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?

There simply isn't the public will to educate all children in the way that the private sector educates. People wouldn't pay the amount of tax required.

'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. '

ahh right, I'm with you now. It's a 'commonly held 'view, rather than one you are attributing to any particular post. Yes, this statement isn't logical. I've always assumed though, that most people who are against the private system feel that way because they think the state system would be IMPROVED by abolishing private schools. Which is probably true. Individually, yes, we all make our choices, but thinking in terms of society, then yes, of course totally state funded quality provision would be best.
I also think for many people, the fact that there is still to some extent an 'old boys network' whereby it's easier to get into some universities and professions because of the school you've been to rather than because of your intelligence and ability, is an issue.

Fair enough, - but all too often these speculations end with folks saying how they can't afford it, don't have the choice etc.

I agree but think that is probably a different argument about how much we value education as a society.

I think that if we dont understand it and haven't benefited from a "good" education with a supportive home background we will never understand it though so it is a rather circular argument.

By the way I really DON'T think it's an emotional issue. I couldn't fulfil my child's needs without having to send him to a private school. It's bloody annoying rather than emotional. And inherently wrong. And as I've kept saying, I know dh and I are fortunate that we can afford school fees if we choose to pay them - we are professionals who earn decent money (both from state schools backgrounds too . But most people are NOT in this position.

NKF, are we sure there isn't the public will? I mean has the public ever been asked? We all feel that state-education and the facilities therein should be improved.

The thing that puzzles me is that we pay vast amounts in tax, but really we have so little say in how those tax revenues should be spent. I don't want the MPs to get a payrise - they're already getting a goodly whack for unskilled middle management. I don't want money to be wasted on wars. I want money to be spent on education. And you know what, I think those views are entirely mainstream.

But so many times, that's what the decision comes down to - money. Private education has always been desirable for many and financially out of the question for many. I just wanted to make the point that many more people value education than can afford to pay for it. The dividing line between choosing state and choosing private isn't about your views on education but on your means.

The OP of this thread is about those who cam make the choice, not for those who can't.

can

I didn't read it that way to be honest. I read it as Why would anyone in this situation etc not as If you are in this situation why do you?

But I suspect this is splitting hairs. {smile}

Quattro - I think the answer to your last post is that human nature being what it is, people don't generally want to invest in anything that they won't directly benefit from. Any major structural changes to the education system would take years to implement, and those benefiting from the results are as yet unborn. Every generation knows that they have a limited window of opportunity - from the moment they are born, you've basically got 18 years to do your best by your children until they become adults and make their own decisions. Therefore it's very difficult to engage the public in anything that won't directly affect their children in a positive way.
I'm not saying that's how society SHOULD operate, but it's certainly how it does.

Of course it is an emotional issue otherwise you wouldn't have subscribed to something that you state is "inherently wrong"

Amongst the parents at my DCs school there are very few parents in the sort of earning-above-average-but-not-in-six-figures-bracket.

It's either people with successful local businesses or the medics, dentists, lawyers and accountants with family incomes well in excess of £250k a year, some of them earning much much more than that.

Obviously there are some parents counting the pennies carefully and scrimping and scraping and going without, but not many.

I just wanted to post this, in case anyone felt that they should be doing all this scrimping and scraping because, as NKF comments there are many more people who value education than have the means to pay for it.

Quattro - that's interesting. And at least two of those professions you mention are ones where the 'old school' network is rife - ie: the school you went to is significant, not just individual ability and skill. So I suppose the system is just self perpetuating. Unpalatable, but true.

I don't buy that old school tie argument at all. Most people who suggest it exists have no experience of those professions at all.

At work, the entry processes are completely rigorous and independent. There is no way on god's earth that I could secure a post for either of my children. They'd have to complete the forms, the assessment centres, meet the challenging academic requirements, and do well at interview. Then they might, just might get a place. It has absolutely nothing to do with what school you went to.

When I interview people, I don't look at the academics (those will be of the required standard to get to interview). I look for independent thought, ease of manner, ability to influence, evidence of leadership and hunger and drive to succeed.

more misconceptions, alfie

The other thing that is important to me (and the organisation as a whole) is diversity and breadth for the team. Interviewing graduates is different here than experienced hire interviewing. I don't normally interview graduates. For experienced hires, I look for something different, additional skills or different experiences, some breadth that they could add to the team as a whole.

The articles I have been reading suggest that, with school fee inflation over the last 15 years or so, most professions have been priced out of the private sector. My personal experience suggests that it is now largely the remit of successful businesses, bonuses or grandparents (and some children of teachers in the private sector). People hoping to pay for fees out of their regular monthly salary have to be earning huge sums to do so, especially with the cost of everything else rising as well.

Incidentally, one thing that would really pee me off if I was shelling out huge sums for private school are the longer holidays. My friends are a mix of private and state sector and the state ones amongst us do have a rather evil chuckle at Christmas/summer holidays and half term when our private sector pals are whinging about having the children under their feet at home. These friends don't need to work but it must be a major downside for working parents- paying twice over.

Alfiesbabe you speak as though your reasons for "allowing" your child to attend private school are somehow worthier than anyone else's reasons

Your arguments are frankly nonsensical

Bit harsh Cam...

Another problem with private schools is that they are a law unto themselves. My first school was an all girls convent in beautiful grounds and historic buildings in a prime residential area. A few years ago, they just closed it out of the blue (for housing no doubt) with only about a term's notice leaving the parents in a panic and no time to organise protest groups. That would have been devastating for me in my teenage years. From a parents' point of view the relentless rise and uncertainty of fees would really bother me as well.

Putting both my children into private ed was, was to me, the best decision i ever made (Cam- you decided on a school yet?)

Ummm.... where did I say that Cam...?? You seem to be reading one thing and making an enormous leap of imagination.
No, I don't my reasons were'worthier'. I think a child shouldn't need to have to go to private school to meet their needs. It is wrong that a talented child cannot be a chorister without attending a fee paying school. What's 'worthy' about that?

Hi Mabs, I have put dd's name at one but I'm still looking for a second choice.

evelyn - I've heard a few horror stories like that too! I suppose it's only the really badly managed ones where that can suddenly happen, but even so, not much consolation for the parents. I know someone who used to teach in a private school about 20 miles from where i live which constantly seemed to be in a precarious state. The teaching staff actually got their salary cheque (late) from the Headmaster's personal account when things got really bad!! At that point my friend decided to abandon the sinking ship!!