I am happy with my children's state education but every so often I find myself talking to a 'private education' parent and just feel totally stressed

[Twiglett]

that there is no way my children can have the same quality and range of education and range of experiences and access to extra-curricular activities

poo-bum willy-faced bollox

The common belief that children who attend independent schools never mix with people from "different social backgrounds" really bugs me. I went to an independent school from five to 18, and mixed with plenty of dirty working-class people (my Mum's half of our family consisted of nothing but). My own children, also at independent schools, have a very broad social mix - partly through school (yes!! There is a social mix there too!!), and partly through their home life and the city in which we live.

I do know someone who is violently anti-indie-school (she could readily afford it, but feels on principle that her children will have this fabled "social mix" at the local, very average, state primary) - yet she wouldn't let them talk to her cleaner (lest they pick up a local accent). She also sacked her nanny for being "too common"...

I don't have a job (and wouldn't want one) despite the 13 years at an independent school. However, like it or not, I still feel that the experience has given me all kinds of advantages in life - and, above all, it has given me choices. Nothing was ever assumed; the only thing that was assumed was that we were all bright young women who were capable of pretty much anything!

That's not so. My children like Dotto's have mixed with lots of different children over the years in and out of school. They haven't been to "posh" schools at all, just schools which are very hard to get into on academic grounds and where we live that means a very mixed background. They have friends who didn't pay fees (on scholarships) and very poor friends where a grandparent might have paid and friends out of school who aren't in state schools at all. Obviously at university they are with children from all kinds of schools too.

Some of their groupings at university may be class based (eg one was on the first lacrosse team and people from state schools tend not to play and apparently the lacrosse girls are so popular (along with the first rugby team) the team has on occasion been paid simply to turn up at parties but that's probably more to do with the physical fitness and good looks of the players than their class. And then other activities they do (okay may be not the one who was doing wine tasting and polo... briefly)... are pretty mixed in terms of class.

What careers they pick after are a bit class based though which was my point about state schools lowering your expectations.

At the end of the day if women women are earn a lot they then get a chance to buy good school places for their children if that matters to them so it's an issue of women fulfilling their potential and not being shunted into low paid dull work or being a housewife entirely reliant on male earnings.

Hmmm re career choices....well for one thing not everyone wants their child to wind up as an automaton working for Price Waterhouse or some such.
Secondly I just don't think it is true that a private education is any kind of guarantee of future career choice or earnings-i went to one of the country's top girls schools and at my 20 year reunion (so old! sob) there were some lawyers and doctors but also lots of stay at home mums, social workers, public and charity sector and self employed. A good education whether state or private hopefully allows you choice but I think family expectations have more to do with how important future earnings are when choosing a career.

I went to a direct-grant (now independent) all-girls school where it was expected that you would make something of your life. I undertook a career in one of the (male dominated) Professions and now run my own business.
Perhaps my success was partly due to the school, partly due to the age in which I was born. Our generation was second-wave feminists: the first generation forced open the doors and it was expected that we would follow up and ensure that the equalities won became entrenched.
It pains me to see that the next generation is so wishy-washy and unambitious, and wants to pass that on to their DC. Or is it down to the type of person who posts on mumsnet - the career-women are busy getting on with things whilst the not-so-career-minded are posting about shoes and AIBU?

But LadyG I'd bet good money that those women who stayed at home did it out of choice and could afford to.
Most working class women work in low paid jobs to pay the rent.
Even if most privately educated people don't end up in the city, and many wimen, particularly of our certain age, end up SAHMs it will be by choie for the most part. And that choice is worth gold dust.

Stowe is a bit second rate, isn't it? Certainly not in the top UK 100 schools state or private for exam results.

Stop being friends with people who privately educate their children.

What I hate about all the state primaries in my area is the vertical streaming. They have Reception and Year 1 in a big room which is consequently chaotic, noisy and overwhelming and the teacher can only ever deal with small groups at a time. Absolute madness, I reckon.
How on earth can you combine Year 1, 2 and 3 without compromising the individual needs of each child? Well worth paying for private school to avoid that, IMO.

More seriously, my sil and her dh chose state for their children and most of their friends (all their good friends, I think) sent their kids to private. All teh children have now left school and there is really no sign of any being more advantaged than others.

However, sil had same income as the friends and they did loads of expensive ex-curr stuff with theie children. SO income level will have an effect.

I think a lot of it boils down to choice. Ds 1 is at a state primary, and I have absolutly no regrets about him being there, and don't believe he would do any better anywhere else. There's a great sense of commnity and they really look at the whole child rather than just the academic stuff, although this is good too. More than anything else it is the right school for him.

But the local state comp is another kettle of fish. It's awful and he would do terribly there. Although there is a lot of talk about choice in the state system, there isn't really. If you have the money to pay for an independant school you have a choice of where your child goes, and you can match the school to your child's needs.

Luckily we are moving soon, and the local school is much better.

Both DH and I went to state schools, dh to a tough inner city school and is doing fabulously in his chosen career.

As I said prevously, it's all about the right school for your dc's and having money to pay just gives you more choice

Original post refers to access to extra curricula activities at independent school. I have 2 sons at independent schools at secondary level.
DS1(16) comes home immediately after school finishes and has managed even to avoid compulsory after school activites. As far as he is concerned these would take up too musch of his free time.
DS2(13) boards weekly and also prefers to hang out with his friends after school rather than do anything too structured.
Don't get pulled into this part of the comparison as IME once most of them have reached teenage years this is quite common.

lazymum is absolutely right. I know lots of private school kids who manage to avoid the 'compulsory' activities which so many of these schools use as a selling point. Fine if you have the type of child who wants to sign up to everything (although even then you pay through the nose - you could often fund these extra activities more cheaply outside of school). But the reality is that a lot of young people just don't want their time structured for them to this degree. They want to hang out with friends, chill at home, whatever. Our high street is often full of the local private school kids on a wednesday afternoon which is supposedly when they have their sports and activities afternoon . Private schools can also be notoriously lax about keeping registers, so truanting can be easier as well. A friend's daughter who went to private, horrified her parents by announcing (after leaving school) that she had rarely gone to afternoon lessons as the afternoon register was taken by a prefect (if they felt like turning up!) and registers werent routinely taken at the start of each lesson.

There was virtually no truanting in my children's private schools. I agree children vary as to how many hobbies they want to do but even the school day is longer. You see our state school pupils locally finished by 2.50pm some afternoons and always just after 3. My twins finish at 4 and they're only 9 and they can stay on for after school activities to 5 most days if they chose to do them (or in after school/homework club until 6 if parents need that). My older daughter's school Habs at school coaches at normal finishing time but also "late coach" for those doing an activity and even a "late late coach" for those even later doing clubs etc. As that child was quite participative she would sometimes be getting home at 6 or 6.30 when we did from work.

I don't think it matters if they are joiners or more solitary as long as they have the opportunities to take if they want to.

If DS said to me "Mummy, I want to make a wise career choice in terms of perpetuating the ability to fund places for my children at fee paying schools and replicate my parents' life styles" I would give him a clip round the earhole.

Honestly, I would think I had failed as a parent.

Oh dear MadamePlatypus you are going to get a lecture from Xenia about the strapping lacrosse girls in a minute.

I firmly believe that if a child is bright and a self starter then they will get along at whatever school they go to.

private/public schools aren't just full of smart and priviledged kids there are some super thick ones there too and there are also kids from very 'ordinary' backgrounds - they're not all aristos.

The days of state education being for the riff raff and private education being for the toffs are long gone.

One of my closets friends is the European head of one of the world's biggest banks - he earns millions - his dad was a meat porter at Smithfield and he went to comprehensive.

I think there are many many very happy children in state and private education and many horribly unhappy children in both too!

I had a private education in one great and one terrible school. I'd rather have gone to a state school and had a happy home life!

It cab be hard to be at private school if your income is profoundly less than your classmates, there's no getting away from it.

Private schools can offer a greater range of opportunities but my ds is at the local state primary and he is well travelled, has tons of extra curric activities, a really broad social mix and we're pretty delighted.

Bright kids can thrive anywhere. But it's true that if your child is really struggling they would benefit inevitably from smaller class sizes. But many state schools do try to address this imaginatively. Also it's possible to find private tutors who can make a huge difference for a child who's struggling.

What frightens me is 2ndary state schools, they're all just so big and I worry about ds being bullied and other kids carrying knives etc! I'm assuming we'll probably have to move to make sure ds is in an ok state school. Scary but what can you do?

ipanemagirl - don't worry, secondary state schools aren't all full of knife carrying thugs!! I agree that bright kids should be able to thrive in most schools. I think a lot of people who pay for private do it as a kind of 'insurance policy' - they probably know deep down it's not going to make a great measurable difference (and certainly not commensurate with the money spent!). But if a private school gets, say, a 95% pass rate and the state school gets 75%, then I guess some parents worry more and think 'What if my child doesnt do well?' Personally as long as my kids are going to achieve, it really doesnt matter greatly to me whether they are part of 75% or 95%.
BTW, re: Xenia's point about the length of the school day and extra curricular activities... I think you're a little out of touch with how state schools operate these days. It is totally normal for schools to have a whole range of extra curricular activities laid on. State schools did suffer for a while when there was the backlash of teachers not being prepared to do the extra stuff, but that was years ago. The culture now is that there is an expectation of a lot of opportunities available. DS's school runs late buses three times a week and there is a whole programme of extras laid on after school - sport, art, music, drama, chess, yoga, latin etc etc, plus extra revision classes before exams. And talking to friends this is pretty much the norm now. I think the only difference with private is that these activities aren't 'compulsory' which in my view is an advantage. As someone else said, it encourages self motivation. If ds wants to do yoga or rugby he'll do it because he chooses, not because I'm paying a school to put his name on an activity list because it's complusory.

My friend and I were very similar at primary school and both supposed to go to private school. My dad got made redundant (it was the 80s) and she went while I went to 'shite' local comp. I got better A Levels than her, ran and played netball for the county and now have loads of friends right across the British class system.

This I believe had sod all to do with the schools and everything to do with my lovely supportive parents.

Similar kind of situation here littlemiss. When I was going up to secondary my area were just phasing out grammars and secondary mods and the first comprehensive in the county had just opened. I 'passed' the 11 + but my parents sent me to the comp as my older brother had 'failed' and was there. It wasn't an awful school by any means, but looking back it can't actually have been a comprehensive as I was in the last year of the 11+ exam so actually a lot of my peers were creamed off into the grammar. But I did well in my A levels, went to a good University, got a good degree, did a higher degree.... I think if you have the motivation and a supportive home life then frankly there's something wrong if you can't succeed!

Find the river, that selection of extra curric activities is aMAzing, presumably that's in a 2ndary school is it?

Our local primary doesn't offer that much really, all ds's activities are off my own bat and involve endless driving about!

The one thing I would say about the difference in state schools and public schools (I went to private RC ones, not big name public schools) is that I think the public school system can geve its pupils the most extraordinary sense of confidence and self possession (spelling?) this kind of ease with people presumably comes from a mixture of a sense of entitlement, superiority (dare I say it). And also an unwritten rule in these schools that you have to behave with extreme confidence in situations like interviews etc. Many of my friends at university were from public schools and I was confident for certain but they were hugely confident.

I think this is something to do with either being rich or feeling better than other people or a mixture of both!!

Obviously those who want to guarantee their kids a place at the top table of life, a public school education is a massive advantage. I guess it depends on what you want. I want my ds to be happy and to be himself. I'd hate him to be as competitive as those schools can make boys!

Oh, and also I couldn't afford the fees!!! Should mention that of course!!