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?

snobbery influences many peoples decisions. or maybe not snobbery, but social class is a factor. thats not actually a criticism by the way, merely an observation.

spokette - absolutely. School isn't everything. In fact, I get cross that the line between parents and school is blurring - some parents don't seem to know where their responsibilities lie and think that school should teach their children everything and that parents only have to play with their children (or have them minded).

Enid - yes, humans like to congregate in tribes of like-minded humans

yes tis true

a lot of my private school attending friends are very honest about that fact

although apparently my choice of village state is acceptable as it is very very middle class

Yes, village schools and indeed participating fully in village life is a very middle-class past time in England. When I was in England when my daughter was tiny I used to take her to M&B group in the local pre-school (primary school had 73 pupils in total) and it was all very nice indeed

And thats why MN is so perfect for these types of discussions ...

a ready made congregation of total opposites with a viewpoint on everything. Some much more interesting than the like minded people we usually mix with

That's just why the people who proudly announce they are going private round here annoy me - when we have very good state primary and secondary. There must be some element of "I'd rather my children didn't mix with that sort". So what they are saying is they don't want their kids to mix with MINE. That makes me

It amazes me when posters write that the state school only listens to children reading once a week (questionable) but the private school does it everyday. Well, as a parent, shouldn't you be listening to them read anyway?? Why put all the responsibility on the school?

I don't expect school to do what I should and can do for myself.

spokette - I do listen to my child read every day. So does her (private) school. She reads to a teacher or TA every morning, this is recorded in her reading record book along with any comments, andthen we continue in the evening. Seems to work well.

UnquietDad - I don't thinkt hat is why people choose private TBH. Certainly not why we choose private, and certainly not the attitude of parents at DD's school (well, the ones we know anyway). There are so many reasons why people might opt out of the state system - snobbery is not the case IME.

UQD - But what is "very good" to you isn't necessarily very good to everyone. How do you guauge "very good"?

I think you have to accept that if you are near a good school but instead choose to send your dcs private that people will assume that it's a form of snobbery. You might not see it that way but in a lot of cases, it is.
I personally think, if that is the case, then you are narrowing your dcs experience of life, not 'broadening their horizons'.

Well if that is what people like to think then so be it. Kind of reverse snobbery if that is the case, which is just as bad!

rantinghousewife - the question of broadening a child's horizons (which IMO should - but often, sadly, isn't - one of the fundamental goals of school) is a very difficult one.

There are many horizons. One school might broaden a child's horizons in some directions, but not in others. I doubt any school can show a child everything of the ways of the world. But I don't think that one can crudely say that a state school will broaden a child's horizons more than a private school.

I made that point with reference, to the poster further down who stated that she would go private, rather than state to 'broaden her dcs horizons'.

Well, what do you think - how best should one broaden one's child's horizons? What type of school and what type of home life would do the best job?

I know this argument comes up on here a lot and however logical you try to be about people's differing choices for going private that is inevitably how it will come over. I do feel that a lot of people don't even look at the state options - they just go by hearsay and think "I'm not having mine going there". (I know you didn't do that, hulababy as you have said on here before - I'm sure there are people like you who check out all the available options.

I do wish there was another method of finding the "right" school which didn't involve money. That's why snobbery comes into it.

My child may benefit from all a private school has to offer just as much as that of the people up the road, but it's not decided on how much your child will benefit, it's decided on whether you can pay. And I don't think education should be a commodity like that.

And no, a state school doesn't always guarantee that a child will mix with a wide variety of people either, especially when you live in an area which has house prices which reflect the strengths of a school.
Obviously parental influence plays a part but, just to say that your childs horizons will be broadened by going to a private school just doesn't ring true to me.

i always assume that when people send their kids private (at primary level) when there are good state alternatives available that snobbery is one of the key motivating factors.

i speak as someone who was seriously considering moving ds from a good state school to private education earlier in the year and snobbery was not one of my reasons - honest!

however, unlike ladymuck, in the event i didn't perceive that we would get and additional £10k of value from the private option. btw - ladym i am at your description of state v. private as battery v. free-range! whatever my hesitations re ds's school, describing it as a battery farm is a horrid misrepresentation, as it would be i assume for many, if not most, state primary schools.

State schools muck about with non-subjects. I can't help but think that English Literature A level would serve you better in life than an A level in film and theatre studies - even if you intend to seek a career in film or the theatre. In my town the three state schools all have over 75% for 5 GCSE passes incl maths and english and they all get over 800 points at A level. However, the only one of the three that offers a dtraditional education and doesn't piss about with experimental education (by teaching non-subjects) is a faith school and I draw the line at my children being educated by bigots (what has my faith or lack of it got to do with my child's education?). It is nothing to do with the social mix at the state school and everything to do with providing my children with a broad education - nothing to do with no. of GCSEs or points at A level. It is something that I got from the state (a proper grammar school) and am grateful for every single day.

Indeed, Swedes.

If you want your children to have a broad range of all the traditional academic subjects to choose from, and you don't want a religious education, private schools and grammar schools are, in the UK, generally the safest bets.

I would if I didn't feel the state school was right for dd

you do have to do more as a parent with a kid at state primary I think

I sometimes wistfully crave after friends kids prep lessons and homework done at school

But some of the non subjects in state schools, cater for those who are not academically minded, don't they.
My ds's school has a car workshop scheme (amongst other 'initiatives') that is supposed to give pupils a grounding in a discipline which could help them gain a decent job or further training when they leave school. Or am I reading you wrong?

enid, that is my perception too, and that was one of the reasons we considered moving ds - with two parents working f/t i wasn't sure it was actually possible to do what seemed to be required. i think dh and i have worked it out between us now though.