Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

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

660 replies

alfiesbabe · 12/01/2008 14:29

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?

OP posts:
alfiesbabe · 23/01/2008 21:35

It's the concept of 'good enough' that's the crux isn't it? I think when people become parents, there's a quite irrational urge to feel that 'good enough' isn't actually good enough; that we have to strive for perfection. I wouldn't send my child to a 'sink' school just to make a point. But I know dozens of people who could afford private school but send their children to 'good enough' schools, often because even if they feel a private school has certain aspects which are 'better', they don't feel it's better enough to justify 10 or 15K per year per child. Someone also made the point earlier about happiness, which, interestingly, doesnt seem to have cropped up much on the thread. I believe earning enough money to be able to live comfortably is important (having to worry about every penny is miserable) but I also think that once you've achieved that standard of living, an extra 10,20 or 30 grand isn't going to significantly improve your quality of life. For every high flying high earner I know who'd happy with their lot, I also know someone who's bored/stressed/miserable. Probably having the capacity to build loving, dynamic relationships is more important than the size of your paypacket when it comes to ultimate happiness.

OP posts:
Cam · 23/01/2008 21:48

The 1944 Education Act requires that children receive an education, it is not complusory to go to school. This law would have to be repealed if state schools were to be made complusory. It will never happen.

Cam · 23/01/2008 21:48

I mean compulsory

Habbibu · 23/01/2008 21:53

No, no didn't say I thought it would happen. Just sometimes think it's interesting to pose hypotheticals sometimes. I do think that in such a situation you might get some underground schooling, or an awful lot of house moves...

Habbibu · 23/01/2008 21:53

Gah. An excess of sometimes.

alfiesbabe · 23/01/2008 21:55

Agree it would never happen, and probably right that the freedom of choice is there. Would be good to reach a point though, as in some European countries, where the standard of state provision is so good that opting out of it would be mad.

OP posts:
Judy1234 · 23/01/2008 22:14

The trouble is I don't see that happening. The standards are getting worse in the state sector, the gap between private and state schools bigger, the chance for clever poor children to go to good free grammar schools removed. Fewer state school children than in the 1960s get into Oxbridge. So I don't see us as moving towards such good state schools they rival the better private schools. But we'll see.

Cam · 23/01/2008 22:32

And the imperative from parents simply isn't there - people may feel all evangelical when their child first starts school but before you know it they're suddenly 13, 14 or 15 and nearly out of the system.

Because in reality your children's schooling is for such a short time and other things in life take up so much of parents time and energy.

I don't have the time or energy to lobby for better state provision, I send my dd to a school which I don't have to think about in any kind of draining away (apart from the drain on my finances hehe)

Judy1234 · 24/01/2008 09:42

As do many of us.

The Times has an amusing article on 3 sorts of mothers and entrance to schools today...

"Never mind bears and bulls ? we?re in the mums? market
Sandra Parsons

Shares are in freefall, the FTSE graph fluctuates wildly and most analysts seem to agree that recession is but a teeter away. House prices are down, mortgage applications have dropped, and Monday was officially the most miserable day of the year. For thousands of mothers, however, all this is as nothing, a distant irrelevance. For them, you see, the whole of January, not just the dank depression that was last Monday, is a miserable and terrifying endurance test, during which they must suffer one of the greatest pains known to mothers ? the possible rejection of their child ? while never letting on for a moment that they are anything other than cheerful, confident and fully in control.

I refer, of course, to the ghastly phenomenon of school selection. It might be the 11-plus, or it might be a Year 6 entrance exam for a private school. In some affluent areas it will be white-faced six and seven-year-olds competing in English, maths and verbal reasoning for entrance to a prep school. For others it could be not an exam at all but the nightmare of state school selection. Or it could be university entrance, or GCSE mocks, or AS levels, or one part of an A level.

Once entered, this world becomes all-encompassing. It involves fierce competition and soul-destroying oneupmanship. It devours every waking minute (and let?s face it, there will be plenty of those, because a good night?s sleep becomes a remote memory for many at this time). Exhausted, and taut with the effort of putting on a good front, the deranged mother finds herself inhabiting any one of three distinct personalities, quite often all in the same day and occasionally, at moments of extreme stress, all in the same hour.

She aspires to be the Completely Competent Mother. The archetype of the CCM is an Oxbridge graduate who has given up her career to focus on her children. If the mother of boys, she is coolly confident of having got her son into a top boys? prep because she had the foresight to think about this before he was born. Consequently he has been in a preprep from the age of 4 and has been schooled in the necessary tests from the moment he began to read and write. If the mother of girls, she is equally confident of having got her daughter into a top girls? school, be it state or private. It follows that all her children will enter the university of their choice, to study the subject of their choice. Failure does not exist in her lexicon: she is the CEO of a top-performing family and she has bred, groomed and educated her children to succeed. She slightly pities the other mothers; to be honest, she can?t quite understand what they are making so much fuss about.

Next is the Upwardly Mobile Mother. She wants her children to achieve more than she did and is relentless in pursuit of this cause. When they are at primary school she signs them up for every after school activity going, from gymnastics and karate to music and Mandarin; at secondary school she works ceaselessly on their behalf, visiting museums for source material for their projects, chatting up the head at every opportunity and networking like mad with the other parents to secure the right work-experience placement. She will do almost anything to ensure the best outcome for her children and was pilloried wonderfully in John O?Farrell?s novel May Contain Nuts, a pitiless satire on the lengths to which middle-class parents will go to get their child into the right school. At her lowest moments the UMM works herself, and her child, into a frenzy of fear ? there are several tales of mothers, and children, vomiting before, and even during, exams.

Finally, there is the Unprepared Mother.

She is the one who realises too late, during a chance and depressing encounter with Completely Competent Mother, that it was at best complacent and at worst utterly pointless to have entered her daughter for the 11-plus without having first provided 12 months? intensive one-on-one tutoring. It is she who, when Upwardly Mobile Mother demands her opinion on the merits of X school?s science teaching versus that of Y school, realises that she has no opinion, for the simple reason that it has never occurred to her to think about it. She has, instead, been consumed with the fear that her child won?t get into any of the chosen schools: of course not the end of the world, because obviously they will still go to school somewhere ? but how will they cope with that rejection? And ? crucially ? how will she cope?

I know of women who have become seriously ill with the stress of the 11-plus and Year 6 entrance exams, not to mention GCSEs. At best they have a month of worry and sleepless nights; at worst they have a nervous breakdown. And in the end, the question has to be asked, what are we doing it for? Whose interests do we really have at heart?

In January every mother should perhaps set herself the task of reading again the words of Kahlil Gibran?s The Prophet on the subject of children: ?You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth./ The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.

?Let your bending in the archer?s hand be for gladness/ For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.?

Because what all mothers want is to be the best mother of all: the one who provides them with a secure and happy home, the one who fuels their thirst for learning without becoming obsessed by it, the one who tells them always that their best is good enough, and the one who ultimately lets them go to become whoever and whatever they want to be.

Along the way we will make mistakes and invite pity or ridicule or both.

Our progress is every bit as turbulent as that of the FTSE index this week. But the majority of us will survive it all ? not despite, but because of, the one thing on which we are clear: our children are the investment that really matters. "

Cam · 24/01/2008 12:30
Grin
New posts on this thread. Refresh page