groaning under the weight of private school fees!

[pearso]

Hello,
I've got one child at private school, the other still at state primary for another year and we're dreading the decision next year about what to do. It's very unlikely we'll be able to afford a second set of school fees. Is anyone else in a similar situation? I'd love to hear from you if you are.... I'm also writing about it in my column for the Evening Standard so wouldn't use names but would love to hear what people think, especially in London and about any experiences good or bad.
thanks!

I think how a person mixes with others is mainly dependant on upbringing. So many people only talk about themselves and don't take an interest in others or listen to others.

Eg. at my DCs private school I asked a mother if she had had good hols..she talked a bit about them and then walked on without bothering to quickly say "did you have good hols too"..I found this rather rude!

I think many people who haven't experienced private education are resentful and are therefore completely anti private schools. There are also some who have had all their education at private schools and come across as a bit stuck up and unable to relate to normal people...ideally everyone should have a taste of each system to become a fully rounded person!

Hear hear Swedes. Nothing worse than the state school parent who smugly states oh we would never go private while buying their £800,000plus house in a exclusive catchment area for the local outstanding primary. While the primary in special measures serves the poor end of the community. Education should be improved for all. Bring in lottery places, might hurt but you would remove this postcode crap.

Couldn't agree more Swede, there's no moral difference whatsoever between paying private school fees or paying a premium to buy a house in a catchment area of a good state school. Either way, you are using your financial resources to secure a better aducation for your child relative to others.

UNQDad - nonsense to suggest the pro-private lobby tries to make it seem as if everyone has the same choice - as simple as choosing cornflakes etc. But there are people who don't have the money and put their children in for scholarships, home ed, move house, whatever. And people with enough money who don't send their children to private school, but I bet they would if their local secondary was failing. There is no level playing field to start with and there never will be. Deal with it.

scienceteacher on Thu 08-Jan-09 06:43:44
"Cory, it kind of scuppers the notion that private schools aren't diverse."

Yes, the bit I took issue with was your statement that you can go into any state school and find it divided in a way that private schools are not. You haven't done a survey of all state schools in the country and I have seen enough state schools to know that this is not the case.

I did spend some time at a (very pleasant and well run) private boarding school as a teen and the one thing that struck me as odd, coming from a state school, was that the other girls only seemed to know the children of other business men and professionals- the cleaners who worked at the school lived in a world apart, and they never met anyone on benefits.

My dd who goes to state school mixes with a social range that seems quite diverse to me and I have not seen any evidence of racial or social division such as you speak of.

I have not claimed that private schools can not be diverse (though clearly not full of genuinely poor people); you were the one who claimed state schools cannot be.

It must depend on where you live. One thing that astonished me when I had a child in the state sector in London was the divisions between pupils and parents, along both racial and class lines. By and large the white working class kept to themselves, as did the Bengali Muslims and the Yummy Mummies.

SwedesInACape on Thu 08-Jan-09 09:29:10

"If your child's school is better than the lowest performing school in your LEA (unless quite by accident) you really have no moral authority to complain about others improving their children's education by fee-paying."

Depends on what you define as quite by accident. Most people around here go for (=know they can only get into) their catchment school, regardless of whether it is the best or worst in the LEA. The ones that go out of catchment tend to have special reasons such as disability.

Well in London anyway, most people have more than one school in their catchment area.

'I personally don't get along with most that come from that background because I find them stuck up and difficult to relate to. We are on different levels, basically because they know more than I do and they speak accordingly and I find it hard to keep up.'

So actually, they're not necessarily stuck up but because they know more (or so you think) than you do it's easier to accuse them of being snooty???

I don't know if I'm stealing a march by paying for my kids' education - that ceratianly wasn't my intention and, as I'm informed ad infinitum on here, private school won't make my kids any brighter ( some go so far as to say I've actually hindered them and are turning them into drug addled, spoonfed,spoilt, emotionally distant robots...but hey ho).
But I do accept that generally, in the long run, a march does seem to get stolen...private school kids do get a disproportionate amount of good grades, places at good unis, well paid jobs etc etc etc.
What I cannot understand is how some critics of my choice then go on to choose grammar schools/faith schools/ schools in unbelievably expensive catchments for their own children.
They will accuse me of unfairness then openly say they will spend the money they have so so so wisely saved on ballet lessons, kumon, violin tutors, holidays in Africa...as if all those things are not stealing the proverbial march.
There are some very disadvantaged children in this country and most people try to give their own children a better start than that...why are some parental actions allowed but others the work of the devil?

Too right Litchick.

FWIW, I had a place at our local primary for DS: it is one of the top-performiong primaries in the South East, a faith school.

However, all 400 pupils were, with the exception of one mixed-race girl, white, pink cheeked, middle class, and C of E (or pretending to be).

I put DS into the private school next door which is far better diversified. With the exception of a few very well-off people, parents tend to be in the same income bracket as those at the primary. But they are Jewish/Muslim/atheist/Catholic/CofE/white/
black/ whatever. A far better mix. The only downside is that there are relatively few girls (about 25%). And i asked DS recently, 'what is different about Imraan?'. 'He has glasses, Mummy'.

So what price sterotypes?

chocolatedot on Thu 08-Jan-09 11:30:18
"Well in London anyway, most people have more than one school in their catchment area."

Different LEAs are different. In our town, there is usually one school per catchment and the catchment lines are drawn in a really odd way, so you can be across the road from the school and still out of catchment and with no chance of getting in.

hmmm, Dottoressa - don't know about you but I couldn't foresee 18 months ago that our income would be halved through job losses. You're being harsh on people who, through no fault of their own, are suddenly much worse off than they were when they made the decision to educate their children privately. Any savings put aside for school fees will now be for essentials like paying the mortgage....Maybe you're lucky but I'd say 20% of my friends have lost jobs. We certainly went privately because our ONE state option (in many parts of London you only get one choice) was failing, badly.

waves at BoffinMum

I e-mailed you about a reference for your published work. Did you get it?

Haven't checked that email box for couple of days, frannikin, I will look now.

Boffinmum, haven't read the whole thread but wanted to ask you about your theory about state schools not being good enough to educate the top 10% of gifted people.

I just do not agree. I'm not saying state schools are great just that gifted kids are gifted without the input from their school. Some of the greatest minds could go to the crappest schools and still be great minds and still become professors, doctors etc.

Surely university is there to really challenge the greatest minds? School is there for kids to get qualifications. Gifted kids get great results at state schools, because they are gifted. I see your point that they need to be challenged beyond the normal range and that might not be possible at most state schools, but then there is still university.

I think the benefits to the private sector are the better results they get, and the networking that goes on.

Another hole in your argument is that just cos a parent is rich enough to send their child private doesn't mean that child is one of great minds of the country!

Neenztwinz, the literature does not agree with you on this - Joan Freeman's work is particularly interesting here. Gifted children are more complex than you are describing, and need good teaching and encouragement like anyone else. They also vary a lot and are not good at all subjects and skills all of the time - they can be age 18 at maths, age 14 at languages, age 9 at PE and music and age 3 at tidying up their bedrooms all at once, for example.

BTW I was not saying that just because someone is at a private school, they are one of the best minds. I was saying that private schools have a higher proportion of bright pupils than many state schools, which is not surprising as many of them are selective. This has an effect on the school's culture and expectations. It can be replicated in the state sector (eg Thomas Telford School, Hockerill, Wymondham, Camden Girls) but this is not always the case. However London is a good example of how examination results for all children can improve rapidly if expectations are raised and funding is allocated accordingly.

I wonder why I don't worry all that much about dd's stimulation at school: is it because I'm burying my head in the sand (can't afford private anyway so might as well pretend everything is fine)

or is it because I believe her school is a shining exception (no, not really, it is ok but not outstanding. certainly not a sink school, but not a specialist in gifted children either).

I think it's more to do with the fact that I tend to look on the side of her own initiative and responsibility rather than think about how other people can stimulate her- that seems a bit passive to me.

Maybe because I went to a local comp where most people had rather low expectations so I did think of education as something that I had to decide to want for myself. Also, both my father and my maternal grandfather came from poor uneducated backgrounds and were prepared to suffer a lot of hardship to get an education.

Of course, I want dd to have good teachers and to feel supported at school, and I want to do everything I can to support and stimulate her myself, but I find I can't leave her out of the equation either; it seems natural to me that an important part of the impetus and the responsibility must come from her. Am I expecting too much from a 12-year-old?

I don't mean I expect her to do it all, but some of the G&T parents seem to speak of their children as if they were incapable of thinking for themselves. I see dd as a very capable person.

I agree with your last point Cory. To my mind a lot of private school parents infantilise their children, particularly in London. I see so many who do absolutely everything for their children and as a result, their offspring take little responsibility for their own actions.

A bit, cory. I was like this myself, but other schoolmates who were equally bright and not so personally motivated at key points ended up losing out somewhat in life's lottery. All kids need a bit of encouragement and support, IMO. Kids in the top and bottom 10% probably need a little bit more and don't always get it, frankly.

That having been said, you may notice I don't post on the gifted children threads on MN as people get their knickers in a right twist over all this sometimes, and like you say, some people expect the world to revolve around their offspring. As my dad says, "You have to fit in with the world. You can't expect the world to fit in with you".

I would add that some state schools are absolutely brilliant at helping kids at all levels, and that's what I would like to see rolled out nationally. It's far too patchy for my liking at the moment.

Of course I don't mean that children should be given no encouragement, just that someone like dd who knows that she is in the top 10% is naturally both more able and more motivated to go out and do that little bit more for herself.

I don't think there is necessarily a link between high IQ and motivation. Psychologically they are different beasts. Just like there isn't necessarily a link between low IQ and lack of motivation.

I used to get really naffed off when I was a teacher in the staff room, hearing how certain pupils were given attention because teachers liked them or their parents a bit more, whereas other pupils were obviously being a bit neglected through no fault of their own (usually the black kids where I taught - isn't that atrocious in this day and age). It's not always fair shares in school.

I will stop now before I start ranting! It made my blood boil then and it does now!!

No, you are right in many ways BoffinMum; a child of any IQ can get disaffected for other reasons. But if you are not disadvantaged in other ways (social, family etc), then a high IQ surely should make it easier to go that extra mile on your own.

It must be very difficult for someone to feel motivated to try to teach themselves something new when they know they can't even cope with what the teacher has tried to teach them for weeks.

Dd knows that she can go to the library and get out e.g a load of history books written for adults, read them and get extra marks on her project. If she chooses not to do it, that is frankly her decision and she is quite old enough to know that the decisions she takes will affect her future. Someone with a low IQ who struggles to understand the most basic text hasn't got that option.

Like dd didn't have the option of attending maths lessons in her fourth year because there was no money to make the school disability-adapted. (I know, we should have sued. Nothing like hindsight).

I think knowing how badly disadvantaged she was, and still is, by her physical disabilities, I find it difficult to see her mental abilities as a disadvantage; they are what she uses to overcome her other disadvantages.

I think the reality is that people are complex individuals and the job of a teacher is to respond to that.