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.

I agree - we will have to agree to disagree I'm afriad.

private, definitely.

I agree with you in essence, Hulababy, but I think there is probably room for a few more shades of grey.

The key thing for me would be supporting a school which has a genuinely comprehensive intake and a genuinely comprehensive ethos, and I don't see anything immoral about moving to an area in order to send your DCs to a school like that.

Private schools are, obviously, a million miles away from that ethos and therefore to me are to be avoided unless there is no viable alternative.

And reading my post again clearly I can't spell education either.
Maybe it's because I didn't go to private school

I think all the boundaries are blurry, frankly.

By moving to a "good" area, Flowery is spending money to advantage her DCs which must be ideologically unsound.

What about the thread where the parents are paying for coaching to get through the 11 plus? That sounds a bit dodgy ideologically, doesn't it?

It's not hard and fast, is it? In the end we all do the best we can for our DCs.

I agree with Hulababy. Of course its the same.

I don't understand what could possibly be "grey" ethically.

If you are socialist you will believe that all children should go to their nearest state comprehensive in order to ensure that no child is privileged over another by the schooling he/she receives. You might also insist that everyone lived in identical housing that was allocated randomly to ensure no-one was getting any favours.

If you are liberal and democratic, you provide education for all out of taxed income but you let those who are able make other choices if they so wish.

In that case I am liberal and democratic, perfectly happy for everyone to make whatever choice they feel appropriate for their own dcs.
Identical housing sounds a bit communist rather than socialist though, but that's another discussion entirely!

What about healthcare? Do those of you who think that private education is morally wrong also feel that way about private healthcare? And, by the same token, is it morally wrong to move house to be in an area better served by hospitals etc? Which is worse - paying for private healthcare or moving house?

I have three educated privately and one at state. Depends on the child and the school.

As a private school teacher I find it really weird when parents talk as if sending their child to a good private school is tantamount to committing an antisocial sin.

This site is all about doing the best for your kids, and after patting yourself on the back about what age they begin to walk and talk, debating how much tv they get to stimulate them.... you're then willing to give them any old education to support some bizarre notion that paying for education is different from paying for that more expensive car, those nicer than everage clothes, that expensive organic food.

If you can afford to send your kids to a good school then its your parental duty to do so, wether it be state or private. your kids won't thank you if they get crap grades!!!

Lil - I agree entirely. What's more, buying your children a great education seems to me to be morally superior to lots of other ways of spending money - big cars, lots of clothes, restaurants etc

Same concerns as bossykate a bit further down. Private for the in-house facilities, extracurricular activities and wraparound childcare.

I am a working mum and the patchy breakfast clubs and afterschool clubs and long waitlists at dd's potential state primary school are a nightmare.

I never understand the extracurricular activities argument though - you can do those outside of school quite easily. We pay for the boys to do Spanish, football and swimming all outside of school. IMO, it's better than in school as they get to mix with a different group of people.

Wrap around care - I can see how that would be an issue for some. Thank God, not for me - it must be a nightmare.

only if the local schools were rubbish

For me the extra-currciular thing is easier to have at school. Just means less ferrying around. Also means DD can do the activity on my work day - rather than just doing after school club, she gets to do something more exciting/interesting I guess. She does do swimming away from school though, but on one of my days off.

The wrap around care was one of my main concerns with state school when I was looking, as at the time I was working more hours. Our local state school didn't offer a very good system, and childminders round here doing PT after school care were basically non existent.

The extra curricular stuff is good when:
a) it's something you'd never have dreamt of doing out of school in a million years and your child really takes to it. (ds would never have learned cello if it hadn't been offered at school for example).
b) there isn't enough free time after school (including having vegging out & family time) to fit all the activities your child wants to do in.

I agree about the meeting other people being good though. I think one (or more) out of school activity is good for exactly that reason.

When it comes down to it 30 in a class is just a little too many.
private for me, and I like SueW's idea of the nice house in Brighton and the Roedean option, although being a day pupil at a boarding school is not ideal (although better than boarding)

Have just returned to this thread.
Lil, I will not be giving DS 'any old education', that is why I have moved to be near a good state school.
I will be giving him the gift of a good standard of education coupled with the huge benefit in life of an early experience of a wide range of people, and their lives, of reality. Something which I have found absolutely invaluable to me, and something which the many people I have met who have had private education usually lack.
I disagree in principle with paying for education, but much more importantly than that, I genuinely believe that a good state education is better for most children than a private education. So I will be doing what I consider to be the 'best' for my DS.

Sorry but I couldn't let that one go by!

I agree with Hula too - paying for a house in a "good" catchment area no different to staying in your cheaper house and paying for private school.

I sent for 3 prospectus's from local state schools.

They all say exactly the same stuff.

Why is there no variety within state education ?

That is one reason why I would choose private over state.

Queenofquotes - there is all the difference in the world between buying a house in the catchment for the state school you want, and going private. For one thing, you still own the house when they have left school, but you never get the school fees back even if little darlings fail all exams and develop crack habit.

Theodore'smummy: I think the Ofsted report is much more useful than a prospectus.

Elasticwoman - but morally and ethically I still don't think there is. You are still making a deliberate financial choice in order to give your child a better education, that others cannot afford. So in that sense it is, IMO, the same as paying as paying private.

Both ways you are paying out for a (hopefully) better education for your child, soemthing that is not available for all children.