Would you pay for private education when there is a very good state alternative?

[alfiesbabe]

I know this is a contentious issue, but am really interested to hear other people's views. Our situation: have just moved DS (Yr 9)from private to local state school. (His choice). He had been on a scholarship as a chorister, and finished in the choir, but money wasn't an issue as DH teaches in the private school so we paid peanuts for fees. DS is really happy and likes the wider range of students. He is in top sets for most subjects and reports back that the work is more challenging and behaviour better than was the case in his previous class. He gets less homework, but to my mind what he does get is more relevant (eg in maths he might get set 5 questions to test that he has understood a teaching point, whereas at the private school he'd be set several pages of the same type of question). Results wise, the private school had 85% 5 A-C passes, the state school had 72%. Bearing in mind the state school has the full ability range, whereas the private school is selective, this smacks to me of better teaching in the state school. It seems like a very small difference considering parents are paying about 12K a year for the private school. A-level results are similar - statistically the private school is a little better, but not by much. The private school offers more in the way of music and sport; but DS has gone as far as he wants with music for the moment and isnt bothered about sport. I'm not looking for validation of our choice - we know we've made the right decision - but I'm left with this feeling of 'What were we actually paying school fees for?' The experience as a chorister was valuable, but I can't get my head round parents who pay the full whack, specially if their child isnt musical or sporty. I'm aware that our local state school is outstanding and we're very lucky in this respect. So.... why WOULD anyone pay for private in this situation?

take your capitals off CALM DOWN

Still no answer to the question

What do house prices have to do with independent schools?

maybe a tenuous link egg prices & fuel consumption eh no link then

'Alfie, would you please answer the question

Either we are all mad to spend the money, in which case why does it bother you, or the private system can offer a better standard of education

Which is it? '
Quattro - I started the post because I was interested in getting other people's answers to the question!! Honestly, did you read the OP or not?! My answer is :
a) No, the private system doesnt offer an inherently better education
b) In some cases, a private school may be better than the local state schools
c) A good state school which achieves good GCSE and A levels is IMO better than a private school with similar results
d) I think a (very)small number of private school parents are prejudiced snobs who just can't contemplate sending their kids anywhere else.
e) I think some parents lack confidence in the state system to enable their children to achieve and therefore pay
f) some children have very specific talents/needs that cannot be met in a mainstream school.

Phew!!

evelyn - 'having a social conscience' - now there's a phrase we don't hear enough of these days! Good for your uncle One of my colleagues graduated from Oxford recently- she's a NQT, amazingly clever but very unassuming about it. She's a fab teacher too.

So private schools are better then?

scienceteacher - clearly not, as you seem unable to read my reply

sorry, just read the bit about unmet needs...

i have heaps off "social conscience" does not disbar me from choosing independent school does it? i think not.

I dunno if Alfie is the product of a state education but she doesn't seem to be able to answer a simple question...

my social conscience means i pay for a service i don't access - my social conscience barometer creeps higher and higher - where's my halo

Alfie does not believe that the private system offers an inherently better education.

So I am paying lots of money unnecessarily. That's Alfie's opinion and that is fine.

The missing link for me is how therefore the current provision can be unfair?

Surely if a fool and her money are easily parted, this does not constitute unfairness?

Dds 1 and 2 go to local state grammar which has best results in the area. Ds is Y6 and has taken 11 plus and local private school entrance. I'd prefer grammar but he's dyslexic and I really hope he'll get in on appeal if not by exam.
Only alternative is private school - quite like it and good results but I resent paying just because other schools won't offer ds support in SN as he's not "dyslexic enough" - will leave primary at level 4ish therefore average, therefore given no help. Grrrr. This is my soapbox of the moment.

'I dunno if Alfie is the product of a state education but she doesn't seem to be able to answer a simple question...

• yes, I was state educated. Nice to know Quattro, that you hold 93% of the population in such high regard.Amazingly, isnt't it, that I still managed to get to Univerisity without having shitloads of money spent on me

No, I don't think privae schools are inherently better. The current education system in this country is unfair as I described at length above. These two statements are NOT contradictary. The system within STATE education is unfair, because many parents are not able to exercise any real choice, due house prices in certain catchment areas being pushed beyond their reach. I'm really not sure which of the above points you don't understand.

So fairness has nothing to do with private schools?

To return to my OP, I would add: there are a number of specialist private schools, like the specialist music school ds attended, which cater for a very specific need. They produce the top musicians of the future, and a state comprehensive would NOT be able to fulfil this role. It's parallel really to the way that some severe SEN children cannot acccess mainstream education - there are (a few) very specific needs or talents that need specialist provision.
However, even here, I would say that the provision is unfair. Choristers at ds's school get a 50% discount. That means that a lot of talented children with the ability to get a scholarship still cannot afford to go. IMO that is wrong.
The reason for writing the OP, was that although ds needed specialist provision to be a chorister, once he left the choir, we realised that the private school was not offering anything over and above the local state school. Which led me to wonder why people choose to pay in this situation. (Most pupils at the school pay full fees. The specialists on scholarships are in a minority). My thoughts, as I outlined above, are that perhaps some parents lack confidence in the state sector and feel that by throwing money at something, they're guaranteed to get a better deal.
The OP was about a very specific situation. I wanted to know why some parents still choose to pay, even though they have a high achieveing state school on their doorstep. If the alternative for ds was a school with, say, a 30% pass rate and a culture of non-achievement and disruption, then I wouldnt send him there. I'd probably move house into a better catchment area, because I can afford to do so. Which is fine for me, but does not solve the problem for everyone else. Which brings me back to the point about the education system being unfair.

scottishmummy, out of interest, if a government were to offer you a rebate on the amount of tax you pay which goes towards the state system, would you refuse this?

crossed posts scienceteacher - the education system is unfair regardless of private schools as I explain above.
I also think there is unfairness within the private school system because if a child has a specific need/talent which the school is specifically designed to meet, then money should not bar the child from attending.
Look at it this way - if I had a severe SEN child who needed to be in a specialist school, not mainstream, if my child was statemented and given a apecialist place, I would not have to pay for it. Yet if I have a child with a very specific talent which cannot be met in mainstream, I still have to pay. That can't be right. As I said in the OP, for my son, the 50% scholarship plus hefty discount meant we only paid a few hundred pounds per term. But for many people, the 50% scholarship would still leave them having to lay more than they could afford. And that can't be right.

*pay

It seems that the issue is that society as a whole, and government, do not value those specific talents. If they did, they would fund the nurturing of them.

Exactly. In ds's case it was musical ability, and I know there are also a few schools which specialise in a very high level at sport, producing our future olympic athletes etc. My belief is that we should have a comprehensive state system that is high quality and rigorous enough to cater for the vast majority of the population. And then there needs to be specialist provision for these children who have a particular talent - this should be state funded too (so actually i guess my fundamental belief is that private schools should be abolished). In an ideal world, it would all happen under one roof, so you wouldnt need separate schools; however, the reality is that you can't have a top level music/sports provision attached to every local school. So yes, you need a small number of specialist provisions but they should be state funded, not dependent on whether a talented child's parents happen to be well off.

How can you expect it to be state fundede if it is not valued?

I suppose ideally by having a shift in the values of society so that we do value out top sportsmen/women, musicians etc.
I guess if it was seen as a Special Need (as i said before, parallel in a sense to having a child with a severe SEN which means they cannot access mainstream) then maybe society would have a different view.

Meanwhile, be thankful that private schools exist