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?

Quite right Habb, I think the sane among us would want that for their dc.

Habb - I did say, did I not, that it was blagging? Which is actually quite a skill, I think.

Patina It's not a job I'd entrust to a nanny - personal care is the key here.

A bit puzzled at the assumption that in order for your child to be educated alongside other clever children you have to go private. As only 7% of children are in the private system, does that mean that the other 93% are universally thick? Or that having the money to pay school fees automatically confers brains?

All parents send their children to the best school that they are able to. Those of us with more money simply have more choices, and when you look at the choices available, it is quite often that an independent school will tick more of the boxes.

Education is a pretty good thing to spend your disposable cash on, tbh. It's certainly a higher priority for me vs holiday, more house, prestigious cars, etc. There is never only one reason for choosing independent schools - the decision is actually quite complex and personal. But what seals it for me is direct experience of teaching in schools in both sectors, even an 'outstanding' comp in an extremely affluent area - it's really a no brainer for me, and I am quite prepared to pay quite sacrificially so that all five of mine never set a foot near our local comp (not the outstanding one).

Anyway, it seems like we are all happy with our children's schools, so what is the big deal?

Oh, and the misconceptions about just about every aspect of life in a independent school is quite comical.

Just as parents are blamed for how their children turn out, I think parents need to take more credit for how their children turn out. Schools are responsible for educating children not for teaching them manners, respectful behaviour, correct pronunciation or how to blag at interviews. (isn't a Swiss finishing school for that ) This all has to come from the parents and the school can only reinforce it. A private school merely provides an environment of reiforcement because almost all the children come from the same type of home.

DH teaches in a high performing, selective private school. He teaches them his subject, he doesn't turn children into socially adept people; the children are already a certain type of person before they start at the school.

Ditto with music, drama and sporting achievements. Private schools tend to take the credit for the talented pupils but most of these begin their extra curricular pursuits in an outside sports club or drama group and the private school provides the facilities and an environment in which they can practice, perform and reinforce their particular talent.

I hate to say it, because when you meet the pupils at DH's school they seem very nice, but they do have a reputation for the worst behaviour on public transport than any of the surrounding state schools. It's not that they target members of the public and bother them as individuals but they exude self-importance and act as though there is no-one else around them. They are loud and obnoxious and irritating to share a space with.

"Oh, and the misconceptions about just about every aspect of life in a independent school is quite comical."

Ditto the misconceptions about state schools!

I meant to add - I think that attitude comes from the parents and doesn't have anything to do with the school they attend. The school hasn't taught them to be that way.

Yeah, the misconceptions about just about every aspect of life in a comp is also quite comical.

I have an opinion about teaching in state and private. Which type of school requires additional skills other than knowledge of topic and an ability to put the points across lucidly?

Well in private where your audience is hand picked and you can boot out those you don't make the grade or behave, they will be easy to teach. In fact, I reckon even I could teach them. I don't have a formal teaching qualification but I have lectured at university level (chemistry), done lots of private tuition and one thing I have gleaned from that limited experience is that when someone wants to learn, they are easy to teach.

Now in the comp, you have a wide range of abilities, kids from socially diverse backgrounds, some with unstable backgrounds and some who are not interested in education. The teacher who has the creativity, ingenuity, resilience and fortitude to engage with much of their audience, maintain order as well as inspire and motivate many of them requires a great deal of skill, both acquired and innate.

My personal view is anybody can teach in a private but you actually require a wide range of additional skills to teach in a comp and it is those teachers who have my utmost respect.

Just to add that teachers in both sectors do a sterling job educating the next generation. However, those in the comps face more challenges and the teachers there who are able to inspire and bring out the best in many of their charges are to be applauded, imho.

I find that a very insulting opinion. So you can only earn respect as a teacher if you are having to do crowd control on a daily basis? You don't think pupils in a private school deserve a teacher who is creative and engaging with their audience?

I have to take children to school now but will be back.

I used patina. On the whole private school pupils do better for all the reasons set out on the tread but including confidence and high expectations.

Someone asked why were private school children brighter - why those who can pay might have cleverer chidlren. If you're clever you're more likely to have clever children. If you're clever you are more likely to earn over £100k. It's common sense really. Therefore richer people have cleverer children on average. Although genetically two very clever people have a slightly less clever child so there is a kind of tendency to the norm as well. But if you're both IQ 130 the child is likely to be nearer that than 100 but if you're both 100 the child is more likely to be around the 100 mark.

The right hobbies can help. My eldest got her forthcoming job because of her exam results but it also helped that she had things in common with the people doing the day assessment, despite all the best efforts of those places to be class/background blind in order to get the best people. It's just human nature I suppose. Or may be whatever she might have talked about the fact she could talk helped.

And whether someone is better with a Scottish accent (comment above) or get on better without (lots of people in Scotland don't have the accent) is a moot point. It depends where you want to go. Call centres prefer Scottish accents apparently as do the public when seeking to trust people and we have our own dear leader as an example to the nation of how far you can get if you have a Scottish accent but I suspect in general you're better off without it.

Not crowd control. But you must see that teaching a small class of children who by definition have engaged families and whose parents are probably not struggling to pay the rent is a different job from teaching a class where a number of children come from disadvantaged backgrounds and who have a variety of problems both social and academic. Which is easier? A no brainer, it seems to me. Not to say that both classes don't deserve an excellent and engaged teacher. But it would be easier to be excellent and engaged with the former rather than the latter.

But surely there are plenty of state school teachers who work in affluent areas or grammar schools or faith schools who don't have to spend much or any time teaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

And Spokette did imply that private school teachers aren't able to be inspiring or creative because they don't have to be - which is bollocks. This is 2008 and teenagers are teenagers. Sure, they'll work hard because they know it is an end to a means but they are just like any other teenager who would probably prefer to be doing something other than being at school.

"A bit puzzled at the assumption that in order for your child to be educated alongside other clever children you have to go private. As only 7% of children are in the private system, does that mean that the other 93% are universally thick? Or that having the money to pay school fees automatically confers brains?"

I copied my earlier post because I notice that while people are prepared to defend their contention that children at private school are bright, nobody has yet been prepared to accept the obvious corollary - that the 93% of children who go to state schools are thick!

Hovever I would be interested to see the research that shows that high IQ=high salary+high IQ children therefore ability to pay for private school=clever children at private school.

Well, DH's school takes appx. 50% of children from state schools into Year 7. Those who have worked their way up from the junior school, who are on the whole the offspring of wealthy parents, don't necessarily populate the higher sets. Ditto with those who enter the 6th form from a state school.

Of course there are plenty of very clever and motivated children going through the state system. It's only one or two people on here who won't accept that ;)

I had illuminating (although not sure in what sense) chat with 5 x 19 year olds the otehr day - freinds of a friends son. 2 of them had dropped out of uni, 2 of them were working as pa's to hedge fund managers and hadnt gone to uni, one was doing a (IMO) crappy degree at a poly. All of them went to the local very expensive public school. They were all lovely, articulate kids but I couldnt help feeling I would be a teensy bit disappointed esp if I had spent all that cash...

I wouldn't be, as long as they were actively happy with their life choices enid
And agree TodayToday - there are bijou, lovely state primaries dotted all over London where selection is by property price rather than by fee-paying and the intake must be a pleasure to teach.
You get good and bad teachers in both sectors - I had some absolute disgraces at my girls' grammar in the 70s.

There are lots of private schools catering for thick rich children. There always have been and always will be. Look at Princess Diana's exam grades for a start. There are also obviously clever children in state schools. The are not helped by having to be educated sometimes with children who aren't engaged with the education process but most comps do have some setting so presumably that helps a bit. However private school children do better so if you can pay you might as well. Better than spending the money on expensive holidays. Most parents put themselves before their children and that extends right through to education obviously whether that's helping children at home or paying if you can afford it.

As to whether children of rich parents are cleverer on average they probably are because you usually need reasonable brains to do well, even the ex scrap metal merchant left school at 16 millionaire mother knew was very very clever and that paid off whereas someone not so bright would still be working for someone else dealing with the scrap metal. Also if you have money even if you aren't that bright you probably do provide a suitable home for children to study in, silence, books all that stuff that the very poorest children are denied.

I just finished reading Beyond Ugly (sequel to Ugly) about the life of a black barrister who was abused as a child from a very poor home in London. She was very clever and made it out of where she was brought up and through her circumstances but clearly it's harder to achieve that if your school isn't good than if you go to a good school so we might as well ease the path for our children where we can.

Hmmm I teach wealthy nice but dim kids, and the main problem is that we do encourage them to have heaps of confidence (typical private shool) but hence they don't realise their abilities do not actually match up to their and their parents PERCEIVED abilities. hence sometimes htey are awful to teach with parents blaming the teachers cos they'paid' for their child to get A stars and clearly its our fault they didn't

Do you get that attitude at all at comprehensives?

Xenia - I think money spent on travel to broaden the horizons (not of course to Club Med, Mark Warner etc - on proper travel) is money very well spent educationally-speaking. I can't condemn parents who choose to spend their money on travel for their children rather than a private school if there is an excellent state school education available.

Expensive cars and fur coats I would have more trouble with, were they bought at the expense of a decent education and mind-broadening life experiences.

I would have to grit my teeth if dd1 became a pa to a hedge fund manager

still, I'd accept the nice xmas gifts happily enough

Yes, agree with you there enid , that would be a shocker