Private schools are a bloody great rip-off

[fillipo]

and I should know because I used to teach in one!! I'm an English teacher, taught for 8 years in 2 different independent schools and then took the plunge and got a promotion into the state sector in September. It's like a breath of fresh air! And I've moved into the 21st century! Can't understand why I took so long to take the plunge. The teaching staff are on the whole far more professional - they don't have the complacency that some of my former colleagues had. Lessons are vibrant and interesting, the pupils are well behaved and interested. And it's free!! Well paid for through taxes but you know what i mean. Now I fully expect I'll be shouted down by lots of people telling me i'm wrong, but I don't understand why anyone pays for a private education when the alternative seems just as good.

our primary failed its last ofsted, due to bad teaching in ks1, and poor resources etc, but has now just been passed off as good with some as excellent.I wouldn't have dreamed of moving my 3 children, as it has a great warm atmosphere, caring teachers, good links with the community, it's nice ro be able to walk to school etc. It did my elder son no harm, as he passed his 11+ and is now at a grammer school. I think sometimes there is more to a school than what you read, until you try it, you can't comment.

And how do you feel about your daughters?

Personally, I'd like my daughter to find a partner with an interesting, responsible and well paid job, so that she will be able to make choices in her life - such as whether to stop working when her children are little. I hope that she won't be forced into working every hour of every day all her life.

love and affection definitely.

and maybe the perspective that it's unkind and unacceptable to be disparaging and hurtful about "thick" people

I want her to marry the local famous actors/footballers son who live nearby.

then she can wear Chloe shades, go to Harvey Nicks and have a life of glamour beyond her wildest dreams

My MIL is a community safety / crime prevention officer in Oxfordshire. She certainly doesn't describe Abingdon as a "quiet, middle class and serene little town". In fact I must remember to tell her I saw it described that way...

Declaring my possible interest, DS will probably be going to a private primary (pre-prep) school. Our reasons for choosing it are:

• smaller class sizes
• more "homely" atmosphere
• no SATS
• specialist music, maths, language and science teaching
• not selective so there will be a broad range of ability
• some male teachers (no guarantee they'll still be there when he starts, of course, even though staff turnover ratess are low, but I like the idea that teaching won't be seen as "women's work" and that there will be male role models available).

When he's done a couple of years there we'll think about what school (state or private) might suit him as an individual for the next stage.

My mother is a state primary school teacher and DH and I both went through the state system. I am concerned by the amount of focus on SATS, by the lack of funding for proper support of children with SN and what sometimes seems like a narrowing down of the curriculum that doesn't allow the same range of exploration I'd like to see.

the difference between good schools and bad schools in either sector is parental input imo.

At private schools there is more reason for parents to get involved in school life- financial investment via the fees.

State schools, although most parents will happily co-operate with the school and contribute to the community, there are unfortunatly some parents who couldn't care less- after all its free education- why should they have to do anything!!

LOL@ Abingdon being a "quiet, middle class and serene little town". DP works with a lot of businesses in the Abingdon area and I'm sure that isnt how he would describe it.

I live in Bicester, Oxfordshire, and my DD goes to a wonderful primary school. It isnt the closest to us as we have recently moved, but the closest to us didnt have the best ofsted report (everything was adequate) Not all state schools in any area are bad, but then nor are all private schools. I doubt any parents who pay to educte their children send them to the first school they come across, money provides more choice is all.

1. Yes, some of us pick careers that will enable us to buy a certain life style, which will buy our children a lovely home, nice hobbies, buy us time with them, help with cleaning and lovely schools. When I decided to do what I do rather than be a nun or a teacher yes the money was one of the factors but not because I want to spend it on shoes or whatever although being able to do that is nice sometimes too but because I wanted the ease of life and choice of schools you get with money (and of course it frees you up to give more to charity to so it's win win where we pick good jobs where there is a choice).

2. 5 children at private schools and funded at university has not been cheap even at day schools but I can't think what else I'd have liked to spend the money on that I would have felt benefited them and us so much.

3. Holidays - if you have a lot of children then you would be hard pushed to spend the school fees on holidays. It's it's £10 a year day school fees x 5 or whatever that's quite a bit of holidaying but yes £5k a holiday is less than when we go skiing etc but that's because there are so many of us.The biggest most fun indulgence of all which money buys you is a lovely large family.

Saw the piece in the times, xenia. I have also read several of the education threads before. My local state school has 32% 5 GCSEs at A-C. (westminster). Absolutely no bloody way my kids are going there.

Perhaps someone can explain to me why middle class parents owe it to society to send their kids to their local state school? That seems to be the opinion shared by quite a lot of MNetters.

I don't think middle class families owe it to society to send their children to state schools but I must admit that I do wish that more in our area would send their children to our local comprehensive as I am sure it would improve results. The state primaries in our area are very good and oversubscribed, the secondary school is very average (around 60% get 5 good GCSE passes) the secondary school includes the neighbouring town in its catchment area as so many local children transfer to private schools for their secondary education. I'm sure if more parents kept their children in the state system for secondary schooling our local school would improve considerably.

suey2

The argument goes that if middle-class parents did not withdraw their privileged and well-supported children from the state education sector, then the state sector would average pupil would be more affluent/better supported/more intelligent and children whose parents could only afford state education would benefit from the rise in standards.

There is a counter argument that the greatest good to society as a whole comes about when children are developed to their fullest potential and parents who can afford better education than that offered by the state should therefore be free to purchase it.

Left versus right... where lies the answer?

I don't think I've ever read that argument on MN. But anyway, I think this debate becomes raw because it reveals a great deal of information about money and assumptions and someone is likely to be either exasperated or annoyed by that. For example, in real life, most people wouldn't announce to a crowded room that they thought £5k was a standard amount for a family holiday. They'd keep that information for the crowd that does think it's a reasonable amount. So many of the comments are a bit overt and insensitive. But that's part of the problem -- and appeal - of public forums.

Personally if I could comfortably afford private schooling, i probably would, same as if I could afford private healthcare I would pay for it too. Partly because it would ease the pressure on the other schools/NHS etc.

" don't spoonfeed them into achieving inflated grades which make them appear cleverer than they really are."

do private schools do that - how fab, I'd definitely choose one for dd1 then

Lorayn, I think you are right about the NHS but I don't think that that would necessarily be the case for schools for the reasons oulined by Anna.

NKF - don't you think that an awful lot of the "sensitive" issues on MN are actually sensitive because people's choices (or lack of choice) are conditioned by their income?

Well tbh, I dont know much about how schools get budgets etc, but assuming the education system had less children to educate then class sizes would be smaller and children would be able to have mroe one-to-one time with the teacher.
However, it would probably just mean the funding was lessened, unfortunately.

you see, that is what i don't understand. Yes more affluent by definition. But no to more intelligent or more supported. I don't see that either of those attributes are class based. Frankly my DPs would have been extremely offended to be told that they were not supportive or that their children were not intelligent. (neither went to private school, college or uni) My DBs and I all went to the local comp.

So am I right in saying that middle class parents (of whom I will shortly be one) are expected to sacrifice the aspirations and achievements of their own children for the sake of parents who are less supportive and who have less intelligent children?

Ihategreedy - yes I think that's right.

By purchasing private healthcare, you do not avail yourself of NHS money and that money remains in the NHS and is available for other people.

By purchasing private education, you may relieve the state of the cost of educating your child but you also deprive other children of the positive educational influence of your carefully-reared middle-class child.

However, I believe parents ought to think first and foremost about their own children and if private education will develop their children better than state, they should be free to purchase it if they wish - and not feel guilty . But I don't think they ought to crow about it either or feel morally superior, because they aren't. They are just luckier to have the choice.

but why would going private lessen the burden on the NHS. they use the same consultants, surely private hospitals are making the nhs in the state it is?

confused.

southeastastra -

If the NHS has a budget of 100 per annum with which to treat 100 patients per annum, but 5 of those patients decide to purchase private healthcare, that leaves an NHS budget of 100 to treat 95 patients. So more money per patient.

Anna8888 - yes but I also think that in real life, women often talk in a slightly self deprecating way in each other's company. On MN, they say what they feel and self approve their choices in a way that is rather fascinating.

suey2 - well, it's debatable, but many people would say that middle-class children are on average better supported than less affluent children (better food, larger homes with own bedroom, more parental time and attention etc) and more intelligent because their parents are more affluent and it may therefore be assumed more intelligent. There is a correlation between intelligence and affluence.

yes but the doctors and consultants work in both private and nhs services don't they?

so nhs patients have to wait for an available dr, who is rushing off to his private practise. or have i got that wrong.

NKF - I think that women meet other women on MN who they would just never come across in RL. Not that they behave differently here to RL.