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.

If money was no object I wouldn't do anything different...I would still HE. The only difference would DH not having to work so we could just enjoy life as a family.

I'ld also do private for primary school then state secondary - originally I would have said state was fine but we tried a (good) state school for ds (mild SN) and it was a disaster. He is now in a non-selective supportive private school and has thrived in every way (confidence, emotionally and academically). DD goes to the nursery at that school and we soon have to make the decision of state/private for her and indeed whether to keep ds in the private school or try to transfer him to another state school - because money is a concern. We can afford to keep them in private school as long as nothing happens to both my and dh's jobs and as long as we have no more children...

If money was no object, I would choose the school best suited to my child and our family circumstances.

IMO it is morally entirely neutral whether you choose to pay for private education or whether you buy a house in the catchment area of a good state school. There is nothing immoral about wanting to get ahead in life, or for wanting to give your children a headstart, and there is no law against either course of action. The only immoral path IMO is taking action that does not give your child the best possible education your circumstances permit.

nope, still refuse to think moving to an area with a good state school is morally the same as private education.

Oh yes K6", I suppose I support their education. In the loosest possible sense. I make sure:

they are clean (a battle)
their teeth are clean (a major battle)
their clothes are clean and labelled (an effort)
they go to bed at a reasonable time (world war)
all the electronic gizmos are removed after 8pm to give them reading time and read to them too (a battle)
Provide masses of books and help them to pick out whatever they want to read
Feed them and insist upon breakfast. That's not a battle unless I am attempting to feed them something green.
Bang on about the importance of education
Make sure they turn up at school on time (the mother of all battles)

Maybe we're not entirely useless.

But why Flowery? It's all very well saying that but you haven't explained why it is different?

State for primary, no question. If dc couldn't get through 11 + then private for secondary as non-grammar secondary state schools very poor here

Morally and ethically I see no difference in chosing to move into an area with a good school than paying private. Both are only possible with money in most cases. Therefore both are not promoting equality if you want tot hink of it all int hose terms.

Morally and ethically I see no difference in chosing to move into an area with a good school than paying private. Both are only possible with money in most cases. Therefore both are not promoting equality if you want tot hink of it all int hose terms.

My principles against private education are fairly strong, but I wouldn't take my belief in state education to such an extreme that I would stay living in an area with a 'bad' school to make my point about state education.
I think good state education is far preferable to private education. Ideally everyone would be able to access that, but in the event that it's not actually available everywhere, I can't see that I am copping out of my principles by moving to an area where the schools are good rather than sending DS private.

I do however think the Brighton lottery idea is madness though.

State school has to be based on proximity of home to school surely? How can they expect all children to be capable of getting to any school in the city? And for parents with more than one child to be at several places at any one time. Common sense has to apply!

If money was no object, then neither, actually.

I'd go for home tuition with the BEST (autism specialist) tutors ever, plus someone with bucketloads of training to go with them to all the groups, clubs, schemes etc so they spend lots of time in the company of other children.

flowerybeanbag - so your principles stop once they affect your own child then? Because by choosing to move into a more affluent area, spending more money on housing/location to ensure your child is in the right catchment is akin to paying for their education - just not quite as direct as using private education. What you are doing my making that financial decision is something you do through choice because you are in a position to do so. Others are not as lucky as to be able to afford too - is that fair or right?

You sound like a supportive parent to me Hurlyburly. Like Kathy said, its the kids with parents who really dont give a toss about their education (you dont need an education if your only goal in life is to sign on & pump out more leaches on society) & the poor kids in the same classrooms as them that have the problems. And unfortunately no amount of extra funding will help there.

Flowery, imagine an area with an excellent comprehensive, where all the houses cost £700 000. Hence the children are all from upper middle class backgrounds. The school has fabulous facilities because there are so many rich parents who fundraise for it. The school ends up being just as exclusive as the local private schools - in fact, more so because they at least have a few scholarships. How would that be any better morally than a private school?

I am not talking about choosing between two area with broadly similar house prices, one of which has a slightly better school than another. I'm talking about catchment areas which really do price the less wealthy out of the good schools. I think the system is really problematic - no less so than private/state, and there is a fundamental dishonesty to it because it conceals the fact that access to the good schools is all about money.

No, my principles don't stop when it comes to my child. If my principles stopped I would send him private.
No it's not fair or right that everyone doesn't have excellent state education in their area, but as I say, I am not so militant about it that I would stay in an area with 'bad' schools to make my point.

You are right, I am lucky to be in a position where I can afford to check the schools locally before buying a house and only buy in an area where I think the schools are good. I know that, but when choosing somewhere to live, paying no regard to local schools when deciding where to move to because they 'should' always be good enough would be cutting off my nose to spite my face I think.

In an ideal world excellent state education would be available to all, and I support the state system rather than opting out of it. But I do not accept that looking at local schools when choosing where to live and selecting an area because there is a good school is morally the same as paying for private education, I'm sorry I just can't see it!

Kathy I wouldn't move somewhere where the catchment area of a school was only £700k houses either, for the reasons you mentioned. A good social balance as well as a good quality of education is what I want for DS.

"But I do not accept that looking at local schools when choosing where to live and selecting an area because there is a good school is morally the same as paying for private education, I'm sorry I just can't see it! "

I agree, it's not - there's a continuum depending on how financially prohibitive the house prices are and how much difference there is between the schools. The example I gave would be, but in most cases it's more of a grey area, I think.

x-posts!

PMSl that its just lack of parental support in failing schools!

It is so many factors! True some aprents will ahve moved away toa ccess better schools and they may be the most concerned, but its so much wider than that! All the schools I know that are'worse' have higher numbers of SN kids for a start- as do the council estates they tend to serve (ime of my home town), at least aprtly imo because sn often has a genetic component. Lower income famillies often dont ahve cars which restrict school choices, the aprticular twon I know of also ahs a disproportionate number of shift woprkers (warehousing mainly) who struggle toa ccess childcare etc and need the closest school to Nan / whatewver. Choice isn't something that is universally available by any means.

Also, failings chool is only failing on results.... happiests chool I know isn't stunning results wise and serves a realtively disadvantaged community- goodness if only I could get my kids there each day, we had a looka round and boy was it a great school in terms of community spirit, flexibility, childcare (our school would be useless if you couldnt collect or pay a Nanny- no care at all in place)- school just seemed so fun there!

But deciding to move out of an area because a school is bad is, IMO, the same morally. You are opting out. You are making the decision to chose, and pay out financially, to give your child a better education than the child next door.

Loads of people mover here fr the school by the way- tiny catchment. personally I think they have a narrow definition of 'good', s,art uniform and well known old name not being worth anything much in the long term.

Hulababy I give up. I have explained my principles, what I think and why I disagree that when choosing where to live, picking somewhere with a good state school is not morally the same as paying for private eduation.
We must agree to disagree!

disagree that it is morally the same