"You have to do anything you need to to get the best education for your child"

[seeker]

Discuss.

It taught him that where his education was concerned I had no qualms about getting myself in it a bit to fund a house in the right area rather than send him to a school where I though he would achieve less and probably be fairly unhappy.I am not advocating a total priciple bypass I am merely stating what i did.

I think there's a difference between 'a good school' and 'a school where your child will fit in'. Its been proven that children from stable backgrounds with no learning or behavioural difficulties, do well no matter what school they are in. They will still reach their potential because schools are structured to benefit those children.
Making changes in your life to get your child into a school where they will have their needs met (whatever they might be) is different. But I think we should all think carefully about what those needs are and what needs are important.
However, I still wouldn't send my children to a church school. Dont' believe in it. Goes against all my principles.

I'd agree with something riven said, that education isn't just about what you are taught to get bits of paper with qualifications on.

I would agree that I probably would do anything I need to do to give my son the tools that he'll need to have a happy and successful life. By this I mean things like how to hold a conversation, being thoughtful and kind, how to keep a house (am sure future wife will be pleased with that one) and how to manage his financial affairs. I'd also expect to teach him how to appreciate diverse music and culture and things like that.

I guess the right school for him might help, but I think that families are the key success factor, not necessarily the school.

In general, I would have the attitude of wanting a "good enough" education for my boys. Mainly because I was pushed way too much as a kid, went to a great private school and I then completely bombed at University because the second the pushing stopped I had no motivation of my own.

That said, I do love learning now and will learn stuff just for the sake of it (I just never want to do another exam ever again). So I'm keen to get the dses somewhere where they have the opportunity to enjoy the process of school and learning (which rules out more traditional private schools from the off).

Now we've been lucky that purely by accident (we didn't even LOOK at schools when we moved) we're in the catchment for a lovely primary. Ds1 adores it there, his teachers seem to give 150% and their enthusiasm for everything they do is catching. Such a nice environment.

Secondary worries me though, as the feeder & catchment secondary is dire - the results don't worry me, the continual bullying and disruption that I hear about concerns me greatly. Also of the reports of the inability to retain staff. I'm not quite sure what to do when they reach that age, tbh.

My choices seem to be: attempt to get them in to oversubscribed mediocre but "good enough" secondary, find religion, or pay for pushy traditional private (assuming they pass the exams).

Now given that I'm a broke atheist with principles, that narrows the field considerably

Agree with riven's point about 'what is education?'
I certainly don't think it's helpful to become obsessive about trying to achieve the 'best ' education - it puts far too much pressure on children (and parents) and there are no guarantees anyway. Children are unique - what suits one won't always suit another. I would certainly want a school where the teachers are bright, enthusiastic and caring, where they are interested in the whole child and where they are in teaching because they love teaching, not for any other reason. But totally pointless getting hung up over %of A grades, whether the buildings are old/modern etc. I know people who on the face of it had a 'top' educational experience - ie fee paying school etc but they arent happy in their adult life so quite frankly whats the point. The person in my dept (I am middle manager in a school) who is best at her job (and incidentally is great fun, relates well to staff and kids) left school at 16, worked for a while in sales, then returned to academic learning and got her qualifications and is fantastic at what she does. There are many different routes these days to where you want to go. thank god the days of dividing children at 11 into 'academic grammar school' or 'non academic secondary modern' have disappeared. I know there are some poor schools around, but generally things are so much better than they've ever been. The key ingredient is a supportive home life where reading, conversation, having an enquiring mind are valued.

seeker, learning about different faiths in RE is not the same as going to a faith school and being brought up in that faith.

In an ideal world I don't think the faith or lack of it in a parent should be a barrier to a child being brought up in that religion, providing the parents were supportive of the ethos of the school (and I think a lot of priests would agree with me). Obviously in oversubscribed schools some criteria have to be set and that is where problems/moral dilemmas arise. What about families where only one parent is a believer in the faith of the school - should they be excluded?

People have very limited ideas about what "the best" is. There seems to be this culture of entitlement among the middle-classes that, where there are "good" schools and "bad" schools, they should get the "good" schools, hence the shock and outrage when they don't.

What winds me up is the "we believe in getting the best for them" attitude. You know, "Oh, we wouldn't consider anywhere other than St Ponce's because we want the very best for Jonty and Tilly."

Of course, other people who don't have a choice are vocal in their desire for the mediocre, aren't they?

I feel a new thread bursting forth.

The best education is of course at home. Most education of children is at home. It is often more the example of the parents that counts- are they loving, diligent, hard working, kind or whatever plus the child's genes (thus in a sense whom you marry may be matters as much as whether you beat the child or read to it).

But in addition I am sure I chose the work I do in part because I wanted to buy my children as good an education my parents bought for me if not better. And they have ogne to some of the top 10 schools in the country and I believe those very academic selective private day schools which very mixed cultural and religious backgrounds of children united simply by a similar high IQ have served them very well.

In other words the best way to get your child that good education is for women to stop picking low paid work and take their proper place in well paid careers so they can afford to pay for their children to go to good schools.

I think that there isn't much academically to chose between the 100+ top schools anyway - I mean is there really much difference between a school getting 93% A-C at A level and a school that gets 97%? I bet statistally there isn't, and so much depends on the abilities of the childen (ie the selection citeria) in any case.

For me the best school is the one where my children are happy, make good friends and where their interests are catered for and nourished. That should lead to both good academic results and well adjusted children. Obviously with home support too, so the school ethos has to match or complement those of my family.

Message withdrawn

My DS1 starts school on September. How on earth do I know at this stage what "the best education" is for him? It's far too young to tell what sort of environment will sit him best.

I may well pay later on if it is required - somewhat concerned about the increasing number of unqualified teachers in secondary schools - but I honestly can't see what a private school can add over a good state primary (in a very middle class area to be fair) at the age of four.

you have to do anything to get what you consider the best for your kids in EVERY way.

i think that's true.

i'd do ANYTHING and i mean literally anything to stay where we are now because of the general quality of life here, including the school.

no one will give that to them. i have to do it. that's for me to do, no matter what it takes.

so that's it.

I think Xenia was referring to 'home education' in the broadest sense of most of a child's learning taking place within the home. I agree that having a supportive home where reading, the arts, an enquiring mind etc are valued is probably the most important long term factor. Home education in the sense of having one parent at home to provide education is just not a viable option for many of us because we want to be using our own talents and skills in the workplace as well as through raising our children.

I will read thread in a minute, but want my response to be untainted by the response of others.

I want the best overall education for my child however that includes social development. I put a high value on being able to walk to school, on having friends who live a few doors away. Academics are important but not the be all an end all of discussions about education IMO

I am open minded though, if in a few years time it looks like DS1 has more academic potential than the school can develop we would look to changing the choices we have made.

Yes, I meant in the broad sense. But if you can also pay for them to go to say Manchester grammar or Westminster under school or Haberdashers or whatever, those very good schools even at primary level are obviously going to be much better for them if you have a clever child who is academic than any state school in the land. It's why nearly 50% of parents would pay if they could afford to.

I think the US study on child outcomes seems to have concluded whether a parent works makes no difference but low birth weight and being adopted to, that a child will do well if a family values education and careers highly and has a good work ethics and if the parents are highly educated and intelligent they tend to have bright children, IQ has a genetic component. Whether the parents stay together or not has had no impact. Apparently it's in this US study but I was just reading a summary of it.

nces.ed.gov/ecls/

I agree with MB - opportunities are there for life long learning but of course I want to make my DC's passage through life easier and support them as best I can.

Which does include flogging myself harder than I should in order to pay school fees

My child's education happens just as much outside of school as in it.

I am still very interested in an earlier question I asked - what do people say to their children in later life if they have "done anything" to get them into the "best school", if that "everything" includes lying about their address or their faith.