if you could afford to go private, should you?

[tankerdale]

Sometimes I worry that we've got our priorities wrong. We've ended up in a lovely large home with high running costs, we've got some but not loads of savings, most of our 'wealth' is in our house. Income is very good on paper but month to month we only manage to save a small amount, if any. I work 2.5 days, DH is full time. We have a nice lifestyle and I guess eat out a bit but I don't think we're otherwise extravagant, don't spend much on holidays, run 1 car, don't spend loads on clothes etc.

3dc, 2 already at primary school. We live in the catchment of what is considered a very good non selective state secondary but it is massive.

As it stands we couldn't afford to put 3dc through private secondary (there's a nice one nearby). But have we got it wrong? Should we move to a more modest home and prioritise paying for their education?

Feeling a bit guilty that we're not putting them first. Dc1 seems v bright and will probably be ok anywhere, dc2 I'm not so sure about and too early to tell with dc3.

If they go to the state school and have any problems I'm going to wish we made a different choice I think.

So - in principle, if you can pay for private - should you?

I really need someone to define what soon feeeing actually is.

I made a suggestion downthread.

Is it feeding kids the answers to the test? Patiently hanging in with the student until they "get it?" Carefully mapping what needs to be learned?

The term "spoon feeding" gets tossed around a lot on MN. what are teachers actually doing when they "spoon feed."

I think it usuallly refers to classic pedagogy, rather than more experiental learning.

Yes, Empress, it's all those things. Fantastic while you're on the receiving end, but not quite so great when you suddenly find it withdrawn (i.e., at university).

We will be going private. We are currently in the UK. Although the local primary looks ok, I regularly see some of the parents swigging booze on their way home from school run. They are probably lovely people but do I want my dear boy mixing with that lot? Heck no! We'll be going to a private religious school where we hope other parents will share the same values as DH and I.

We have only one child and could easily swing private school fees if it made sense to do so. But the private schools locally attract a certain type of family that I really don't feel we'd have much in common with.
Ds has some special ed needs that I do not get the sense would be easily tolerated accommodated in local prep schools. State school has served us well so far thanks...

"do I want my dear boy mixing with that lot? Heck no! We'll be going to a private religious school where we hope other parents will share the same values as DH and I"

Careful mapping of what needs to be learned, as opposed to throwing vaguely appropriate experiences at pupils, teaches DC how to learn: that learning is, by and large, a progressive exercise.

Agree completely bobo.

We've done both private and state education and are back in private because the local choices available for sixth form study were marked as 'requiring improvement' in OFSTED's reports. However, thanks to seeing both sides of the picture, DC is now acutely aware of the material advantages (and appreciates the higher standard of teaching). It is also life experience to have encountered the full diverse spectrum of social class, income, and innate ability first hand. In raw grade terms, we have moved from Es and Us to achieving A - C grades with some time in hand before taking A levels.

DC get one crack at education and we are relieved that we can afford the choice for a couple of years.

Feeling a bit guilty that we're not putting them first

Send them to a good local state school and put yourself forward for a school governor role, or throw yourself into fundraising for the PTA. Then you will be putting all local children first, not just your own, and you will have earned the right not to feel guilty.

I am suspicious that teaching methods that would be labelled "outstanding, skilled, conscientious teaching," when seen in a state school, would be labelled as "spoon-feeding" by some posters on this thread.

Spoon-feeding is a far too vague and loaded term to be usefull. It's more useful to spell out exactly what sort of methods/techniques are happening in the classroom.

"In raw grade terms, we have moved from Es and Us to achieving A - C grades with some time in hand before taking A levels."
That's quite common in 6th forms- regardless of sector.

Have done both, wish we could have afforded private for all 3, awful schools round here.
Not felt a bit guilty for others as I have neither the time nor inclination to try and better these schools.
parents try but it never changes, it's like pissing into the wind, sometimes it's ingrained into the community and it's pointless.
You can't just volunteer on a PTA or governor and turn things around.

If they go to the state school and have any problems I'm going to wish we made a different choice I think

And what if they go to the private school and have problems? Will you sue them like this guy?

Private doesn't automatically means better, although private schools thrive on making you think that's the case. If your local state schools are good schools then your children are just as likely to fulfil their potential there. If they are not good schools, then going private is more justified.

Here's something else to think about. If you send your children private, they will always feel they are letting their own children down if they can't afford to do the same. You are therefore affecting their future in more ways than you think. For example, you have 3 children: what if in the future they decide they can only afford to have 2 or 1 (or none) because they are factoring in the cost of schooling on top of other life costs like home ownership? If so, then in evolutionary terms, sending your children private makes no sense whatsoever!

Why not put your surplus cash towards saving for your children's first property instead? If you want to be bouncing lots of happy grandchildren on your knee in the future, then that is probably the best option!

That's another mumsnet mystery. Most poor schools are in areas of poverty and social deprivation. The sort of area you wouldn't expect people able to afford several lots of school fees to be living in. But one of the most commonly quoted reason for going private are that the local schools are "shite" or "awful" or more measured expressions like "requires improvement". Very puzzling

OP, have just noticed that music is important to you and your dh.
have you considered a specialist music school, the education is as good as an outstanding state or private school and the music ed of course is second to none.
it's not for the faint hearted and competition for places is quite fierce, but a great option for those it suits.

Everything USC relative Bert.

tankerdale
I was driving past your secondary school at kicking out time the other day.
Its a fantastic school that gets the best from all types of kids
and they are polite when crossing the road.

Happy
You know as well as I do that when gangs of public school boys get together they still refer to all non public school pupils as "scum" - they always have, they always will.

At least the kids from tankerdale's school look when they cross the road.
The kids from your DSs school are notorious for just stepping out and relying on drivers having their wits about them.

sense of entitlement and all that
the one thing that fee paying school definitely provides much better than state

Working in the state sector and the mess that it is. I would say go private.

Bertrand, our area is very rural and most (not all) people are on low incomes with a large dash of seasonal employment thrown in. Our nearest city is a grammar area, with all the implications for the rest of the schools, and contains sizeable pockets of real deprivation. Travel considerations allied to large catchments restrict choice unless you can afford the private option. My DC's friends who went on to the local comprehensive's sixth form for academic courses have typically not been taught well or encouraged to aim high. Therefore the top 20% of students do not achieve A levels results equivalent to what would be expected from a school in a metropolitan area or the leafy suburbs of the Southeast, and do not apply for or get places at "top" universities. When we opted for that school (for logistical reasons) it had recently been inspected and given an outstanding rating, but on a snap re-inspection 18 months later, it received the RI grade. The independent is not celebrated or selective, but it does set and mark homework and tries to ensure students are stretched and supported. Parents tend not to be wealthy and most are making ends meet as best they can to find the fees. There are lots of old bangers in the car park.

TalkinPeace

"...they always have and always will."

In principle, if we lived in the catchment of a truly outstanding comprehensive, on principle I would be happy to send my child to it, which was the OP's question, I think. We don't.

And the snide comment about "always have, always will" call the students from state schools "scum" was unworthy of a regular contributor who normally offers reasoned arguments.

I'm not going to resort to anecdote. But there is always a tendency to "kick downwards". Living in area with private schools, state grammar schools and secondary moderns, I see it every day.