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?

Anna, I agree. Teachers in state schools seem to be expected to be police and social workers, and only after that to be actually teaching.
I don't know if the system is the same nowadays, but when I taught in France many years ago, teachers were employes to teach and anyting more than minor disciplinary or pastoral matters were dealt with by a specialist team within the school, so that classes could continue without disruption, and teachers could teach.

By Habbibu "Sue, that probably creates a virtuous circle - committed parents help improve school, more committed parents are attracted to school, and so it goes on."

In this case, Habbibu, the school is the only school for our area, so everyone goes there, not just the offspring of M/C parents. As for housing, it's cheaper to buy there than in the areas with less good schools!! The school is in the top 100 for getting children to decent uni's, consistently in the top five for Scotland and better than any of the private schools.

Am laughing at Xenia's list about private school teachers, no stereotyping there, then!

Which list? I think the quote from the research shows some graduates will only go to private schools and presumably if you're used to high standards, lakes, rugby, interesting parents you might well be attracted to teaching in those kinds of schools.

6 or 7% of children go to fee paying schools and they do so disproportionately well out of that that any parent who can afford to and doesn't pay for a good school is surely in the same category as a parent who never reads to their chidlren or beats them.... you're picking a choice that is not so good for the children and who in their right mind would do that. Most people canont afford to pay so it's not an issue at all of course.

But I would say if you were choosing between mother returns to full time work when youngest if 5 to pay 100% of her net salary on school fees versus mother is home at 4 rather than 6 when the children get home the benfits to the child are with the mother working and school fees route. In other words the love and milk and cookies between 4 and 6 is a much smaller gain for the children than if the mother worked and earned and paid school fees.

'any parent who can afford to and doesn't pay for a good school is surely in the same category as a parent who never reads to their chidlren or beats them....'

Really? Well better call social services and dob me in then!!

Children at fee-paying schools do disproportionately well simply because those schools are attracting a very narrow range of children and parents - those who are disproportionately well-off or academic or those parents who are supportive or educated or middle-class.

But this is the same argument you're always putting forward Xenia, and the same generalisations and almost-funny stereotypes.

'any parent who can afford to and doesn't pay for a good school is surely in the same category as a parent who never reads to their chidlren or beats them....'

Make that two Alfiebabe.

I have read some anachronistic clap trap on MN but the twaddle that Count Xenia spouts is just garbage. Both the daughters of my PhD tutor went to their local comp and both have PhDs. He chose to use his money to travel with his family because he knew that education does not only happen between 0845 to 1515 Mon-Fri 38 weeks a year.

Okay, not akin to beating (although let's not forget you can legally smack your children in England) but similar to other less good things you might do to them. Who would choose a worse school over a better one and put their politics or their desire to buy shoes or cars above their children?

For some people Xenia, passing on their principles to their children is of great importance. You yourself often say how important it is to pass on to our daughters your opinions on women and work. To suggest that to live by your principles and encourage your children to do the same is akin to abuse is ridiculous.

Regarding the comments about the quality and quantity of teachers in the private sector.

I have paid back my PGCE, which was actually funded by taxpayers (hubby paying a huge amount of tax, and me also for the six years prior to the PGCE), in that I have worked about 2.5 years in the maintained sector.

I would not work (on a permanent basis) in the state sector. At most I would flit between daily supply and short term contracts. If that makes me a worse teacher, then fine - I won't argue with it. I am a teacher of my subject, and to a lesser extent, a pastor. I am not into crowd control. Some people are especially gifted in bringing on difficult children, but that is not me. I am in awe of them, however, and I absolutely do not think that I am a better teacher than them.

In the independent sector, we have different challenges. We don't tend to have the constant low level disruption that really drags you down, so the pupils are not terribly difficult. We do have difficult parents however, who think that their child should have individual attention (they don't realise that they are not paying for a private tutor, but for their child to be in a class of 15). We have the issue of broken homes, as does the state sector, but divorce with money is ugly - kids getting bribed to be better friends with one parent over the other.

We also really put in the hours with extra curricular stuff and prep, and we do not cushy protection from too much cover and duties.

I am knackered at the end of everyday, but I love my job and I would not trade it for a state school one. I don't care if people look down on my teaching skills. The skills I lack are not the skills I need to use day-to-day.

Spokette

You would not want to compare how widely some of these children travel. It is not an either or choice. My DD's best friend went to Vietnam, Whistler, France (x2) and Cuba last year.

Xenia - I think you've gorn off piste with the child abuse argument ...

In our area there is only one grammar school for boys and one for girls. All the children in that borough's schools take the 11+ (as well as many in neighbouring boroughs including ours).
An ex-friend of a friend was a primary school teacher in that borough, with socialist priciples that would not allow her daughter to go to a selective school 9 and rubbished it to her own puplils). So the daughter passed with flying colours but was sent to the local failing comp, where she 'achieved' mediocre results well below what she was capable of in subjects like media studies, and went to an indiffernt university, but was bored and did not finish her degree. last heard of doing casual bar work.
Poor kid - she deserved better. IMO her nother was no more caring than my grandfatther who would not allow my father to attend a grammar school because the cost of the uniform would be money the gf would rather spend on beer.
At least in the case of the Kingston girl one can hope that 'her' place was taken by a child with a slightly lower score but with motivated parents who wanted the best for their daughter.

ah but maybe she is happy mrsgofg.

Cam, I had absolutely no intention to patronise you, insist on your choice of words or in any way be offensive. The naive comment was tongue in cheek, and I apologise that it didn't come across that way. I thought you had made a good point, and was musing in my response to the issue you posed. I am a little shocked at your response, to be honest, but I guess that's the downside of forums where you can't hear tone of voice, etc. I just can't bring myself to use smiley faces - don't know why.

Mrs G made my point better than I did. Sometimes if you put your principles first and child second that is not good. It's like a jehovah's witness letting their child die or a parent who thinks children can live on only sweets. If you pick a worse school for the good of the nation as some politicians and left wing people do when you could afford a better one then that's not fair on the child. This child in the MrsG example has not reached her potential. She has done as a lot of children do who go to poor schools. Yes children may be happy with no GCSEs and casual bar work jobs but is that really the best we should do for them?

I know of no one who has set out to send their child to a 'worse' school simply as a matter of principle. I actually had a rather unusual experience myself, as I was transferring to secondary school at the time of the changeover from grammars to comprehensives in my locality. We had a local grammar, a secondary modern and a comprehensive a few miles away (though looking back now it can't have been totally comprehensive as there were still grammar school!) I sat the 11 +, passed it, but my parents sent me to the comprehensive, mainly I think because my older brother had 'failed' the 11 + and they wanted us to all be educated at the same school.( Has it held me back in any way? I don't think so. Maybe I had to develop more independence in my learning, but I don't think that's a bad thing. I used to meet up with friends from Primary who went to the grammar school, and I remember being aware that there was a much narrower range of ability there, whereas I was at school with the whole range from incredibly intelligent to not academic at all. What's interesting though is that both my brothers (the one following a year behind me was also an 11+ 'failure') and myself all went on to University, and we all have professional careers. So that must tell you something about the education system!!

not fair on the child but maybe better for the futures of lots of children (if everyone did it).

"not fair on the child but maybe better for the futures of lots of children (if everyone did it)."

I don't even know where to begin with that post.

Can I make any difference WHATSOEVER to the state of education in this country?

Erm, no. Not a scintilla of difference

Can I risk buggering up my children's lives forever by sending them to the local sink comprehensive (it is more a sewer than a sink, I think)

Erm, yes I can. But I prefer not to. Because even if I sacrificed my children's future, I don't stand a chance of doing anything to improve the overall lot.

I know people who have not sent their children to an independent even if they could have afforded to. As a matter of principle. I do wonder if their decision would have been different if the local school had been truly dreadful instead of just 'bog standard', but bog standard is where it'sat around here. There are some excellent independent schools. So the principle thing applies I think.

lol at sewer comprehensive. just hope you're not referring to my son's school.

Quattro, earlier on in this thread you said you thought that private and faith schools had undermined the state system, and that in an ideal world both would be abolished. Hypothetically, if that were to happen, (and so potentially force the system that southeastastra suggested) do you think the state system would improve, or, as Cam suggested, would people move abroad or home educate?

I THINK IT WOULD FORCE THE STATE SYSTEM TO IMPROVE. HARDLY ANYONE REALISTICALLY CAN HOMEEDUCATE AND EVEN THE MOST INSOUCIANT OF PARENTS WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO SEND LITTLE TARQUIN ABROAD. WHAT HAPPENS IF HE CATCHES A COLD? OR HERPES (MORE LIKELY IME)

SORRY CAPS GONE FUNNY AGAIN

I'm honestly not trying to be difficult, now, Quattro, but I'm confused about how the hypothetical situation I described is so different from southeastastra's (if you include her proviso "if everyone did it").

I also wonder whether there wouldn't develop an "underground" movement of private schools...

Ah that's better

No because the whole point of SEA's suggestion is that it seemed to me to imply voluntarily giving it up. That's where I feel a bit helpless. If I am only one of many hundreds of thousands of parents giving up, how can I make a difference.

Yes, I think that's true, and a bit of a vicious circle. I think there are probably ways to make a small difference (like becoming a governor, v. active on PTA, etc) and you'd have to balance that with giving your child what you thought was a good enough education - assuming confidence also in the support you were able to give at home. But that does absolutely depend on just how good or bad you think the local state school was.

If private schools and home schooling were made illegal would I send my children abroad? Possibly I might choose to work and live part of the year abroad near the new Eton SA in France or something as presumably those schools would then spring up abroad. I don't think I'd send them to board abroad however. But I doubt that would happen - it would be a big change in the law.

If you want your child to do well and can afford a good school it's pretty rotten of parents not to pay just because they think their child will improve a school which is not so good or is just good enough but nothing special.

Those socialist famous people who sent children to sink comps in London in the 60s often found the children voting with their feet at 16 and asking to be sent to a good boarding school or later resenting the experiment which was wrought on them which failed.