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....

Fight,fight! Now, calm down girls!

I looked for Junior in Asda's today (I only shop there to see what working class people look like, you understand), and they don't stock it! I wonder why????

I bought a few issues of wipe as well Soupdragon. I liked it as well.

What's Junior magazine? Sounds like a teen mag to me!
Custardo hit the nail on the head when she said there are two points to this debate, the principles thing, and the other is how to solve the problem.
The principle is really quite simple, why should any of your children get a better education than mine just because you have more money than me? Why does mine have to go to the failing school down the road when yours can go to the highly acclaimed historic building set in a leafy backdrop (yes I know that is a stereotype, but so is the failing school).

And as Custdy said, if private schools were abolished, you can bet your lives that state schools would have to be improved sharpish or the Government parties might find their contributions going down somewhat. Which kind of answers the quesion of what we do about it.

But there would still be failing schools- and they would probably be the same failing schools as now. There are some great state schools out there- just the house prices in their catchment areas are considerably higher. So we'd still get social division based on money or power (thinking Blair children- they didn't go to the local failing school).

And why is it that the schools doing well can apply for specialist status and then get more money so they do even better?

Rhubarb- Junio magazine is sometimes described as Baby vogue. I've always felt it was a pretty apt description.

Yes, but if all the wealthy and rich had to send their kids to the nearest state school, no matter what it's status, then the government would have to get their fingers out of their arses and improve the whole of the education system - for everybody! There will always be crap parents who don't give a damn about their kids education, and there will always be bullying, but if the g'ment poured more money into training teachers and providing better facilities, these problems can be lessened. As I said before, if you cram a load of rough kids into a failing school you are asking for trouble, but if you mix some bad kids with some good kids, then there is some hope. You can't tell me that even the worst kid has no potential whatsoever, but if everyone went around with the attitude "I'm not letting my kid near so and so" then that poor kid is never going to have a chance is he? He's already been written off.

But a large chunk of the wealthy would move near to a better school, thus pushing up the price of housing in the immediate vicinity of the better schools. This just creates the same problems of the well off effectively buying a better education. There will always be schools which do better than others and this will affect house prices in the immeditate area. It is never going to be completely fair.

I think in a way that system could work in London- where rich and poor live very much on top of each other. So you may get a healthy mix at each school But outside London it's not necessarily like that. You would still end up with "ghetto" schools.

If the government poured money into the state sytem and improved it anyway then people wouldn't want to pay.

I also worry about aboloshing the state system. I would quite like to send ds2 to a Steiner school- don't think it will happen but still. If the private system was abolished what would happen to those sorts of schools? (Which incidentally usually have very low fees, and some sort of bursary system based on ability to pay).

Actually the city I live in at the moment does have a pretty good state secondary system- abd there are only 2 private schools. Both are kept afloat by foreign students. Give parents a good state choice and they will use it.

interestingly, the 'good' state school that my son attends - one of the best in the borough, is in an area where the house prices are below the borough average.

However the school is very small and attendance at churce is a criteria for entry so it's not just the location of your home that counts. Yet another example, joining the many on this thread, of how each individual school differs.

Going back to funding. Call me stupid, but I still can't see why money is not key to improving the state school system - though I accept what you are saying jimjams - the system as it stands is unfair so needs to be changed.

I agree it sounds a good idea in principle Jimjams, but there are lots of areas in London, too, especially the outer burbs, which are mile after mile of pretty evenly-distributed income and very "unmixed" politically and socially. I agree with you too about the specialist school funding - that has led to considerable inequalities in the state system in a nearby borough.
I liked Wipe too. Much missed.

Tigermoth - it's not a school in a South Copast town, is it? Just sounds a lot like one near to me....

Tigermoth- money is definitely the key to imrpoving the system- but the system needs a massive shake -up as well. Otherwise the money doesn't go where it is needed.

Yep, education needs a complete shake-up and soon! Yes, it does need money thrown at it and used more effectively than it has been in the pas. But it has been left for so long that it will take more than just money. To start with, teachers would be good - so many schools, especially secondary, are so badly understaffed with lots of supply staff covering lessons day after day. My school has 11 supply staff attending every single day. Our english teacher is a Jamaican. We have a number of teachers from New Zealand - there just isn't enough teachers to go round at the moment.

I did suggest lots of other "words of wisdom" on what I though needs to be sorted much further down the thread too regarding behaviour, discipline, time, etc.

I have to confess to liking Junior. Never had the chance to read Wipe, unfortunately. I also like Vanity Fair-- loads of things I can't afford interspersed with photos of people about whom I could care less and the few really great articles worth the price of the magazine. A friend of mine turned me onto a new US mag: Brain, Child . Ok, so I'm a little upset of your judging someone for writing for it. I mean, don't you want someone with badmamma's views writing for a mag like that? Don't you want people who can actually afford that stuff be exposed to her views? I mean, Rhubarb, you agree with her and go further. And ks, give it up! please.

Anyway, Rhubarb, do you think you should sacrifice your child to a school? I'm talking almost literally-- with the gang problems in our local school way back when (in Chicago) that was our choice. Yes, kids actually got shot and killed there. Our thought that was by being very active in the neighbourhood we were of good to the community and thereby the school. Maybe people should move places which aren't so desirable in order to improve the schools? I'm sure most of you moved to the nicest place you could afford. We did, no moral high ground here. It's just that it happened to be in the Latin Kings (the gang's name) territory. I love my sons dearly and would not sacrifice their future for some future societal ideal. Not to say it's not a consideration. My son, when we lived in London, was going to go to a local state school. It was a good one. I'm not sure if that counts, really. It's if you choose to send your child to a really sucky school while you can afford a really excellent one that counts (ie, has anyone asked to have her child sent to the worst school in the borough because it would help improve it? I mean, if you believe what you say, you want to improve the worst schools which only can be done by involved parents like youself. I'm pretty sure the LEA would allow it.) How many people do that? The question boils down to: are you willing to sacrifice your child?

No, to those of you that are hitting the reply button, I don't mean that you should do it. I completely agree with badmamma : consider it. I'm less with Rhubarb, but accept the validity: go with what you have. And no, it's not fair.

Beetroot: two little boys. One of which is for sale or exchange at the moment. Tigermoth, I never quite understood why Custardo needed dusting.

Now that I know what yurts are, I'm all for them. And for gods' sake, please give badmamma a break.

message withdrawn

Actually I quite like Junior as well. In a "do people really live like this?" kind of way. I really have no problem with anyone writing for it either. But I do have a problem with someone coming on here slinging abuse and accusing people of being responsible for producing a divided society, whilst writing for the parenting magazine that most respresents a divided society.

If you're going to slag people off (and accuse them of being morally bankrupt) for the way in which they spend their money, then you have to be prepared to defend the way you earn yours. I would be interested to see a Badmamma article in Junior - especially now I know her views. Somehow I think her Guardian piece wouldn't have made it into Junior- wrong audience.

Did anyone else see the Junior article about private school uniforms btw?

I have only read Junior a couple of times and it seems okay. But, I have to say that I am a little concerned that I have unknowingly been 'talking' to a journalist who is writing about the topic becing discussed. If I had known then it'd be fine. I have always stated that I am a teacher and that I have a good deal of interest in what people are saying here as my school is looking for real ways to improve (after a failed OFSTED due to poor behaviour). I can't understand the secrecy - that's when people become upset or bothered by it. I have to say, at first, I felt a little betrayed and concerned of what other threads I should be wary of.

hear hear, jimjams. I think it's great that journalists read and contribute here. We're not here to scorn people who follow certain professions. And those journalists with a special interest in parenting issues, like Aloha, often have IMO wonderfully informed and interesting viewpoints, even if you don't agree with them.

I don't read parenting mags so have never looked inside Junior. I agree with JJ in some ways - it's good that someone who is so pro-state education is writing for 'baby vogue'. But also agree with jimjams - how likely is it that the guardian piece would have found its way into Junior? so really it doesn't matter what badmamm's personal views are anyway.

Anyway, I've got no objections journalists writing for a range of publications, whether it's Playboy or Anglers Week or anything else. I can't really object because in my own small way, as a copywriter, I've frequently waxed lyrical about products I would never buy in a million years and I bet a fair few people here have to feign enthusiasm or interest in aspects of their job that leave them cold.

I don't care if badmamma duplicated her views on education here and in the Guardian, though it would have been nice to have had some inkling about it in advance. But fair enough.

I do care that as a common contributer, just like the rest of us, she got very personal about others - and that's got nothing to do with her being a journalist.

Agree tigermoth - don't think people should need to resort to being personal at all - that's just plain rude. We all come here to read, learn, advice, entertainm,ent, etc. not to upset people or be upset do we?

I rarely get involved in anything controversial on mumsnet and have posted only briefly earlier in this thread. But today, I'm going to say something:
Respect to ks
Respect to Batters
Having read Badmamma's Guardian article, my OPINION is that it is sentimental bllcks and I could hear the violin playing by the end
Badmamma is only a socialist because she can AFFORD to be (now work that one out)

oakmaiden - no, our school is not near the South Coast, worse luck.

Oh and BTW ks my middle name is Ernest
Respect to Ernest

hmb - our ASDA stock it! Must be posher than yours

That was meant to be a wink - how do I get one of them then?

marialuisa - not heard from you for a while. Hope you haven't been put off by the heated debate here, and that you did get your original questions answered somewhere along the way.

I agree with most of Tigermoth's post. I don't want to offend anyone here but I do think we should remember that this is the internet and that everything posted on mumsnet is available immediately to anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access. I suppose I'm saying I don't think we should really consider discussions on mumsnet to be private conversations - they're simply not and if we really don't want our views used by journalists or anyone else then we shouldn't post them here. Probably not a popular view but there you go

BM, Why? It's called a democracy. Freedom, the right to make choices.

We pay 40% tax like a lot of others, good job we do too.