private or state: how did you decide?

[marialuisa]

We're in the fortunate position of being able to pay for DD to go private, but we're really unsure whether we should.
Our local primary is dire but there is a strong possibility that DD would get into the neighbouring parish school (we're R.C.) At the moment this school has class sizes of 22, nice "feel", good academically etc. However a new housing estate on the way which will push up class numbers and reduce the chance of DD getting a place.

We have looked around and found that if we want DD to go private we should put her name down now for nursery class in January. Thing is I've not thought that any of the schools were particularly fantastic, indeed been quite horrified in some...

So, do we risk it and stick with the state system or put in the private nursery and perhaps move her if the state school is still ok when it's time for her to go there? An added pressure is that we live in a county with the 11+ and people tend to pay to make sure kids get into the grammars as the alternatives are not great!

So, sorry this is so long, but would like to know how other people decided....

Alibubbles, thank you for that very positive account

Badmamma , whilst I have been extolling the virtues of my child's private education, I've never 'moaned' I don't have a new car or nice holidays in order to pay for school. That said , I totally respect those who do 'give up' their luxuries for their child's education.

Everyone makes their own choice, please don't lump all 'private school parents' together and generalise all the time.

private health care is a fleeting client experience- what??? I first paid for my son to access a private SALT in October 2001 when he was 2 and a half (and we were very worried- and had tried the NHS). I have used it on and off since then- when I become so worried and feel that I am running out of ideas. We are taking him to BIBIC (a charity- we pay a proportion- if we were unwaged we would pay none) in June for a full assessment. The sort of assessment-- ie multidiscipliary- with everyone talking to each other- simply isn't available on the NHS. The OT portion we would have to wait another 2 years for. BIBIC had a long wait-we booked and paid our deposit in February. I'm not using private health care to access better services I'm paying to access any service.

He needs OT for him to receive an effective education- I have been told that he should have an OT assessment as part of his statementing. But there isn't an appointment available for 2 years so he won't get it. So what do I do- pay to give him a chance- or not bother that he won't learn to write.

I wish so much that I was in the position to say "oh look at that awful person using private health care - she must think that her child is better than anyone elses." And Kaz- it is very very easy to say "oh lets not bother to treat that" when it isn't your child that has been written off. Or do you follow the NHS dictat that many of my friends feel exists- autistic children aren't worth treating. And I'm not talking- being a bit obsessive - I'm talking about a 4 year old who can't speak, isn't potty trained, has gut problems that aren't even recognised by the NHS becuase they may have to ask some tricky questions about vaccination, can't hold a pencil, will need full time support in school, and has a lifelong condition for which he is not receiving any help.

What utter tosh. Worrying about my son keeps me awake at night. Concern for others unable to pay makes me get off my arse and campaign for better services (which I would like as well so I wouldn't have to pay).

Jimjams - I don't have your personal experience of the NHS and luckily have never really had any cause to use their services - other than antenatal etc...

I don't have a problem with private health care, just private education.

I am not here to judge who deserves treatment and who does not, but merely point out that there are a myriad of treatments and only limited resources.

I haven't read the entire thread in detail, so may just be repeating other points already made. In our area, we live pretty near a fantastic primary school - came top in the league tables in the country. We live about 0.3 miles from it, but probably won't get in because it is so oversubscribed. Parents with more money than us can afford to buy a house nearer the school, because in our area the house prices are massively boosted by parents wanting to guarantee a place for their child in the local state school. So ds may well end up being offered a place in a failing school 2 or 3 miles away.

I guess my point is that money will always buy you privilege. I'd much rather some of those parents would send their kid to a private school, than jack up the house prices, and take up places at the school. They are still paying for a better education, but it makes it double hard for us. And I find it much more morally corrupt that a rich parent can buy their way into a state school by an indirect route, rather than opting out of the system.

I haven't read all this thread, but my take is that a lot of school is about parental support. Teachers are "usually" by their nature trying to educate the kids and if this is backed up by good parental help then chances are that any school will do.

There is obviously the wrong crowd syndrome that people worry about, but if you have a child who is sensible, placid, kind and thoughtful will they really want to get involved with rough and tough kids?

There are always, always, exceptions. But these are my general experiences (as a child of a Head teacher, and from a family of teachers, with a lot of teacher friends, and in fact as a real life trainer in the I.T. industry)

The main reason we looked into a private school for DS was that it was obvious he needed a lot of attention in his previous class of 30.

The state teacher was unhelpful and even went as far as saying she thought he had ADD! The problem actually was that he had already done the reception work in his pre-school and he was bored stiff and therefore disruptive.

We then looked into the alternatives and that's why he went to a private school.

We are very normal people, work hard, pay our way and pay huge taxes. What's so wrong with that?

Neither of us went to Uni, my DH went to private school and loved it (basically I think because he didn't have to wash at boarding school!).

Perfectly reasonable. If you manage to send the children and thinks its a good idea then why not.
I am state and other half is private. We are both normal !!!!

We could send one child but not all three, and that is definately not an option (unless there is a real need to send on of them for some reason).

Another question that occured to me this afternoon. Is it just as wrong to move your child from one state school to a 'better' one that's further away?. I suspect badmamma will say yes because by doing this you are still byepassing the average state school, just as much as if you were educationg your children privately. So,is sending your child to the nearest state school the only 'moral' thing to do? If so, why should I do this until everyone else does so too? I would wait this to become law.

I deliberately chose a certain non-private but church school for my son, in preference to a nearer state primary. So in a way I am just as guilty as all you who have children at private schools.

I have to agree with batters and others who say they would not sacrifice their children's happiness and education for the sake of their principles.

I'd really love to think that the involvement of parents can transform any school. I'd also love to think that any bright child will shine at any school. I'm just not convinced this is a reality. I know my son benefits from being amongst better behaved children. He is not a quiet compliant child. He is afffected by his peers - aren't lots of 9 year olds? He has gone to three primary schools and I have how different schools have affected my son. I would not move him back to his state primary to see his behaviour deteriorate - my loyalty to him is more important than my princples.

Rhiannon, that is part of the reason we chose a private school for dd. Her reading age is quite a bit ahead of her actual age. The local school has a policy of making the more advanced children 'mark time' until the majority of the class catch up. Half a term of that and dd would have ended up being exceptionaly disruptive. We chose the school that suits her. I wish it didn't have to be a private school, but it did.

And far from being uninterested in the state system, I'm a student teacher in the state sector.

tigermoth- interesting point. Ds1 will be going to a church primary a half hour drive away (we're not churchgoers). However the majority of people would probably think that our local primary is a "better" school. It has a glowing ofsted report, it does well in the league tables, people move to be in its catchment area. The school we are sending him to is recently out of special measures (new head- its latest ofsetd was quite good).

So not sure where that would place me- am I bad for shunning the excellent local primary- and terribly immoral for travelling to a suitable (I hope) school for my son? This is the problem if situations are seen as being black or white- there are many shades of grey.

Scummy- send everyone to their nearest school. Fine. That way anyone with tons of money on a posh estate gets their kids to a good school & anyone on a rough council estate gets a rough school.

musica- well said. There's a reasonable, not particularly outstanding, school 2 minutes walk from my house. My youngest has been on the waiting list since 1997 but no luck. People drive from miles away to bring their children to this school, so people nearer can't get in. Then again we don't know how many of them are forced to travel because their nearest school takes pupils from further away.

The only way to sort this out would be to have one big move & make everyone go to their allocated school. The catchment areas would have to all be redrawn to include some rough houses, some normal houses & some posh houses. Hang on, isn't this the way it worked when WE went to school?

tigermoth- people with kids at private school are already paying a fine to the government. It's called tax. They pay for a state place they aren't using, and pay again to the school.

mum2toby- the biggest snobs in our local area are those who go to the well-heeled rural so-called comprehensive, & their chairman of governors..

I worked as an LSA in a very rough secondary school & would say the biggest difference between a good and a bad school is the attitude of the parents. We had a hard core of "you can't tell me what to do" yobs backed up by parents who came into school & said the same thing. Blame the system, the government, didn't someone earlier excuse this by "lack of prospects" & unemployment?! There is NO excuse for anti social behaviour. Get rid of that & you are halfway there.

If all the people using private education & private healthcare stopped, exactly how would the failing state sytem cope with the additional stress?

Can't believe this arguement is still raging on!!! However, we do appear to be going round in circles, and getting closer and closer to offending each other here. Just a bit concerned as I come to mumsnet over another site I used to use lots because of people not listening to each other's opinions and accepting that we are all different. I hope some of mumsnets threads aren't going to go that way too.

Besides, I have enough squabbling at school where I teach!!! I think it is time I decided to just 'let go'. Nothing on here will change my mind and thoughts. I will still send DD to private school. I will remain teaching in a poor state school (for now). C'est la vie!

tallula re your point about parents giving no back up at a 'bad' school. Don't understand what you are saying exactly in getting rid of anti social behaviour - do you mean exclude the hard core pupils and families? Do you think this would really make more difference than government support, less SATS pressure and more pay for teachers for instance? I find it strange that parents wield this sort of power. Does it really make or break a school if parents are supportive and concerned or unslupportive and hostile?

secondly, about taxes: surely everyone who pays taxes, whether they have school age children or not, pays towards state education? it's no big deal. There must be more taxpayers without children in school, than taxpayers with children in school. It's not just parents of children in private schools who do not use a state school place. I wasn't talking about taxes anyway in my original message on this. I was suggesting it might be an idea for parents who want to see the state schools improve ( but aren't happy to send their children to one) to pay extra, in the hope that their children's children will then go to state schools.

Tigermoth, In my (admitedly limited ) experience, if parents do not supprt staff when it comes to dicipline everything can got to pot. For example if a student is given detention after school parents have to sign that they agree to this happening. If they do not the child realises that the staff have no effective sanctions over them. They will refuse detentions, extra work, you name it. Often the most difficult children have parents who will never believe that their child could be in the wrong. They are quichk to state their rights, but never realise that these come with responsibilities. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if they were prepared to teach their kids right from wrong, but quite often they can't be bothered. You only need one child like this in a class of 30 to ruin the learning of the others. The can disrupt the class that badly. And they do it knowing that there is almost nothing you can do about it.

Surely children in the private sector are saving the govt money?

Agree Tigermoth. It;s always the minority in a class that ruin it for the others. See it every day I go to school - and it is all too common.

Damn, must refrain from coming here!

talullah - aren't you agreeing with ScummyMummy? You're kids can't get into your local school because people are coming from further away.

I never realised paying tax was a fine. I thought it was an attempt to redistribute wealth and look after those unable to look after themselves, amongst other things.

And let's face it, we can kid ourselves that those who send their kids to private school are usually the higher tax payers (aren't only approximately 9% of earners in the 40% tax band? - open to be corrected on that) but they are also usually the ones most able to employ accountants to enable them to avoid paying tax. Inland Revenue figures are approx £25 billion lost in tax avoidance last year, VAT approx £10 billion. Most of these schemes are legal (for now) and many tax avoidance accountants used to work for IR or Customs. Customs now has to recruit these staff back from the private sector(and pay private sector salaries!) to tackle the issue, it is that big a problem.

Mohamed Al Fayed's estimated income for the last 5 years is £160 million but he pays just £240,000 per year tax. Being a higher rate tax payer is no guarantee of paying more tax. Can't make links with Guardian articles but this is quite interesting:

politics.guardian.co.uk/economics/comment/0,11268,936840,00.html

Right, got that off my chest.

He doesn't now Tinker (al fayed that is). He's left the country (switzerland I think)

He doesn't now Tinker (al fayed that is). He's left the country (switzerland I think)

On his accountant's advice (I presume) after the courts declared the 'contract' with the IR invalid

looked round the 'local' prep school and the class sizes were small and the teaching we saw seemd good (but can you really tell from a short visit) but I really didn't like it - all the boys had to wear shorts all year round (v pretentious I thought) and we were grilled in the headmaster's huge 'study' over our education and which schools we went to , for God's sake - the local state school is v good ofsted wise but has 30 in the class - so he's off there - If it's not suitable for him I'd have no hesitation at looking at paying somewhere.

Of course Tinker! I think he left pretty sharpish.

But Tinker, anyone who is PAYE can't avoid tax. This includes every single person employed in the city by banks, law firms, accounting firms and large companies. Certainly in the South East these people make up the majority of parents with children at private school. So for every city bonus of £500,000, that's £200,000 directly to the inland revenue to be spent on health, education etc. I agree though that the difference between the ability of PAYE taxpayers and others to avoid tax is shocking.