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?

Well that's one view, yes. Not sure it's the answer though is it. If parents of seriously disbled children had no state provision, and had to buy into specialist provision if they could afford it, then I doubt appropriate state provision would ever develop.

don't disabled children already get help from the state?

I don't think emotive hypotheticals are very productive.

I'm going right back to your op alfiesbabe

I think sport and music are both invaluable.

When I was at grammar school we played competitive team sport rigorously right through the school.

The lack of this provision in the state system today is one of the big deciding factors for my choice of sending dd to private school.

Likewise, musical opportunities.

'don't think emotive hypotheticals are very productive. ' - don't understand why you think this is emotional.
Yes, a child with a severe disability can have a statement of SEN which names a specialist school which the child then attends, paid for by the state.
Why should a child with a SEN at the other end of the spectrum (eg extreme musical or sporting ability) not have a parallel state provision?

Alfiesbabe, economic apartheid will always exist.

To an extent, yes, of course it will. Doesn't make it right, and doesn't mean society shouldnt be doing all it can to close the gap.

Your view is naive in the extreme

Cam, that's really quite offensive. It's not naive to try to right an injustice, even though you know it'll never totally be resolved.

Thanks Habbibu, though I'm not offended. To call a view 'naive' usually just means you don't have a good counter argument!!

I was about to write that I completely agreed with you, alfiesbabe, but Cam posted first, and it irked me. I agree with you, as that kind of statement is hardly addressing the point.

I agree Habbibu. Surely a big part of life is about trying to work towards a better, more equitable society? I guess there are some people for whom life is all about 'me me me' - ie:top priority is earn lots of money and to hell with everyone else. The cultural shift in the 80s fuelled by Thatcher certainly tried to promote this. But generally I think most people want a fuller life than one where they just think about themselves, which is why, thankfully, many people do care about injustices.

Not meaning to be offensive. Yes naive because it will always be so. And was even in communist regimes which in theory did provide the same chance for all.

But alfiesbabe you are also arguing from the point of someone whose son has already benefited from the private sector

So therefore difficult to take you seriously

Well why bother posting then Cam?? My OP was quite upfront. Yes, my ds has a musical talent that enabled him to sing in one of the top choirs in the country.He needed to attend to a private school to enable him to achieve that. There was no choice. That is inherently wrong - his place should not have been dependent on whether we could afford to pay. Now that he has left the choir, I do not think he benefits from the private school system.
If you feel that you cannot take me seriously because of this, then that's your opinion. But I started the thread because I am genuinely interested in other people's responses. There seems little point in responding, if you are going to turn around 21 pages later and say you can't take me seriously anyway!!

But it's not naive! God Lord, Cam, she's already accepted that the injustice will always remain to an extent. Do you apply that principle across the board, Cam - well, I needn't bother making any efforts to oppose social injustice, because it can't be changed? You might call someone idealistic, and that's possibly true, but less offensive, but wanting to change something even though you know you can't fix it all is not naive.

You also say your husband teaches in the private school that you son went to, but that you would like all private schools to be abolished.

I think if you want to be taken seriously you should live to your own views.

Alfiesbabe, one of the problems I have with private schooling (and yes, Cam, been to one briefly myself), is that the parents who might have the energy, commitment, loud voices and general clout to really make a difference to their own child's state school are often the ones who choose to go private. And I get this, I do - I understand why you might put your own child's immediate needs over that of wider society, but it isn't simply, oh, I pay twice, therefore I'm doing good - there's so much more than money involved.

Cam, do you always live up to your principles? Always?

To be honest that kind of defeatist attitude is why people dont bother to vote or take a role in a democracy.

Kim Snape who won a battle to study GCSE french didn't listen to that kind of argument.

Cardiff schoolgirl Natalie Vaughan has got the Welsh Assembly to plant a tree for every child born in Wales in order to help global warming.

The schoolgirl who wrote to george bush about planting trees and got a million planted when he didn't respond didn't give up.

These are children and there are countless other examples of people called Naive who didn't listen or give up.

I'd be surprised if anyone could come up with the figures to prove that all top musicians and sportsmen/women went to private schools. My childminder's daughter has just been offered places at several different music colleges - I remember the Birmingham Conservatoire is one but forget the others - and she is from a state school.

So it is not true that if your child has a talent for music, or sport, you have to send them to a private school. (I guess choristers are a special case.) My ds's state primary certainly offers music lessons from their own staff and from outside teachers.

'I think if you want to be taken seriously you should live to your own views' - interesting one isnt it? If he hadn't chosen to become a teacher, but became, say, a self-employed builder, then he would not be working in the public sector. So, is it better to become a self employed builder than to be a teacher who works in the private sector..... You see, life isn't black and white is it? Most of life is shades of grey, which is why it makes for interesting debate. Yes, DH currently teaches in the private sector. He taught for many years in the state sector previously, and is returning (through a promotion) to the state sector in Sept. Part of his reason for wanting to experience the private sector was because without having first hand knowledge, it is more difficult to be able to see the pros and cons. Having experienced it, it has if anything, reinforced his belief in wanting to use his (very considerable) skills in the state sector.

I agree edam and my kids who are talented at ballet would not be going to a special school until they are much older as the opportunities outside that narrow frame are limited.

I have explored white lodge for my eldest but wont send her there because the academic side is so poor.

Just because a child shows talent in one area does not necessarily mean that they have to go to a special school and much of the added value can be achieved from out of school activities and paying for top tuition at good classes.

edam - yes, One of the conditions of being a chorister at ds's school was having to attend the attached Cathedral school. It isn't the case for every Cathedral choir, but for many.

glitterfairy - thank you. It's good to know not everyone equates trying to improve society with being 'naive'.

Sorry, completely fsiling to see how you have improved society by your son and husband leaving the private sector (now it is " no longer any use to you ", in your own words)

fsiling = failing