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....

As mum2toby said my nanny, her nursery are about childcare not education. Without it I couldn't work - it is the only option as all the local childminders and day nurseries are booked up.

Yeah Jimjams - I too pay for speech therapy and Ot (or will after the 6 month wait privately) and I'm sure virtually all parents would do the same as you or I, if they are really honest. I'm just lucky enough to have to pay the school fees too .......

Badmamma, I think that a huge should be done to level the playing field, but to my mind that is best done by taxing the hell out of people like me, so that state ecucation can be properly funded. At which point I will not have to send my child to private school to get a good education, and I can stop paying the fees.

Mum to toby, the reason that I brought up day nurseries is that people use them because they cannot get good child care in the state system. I send my child to a private school because I cannot get her into a state school that meets her needs. To my mind these things are much the same. In addition if private schools are 'wrong' and eletist' because some people cannot afford them, then the same is true of private nurseries. They are expensive and disciminate against those families who cannot afford to go out to work, but want to, because they cannot afford the fees.

So, following the arguments that have been used against private schhols, private day nurseries should be abolised because a. they discriminate between the rich and the poor, and b. if private day nurseries did not exist that those people who currently use them would have to force the government to provide state nurseries for all.

Oh, and lots of nurseries 'educate' children, just like mothers, fathers, carers, chilminders, that latter of which are now OFSTEDed

ninja- glad you encourage your students to apply to Oxbridge. Get them to look particularly at the northern colleges in Oxford- St Hugh's, St Annes, LMH, Somerville, oh and St Catherine's they may be surprised by the social mixes there- a lot of very normal people.

I agree that the only way things will change is if more people from standard normal backgrounds apply- but too many are put off by an outdated image

Mum2toby, you say your ds goes to a private nursery because you work and Kaz33 has her nanny because otherwise she couldn't work yet in fact both of you have those things because you can afford to pay for them. Yes, you have to work inorder to be able to pay for them but there are people for whom their salary would not cover the cost of private day care. As HMB says, this is as elitist and unfair as private education. How far do you want to take this "fair for everyone" because there are an awful lot of things which aren't fair - should everyone use rough and scratchy "value" toilet paper or should Charmin Ultra be cheap and available to all? I'm not really equating the unfairness of the education system or the NHS with cheap V expensive toilet paper but where do you stop?? Private v state housing has already been mentioned and there must be many other examples.

oooh hmb- we bond again- I was a state school Oxford student as well. We really should swap emails.

Actually funny story. We went to a ball at Univ (an "old" central college in Oxford). The class war lot were outside threatening to paint bomb us. Dh tried to engage them in some conversation (he actually said "but I'm from the same class as you"- actually he's Irish so not so hung-up on class) They started shouting "class traitor, class traitor" to which dh looked at me, confused and said "why are they calling me a castrator?"

Jimjams, I agree, how do we go about doing it?

I went to Christ Church, and was very balanced, with a chip on both sides at the time. I was quite convinced that this hot bed of elitism was full of Horray Henrys who were only there because their parents had stacks of dosh. Imagine my surprise when I realised that the guy who lived down the corridor from me who had gone to Eton was there because he was about twice as bright as I was. I had a big reality check, and came away realising that people as basicaly people, good, bad and indifferent regardless of class, race or religion. It was the most important thing I think I learned there (Joke!, but it was one of the most imporant things)

ninja, get the girls to apply to St Hilda's. I know that their admissions tutor busts a gut to make the admissions as fair as she can.

ooh hmb I wonder if we know some of the same people. I keep meeting people in Mumsnet who know friends of mine. When were you there? I was 89-92. I was St Hugh's btw- also very keen on state school applicants for all you teachers out there.

Nooooooooo, I'm old! 80-87, so you are but a young thing

lol@hmb- I don't get called young very often these days......

I feel slightly annoyed by the suggestion that I have chosen private school without considering state school. In fact I have not. I have visited several schools with my husbdand whilst looking for the right place for DD - state and private. We have been on the OFSTED website, I have spoken to people living and/or working in the areas, we have asked around for people who have sent their children there, we have looked through prodpectuses, we have considered the next step at secondary; we have considered costs, etc.... After all this time and energy we made the choice tht suited us and our child. Beleive me I DO know what I am taking about when it comes to our choice.

Besides if I sent DD to a state school I would have to still pay for extra care - morning care to take her there, after school care 'till I get home, holiday care if they don't match mine. I would still have uniform/clothing costs, I would have to find dinner money and milk money, I would have to pay for extra curricular activities if she wanted them (ballet, music lessons, etc. At the school we choose this is included in our price. So this is yet another reason for our choice.

Also, private school for us will not be any differnet in cost than private day nursery on a day to day cost. I pay for private day nursery becuase I can afford to, to allow me some freedom to work (yes, I choose to go to that school!), to give DD the chance to mix. Similiarly I will pay for a better education for her (than my catchment schools can provide - it is a bad school, others heavily over-subscribed so not a chance of getting in) because I want to and I can. Why is that so wrong?

No-one has just answered my earlier question - of those of you who disagree. Why should I send my child to a school like the one I teach at? I get verbally abused (along with the other teachers) and have been physically assulted. Would you knowingly put your child in a similar position if you don't have to and had such experience of poor schools? Really, truely and honestly? If so, why?

So we're going down the route of it's not fair if you can pay for an education; it's not fair if you can pay for better health care; presumably leading to it's not fair if you can pay for better security for your home; it's not fair if you can afford holidays etc. I would prefer to concentrate efforts on improving the state system so that people won't be so anti it in the first place. And this doesn't mean throwing money at it. It means improving discipline in schools - giving schools more power to impose sanctions. And it means freeing up teachers to teach, not swamping them with mountains of paperwork.

Both my dh and I went to comprehensive schools. However, we want the best for our children (yes, they're special, special to us) and will do whatever we have to to enable them to achieve their potential and thus lead fulfilled lives. No, there won't be the same cultural diversity at private school (had to laugh when a "friend" of mine informed me she was sending her son to private prep school because it had a greater cultural diversity than the local state primary).
But then again, there won't be the same levels of poor behaviour, agression and rudeness that abound in state comprehensives (I have taught in three state comprehensives including a girls school which was as bad as the mixed).

My children go to a state primary. I am very happy with it and my children are happy there. I will consider the state comprehensives - but only if I am allowed to visit the school on a normal day without any warning to the teachers. If I don't see all the lessons with the majority of children attending to the lesson and with no disruptive behaviour then my children won't go there.

It is sad that standards of discipline have fallen so much in the last 30 years.

With regard to special needs children and whether to teach them in mainstream schools, I have found that the parents of children with behavioural problems only have been very reluctant to have their children taught in special units rather than in a "mainstream" setting. And it is the behavioural problems that cause the most disruption to other children.

With apologies for rambling nature of post.

Jude I agree with you that throwing money at the state system is not all to answer. To my mind, one of the things that would help thing in a big way, would be that violent disuptive children should be returned to their parents for care. If that were to happen I am convinced that difficult/uninterested parents of out of control children would suddenly becone very keen to work with the schools to help sort out the problems that the children have.

Judetheobscure - agree with the need for better discipline in schools. I struggle with this issue every teaching day I have. I feel that I have little sanctions to use, when I do I don't get the support from senior management or parents, so what's the next step? As parents what do we here feel we should do? I am seriously interested. My school failed its OFSTED - key weakness was pupil behaviour, which in turn was endangered the quality of teaching and learning. We are trying to decide what to do next. What discipline policies should we use, how do we encourage parental support, anything like this really?

All advice, good practise and experience, etc. would be appreciated. We have a full staff meetng coming up and I could go really geared up if people tell me some ideas as weel from here. Thanks in advance of you can help.

OK have been sucked into debate again. Just wanted to say that life is not fair, true, but I personally believe that this is not an excuse for just letting differences fester between classes and races. Britain is a very divided society and very class based but it doesn't have to stay this way. I much prefer the Scandinavian model which I believe involves much higher taxes and much better quality of life for all people, not just the lucky few. It's also worth remembering that the lucky few are very much a long standing elite - if you look at land distribution for example, most land is still in the hands of very few people, and even more scarily, often the same very few families as several hundred years ago. (Obviously there are also many 'self made' men and women out there.)
As regards private education, the worst models imho are the religious schools of any type - surely recent divides between christian - muslim worlds should be teaching us that all schools that encourage such division can only make matters worse. Just as an example, imagine if most religious private schools were not RC or Cof E but Hindu or Muslim (just giving examples here btw). Do you think that as someone brought up in a Christian background you could really pretend to be a devout Hindu or Muslim and so gain a place? I don't think I would know where to start. which is why it's especially unfair that your average white nominally christian family can get their kids into rc or cofe schools no prob but someone from a different religious background(which also often means ethnic background) can't even try that option without serious research first. Does this make any kind of sense?
One last point about private schools - did you know that they don't need to employ qualified teachers at all?
BTW am not totally anti private schools at all here but am not in favour of religious schools at all - do it in your own time I say.

It is true that private schools do not need to have qualified staff, but I think that you would find that the vast majority do. In Dds school all of the staff have at least the qualifications that would be expected in the state sector, and many of them have higher degrees, and further qualifications.

Morocco - it certainly was the case that private school didn't have to employ qualified teachers. But then neither did state schools - there were (and moving towards again) several pther ways into the profession through In-service training, etc. However, the majoirty now do - see Times Ed for most examples. In fact, because of the state system being as it is, many teachers are moving towards them instead. Most now pay the same pay sclae too - used to be a lot lower at one point. If anyone if concerned about this issue, simply ask for their teacher's qualifications. Any good school will tell you this. Find out if your teachers have QTS - qualified teacher's status - rather than a degree or PGCSE. It is the QTS that makes them eligible to teach. Hope this helps anyone.

Oops - sorry for typos. Gosh, bet you wouldn't want me teaching your kiddies ICT would you?! Must slow down on the alcohol.

Blimey - this debate is 5 pages long - ain't seen nothing like it since religion and Gina Ford (not together...)

I realise this discussion's dying down but I just thought I'd answer your question jimjams, about what would I do in your position re SALTS and OTS (what are the latter btw?). I honestly wouldn't have ANY choice - we absolutely could not afford to pay for this and so if your son were mine he wouldn't be getting the care you pay for I'm afraid. I would be angry in your position too but my only choice would be to take it up with my MP, write letters, do all the things I'm sure you've already done. Not to say that I think it's fair you've had to do this but just thought I'd answer your question!

OT's are occupational therapists. Thanks for your answer. I'm in the same position really as we can't afford to pay for the SALT he needs (not at 50 quid a session 5 times a week). I assume OT's charge the same- I haven't managed to get near one yet. We are going to BIBIC in June who will provide a home based programme and full three day assessment. They are a charity and they part fund the assessment- we pay the remainder. For people on low incomes there are bursaries available.

It shouldn't have to be like this. But it is the reality. The NHS simply does not cover certain areas. Unfortunately this seems to be the areas not covered by private insurace as well. So you find the money to pay for what you can afford to allow you to do it yourself. Unfortunately the SALT he needs is very specialised. If I could pay for him to see a therapist 5 times a week I would, and I wouldn;t condem anyone who did that for their child.

Trouble is you don't have the time to write to the MPs- you;re too busy chasing up the [people who are meant to be involved or doing therapy yourself. In my more cynical moments I think the govt relies on parents exhaustion.

No, life is not fair. I am not for private education or anything that is secular and draws divisions between people. I firmly believe that it is every governments responsibility to provide the same standard of healthcare and education to every man woman and child regardless of how much money they have. If my child has to have a kidney transplant, I could not afford to send her privately, we could not sell our shed of a car for more than £100 and a 2up 2down house that would not fetch much more than that! So why is it that my child should have to wait, whilst someone else's child, whose parents earn stackloads, can jump the queue, have a quick operation and recover in the most expensive hospitals? If the schools in my area are rough, full of drug-deales, rife with bullying, etc, I cannot think "ooh, I'll send her to the private one down the road" I don't have that choice. My dd will just have to make the best of whatever she gets. But why should she? Why is my child penalised just because we are not rich?

It really irkes me when I hear people say "I'm not sending my child to a school where the pupils beat up the teachers, etc" Well luvvies, at least you have that blooming choice! Think yourselves lucky, there are mothers who probably live in your area who desperately wish they could provide better for their kids too! So why not do as Custdy suggests and fight for a better state for not just your child, but everyone's child? Join the PTA, write letters to your MP, have consulations with other parents, fight to improve it instead of just giving up on it and taking your child away. Where does that leave the other children? Or do you not care?

No, life is not fair, but does that mean we should just accept our fate? Accept that because we don't have much money our children will be denied a good education and healthcare?

And yes I do think that state schools provide a better life education for your kids. In the school I work in, there are quite a few kids with special needs, very working-class kids that cannot read or write, ethnic minority kids, and bright kids with fairly mc families - I really don't think I would see that mix in a private school. Working class people can't afford them for a start! And if you didn't speak English I doubt you'd even be allowed in the door! At least some of the white kids in our school can speak a few words of Bengali!

i dont think there is any harm in wanting equality for all ( inc. toilet paper quality!!) this isnt to say this should be inferior quality edumication or housing or health care.

come on brothers and sisters unite in the struggle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as far as council owned housing yes its the pits thats why there are massive stock transfers to housing associations who then invest money that councils have failed to invest becuase of their own mismanagement or lack of govt funding.

in the south i am most impressed at the standard of social housing, in the north its improving.

i mean they privatised the water - the water people its wrong man

and if all you non religeous types didnt send your kids to our religeous schools our class sizes would go down and MY kids would get a better standard of edumication