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....

robin have to respectfully disagree with you, educating my children at home maybe a choice like ...er... walking on glass or eating slugs..is a choice. to educate my children at home i would have to give up my job. part time is not an option - things are hard as it is.
i cannot afford private education

where is the choice?

in general then ( not just poor old robin!)

where is the choice?

and so if my children did go to a school where the standard of eduction was the worst in the borough, where eduation rates overall were poor, where unemployment is a way of life

where i cannot move to afford my children a better life or education

where state education and failing at that is the only option - not choice

can you see? millions of people live like this - and these people love adore hope and want more for their children - like you want the best for your child

only you can pay for your child to have a better education and in effect a better life - with a job, and hope.

some people cannot

that is the injustice in this system

on a personal level, most people would do what they could to make their childrens lives the best, there is not an argument there. very few if they had a shed load of money -HENCE a choice, would chose to educate their children in the local failing state school - on principle.

so when you have the choice, i for one certainly do not blame you for tAking that choice of private over state education

that doesnt make it fair

it doesnt make it right

and what people like me and many , many people who are poor - not just working class, but under class people want people who have the choice to know is

the system isn't fair, the playing field isnt fair.

and it shoudl be. do you think you love your child more than i love mine? do you think you love your child more than most parents love theirs?
for this reason alone. your child therefore does not deserve through the privalage of wealth, to be able to have a better LIFE, than mine

bad mamma for reference althoug i may not have agreed, i enjoyed your posts, a little contraversy is always good i think, look as soon as eastenders gets a lesbian couple on the viewing figures go up. it was a nice intermission to an otherwise dull day. thank you.

i know bad manna will probably not come back - so am starting another thread about waynetta's please contribute

i dont want to pollute this one

but am eager to find out what people think!!!

I agree entirely! I don't think the message has reached some people that even when the worst happens, some parents have no choice. JJ of course I would not want my child to go to such a school, but if I could not afford to move, could not home-educate because I was working and could not afford private where would that leave me? I don't blame anyone for wanting to take their child out of that situation, like KS did, but as Custardo states, that doesn't make it fair or right that one person can resolve that situation, and another family cannot.

These so-called choices all come at a price that many families cannot afford. You presume all parents can read and write and have the mental ability to teach their kids at home for a start!

Oh, and just sticking up for Badmamma here. Has nobody on here ever said anything they regretted? Have they never put their foot in their mouths? She made a generalisation, it could have been a rushed remark, but has she not already apologised anyway? Or are we forever going to hold a grudge and drive her off Mumsnet? For heaven's sake LET IT LIE!

Rhubarb and Custardo, oh dear, I was trying to say that I do know you have no other choice in schooling. I was just making the point (not very well!) that you're advocating something you wouldn't do given the opportunity. I find it rather frustrating that it seems like you think the only way to help state schools is to get more middle class kids to attend-- I fully believe it's probably the best way, but it's not something people are going to do if the school fails them. The thing is, you've got a listening audience here who know and care about you. Suggesting a few ways to help in other ways might spur people on.

And I agree with you about the home schooling. Even if you didn't have a job and therefore have to lose that income, I think it would be more expensive than the local school (even including with all those damn last minute school trips that Custardo is required to pay for). Plus there's the whole lot of other issues, even discounting the financial. I know it works wonders for some people, but I don't think it's for everyone (eg, me). Oh and I agree with you about badmamma.

Tigermoth, I should have qualified that by saying I was childless, in grad school at the time and had a lovely advisor who was fine with me working on the projects. The school was very supportive also. I am also at the stage of having to throw money at things -- donating my time is virtually impossible. Rhubard and Custardo, I think that you've hit a real nerve. Now if you would just tell us where to aim.

Re home education being expensive - it can be, but it doesn't have to be. there are a lot of things you can do and see for free - libraries have books, and often you can access the schools library (which is where the schools borrow books from)and a lot of places (English Heritage etc) will allow you to pay the school rate for visits if you let them know in advance. So while it can be expensive, it isn't inevitably.

I know several people who HE on benefits (so it can be done on a minimal income) and a lot more who manage with one income. It is a matter of priorites and how much you believe it is right for your child. most families ould survive on one income, if they really needed to, but a lot don't want the change in lifestyle it would require. Which is fine - as long as they are honest about it.

Mind you, Home Ed isn't for everyone - some children are perfectly happy at school and would far prefer the material things that they would have to do with out if the family income dropped, and some parents would go mad if forced to be at home with their children all day. But it is always there and it is a real option that can work really well if you need it to - that is all. It may be that you believe the local school to be a better option for your family - or a private school - but that doesn't stop HE being an available choice.

Incidentally my ds was enrolled at a private school before I decided that HE would suit his needs better. This did mean giving up my career, but because of my son's needs it seemed that this was the best thing to do for my family.

jj, yes, when time is in short supply what do you do? out of curiosity, is there anyone here ( apart from the amazingly energetic alibubbles ) who works full time (not in education) has school age children and puts time in at two schools?

Also another thought - rhubarb, custardo - your posts have really made me think about choice and how it is easy to take for granted. But what about parents who choose a better state school over another? Should this be allowed? IME lots of working class and middle class parents of state schooled children do make these choices, so at least around here (London) it isn't strictly accurate to say there is no choice.

And parents also change state schools if they feel their child could do better elsewhere. I've seen this happen in many cases. In our area of London there are about 6 state schools within a 40 minute walk of our home. I realise that this wouldn't be the case everywhere. If you live in a small village, there might just be one school. But is that the fault of the education system?

How do you stand on parents trying to get their children into good state schools as oppossed to sending them go to the less good state school that might be on their doorstep? Should all choice be banned?

Tigermoth, I do believe that supporting things monetarily works. Especially in this climate where money is tight and companies are cutting back (on charitable giving as well as people). It's just knowing where to put the money.

I think we should go with this on the HE front:
Robinw: Have you guys thought about home educating?
Custardo and Rhubarb: Yes, be we can't afford it.
Everyone: Ok, you know your situation. We don't.

The keyword, Oakmaiden, is most . I can also argue quite strongly against the idea that all people are suited to home educate, based on who I am and who my children are. And I'm a proponent of HE for people that want to do it. But you'll have to start another thread.

Ah, I love these discussions. Really, I do. Sorry if I've offended you guys. Seriously didn't mean to. These things give my mind a much needed work out.

Re home educating, even if you can afford it, surely it's not a serious option if you have pre-school age children as well. I could not imagine being able to home-educate my 7 and 5 year olds whilst looking after the 3 and 1 year olds too.

judetheobscure I know someone with 7 kids- all being home edded - the youngest (twins) are 4 and autistic. Some of the other children have Aspergers.

This family isn't exactly home edding through choice as such- they are home edding because the schools (primary and secondary) were unable to deal with their kid's SEN.

Must say I think this particular Mum is a superwoman. But she does it!

message withdrawn

JJ, i apologise if you thought i thought you were causing me offense

oak maiden - there are people who cant change their lifestyle ( eg have any less) and i dont think rhubys point about literacy and numeracy skills in parents has been answered either

tigermoth,

as i hope i have said ( i say so much my fingers hurt! and i cant remember)
its the system thats unfair. some pay for their children to get a better education - i truly dont blame them! - its not right that money affords certain children a better life, but if i could do it am sure i would.
same therefore goes for state schools, they should all be decent quality schools with enough teachers and resources, all state ed schools should give children a quality education.

we know they dont therefore i will scratch your eyes out to get my kids into the best school i can

is this right?

absolutley not.

No, I have to disagree, RobinW. Even on just the financial arguments, I can see how HE wouldn't be possible. Plus there's the whole idea that anyone could home educate. Um, I guess it boils down to that I couldn't. And Robin, I'd send my son to that horrible school where the kid got shot over the basketball. We lived in the neighbourhood, he always had a chance of being shot.

And what? You're not going to trust someone saying "We can't afford to.."? I think she knows. The "oh but you could home educate" argument is ridiculous. (Uh, any teachers willing to back me up on how teaching is not something everyone can do? Feel free to use me as an example.)

And, then, there is the fact that I wasn't getting at you. It was a valid question, answered by a valid answer.

Just fyi: I never meant to imply that you loved your children less than I loved mine. I love mine most of all and you love yours most of all is what I meant. I mean.. what wouldn't we do for them? I accept this as a given.

(just previewed and there are far too many pronouns, apply where applicable but don't be silly.)

JJ as a student teacher, I think that I would have to agree with you that not everyone can teach. Sometimes it feels like I can't! To be more accurate I don't thank that everyone can teach everything. This cropped up in the last Home Ed topic I took part it. I would be able to teach dd and ds (I think) English, lower school math and the sciences, and music, but heaven help the child I tried to leach modern languages to. And I know that the answer given to me at the time was, some children go to night schools etc to fill any parental gaps.

As an aside, I have decided to put some of my time where my principles are re 'life long learning', and have signed up to teach Adult Ed GCSE science at evening classes next year. I'm looking forward to it.....now if I can just finish my training....

message withdrawn

TNH the whole home education argument is a bit different from the inside. Most home edders (not all- but most) don't "teach" their children. They "facilitate learning". So they point their children in the right direction. A lot of home edders wanting qualifications access evening classes.

A lot of the home edding community relies on "autonomous learning". They rely on thier child's interest to learn and seek things out for themselves. At first sight it sounds a bit barking, but it does seem to work for a lot of families - and the children do grow up to be mature, balanced and sociable. In fact there is some research just published on this.

I can always spot a home educated child when I'm, working on homework high. A) they ask interesting questions b) they're interested in the answer.

Jimjams, we are supposed to do the same in schools according to my tutor. I have been zapped for talking about teaching methods rather than learning methods! Vigotsky's social constructivism and all that and Gardiners multiple intelegences! How exactly you are supposed to suss out the prefered learning styles for 4 sets of 30 children 5 times a week is not made that clear! But I agree with you about how different it is when children (people) are interested and motivated to learn. The best students I ever taught at university were mature students who had gone out of their way to be there.
The only 'problem' that I would have with home ed would be trying to satisfy the educational needs of a child in subjects that I was dreadful at. I find it hard to be 'inspirational' in some areas of biology, and I know that those areas that I am interested in are the best lessons that I teach. At least if a child goes to school they are in touch with people who are enthusiastic in a wide range of subjects. If I home ed'ed ds and dd they would get a first rate science education, but a very limited outlook on languages I'm sad to say.

hmb - to a great extent you learn together. I have learnt SO many things since I started home ed. - probably more than my son has! We are unusual in the HE community in that we do do things quite formally and "schooly", but my ds has Aspergers and likes the security of knowing that we do maths with this book, followed by some reading and writing, followed by whatever we have selected for that afternoon. A lot of people go through linguaphone courses or things of that type along with their child - because I think hardly anybody I know feels that they know a modern language well enough to teach it. Few people knopw one well enough to confindentally speak it, either, so I suppose that a linguaphone type thing will be no worse than lessons that you are not going to remember in a few years time.

But anyway - I suppose my point really - not wanting to turn this into a home ed thread, is that it is a choice. You may not consider it to be the best choice for you or your family - in which case it is not a choice you will make. Which is fine. It is a choice you have decided won't fit you.

I agree with you 100% Oakmaiden. It is all about choice. And I'm going to be teaching at nightschool next year, so if any home ed'ers pitch up I'll be more than delighted to work with them

Still here, but haven't logged on for a while as DD has had measles. Still looking at schools in hope of finding a solution...Have had a look at previous threads and think i have spotted a few topics to avoid in future!

And no, i am definitely not Badmamma- have read junior in the waiting room at the BUPA hospital though!!

Oakmaiden- although ds1 (asd) is going to be going to school in September- I do have HE as my reserve- and I too would have to be pretty formal. In our case it wouldn't work otherwise.

hmb- it's certainly a problem- ds1's learning style is so different from most other children's I do worry how the school will cope. He is a very strong visual learner, but doesn't learn from speech really at all. Still have no idea how he could possibbly learn phonics- I will be interested to see.

I don't want to get into a big home ed discussion. I do think it's a choice that many don't consider, but also feel that it is truly is not for everyone.
IMO not everyone will be able to:

1. afford to give up paid work
2. manage to home educate older children while looking after babies and toddlers
3. feel confident that they have the abilty to teach their child

I agree custardo that it is unfair that some parents have the chance to send their child to a good state school and others don't. As you say you can't blame someone for choosing a good state school, but it is wrong that no all children will get a good state education. So where does that leave us - making sure all state schools offer a good education.

Now, this is what worries me. A good state education means different things to different people. Parents have different priorities in looking for a school to match their child's needs. What happens if the good state school is not right for your child? I would argue that parent's and children's needs can't be standardised, so how anyone truly standardise educational provision? I suppose the answer to that is you need a huge variety of good state schools. Yet... inevitably some parents will have more choice because their needs are, perhaps, easier to meet or they are lucky enough to live near the school that's right for them. Like the bus service - you could have hundreds running on time, all over the place, but still some people will have longer to walk to the bus stop than others. How can you make it fair for everyone?

I also believe that each school is different - a natural result of the individuals who have anything to do with it - the head, the teachers, the pupils, the parents, the govenors - and the area that the school is in, rural, urban, prosperous, poor - and even the size of the school, can IMO have a big impact on the school character.

Faced with such diversity, can the quality of education ever be standardised? Think I need to move to the other education thread now....

So what about this:

take all funding that is test score dependent and divide it equally among the schools. Have a laundry list of initiatives, including things like: extra classroom assistants, playground monitors, books for the library and one on one help for students. Have the head, teachers, and parents involved in deciding what to spend the money on. Then have the school (parents, teachers and head again) set goals and ways they plan to spend the money. When the time comes to evaluate, realize that not all goals have to be met for the project to be successful (also, the money won't be spent exactly as budgeted-- that's just the nature of things). If the school is obviously failing to spend the money correctly (eg a really bad head or something), step in and take over (the LEA, I guess, would administer this).

There are glaring things wrong with the plan and it's not ideal. BUT it has the benefit of redistributing money to schools who don't get it because of test scores (the most improved schools getting the most money seems counterproductive to me -- but people wouldn't accept the worst schools getting the most money, so the money distribution is a compromise ). It also gives quantifiable results, which are necessary for accountability and public opinion. It does mean schools would have to pick and choose what was most important, but would give them more freedom to do what was necessary. The important thing is to free them from the restraint of funding tied to test scores.

And, if some funding isn't tied to test scores, then, uh, nevermind. Just a thought I had in the shower. I'm blaming all of you for my dirty house today.

JJ, sending mc children to failing state schools is not the only way to improve them. My point was that if all the wealthy kids and children from powerful families, had the same choices as we had regarding education (i.e. state schooling) then the government would lose funds if it did not improve the state system as a whole. Could you honestly see Princes William and Harry attending your local state up the road? If they did you could bet your life it would soon have the best facilities in the country!

What I am saying is that we should not accept our failing state schools, we should fight to improve them. If you cannot give some of your time in the classroom, then write to your MP, get a petition drawn up, hold meetings with other concerned parents, lobby your councillor, get the press involved, make a noise and eventually you will be heard.

Just take the Princes as an example of priviledge, they've had the highest standard of education in public schools, William got in his first choice of Uni (how many of us had Uni's fighting over us?) and you can bet your life he won't have to queue to see his Head of Department! And why does he get all of this? Because his family have stack loads of money and people always bend over backwards at the sniff of money! As Custardo has experienced, when you have little money, you get treated very differently by people who think they are better than you. They talk to you louder and more slowly in case you don't understand, they give you a patronising smile, their eyes blur over when you start to talk, they look at your clothes with pity. If anyone really wants to know how the other half live, dress down for the day, look as though all your clothes come from Oxfam and then go shopping, you'll be followed by the security guard around every single shop!

People with money not only get treated better but they get access to certain priviledges that we have to fight tooth and nail for. Why should we accept failing schools whilst other families pay so their kids don't have to mix with the likes of ours, to send them to private schools. No it's not bloody fair, and the more people who choose private schools, the less likely it is that things will ever change.

Now feel free to rip my post apart, I'll just think it's 'cause I'm poor!

jj, my house was dirty today for the same sort of reason. I didn't get round to posting this earlier but I think those ideas of yours are spot on.