Would you spend everything you had to educate your children privately or settle for a perfectly OK state school (at secondary level)?

[Enid]

dh and I having this discussion atm

when i say everything it would mean me working full time, no holidays etc

interested to hear mumsnet's take on it

This is almost the most sensitive subject possible in this country, I don't know if it's possible to talk about honestly without giving offence to someone. However I don't mean to offend in anything I say.

Many people say that education is where the British class system retains its old power in modern form. The statistics prove that if you want to give your child a chance to run the country then send them to private school and Oxbridge. There are huge exceptions but the stats prove the rule don't they?

I can see both sides of the argument but the bottom line is most people I know will either buy their way into the catchment area of 'good school' i.e in a middle class ghetto. Or pay to send them to a private one. Or fake their faith to get them into a church school (of course some don't fake it!). Which of these is most fair? I don't see the difference ethically.

The rest of us go for the nearest local state school with its warts and all and hope for the best.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a country where there were such excellent state schools that there was no need for private ones? It will never, ever happen here though will it?

Queenceleste, you are making the assumption though that all private schools are good and that is not the case, in the same way that not all state schools are bad. Personally, I don't see why private and state schools cannot co-exist. At the end of the day, if parents want to pay, let them.

I see 4 types of selection.

1. The best academic schools, private or state, select.
2. Parents themselves will select based on academic, status, religious or social aspirations/desires.
3. Then there are the parents who see school as a babysitting service and an opportunity to get rid of the kids for a few hours - they won't select.
4. Finally there are those that can select but choose to use their local school because they believe in supporting their local community. I'm referring to parents who have not moved to an area just to be in the right catchment area (they would come under 2).

Motivated children in all categories (even in 3) will succeed according to their abilities, aspirations and opportunities. Similarly, unmotivated children in all categories will fail to achieve their potential in the short term (and long term if they remain unmotivated). All imho of course.

speedymama, I totally agree there are good and bad in both sectors. What I meant is that when you analyse the power structure of the UK the people in power are disproportionately from private school and Oxbridge. Increasingly so, since the demise of grammar schools. This status quo does seem broadly agreed even taking into account obvious exceptions. The recent analysis of media power was shocking in this respect. Also the top universities have very recently been quoted as being concerned about the proportion of intake from private schools. Clearly fees are effecting this but it's not the only factor.

Of course both sectors do and must co-exist in this country as it stands. But there is an argument that the existence of such a significant system of private and selective education has a detrimental effect on the state one. i.e. the elite will not force through real excellence in state education unless their own offspring have no choice. Witness the Blairs - there are lots of Catholic schools nearer to them than the Oratory School. And Dianne Abbott sending her son to a private school when she had offers of places at really good local schools. That's hard to understand from the party that closed the grammar schools! I think it's like everything - any system looks fabulous from the perspective of a winning hand and the luxury of choice!

I don't know exactly what I think. I sometimes feel anxious that my son is not getting the best; I would love to send my son to the best school in the whole world but I'm not in a position to choose anything but the local school. That's just how it is for most of us.

I agree with you Queenceleste wrt to Blairs and Dianne Abbot as well as the fact that it does appear that to gain political power, going to Oxford helps. I'm an optimist and I have an unfailing self-belief in my abilities which I hope to instil in my sons. One can view barriers as either deadends or opportunities and I prefer the latter.

I always remember Bill Clinton's inaugeration speech when he spoke about how he, the little boy from a town called Hope, made it to the White House. I will tell my sons that story when they are older and hopefully, it will inspire them as it did me. I will do everything that I can to inspire them to maximise the opportunities before them.

QC, Diane Abbot lives in Hackney, near us. She won't have had offers from lots of really good local state schools, because there aren't any. Actually a couple of academies have opened last year which look promising, but won't have been available when her ds was doing secondary transfer.

absolutely speedymama I agree and thanks for your thoughts.

Frogs, re D Abbott, I read that in the Guardian - so it's only as true as that article claimed. I think it said that he was certainly offered a place at an Islington school that was doing well - but I really don't know more than what I've heard. I feel bad talking about specific cases - it just seems such a massive indictment of the system that the powers that be won't touch it with a barge pole. I also can't help but think how marvellous it could be for a school to have a local mp's child in it. wouldn't it have to get better? But nobody wants their child to be part of a hopeful experiment I guess. London state schools are maybe in a peculiarly difficult position don't know if you agree?

quc is right about the routes to power in the UK. A recent survey of journalist found there were more from private schools and good universities now than there used to be when there were grammar schools. So things are worse than they were in terms of people from poorer backgrounds who are very bright getting through which is a pity. It seems the siphoning off at 11 did work for a whole generation and that route is lost.
On the question of racism and private schools it may just depend on the area. Our private schools are very racially mixed. In my daughter's school Haberdashers there were only 2 girls in the entire year group she was in with 4 English born grandparents and she was one of them.