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.

With respect, Hulababy: RUBBISH. Every one has to live somewhere and is entitled to choose how to spend their own money on accommodation available. I don't agree that private education is a particularly unethical choice just because not every one can afford it. However, the issue of charitable status is another matter, but let's not get into that one. People who pay for private education are paying twice: once in the fees to the school, and again through taxes to support the state system. And more fool them, say I. Although if that's how they choose to spend their own money who am I to stop them?

Elasticwoman - I think you have the wrong end of my arguement here. I am someone who paid out financially to move to a dearer area to ensure a good catchment AND then chose not to use it and to pay out for private anyway!

You are being somewhat disingenuous elasticwoman.

You are exercising a choice through having the financial ability to do so whether you think/say you are or not

The 'best' state primary in our town has outstanding in every area, but I didn't even send for a prospectus.

I know a few people who have/have had children there and the ofsted report is def not accurate regarding pastoral care, special needs support, friendliness and lack of bullying..... Good academically tho (but def not outstanding).

I don't think that paying for private ed is the same as buying a house in the catchment for a good state primary. And I don't disagree with either. Why should anyone be made to feel guilty for trying to provide the best that's out there (in their opinion) for their children ? State education is the responsibility of the state. If the local school is crap, it is not my responsibility to send my DS there, spend a few hours a week listening to the class reading, fundraise like mad, etc etc, to get standards up.

Here's the most vomitworthy post I have ever read on MNET, on this very subject, no less:

"There are parents who take a fully informed decision to send their children to their local school, even when it is really not very good. I will be in that position when DS1 starts junior school.

SO many issues around social justice rely on individuals making brave personal decisions that seem totally pointless at the time. Rosa Parks, anyone?"

Now the mention of the civil rights movement - by some (I imagine) dodgy white old fashioned trotskyite did make me see red. But look at it as an argument. At least it's logical and PRINCIPLED.

All this mealy mouthed hypocritical stuff about buying a house in a good area, with a good school ...

with a good G&T programme, well away from a council estate, not too many SN children, white children in the majority, and PRAYING to avoid Poles and the asylum seekers ...

It's not a good place to be, is it?

All together now - We shall overcome

I do not deny exercising choice, Cammelia. How am I being disingenuous?

Hula I am merely disagreeing with you when you say that there is morally and ethically anything wrong with making a financial decision that others cannot afford. That is what you said, isn't it?

Whether private education should exist at all in its present state, is another question. The fact is, it does exist and therefore I see no reason why people shouldn't use it. I personally don't want to use it, but am also quite glad that it's financially out of the question for us, so I don't have to agonise about whether I'm making the right decision.

When buying a house, or deciding to rent, people take many, many factors into consideration, of which educational opportunities for their children are only one.

I don't think that's vomitworthy at all, actually. (In fact, was it my post?)

That seems to be about the size of it hurlyburly

No it wasn't your post. Please don't start me on why that post is so despicable. Let's just say Islington or Hackney socialists who chose to patronise (advisedly) their local schools have about as much in common with Rosa Parks as I do with the Queen. Which is not a lot, frankly. But Rosa Parks aside, it is a principled position. Not many people on this thread are making that argument, are they?

Well, I am a Hackney Guardianista and yes, my DSs go to the nearest state school. So far, we are walking the walk.

I still have the heeby-jeebies about secondary school, though, I must admit [scared face].

Well said, Sobernow. Which reminds me, there is some Goldwasser downstairs calling to me.

I don't think hurlyburly is putting forward her own point of view, rather that of the house-movers to "good" catchment areas

Oh sorry (note to self, read thread, Dinosaur)

Thanks Cammelia.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a house-mover - I think moving house and then "supporting" your local state school is a morally dubious position.

And for the avoidance of any further doubt, I revere and admire Rosa Parks.

Lil "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!!!"

I've got news for you Lil. Children who have the misfortune of going to poor schools can come out with good grades. Similarly, children who get the best education in the world, can come out with crap grades. Royal family anyone?

This belief that children can only get a good education if they go private or go to the best state school is absolute codswallop. Many of those schools pre-select their pupils and hot-house them to pass exams anyway.

You cannot use Royal Family as an example, sorry.

They're mostly inbred which must affect brain activity.

Actually, I have no idea how 'clever' The Royal Family are...

I don't believe that just because a child has gone to a good school like a private one, him or her will automatically get grate grades/job/money/life. I believe it's what the pupil puts into their work that matters.

So many young people do well at school and go to college and uni and come out with top grades but end up in a dead end job

Some leave school with no grades and go on to acheive alot and climb the career ladder. Grades aren't everything, it all depends on how much you are willing to put in imo.

Personally, I think a good education is about much more than grades/exam results.

I am a little amused tho that people seem to defend state schools by going along these lines, yet criticise private/public schools by pointing out that they don't always get top grades.

97% ?

Really ?

Is that taking into consideration an F grade at GCSE as a pass ?