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?

Ummm .... don't think that's a quote from me! Can't find it anywhere even though you use quotation marks!
My dh is an exceptional teacher, so by using his skills for the benefit of children in a non-selective school he is arguably reaching a broader social mix of children.
My ds is very bright and is predicted to get high exam results - so he'll definitely benefit the league tables though not sure that's a huge benefit for society in the wider scheme of things.

Cam, you are refusing to address the broader argument, and simply making ad hominem replies to alfiesbabe. Why is this?

Alfie - just look at this logically, just for a moment

If you believe that the state/private divide is unfair that can only be because you think that private schools are better.

Your OP was about the state/private divide. It was not about the issue of state/state divides, which do exist and there are a lot of strategies being undertaken to manage this issue.

Your post was specifically about the state/private divide. If you genuinely believe that the state school provision is as good then in no way can you subscribe to the theory that it is unfair.

Me, I think that private schools are better educationally. So yes I do think that the system is unfair. But it's logically impossible to say that private schools are no better and then descry them for being unfair.

'If you believe that the state/private divide is unfair that can only be because you think that private schools are better.'

No Quattro, it does NOT mean I think they are better! I have explained this at length!

For SOME children who have a very specific talent, a private school is the only place that they can fulfil this particular talent. (My ds HAD to attend a private school to get a choral scholarship - there was no option).However, the scholarship only covers half the fees. Therefore the place is still unattainable to many gifted children. That is unfair.

I repeat, I am NOT saying private schools are better. That is a bit like saying my ds is 'better' than his sister who doesnt have a musical talent and attends a state school - ie bollocks!! The private school was DIFFERENT in that it catered for this particular talent. It doesnt make it better; in fact in terms of the quality of general clasroom teaching it isn't as good as the state school, as I point out in my OP.

There is NOTHING illogical in my post. Just read what's there rather than what you imagine is there!

But there are very few state schools that get the GCSE esults of the independent schools. And very few that can equal the environment. None match the class sizes. So for the people who choose private, the state alternative isn't a viable alternative. It's a totally different sort of offering.

And stop beating yourself up about the fact that your ds accessed a better education for several years, despite your "principles"

Its ok to be a hypocrite, we all are

Believe you me I have read what you have written and your arguments are all over the place. You'd never make it as a lawyer alfiesbabe - but then again - who in their right minds would want to?

Fine so what you are now saying is unfair is the fact that musical education has been largely abandoned in state schools and for real talent there is no provision. Oh yes, I agree that's unfair. I note that you could only get the musical education and support at a private school, so in that regard at least you are acknowledging that the private school did cater for needs in a way that a state school couldn't.

Absolutely NFK. I don't think the facts are under dispute. Independent schools usually get better raw scores because they are academically selective. A more able child is like to get better GCSEs than a less able one!
Class sizes are often smaller in a private school- yes.
Environment CAN be better, though not always. DS's previous school had some beautiful buiildings but also some crappy classrooms and god awful tatty common rooms.
Whether raw score exam results, smaller class sizes etc make a school inherently better is another issue altogether. I think inspirational teaching and a child's happiness and ability to fot into society are more important - and these are the things that are much less easy to measure.

Personally,I think there is a class size at which teaching and learning becomes a challenge rather than a joy. And the state sector is well over that limit.

I also think an average to dim child will get better GCSE results in an independent school than he or she would in the state sector. Not all independent schools are selective.

Beautiful buildings are not everyting I grant you. But I am awware of environmenn. Our dilemma is whether it's worth moving to a crappy area to free up money for school fees. And I do think the fact that we currently live somewhere attractive offers something valuable to a child. And to me of course. Architectural beauty isn't nothing. A cherished environment says something to the people who use it. I think so anyway.

Lol Quattro - Ok chuck out the insults now that you are eventually conceding that my argument is entirely logical!!
Yes, the private school was 'better' at enabling my ds to be a chorister - as it was the ONLY school that could enable him to do that! To move from that fact to saying that 'all private schools are better' is rubbish and not something I have argued at all.
Do you have a problem with lawyers or something now?? I know quite a few, some excellent, some crap. I guess they are in their right minds when they choose to enter that profession.

Speak for yourself Cam - as I keep pointing out, I don't think my ds's education was better. I think he attended a particular school because he had to, to be a chorister. The education is better where he is now.

It's an injustice that children go to state schools? Why is this? Where is the injustice, exactly?

ScienceTeacher - who said it's an injustice that children go to state schools?
I said it is an injustice to only be able to fulfil a particular talent by having parents who can afford to pay.

Let's dispell another myth about the independent sector...

They are not all academically selective. They educate a cross section of society, namely the children of those parents who value education and the various added benefits of independent schools (eg extra curricular opportunities and even wrap-around childcare).

On average, these children may be a bit brighter than society as a whole, but the full ability range is there - top to bottom.

My own school is not academically selective. We have a broadly comprehensive intake, which is probably skewed lower than many independent and comprehensive schools. This is because we have some excellent selective schools in our area that inevitably cream off some of the top pupils (we still have some extremely clever girls, and send them off to Oxbridge, etc.).

Our GCSE results are similar to the 'outstanding in every OFSTED category' school in our borough, and A-level results exceed by a lot. This adds up to a trememdous added-value score, even in light of our relatively priviledged intake, and a much more pleasant educational experience to boot.

So let's dispell the myth that independent schools only teach clever kids - they don't - they teach all abilities, and do very well by them.

They educate the children of parents who value education and can afford to pay the fees. It is important to keep making that last point. It's hard for people who want the very best for their children to feel that they're not in the valuing education camp when the reality is they don't have the cash.

I don't think anyone has stated that all private schools are academically selective. A lot of them are though. Even if they accept average ability children, they don't necessarily accept below average.
And as NKF states, the biggest selective factor of all is having the money to pay for it.

No problem with lawyers - am one myself and married one - does make me wonder why anyone would ever want to be one.

Seriously though, your arguments were a bit all over the shop. I've always said that private schools were unfair. What I couldn't understand is someone arguing that they were unfair but not better? How can it be relevant whether or not they are unfair unless they are better?

I think the non selective private schools accept children they know they can work with (and whose parents can afford the fees. That's a form of choice the state sector doesn't have.

Quattro - do you really think it is a black and white question then? That either private or state is 'better'? Because if so, then YOU have made that assumption not me! If the only way a musically talented child can become a chorister is through paying to attend a private school, then of course the system is unfair! It doesn't mean the school is better - in our case it was non-negotiable. The chorister's contracts state that they have to attend this school.

As a lawyer, surely you can follow that argument?! Goodness, if I was being really bitchy I'd say you'd never make a good teacher......

Of course science teacher. Mine are at a selective school which is why I was talking about selectivity. There is a downside to academic selection in that it becomes truly hard for a bright child to realise how bright they are in the scheme of things and does have a knock-on effect in terms of their confidence.

"ScienceTeacher - who said it's an injustice that children go to state schools?
I said it is an injustice to only be able to fulfil a particular talent by having parents who can afford to pay. "

Are you serious? Where is the entitlement for a talent to be nurtured at public expense? Why should the public pay for the education of those who sing in cathedrals? Arguably, these children do not provide any long term public benefit, especially if they quit the programme.

If you can't afford the fees, NKF, the argument is moot. This debate is really only targeted at those who can afford fees, and therefore have more choices as to where the can send their children.

It's commonly held view that "the state sector is just as good" whilst at the same time lamenting that "the private system is unfair". Commonly-held but entirely illogical.

What I was trying somewhat hamfistedly to do was to get you to see that the two points of view are contradictory.

This whole thing has become very emotive for you, I think. It's an emotional position to feel that as a parent you were unable to fulfill the educational needs of your child without a subsidy. I feel the pressure of the school fees myself.

All we do as parents is the best we can.

Is it Science Teacher? I didn't realise that. I'm not sure you're right though. The debate is surely targeted at everyone who has an opinon in answer to the question "Would you pay for....?" Afer all, the OP was framed in a speculative way, not as "what did you do...?" addressed only to people who had the necessay income. done.

LOl scienceteacher. I have no problem with the state paying for educating talented musicians or singers for that matter but choral education is rather particular. I think all talent should be nurtured at public expense which includes scientific, sporting and theatrical talent.

Many parents pay for this so the system is also unfair here even in the state sector. There are few schools which pay for gymnastic talent to be nurtured for example but many parents trudge huge distances and pay vast amounts to get their kids into clubs which will nurture that talent.

Also quattro whilst I see where you are coming from I think that private education may or may not be better in terms of education but is unfair because it enables smaller classes and better facilities (which are better and nicer). I would argue that the teaching is sometimes worse than the state sector and occasionally better.

It is unfair because of they pay for smaller classes and better facilities and these should be paid for out of the public purse for all children.

I dont think we disagree here by the way.