Just wondering... how do you think the financial turmoil will affect private school applications this year?

[PrincessPeaHead]

It was difficult enough to see who the hell could afford boarding fees of £8800 per term in a boom economy... now? Do you think there will be a big move from boarding to private day options (cheaper) or in fact also a big fall in private day applications as people try for grammars/use the good local comp ?

Just musing really.

Not the wrong way round - a different question.

Not the wrong way round - a different question.

Well I agree with that last point fivecandles - it is a minefield!!

I suppose to take the argument further... most state schools set by ability, so is it divisive to allow that? Yes, of course there is the flexibility to move up and down sets, but at the end of the day, the child of intelligent, supportive parents is more likely to be in top sets than the child of a dysfunctional family.

And as I've said on other threads, having children in top sets, means that my kids are surrounded by bright, able children. They are in the type of classes they would be taught in if they were in a selective private school (well - a bit bigger classes, but I'm not about to pay 15k a year each just to have smaller classes!!). I don't know how I'd feel if my children weren't academically able - it's a tricky one.

And yes, I do know I'm incredibly fortunate, that my kids will get a good education and achieve well and be in a really good position for University applications (we've even got the local private school kids opting into state at 6th form for the perceived advantage of University applications....) So, yes, whatever we choose is really a minefield, and as you say, unless every parent send their child to the local state school right across the board, there will never be anything near equality in education.

And the hospital argument doesn't hold: health treatment in Western societies is value-neutral, in that its only purpose is to prolong life in good health. Education is not value-neutral.

Not the issue at all. EXCLUDING children from a school. Not allowing them access to that school because of faith or ability (IMO) when taxpayers money have paid for it is nothing like the policies a school has to challenge and support its students once inside it. Not even a comparison.

Don't exactly what you mean by 'value neutral'. A school should be no less value neutral than a hospital or public transport.

The bottom line is if the public pay for it then the public should have access to it.

Unless it's taken out of state control and funding.

"The bottom line is if the public pay for it then the public should have access to it."

Not true. There are complex criteria to be met for accessing a whole host of publicly-funded services.

But that's MY view Anna.

To ME it is no more acceptable to exclude a child from a state school for her faith, ability or social class than it would be to exclude her from a hospital or public transport for the same reason.

Choosing schools as an ethical minefield? Not for me, I'm afraid!

Hmm, just because you don't engage with them doesn't mean your choice doesn't have ethical implications.

Dottoressa.

I might toss and turn at night about all kinds of things, but choosing a school? Nah. I know my priorities.

You know fivecandles, thinking this through it really is incredibly complex!

So.. my children are in top sets at a good high achieving state school. But as I can afford to send them to private, do I have a moral obligation to do so, thus freeing up top set places for other bright children? Now, as I've said, I don't want to do that. I actually think my kids are getting the best of both worlds - a really good education, without the disadvantages of going to private. (And I really believe there are disadvantages - not just the money it costs, but all sorts of things that are difficult to measure, like, will my kids be less comfortable in mixing with people from all walks of life later? Will they maybe be less confident in their own ability if they feel they have only achieved by being in a private school? Will they in turn feel horrendous pressure to pay for their kids's education??)

But on the other hand, looking at it unselfishly, doesn't that provide even more of an argument as to why I should send them private? - I feel they have the best possible deal at the moment, but actually I'm depriving other kids from being in top sets, so actually any moral argument should state that I sacrifice my own desire for my kids to be educated in a state school, I should pay the money that I'm fortunate enough to earn, and free up those top sets spaces for bright kids from less well off families.....

It goes round in circles doesn't it? The bottom line is, no, I am not going to have a moral dilemma about it. My kids have a right to a good education within the state system and I'm not about to deprive them of that.

findtheriver I'm not the one judging other people's choices. I find that often other people judge the parents of children who go to private schools without considering the implications of their own choices.

One of my points is that there all sorts of inequalities, hypocrisies, advantages and disadvantages and social exlusion in the STATE sector. These are much more important statistically and in terms of social effects than the tiny minority of private schools. But also and obviously state schools are funded by public money.

"Hmm, just because you don't engage with them doesn't mean your choice doesn't have ethical implications."

Is it an objective fact that my choice has ethical implications? I don't think it is. Surely it's just an opinion that my choices might have any bearing whatsoever on anyone else...

All this hand-wringing and "ooh, am I doing the right thing?" etc. is all very well, and very nice if you feel you have made the right "choice" I'm sure. But being in that place to begin with is out of a lot of people's reach.

My essential, very simple argument, which people have tried their best to complexify (and hence blur) is that for most people it doesn't come down to some hifalutin' moral choice. It comes down to MONEY. Most people can't afford school fees. Any more than they can afford many other luxuries.

And don't try and compare education with cars and plasma TV screens and holidays. There are no state equivalents.

This is what I feel - regardless of the whole argument about whether "middle-class" kids improve a school, which is debatable (not as in "dodgy", just as in "can be, and is being, debated). The better private education becomes and the more needs it serves of those who can pay, the more that absolves successive governments of the need to actually do something about hauling state education up by its bootstraps. I'd be willing to bet most of those in senior management at our Council have no personal vested interest in our state schools as they avoid using them.

I'm not a "banner", as I'm essentially a liberal and don't like "banning", but I do wonder what life would be like with no independent education available. It would be interesting to see the shift in priorities, that's for certain.

There could never be a life without independent education. Quite apart from anything else, there will always be parents who believe that the state is not the best body to make effective decisions about their children's education. In the event of all independent schools being scrapped, plenty of parents would get together and set up - guess what? Yes, independent schools...

That's also partly why I don't bang on about "banning" - because I know such a thing would be impossible. But, guess what, message from Earth: I'm sure it is quite possible to be "parents who believe that the state is not the best body to make effective decisions about their children's education", while still being unable to do a bloody thing about it.

If my children were in the state sector it wouldn't make it any better. It would just deprive the state of funds. There are 400,000 children in private schools and they would be expensive to accommodate. Local authorities are already having problems because of the credit crunch and more applicants for state school places. Perhaps we need a new tax refund - that you can set the fees against your tax as your reward for unburdening the state.

Is it wrong not to pay if you can? If you think private schools are better which in my view in many cases they are then yes, you're not doing the best you can for your child. If you think they are worse for the child then just like the very left wing parent who chooses the worst sink school to bury their little darling in sacrificed on the altar of their socialist principles is doing something morally wrong and putting the chidl below principle sotoo is not paying when you could afford to and the educatoin would be better.

well bizarrely enough I got a letter from cheltenham ladies college today.

did I mention that I sent off for a prospectus about 18 months (actually probably 2 years) ago, didn't take it any further, have never looked around, gone on an open day, nada. They sent me a "reminder" to register DD1 about 2 months ago which I found bizarre. Anyway TODAY they have invited DD1 on a "taster boarding weekend" for 2 days in November, in anticipation of entry Sept 2009. That would require registering her NOW (many schools have passed their date), for exams in Jan.

They must be very short of applicants to be trawling through old mailing lists, and inviting people who have never had any further contact with the school on boarding taster weekends surely? Isn't this odd?

I think it could actually be great and very refreshing to have an alternative to state education, but for so long as it is one which runs on business principles and only being available for those who can pay (pace a very small number of bursaries), the alternative "option" will remain a luxury.

"There could never be a life without independent education. Quite apart from anything else, there will always be parents who believe that the state is not the best body to make effective decisions about their children's education. In the event of all independent schools being scrapped, plenty of parents would get together and set up - guess what? Yes, independent schools... "

I don't think I agree with this. Here in France independent schools don't exist as such. Private schools exist. But they are bound to the French national curriculum. It is unfeasible for French children to attend schools that do not teach to the French national curriculum, determined by the French Ministry of Education.

Agree PPH that Cheltenham Ladies College is doing some pretty heavy marketing from the sounds of it...

Anna - yours is an interesting point. In the (impossible) scenario of all British private schools being closed down, I suspect that there's a large enough body of non-conformists here to set up schools that had no connection whatsoever to any kind of national curriculum. I can't imagine any situation in which everyone in the UK would agree to be bound by anything!

UQD: "I'm sure it is quite possible to be "parents who believe that the state is not the best body to make effective decisions about their children's education", while still being unable to do a bloody thing about it."

Yes, I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Lucky are the ones who can afford to do something about it! But I don't think that's what we're debating, is it?

Dottoressa - indeed, the British are far less inclined to conform to societal norms than the French . And the French have had an NC (programme) for so long now that most French people look wide-eyed in astonishment when one explains that the very best schools in the UK do not follow the NC.

I am not personally a fan of NCs (and have lots of odd educational experiences under my belt on which to judge their effectiveness or otherwise). But large, successful, developed countries do manage to tick along in their own way with populations educated 100% according to an NC .

Xenia - I've already said on this on another thread - I don't agree that I should be morally bound to pay for a private school education just because I can afford it. I pay a lot of tax (assuming I keep my job in he current climate of course) and see no reason why my son should not reap the benefit of a quality state education.

I don't like the ethos of my local private schools "we'll select the best, then pretend we're great and make the childrens' lives hell to make sure we maintain our eague table place) and the private schools that don't have that ethos are too expensive for me (and too far away) (and it's not just fees, it's the whole thing with expensive uniform etc).

In Germany they have very few independent schools so parents can spend the money they would have paid on fees on enriching extra-curricular activities. So the kids do lots of sports, music and language courses etc.