why do mumsnetters think it is not ok to send your dc to a private school?

[stitch]

i am amazed by some of the ideas on here.
why do mnetters think it is so wrong?

orm, those are good personal reasons

sorry, have to leave just as this discussion is getting interesting.

I wouldn't unless for some reason we ended up living in an area where the only state education available was in a school I really really didn't want to send DS to for whatever reason. Lots of violence or something.

But my basic principle is that I think for most children, an educational environment that is more inclusive, not selective by either academic ability or financial criteria, is more beneficial overall. I would like DS to have as much exposure to different people, different families, different social and economic circumstances and 'norms' as possible. I realise that it's difficult to achieve that perfectly, but I feel it is more likely to be achieved at a state school.

I think things like exam results depend more on the individual than the school, and good exam results at a school depend a lot on the type of child who attends the school and the type of parent as well. I am fairly confident that DS will probably be quite intelligent, and he will certainly receive plenty of support.

In terms of optional extras, support, equipment, other opportunities which people often cite as benefits of private school I would prefer to provide those if possible separately while keeping DS within a state-educated environment.

I would also be worried that he might come out talking posh if he went private.

Having said that, I would not say it is 'wrong' for someone else to send their children private. I don't agree with selective education at all myself, and in a fantasy world I would like good inclusive comprehensive state schools available to all.

But that's not going to happen or isn't at the moment so if people choose to send their children to private school I would not say that's 'wrong'.

Ok, I can tell you why I don't send my children to private school. We could afford the fees (not without sacrifices though) but for me it's the fact that I really don't believe my children are more important than everybody elses children. For me to choose private school I would be making the decision that my child deserved a better education than the majority of children - something which I honestly don't believe to be true. Of course, I'd love it if everybody felt the same and chose to use the state education system, but I do accept that it is a choice and that some people have the right to choose private (oh, but I would really, really love it if they didn't!)

good, thriving state schools, properly funded, with supportive parents, can provide all those things.

why do you think that state education is homogeneous?

I think a lot use them, but then they get over defensive! Mention that you are very happy with your state school and you get accused of starting the old private/state argument, when you didn't!
I use state schools because they are good in my area, I would use private if the state schools were poor and I could afford it. There are good and bad state schools and there are equally good and bad private schools.

I think the assertion that private schools offer a "better" education because you pay for it is downright wrong. They may offer more facilities / smaller classes / better academic results, which are all good reasons for sending your kids there, but I fear that many of the people who use them do have the feeling that they are simply all better because they are private and that way lies a divided society.

I still remember a friend saying to me aged 11 "but how can you expect your teachers to teach you properly if you're not paying for it"? She was genuinely bemused!

I'm pretty shocked by the state of state schools. Class sizes are outrageously huge, there are some pretty poor teachers (along with some utterly brilliant ones of course) and there are too many tests.

I was brought up a socialist but I tell you, if I could afford to send my four to private school, I'd do it like a shot.
IME the schooling is of better quality, with better teachers (or at least a higher quality threshold and less tolerance of crap teachers) smaller classes.

It's a sad fact that most of the people in charge of the country and highest up in business, journalism, medicine and practically everything else are privately educated then probably went to Oxbridge. Some of that may well be about the connections you make, but why would anyone with money deny their children that sort of start in life?

Well there's that too flowery . I fundamentally beleive that a good basic education is a right for all children. Not just mine.

But my main reasons for not using private education are purely personal.

I had a private school education and, like Orm, don't think I got anything out of it that I wouldn't have got at a good state school. In fact, I often think I might have done better had I not been educated in an institution that, even by the early 90s, was still instructing 'our girls' to make good wives, mothers and possibly, possibly nice PAs with good posture and an eye for the boss

Spider, that's a huge generalisation. Ds's state primary is a really good school, as it happens, with enthusiastic teachers, happy children and an outstanding rating from Ofsted.

The thing about private education is that it affects the rest of us. While private isn't always better - there are plenty of poor private schools - there is a level of social advantage gained from private education. Private school pupils are hugely over-represented in admissions to Oxbridge and in positions of power and influence - look at the Tory front bench (and the Labour government, come to that).

Then you get the snobbery of some parents who pay, making ridiculous statements on threads about 'oh, if you only TRIED hard enough and cut back a bit you too could sent little Horace to St Tristams' as if parents who don't pay are somehow lacking in moral fibre.

State schools vary. Private schools vary. Children vary. Parents attitudes vary. Why would one kind of school automatically be "better" than another? There are excellent private schools, and really pretty crap private schools. Ditto state schools. Parents have to make the best choice they can overall for their family - that will depend what their child is like and what the available schools are like, and whether they think mixing with a different range of people will be a good thing or not.

"For me to choose private school I would be making the decision that my child deserved a better education than the majority of children - something which I honestly don't believe to be true."

But lots of people actively seek out state schools with "outstanding" Ofsted reports, (or what they're worth - and there's a whole new thread). People still think their little darlings deserve the best education available to them. That sink school with a "satisfactory" might be okay for "other" kids - but not theirs.

Isn't that pretty much the same thing?

I think, in many cases, private schools offer a different kind of education - which may suit particular children. Not always better.

EVERY Old Etonian I've never met, btw, has sent their own children to state schools. ALthough that may just be the circles I move in - I don't have a representative sample of OEs or anything.

I don't think sink schools are OK for anybody's child. Every school should have a head and staff who are passionate about doing their very best for the pupils, whatever their family background.

Your OP was fine, Stich, but I'm a wee bit disappointed that you then went down the 'why wouldn't you do it if you could afford it' road.

I doit because it I believe it's right for my kids and I'm lucky enough to afford the choice. Plenty of others disagree because it goes against their idealogy, millions more don't actually have the choice.

Lots of people (MN included) are against anything which they feel gives unfair advantage to some, especially if they feel their children are disadvantaged because of it. I don't actually disagree but as a mother, whilst that advantage exists and I can afford it, I'm going to pay.

I agree with what pagwatch has said.

My view is that I would prefer all children to have equality of educational opportunity. I have no intention of sending my children to private schools.

However, I live in an area where the state provision is very good, so it's pretty easy for me to hold to my principles. (There is also no way I could afford to go private, so that makes it easy in an entirely different sense .)

I would not dream of criticising any individual for privately educating their children, though. Clearly, they are doing it for the children's benefit, and I would never criticise a parent for doing what they think best for their own child (within the limits of reason).

It doesn't mean I have to embrace the notion of 'one standard of education for the rich, another for the poor' though.

idont see why poor children should get a lesser education - simple

The 'private but not better' and the 'private but actually worse' schools referred to are the ones with parents who pay to be elitist. They are interested in paying for the sake of it. If they weren't, those schools would sink and many are struggling this year. Most parents who pay just want the small classes, good teaching and the extra facilities. Good state schools are sadly often constrained just to the good teaching.

Parents move to a different area, paying a higher cost for their house so their child can go to a specific school that has good results. Isn't this just the same as paying for a private school?

It's true though, not all schools (private or state) are good schools. It's the luck of the draw.

Well I had the choice of three state schools and chose the one closest to our home. It ranked second out of the three, but I would have chosen third ranked if it had been closest.

Well I had the choice of three state schools and chose the one closest to our home. It ranked second out of the three, but I would have chosen third ranked if it had been closest.

I could afford to go private but choose to go state. However, I do understand that some parents find the state school system rather scary. We are looking towards secondary school transfer and that is rather scary too. We are lucky in that we have dd's and there is an excellent girls school in our area. For boys the provision is miserable. I suspect we would be actively considering private for secondary if we had sons.

But Custy... Poor children get less of everything. Less house, less garden, less green space. I know,I grew up with nothing.

Abolishing indie schools will not affect state schools very much. In affluent areas with good schools the kids will just go there. Parents who can afford to pay can also afford to move so those who live in areas of poor schools will not suddenly start sending their kids there.