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?

Quattro, I think that's my view as well.In an ideal world, there'd be no need for private schools because state provision would allow every child to achieve their potential. But this was our dilemna: ds is very musically talented, he sang as a chorister in one of the top cathedral choirs in the country and there's no way he'd have had that experience in a state school.Even the best state schools don't have the culture that's going to encourage a boy to dress up and sing for several hours a day - that's the reality. And I have no doubt that ds gained a huge amount from that experience. However, now that he's finished in the choir, he's actually happier at the state school. He's made a lot of friends with bright, confident, ambitious peers who have aspirations to do well. Which brings me back to where I started: apart from the music, I cant see what the private school had to offer that the state school isnt doing at least as well.

I like my daughters school because it has good music and is a state school.

I wouldn't want any of my children being choristers or dressing up to sing, I am an atheist and object to the whole religious aspects of such an education. I cannot see why good music in education is based on church music in any case. I went to a large inner London comprehensive with a fabulous music department which offered specialist education and had links to composers, tuition and concert venues which included the Royal Festival Hall and the south bank. We were the school chosen to play at the commemoration event for Benjamin Britton.

Inner cities can sometimes provide opportunities which the rest of the country can only dream of.

I would however like to see the state sector concentrate more on good music and drama as well as the basics and as I said I might decide to send my children to a private school if I could not find what I wanted in terms of specialist education provision in the state sector and that would include sport as well. Other than that I would move to an area where those schools or opportunities were available in the state sector and to believe they do not exist there is nonsense.

Why should families have to move to get into a decent school. Everyone should have them?

They shouldn't have to and most people can't.

That's one of the issues, isn't it?

glitterfairy -i take your point but the fact is that the choral tradition DOES have a religious basis. The choir my son sang in has been established for around 1000 years, and if the tradition is to continue then of course it's going to have a basis in religion. fwiw i don't think most of the men who sing in the choir are believers! And ds at the age of 13 is an agnostic - of course, his views may change and develop, but i'm proud that as a chorister, he chose not to be confirmed even when it was the 'done thing' for the choristers.

Dear Quattro,
We supported our local state school for ds1 aged pre-school to end of year 2.
Our son is dylexic we later found out. He was humiliated by his failure to read out loud on a daily basis during this time and came home quieter and sad. The school and lea kept saying nothing wrong, we will assess later.
In the end I sold my winfall shares and used money to pay for ed psychologist to assess him. We are not rich or moneyed.
Result severe problems reading writing etc but gifted and talented.Superb scientist and mathmetician.
Took out 2nd mortgage send to prep school with special learning unit (was Presentation College). He has never looked back, happy and stimulated by school now as said b4 back in state at grammar.
I am very proud of him not just academically but for the effort he has put in. Now he reads all the time and wants a job in waterstones on a saturday!

glitterfairy - you say you would move to an area where there is a good state school. In the part of london where I live, a very modest 3 bed house near to a good local comprehensive cost upwards of 650 thousand pounds. That is just not an option for most people. In the same area, the other comprehensive school (in a cheaper area) is a failing school and has a very bad reputation. It is very hard for parents who want the best for their children but haven't got a lot of cash.

We moved here many years ago - we couldn't possibly afford to buy here if we were just moving into the area.

Oh that's a lovely story Galaxy mummy. I agree with you in practice - was just lamenting the current situation which is not ideal.

3littlefrogs I would move out of that area or London then. I am a nurse and can move anywhere so do have that luxury.

I understand if you dont have that luxury why you might consider a private school. However I totally and absolutely agree that education should be good everywhere and state run.

Alfiesbabe I am afraid that I still wouldnt send a child of mine to a school where there was a religious bias regardless of music and singing. It is a shame because the music itself is beautiful but I have strong objections to immersing a child of mine in a religious setting.

Ah now I have good state primary schools here, and I send mine to private school. Why? I suppose it is an exercise in choice isn't it, and the ability to pay gives you that choice. So you view all schools, state and private, and see which one suits your child best. In the end we chose a private one, I think they'd all have been just as happy at one of the state ones we liked - but it was full when we moved here - and so went for the other at the top of the list.

I don't think it is a waste of money, because they are largely happy. I'm sure we could get it for free - I'm not sure we are getting a better or superior education but as we can afford to pay, and like the school, we don't mind paying.

I agree with Quatt though. I think it is exactly the fact you can chose if you can afford to which is a pernicious thing, and we would all be much better off with the state/private divide.

we would be better off WITHOUT the state/private divide.

Yep I agree.

I also have to say that I am not against giving children an education in religion but not with a bias just in terms of learning about the bible and religious thinking. In order to understand many things in philosophy and literature having religious knowledge is invaluable.

I am against religious schools per se though and a lack of education in other faiths and ways of thinking apart from Christianity.

I was reading in one of hte papers today about Sweden (and also a secondary school in London parents set up in the state sector). It said in Sweden you get a voucher to spend where you like, state or private but you cannot top it up if private costs more. At least then you feel you['re not paying twice which private parents do. We should get a tax rebate for relieving the state of the cost of educating our children may be.

Oh no, I don't want a tax rebate, I want that voucher!

Swedes - thanks for that link which included..

"New research on independent schools - their effects on teacher supply and the returns to private education

Independent schools in Britain employ a disproportionate share of teachers relative to the number of pupils they educate, and the gap between the independent and state sectors has been increasing. What?s more, independent school teachers are more likely than state school teachers to possess postgraduate qualifications, and to be specialists in subjects ? such as Maths and Science ? where there are shortages of teachers.

These are among the findings of a new study by Professors Francis Green, University of Kent, and Stephen Machin, Centre for Economic Performance, and colleagues. In a related study, they find that not only do independent school pupils enjoy facilities that are usually far better than those available in state schools, but these pupils also benefit through improved pay later in life. These financial returns are broadly comparable to the returns on other capital. "

It also says the 8% in private education has remained 8% for decades and thus exclusiveness as they term it has continued. That's interesting if more people have more money and inherit money. It must mean as many people drop down as go up in terms of income and paying for fees.

I'm quite drawn to the voucher system, but I don't quite get it. Wouldn't everyone want to use them for private? At the very least a vast tranche of the middle-class parents without Guardian-reading chips on their shoulders would. Or for the "best" state secondaries? Would there be enough places? Wouldn't we have the same problem of nobody wanting to go to the shit schools?

Well if demand increased, so would supply, I suppose

Does demand not exceed supply at the moment, though?

Since Xenia mentioned Sweden, can I just mention that I know something of the system there. The system of private education is very new in Sweden- until a few years ago, the vast majority of people were educated in the state school system, which was then recognised to be among the best in the world. The only private schools were a couple of boarding schools for the children of diplomats or similar.

There was no streaming in the lower classes, the only separation according to ability was in foreign languages and maths and then not until secondary school. I remember this system as perfectly workable, and when I came to England as a teenager I was surprised to find how well ahead I was compared to my peers here.

The starting up of private schools is the work of the last few decades. Usually they are not about raising academic excellence, but are run by religious groups or for the sake of using teaching methods such as the Waldorff/Steiner. There have been grave concerns raised in the national press over their attainment records (difficult to check as most marks in Sweden are awarded by continuous teacher assessment rather than by national exams).

None of the professional/academic parents I have spoken to say they would be willing to send their child to a private school; their opinion seems to be that the places are taken by parents who want their children to have an easier ride, studying "fluffy" less stringent subjects and finding it easier to get high marks (continuous assessment by teacher, remember!) because the schools are not subject to usual inspections and private schools are more willing to massage the marks to please parents.

Apparently, a reform of the school system is in the offing. So maybe the Swedish system is not the best to look for as a model atm; the signals I'm getting is that the new system has flopped.

That doesn't sound what we thought then. Blair introduced vouchers which we used against private school fees for our twins when they were four year old so it's a labour idea already in operation.... although it was only £600 a year I think and just for that year. But perfectly extendable. The Swedes don't allow topping up and that's regarded as a key thing here by those who have looked at it too which is difficult because if the voucher is £5k a year and most good private schools are about £10k it just wouldn't work. A few not so good ones might charge nearer £5k I suppose and if they doubled numbers economies of scale might mean it could work but I'm not so sure. ANyway there is no political will for it at all at the moment so it doesn't have any hope of being adopted.

My local secondary school has just 'achieved' a pass rate of 33%. That is why we pay for our son to go to a private school. If your school has such a high pass rate -lucky you! Don't be so naive as to think your school is a typical school.

I went to a school with a pass rate of 22% and now have a PhD in chemistry. Many children came from deprived backgrounds (my DF was unemployed for the last 3 years of my schooling) but despite that, some of us were ambitious, worked hard and have done well.

DH who also went to state school (recent pass rate for GCSE was just over 30%), he too has a PhD and recently got an MBA with distinction.

We could afford to send our DTS to private school but will not be doing so because we really do not see how it will benefit them and I would rather use that money to enrich their lives in other ways.

Children only spend about 6 hours a day at school for about 38 weeks a year (less in private) so in terms of education, the most influential people in their lives are their parents. If a parent can afford the fees, fine. However if you have to work long hours just to pay school fees, I really don't see the point. Use that time and energy instead to spend time with your off-spring, read with them, visit parks,farms, museums, castles, play sports together etc. That is far more enriching and rewarding for a child imo.

Our decision has really been made because our local primary school scored 4 on everything in its recent Ofsted and is in special measures. This makes me very angry as I am now going to have to either send her to another local school or pay to go private. We will probably pay to send her privately. One of the main reasons for us doing this actually is the curriculum and the fact that the exams in the state system don't seem to be stretching children. My understanding is that many private schools are abandoning GCSEs and offering IGCSEs. I find this worrying as if we continue as we are the state and private sector will be taking completely different exams so there will be no comparison. Both my DP and I were educated in the state system, we have both done quite well really however I have to say that I don't believe that education these days is the same standard as when I went to school.

In answer to the OP I would.

To me its a bit more than just examination results.... its broadening their horizons.