won't be happening)

No sleep we bought our house in 1995, nearly 10 years before we had children. We didn't think about schools, and actually our excellent local comp has a reasonably wide catchment through pricey suburbs, very expensive private roads (a few), local authority housing and some very average areas. So we aren't congregating in a ghetto of shiny middle-classedness to get into a good school

"The kids at my school were not thick but they did have absolutely no interest in education. I don't want my son going to a school like that."

My dd is at a school where only 30% of the children are classed as 'high achieving'. They take children off the big estates, lots of children from very disadvantaged backgrounds.

And yet there are students there who will get 12 A* gcse's, and go on to RG universities.

Motivated, very bright kids who're well supported still do well in these places. Even in schools in deprived areas.

But I agree - it takes a child with motivation and real strength of character to succeed. Not all children have this or are able to learn to gain it in a more challenging setting. Only you know your son's strengths and weaknesses.

Meanwhile there are other local schools which have a much lower staff turnover, much better value-added, and where kids are happy, settled and achieving. Local middle class parents reject these schools as 'bad' because they are low in the league tables (primarily because of their intake) because they want social selection above all else. Which is what parents with their children at private schools want too: an education away from the oiks.

Exactly what I've seen at my ds's school. Eyebrows raised when I sent him there. OP, and everyone LOOK at your local school, don't dismiss it because on paper it's "only" Ofsted good and not top of the league table.

Having said that, for various reasons, it didn't suit my dd and she is in a private school. As everyone says, horses for courses, different schools suit different children and if you are able to buy a place at a school that suits your child, then you are extremely fortunate.

"different schools suit different children"

I think that's guff.

Children just need well trained teachers, reasonable class sizes, a decent, well run school with a good social mix, a broad curriculum and access to extra-curricula activities.

This is what they have in Finland, up to the age of 16. It's only from 16 onwards that they specialise in technical learning or academic studies. Their system is one of the best in the developed world and their children achieve highly.

Sadly what people in this country seem to want is social selection - and they'll achieve that by hook or by crook, by academic selection at 11 (which hugely discriminates against children from poorer backgrounds), separation into faith schools, and with the private school system.

The point is yermina the kids at my school weren't well motivated. It is shit to be a kid who likes learning at a school like this. I am not talking about what grades are achieved. I am talking about the experience of being at school, of being somewhere where it is clear you don't fit in, of the frustration of never having a real class debate, of kids being scared to engage in teacher's attempts to have one because they will be mocked by other kids. Of having a love of learning and being somewhere where that is frustrated and unfulfilled except for with your books at home alone. That is what I am talking about. Of course bright kids get good grades at shit schools. It's the rest of it that they miss out on that I am talking about. And I talk from personal experience.
Maillot, good for you. You clearly don't live where I do.

yermina you have completely missed something that is hugely important to an education; like minded and similar ability peers.

I'm sorry you think it's guff that different schools suit different children, yermina, but having had one child thrive and one not in the same school, I would absolutely disagree. It wasn't about social selection, the school is very socially mixed, it was about children's personalities and abilities.

Nosleep, the school I started off at was like yours, and I hated the experience too. I was very lucky to be moved to a private school, where I was so much happier. Yes, I might have achieved the same grades in either institution but I wouldn't have enjoyed the experience. Of course, it would be fantastic if all our children mixed in the same schools. But until our anti-intellectual culture is transformed, some - NOT all - schools, are not great places for children who do want to learn.

My eldest has just started reception at the local state primary which is where his brothers will go.
It is an inner city school and the class reflects that.
Private was an option but I prefer the convenience of the local school and have been really impressed with it all so far.
I've got an open mind about secondary.Plan has always been to go private but the feeder school is in the top 300 comprehensives in the country and gets pupils into Oxbridge & RG unis which is good enough for me.If other children can do well in that system no reason why mine can't either!

I agree wholeheartedly with nosleep.I had the misfortune to go to a sink comp where any sign that you were interested in learning or even behaving would result in teasing at best and being beaten up at worst.I don't recall ever putting my hand up to answer a question or any classroom debates.I would have loved to have gone to a school where you could actually learn stuff rather than sit there whilst the teachers tried and failed to control the class.

Sadly,the very same school is my DDs catchment school.I have visited it and it seems nowhere near as bad as it used to be,but is in SM and according to OFSTED,children arrive with above average levels of literacy ect,but soon begin to fall behind.I've got everything crossed that DD1,who moves up next year,gets to go to the school out of catchment instead.If I had the money I'd certainly go private.I find that those who knock parents who make this choice have never attended a really bad school and seen how it can affect children.

"like minded and similar ability peers."

What - you mean there are some schools in England with NO, or only a tiny handful of intelligent, resourceful and intellectually curious children?

As I said - my dd's school only a third of children are 'high ability', and yet they still manage to turn out doctors, lawyers, teachers. Not loads mind, but every year a good handful.

"You clearly don't live where I do"

I live in a very deprived inner city area.

"it was about children's personalities and abilities".

What - you mean less able children need teachers who are trained in a different way to those who teach able children? Smaller class sizes for less or more able children? A different curriculum?

My children have very different personalities: one is sensitive, highly musical, artistic and the top of his class for maths; the other is in a bottom set for literacy but his very able in IT and maths; my other child is lazy but quick witted and articulate. They all went/are going to the same inner city primary and thrived there. Are you saying that they need different schools because one is artistic and musical and the other is technically able? At 11? At 5?

"If other children can do well in that system no reason why mine can't either!"

Quite!

Jolly good for you, Yermina, but most people don't fork out these huge sums for private schools unless they have very good reason to do so. You sound very smug.

We have the luxury of choice being able to afford fees, but we obviously can't choose a selective school - the school chooses the student.

I have narrowed down a list of 50 or so in London within 1 hour travel to about 13 - a mixture of private, grammar, state, mixed/single sex, church, etc.

I have a pretty good idea of my child and what sort of environment they will enjoy - it will be different for each of us.

Surely, given the choice, the most important thing is to find somewhere you think your child will be happy, safe and do well. What flavour of school that is doesn't make a jot of difference and what flavour you choose will often be completely different.

People get really hung up on this - I prefer to focus on my kid's welfare and ignore the politics and what works for other parents and other kids.

My DC are/were at private schools, but not English über expensive ones - we are in Paris, where private school teachers are public-sector employees and must follow the French NC.

Nevertheless, despite the relatively modest fees, there is a huge difference between the state and private schools and we would not contemplate using a state school again. I want my children to be happy and educated alongside DC of reasonably similar ability and background.

I love the way those of us with access to good comps are described as "smug"
FFS its luck : we bought this house for the garden before having kids.
School catchments did not feature on our criteria list.

Yermina, the fact that your kids' school turns out professionals shows that it is not a crap school. It would have never occurred to me or my peers that we could be doctors, lawyers. It simply wasn't on the horizon. And the school never encouraged us to have aspirations. At our careers lesson they got someone from the local bank to talk to us about becoming a bank clerk at £100 a week. Do you think the kids at Eton get that?
I don't think you understand what bad schools are like. You don't seem to have experience of of one.

My comment about 'you don't live where I do' wasn't aimed a you and you clearly misunderstood what I was saying there.

nosleep
please link to one of these "crap schools"
and we'll rule out ANY secondary modern in Kent, Lincoln of Hertfordshire as they do not have top sets.

DH travels the country and "crap schools" are incredibly rare - because of data transparency most of them now push their top kids.
You clearly know better.

Which (named) schools are you thinking of?

I think I'm being clear that I am talking about my own school which was the John hunt school. The crap school in my catchment is tyncastle high. 14 percent getting three qualifications at grade c or above. It shouldn't be that top kids get pushed. All kids should be. All kids should have teachers having expectations. And aspirations for all their pupils. That's kinda my point.
And yes talkin, I clearly do know best about my own school experience.

Talkinpeace - I've often seen your posts (and liked them). I used to work both at PS and BP! I've since moved away and wish our county had 6th form colleges rather than school 6th forms. Anyway - I'm insanely curious as to what your husband does that he visits so many schools.... any chance of putting me out of my misery?

talkinpeace are you sure secondary schools in Kent don't have a top set? I'm pretty sure they do, to compete/compensate for grammar schools taking the top achievers.

Nosleep
OK, those two are definitely "lacking" -
Tynecastle I'd need to know more about how it fits in amongst the other schools in the area to understand more.
Your old school .... yup "community sports college" sums up the aspiration of the SMT. They need taking out and replacing with people who give a stuff

Bowlers
by definition a secondary modern with a grammar school next door does NOT have a top set as they are in the other school.
Hence why there are so many prep schools in Kent tutoring those who can afford a few years of fees through the 11+