IF money was no object would you chose a state school or private?

[SlightlyMadSCAREYthing]

And I reiterate that this is a philosophical IF money was no object.

I have always felt strongly about sending my children to state school, support you local schools and all, but now DTDs are at school I am faltering about secondary (which is still a long way off). So just wondered on a philosophical level - where do you stand?

You see statistics where the majority of high flying uni grads are private but private pupils are a small proportion of all those educated. I can't help wanting to do my best for my DDs...not that I am ever likely to afford to send them all to private if I really did decide that I wanted to.

Very much depends where you live.

I send mine to State on principle, but we're lucky to have a choice of decent schools.

Rule of thumb in our area is that independent school GCSE results are 1 grade higher than for local state schools (this is in a good area for state schools - our local got 82% A-C this year). Local state schools disadvantaged by difficulties in recruitment, larger classes, more behavioural problems. As a consequence, independent school pupils more likely to get into our local "premier league" Sixth Form College than the feeder school pupils!

I agree with speedymama's 10.25 post. Private schools CAN and DO select, so OF COURSE their results will look better on paper.

A good school is one that can identify your child's strengths and weaknesses and help work to them, so the most expensive, high-achieving academically selective private school in the land is NOT a 'good' school' for an averagely academic child with, perhaps, a gift for, let's say performance art.

If money were no object, I too would get a troop of tutors in and fly them to the Caribbean and Whistler with us!! They could share with the nannies.

"Queenofquotes: I know a local state school that has individual music lessons for students. Also, children to not have to learn an instrument at school - they can learn privately and individually outside school and many do, from both private and state sectors."

well - yes I started learning clarinet at school - but my lessons were either at break/lunchtime or I had to leave another lesson for it - and ALL practice had to be done at home (unless again I gave up my break/lunchtimes).

And I COULDN'T have continued learning my main instrument (the organ) outside of school at secondary level, a combination of cost (petrol my teacher lived 25 miles away, organ I had access to practice on was 7 miles away) and time. There simply wouldn't have been enough time for me to do my studying and do my music - and most of the other children at the school I went to for secondary school would have been in the same situation had they stayed in the state sector (my best friend's parents used to have to drive her 120 miles for her doublebass lessons - and then of course they had the drive back home again !

My school timetable went something like this (on an average day),

1st period English, 2nd period organ lesson, 3rd/4th period double Maths, 5th period practice, 6th period practice (often changed practice rooms/instrument), 7th/8th period double German etc etc.

there was no missing out on breaktimes/other lessons for music lessons (and tbh the teachers I had at state school were cr*p anyhow) and apart from homwork (like every other secondary school pupil in the country) my evenings were then free to be a "normal" teenager.

hmm. ds is at an "outstanding" local state primary school. dh and i are thinking about putting his name down for 7+ entry for the local private schools. our reasons are (1) class sizes and (2) availability of enrichment activities on site.

as far as (1) goes, the school seems more focused on its league table scores than individual children. secondly, as dh and i both work full-time, we can't take ds to activities after school that his classmates with sah parents attend. the school, while excellent in many ways, has a poor choice of extra curricular activities. it would be much easier for us if some of the things we wanted ds to do e.g. learn an instrument could be organised at school.

however, no decisions made yet.

BossyKate - we are in a similar position to you, and thinking along the same lines.
We could have afforded independent primary but chose the local state because it has an enviable reputation, not only academic is walking distance and I did not want them to be hothoused from infancy (or buttoned up in a very uncomfortable blazer ) - we thought we would just see where their talents lay and decide later. Now it is is clear that the major flaw in the state suystem is the class sizes, and also the constant edicts fromt the gevernment that tie the school up in bureacracy and prevent the head teacher having a frrer reign in encouraging individuality.
Almost all the children from our school go to independent schols at 11+, the question we are debating at the moment is whether to send them earlier.

I am hoping I can stick to my principles and go with state education even at secondary level.

DS starts in pre-prep on wednesday and I am opposite to Prufrock: I believe that if you set out really good foundations and an appetite for learning then a child will thrive anywhere, so we feel comfortable with sending him to private initially and wit a view to switching to state at 11..... whether we will carry through or not in 8 years' time is another matter.

For us the crunch was the activities added on to the teaching - every child in the prep school does at least two hours of sport every single day. That blew us away. That and the fact that I had never seen such happy kids in all my life, wherever we looked.

State school every time.

State school for primary, but we are lucky enough to have an excellent one on our doorstep.

For secondary I'd pay for private education if mine don't pass the 11+. For one thing, I prefer single sex secondary schools.

I don't have an issue with private education though.

My parents were state-school teachers, I was state-schooled educated and had never really considered private.

BUT...

Money is an object for us but we still have to send DD to a private school because in our area the primaries with good SATS results are 'faith' schools. My philosophical preference for state schools has been crushed by this state-sanctioned religious (and implicitly racial) discrimination.

if money were no object i would send to good state and have additional support at home via tutors

I would not
cannot

shall not
advocate the private education two tier...money buys you a decent opportunity..education.

"If money were no object I'd use it to buy a house v close to a really good state school to make sure DS got in, would not send him private."

Morally, how is that different to paying for a private school? You are still paying to ensure your child gets a better education than others, no?

If money were no object then I would make sure that there was a massive investment programme to improve state schools. I would also abolish all private schools and faith schools. To eliminate noxious postcode effects, I'd bus the children around. Oh yes. Level playing field for all.

But in the meantime, while I'm waiting for the revolution, I pay for schooling. It's difficult to manage and it sticks in my throat, but I do it anyway.

If money were no object id hire in tutors & do what we wanted every day. I hate the restrictions school puts on our time.
If we didnt do that then id send them private because of the better facilities, small class sizes etc etc & the fab long holidays.

I agree Hurly. I don't see why it is better to pay to get into the good school via house price than directly. Some comprehensive schools in posh areas are just as exclusive as private schools.

What do we feel about the Brighton lottery then?

I agree too, Hurly. If needs be, I would rather carry on living in dodgy inner city borough and remortgage house to pay school fees, I think.

I think it is a thoroughly good idea. As I imagine do the parents close to the worse schools. Bet the parents close to the better schools are sick as parrots though.

Hurlyburly, im not sure that money is the main issue in failing schools TBH. Its the lack of parental support thats the main problem. No amount of money thrown at the schools will solve that.

Does anybody else share Xenia's rather extreme (imo) views that private school is the only way to go and that not going that route is almost tantamount to child abuse?

You are kidding me?

I'm interested in this point about lack of parental involvement.

If you bus children around then don't you fix that too?

And how much of an issue is it really. Zero parental involvement in our DC's school in the Hurly household (because we are too tired after working so hard to pay the fees) and close to zero from most of the other parents.

no, sorry, can't see that moving to an area with a good state school is the morally the same as sending DS to a private school..

That's why the tutor option is best.

but you support their education? you give them time and space to do their homework and get a proper breakfast inside them every day? And if they got in trouble you would not go in school and threaten to beat up the teachers?
(Not suggesting these are the case for all parents of kids at bad schools, but they're certainly a factor in many.)
I knew someone who was made to get a job during his GCSE revision period and had to take time off to actually come in and do the exams. That's lack of parental support....

Hurlyburly, see previous education threads, passim, for Xenia views.