First post: what is wrong with considering private schools?

[dietcokeisgreat]

Dear all,

I just starting looking at mumsnet last week and joined today. Some of my work colleagues talk about it and i am thinking about options for education for my son, who is just 3 and thought i would take a look. Well, i just starting the thinking, so it is early days.
We could pay for school, or maybe not, we don't know yet. He is our first child, we are having problems getting pregnant again, so unsure if there will be more yet.

I was surprised at some really negative comments on lots of threads towards people posting for advice/ whatever about private schools. Why are they doing that? What is wrong with people thinking about different options? Or asking about a school they know that is private? Twice i read something 'well i can't pay for school' as a response. For me, its no different to whether or not people have cash for other stuff. I can't afford to live in the smarter part of town, or pay for a boarding school but that doesn't mean no one should be allowed too!

Just wondering...don't want to post something that will enrage others or be and be upset by responses ....

Thank you.

Yes, the catchment one form primary school that we chose not to use made 27k 2yrs ago. With this level of financial involvement from the parents How can people not realise that the gap across the spectrum of state schools is vast and getting wider.

£273k breaks down into:

general donations £20k
specific purpose donations £253k

Clavinova there's a girls' Catholic comprehensive school (state school) in South London that 'invites' all parents to donate £30 pm to help pay for 'extras' - they aim to raise £250,000 pa. QE Barnet asks for £120 per month and if parents at the school are to be believed they are expected to write a letter stating the reason if they decide not to donated.

Mum Yikes! I really think that it is not on to request 'donations' in this way. I think a good school is good at getting value for money over what they spend and shouldn't have to resort to such tactics.

NancyJones The money we raised was purely off the back of events held through out the year. I though it was a good achievement given that the FSM figure has gone up three fold in the last two years (moving from 2 form to 3 form intake and increasing the catchment area).

I will add that we did work our backsides off to raise the money.

Mum, we lived in St. Albans when I was pg with ds1. As a teacher, potential schools for him were already on my radar. One thing that convinced us to move was that good local secondaries both state and private we're mainly single sex which I didn't want. There was an excellent mixed comp but we were too far to even stand a chance and I didn't have a spare 500k to be sure of catchment.

Q ( capsicum ): "I don't agree with the 'moral' argument against private schools. I believe people should be able to spend their own money how they want to, within the bounds of legality. I also believe parents should be able to choose to opt out of state education for their child. For some this means home schooling, for some private schooling."

Absolutely. I agree entirely. As long as access to life's glittering prizes is adjusted accordingly.

My Q (Weds 20:25):" "It makes no difference to anybody else what we as parents choose to do."

Yes it does. It can matter. enormously. If your DS and mine are of identical intellect -say 'naturally B grade"; if we, the parents support our DSs identically- if, for all intents and purposes our DSs are identical... BUT mine goes to a 'sink' comp with classes full of chairchuckers, and manages to get B's, he's done bloody well. Yours, because you are richer than me, goes to a small, well equipped 'B-grade-and-above' selective private school with small classes who manage to wring a As out of him. There's one place available at uni to do a certain course.

Who are they most likely to offer it to?"

This is where 'the morality' comes in. Just watch the hoohah that ensues when unis suggest they make lower offers to DC from more challenging educational backgrounds. It's almost considered acceptable as long as only a few bright DC from absolutely dire backgrounds are given this leg-up, but if it's made available to other MC parents who only differ from you in that they either can't afford St Passit's or morally won't go private, there's uproar. This, to me is the proof, if you like, that when push comes to shove, parents choose private to get the best grades possible out of their DC, via small classes, no SEN, no lesser (or even much higher) ability, motivated DC and paying parents; which creates inequality.

I have already stated that 'I get it' and wish that I, too, had the money to advantage my DC in this way. But I am honest enough to recognise that I see the immorality of this system, the way it entrenches privilege.

And, for the record, yes, I probably am one of the 'disadvantaged parents' when it comes to making allowances for grades- very unlike to help my DC as they go the best academically performing comp in the county; 'leafy' and MC. But still with 28 strong classes and the inevitable 'undercurrent' of low-level disruption and with teachers who spend half their time form-filling as required of them in the state sector. And, with the best will in the world, not directly beholden to me because I don't pay their wages directly.

I think the FisherFamily Trust data is still used in lots of schools for target setting.

It is all a bit hush and vague though, and not easy to find info on exactly what data is used.

You can google them.

It means that for 2 kids withaverage Sats, the school has higher expectations/targets for the child whose parents have been uni educated, think they look at postcodes too? Like I say, don't know the exact criteria, wish I knew!

Also wish I knew WHERE FFT get their data.

Target and predicted grades, and sets, matter where I live, as we have the comprehensive system.

All treated equally.....only not really

That's a fantastic achievement with high FSM. I've taught in schools where the parents have pots in the office to pay for trips during summer term. We always tried to organise and book by oct and they'd know and drop off 25p here and there in the pot to contribute towards it. There is no way we would have got as much in if we'd just presented them with a £12 bill 6wks before.

So Tansie why do you distinguish between parents looking for schools within and outside the London orbit? Is it more acceptable, in your view, for Londoner's to go private?

"Mum Yikes! I really think that it is not on to request 'donations' in this way. I think a good school is good at getting value for money over what they spend and shouldn't have to resort to such tactics."

So. Not only could everyone afford private school if only they gave up Sky and fags and only had camping holidays, now state schools could match private school spending per pupil if only they were better at getting value for money!

I do wonder why private school supporters find it so hard to accept that it is principely money that makes the difference? Rich parents, lots of money for the school to spend on each child.

Tansie I stand by what I say regarding the 'morality' of choosing private. I just do not feel right denying people their choice.

However if you read all my posts you will see that we have not chosen private because we did not like the schools. Added to this we did not chose Grammar either, in a Grammar area.

I like the ethos of Comprehensive education. I went to a Comprehensive. We have chosen comprehensive for our DC. My point is I believe in people being able to choose to opt out of State education, either by home schooling or Private Schools. Where I see the unfairness is where State schools are selective on grades or religion.

I think positive discrimination can be a bit contrived, sometimes, also. I do not like the assumption people from certain backgrounds cannot do well without a 'leg up'.

Tansie you constantly refer to privilege in this thread. Not all children in the independent sector are at public school; in fact very few. My children are no more privileged than those of my neighbours using state schools crammed full of articulate MC kids living in large leafy houses with professional interested affluent parents. These kids horse ride and ski outside school. They have no concept of financial struggle. Their school is on no way mixed from a socioeconomic pov.

Hakluyt, I think absolutely it is money that makes the difference. I just don't think that money divide is between private and state but rather some state schools compared with others.

Conversely I do not think that money always does make the difference. Money can be spent well or badly. The quality of teaching makes the difference, that and school home communication and relationships.

Sometimes, for example, a newly qualified teacher can be streets ahead, in terms of their teaching, than a jaded teacher who is more expensive and just counting the days until their retirement. Sometimes this can be opposite.

What matters to me, most of all, is the ethos and general attitudes within the school.

I think good teaching makes a difference but not to the extent that money does. For quality of teaching to be the overriding factor, it would need to be across the board outstanding at one school and dire at the other. But yes, what you do with the money is crucial.

NancyJones I just don't think that money divide is between private and state but rather some state schools compared with others. the thing to be careful of is assuming that, within the state sector, the biggest donators are those who appear to have the most money.

I don't think you can assume, across the board, that because a high performing state school has a fairly wealthy intake the level of donations will reflect that.

I think State schools should serve the individual children of the community they are in and tailor the education (individually) to them. If people do not want their children to go to a school like this, then they should be able to opt out by home schooling or going private.

Nancy I don't understand your 10:54 point. Why do think good quality teaching is less important than money:?

That is just my opinion and experience though. I have taught in schools with truly fantastic teachers banging their heads against the wall at how to help little Billy who only appears 2 or 3 days each week and is late on the others. Or how to help Leah who spends most of the day asleep because her mum is lonely and an insomniac so keeps her up all night. Or what to say to James who sees the SW at school once a week after he stepped on a needle on the lounge carpet. Teachers on friendly terms with SWs and CAMHs because they're in school constantly. School has no money (though better genuinely thanks to Nick Clegg) parents have no money, no aspirations and it's a never ending cycle very difficult to break out if regardless of how bright those kids are. It breaks my heart some days.

Nancy But how would more money to the schools help in the situations you have outlined? Good access to services and benefits for the families involved, would be more appropriate, I think, but not money to the schools.

Mum, that's a fair point. Parents on middling income who are bright and interested in their kids education often contribute lots and often a higher amount in proportion to their income. But at the bottom end of the scale schools rarely get anything and at the top end (economically) you always get the odd parent donating stuff to Sch raffle like front row tickets for concerts and boxes at highbury/Old Traff and other parents who will bid hundreds for them without batting an eye.

capsium - Nancy I don't understand your 10:54 point. Why do think good quality teaching is less important than money:? one example that might lead people to see it that way:

My DCs 2nd year teacher left to teach at a private secondary. If the private school is seen as the better educational option do you think this because the teacher was better or because of the money or a combination of a whole heap of things?

BTW, this is not me stating my opinion it is a point to consider.

Mum My gut feel is a combination of things. I do not know for a fact Private Schools pay better across the board, I sure I've read somewhere about awful salaries and unqualified teachers at some.

Money to the schools would all is us to broaden their horizons. So many trips don't take place because coaches are too expensive and parental contribution is virtually zero. We 'd get in theatre groups and music workshops and visiting authors and artists to do lessons. We'd buy into the extra services that allow schools to borrow nice artefacts for history and buy better materials for D&T and IT. Nice new library books too. All the services you mentioned are vital but broadening their horizons is the first step enabling them to brsK free if the poverty trap.