'Why I send my child to a private school' Guardian piece...

[PollyParanoia]

Is there no thread on it? Surely there must be.
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/23/why-send-child-to-private-school here
It's just so badly written with lots of fatuous unsupported statements. She's been so suckered by that clever thing that private nurseries do to encourage parents to sign up until 11. Our local one makes the nursery children buy and wear the uniform in the pre-reception year. Especially if the uniform has an expensive boater as hers does (I always notice that the most prestigious schools around us have the least pretentious uniform).
And as for 'Katy's exceeding national expectations', well, a good section of children in a state school will do the same, doh, as you'd know if you really were an educational expert.
And that bit about how lots of children would thrive in a non-academic environment/technical school. But not her child of course.
Oh and she lives in Kent so I think we know the answer to her point about her going private if she's not happy with the secondary school provision.

'11 in a class.
State can't compete with that, full stop.

you are wrong.Many rural schools have classes that size.

And anyway, 11 in a class is, in my opinion, far too small! I would actively avoid sending my child into a class that small, regardless of sector.

I dont get why the small class size such a bad thing.

I dont think the current 30 my eldests class is or most classes work.

Have seen some parents who use rural small schools or priavet worry that if private primary than child maybe will feel overwhelmed at secondry but then and again most secondries seem huge compared to primaries.

when you break down a class into

what year group they are
ability-there will be some at top who need pushing, some at bottom who need extra one to one help.

I feel smaller classes would make it easier to cater for everyones needs and 30s just too large our local private is 12-16 we have 3independant preps nearby.

Theres plenty time for larger groupos at playtime or sports ect.

what i resent about the guardian.

is most of irs journalists make big someg and dance about state education.

The milliband brothers may have gone state but was very good secondry in wealthy catchment area.
They fooling themselves if they think theres genuine choice.
Their wealth butys them state in decent catchjment area or if they so chose private.

Even dianne abbot went private.

lot older politicians on both sides went through pre comp system so benefitted from grammars school system.

today with such little choice and shortages is it any wonder why private systems booming.

They get more control over what they teach and diversity of subjects state dont have and can be fantastic places for sports or if child has special needs so why writer feels so apologetic i dont know.

mam29 when classes get too small there is not enough of a mix of personalities and also it can prevent the children from becoming independent workers.

I like small classes but 11 is too small. Around 16-24 is the ideal IMO. Carycach has the reasons-also you need more than 11 to bounce off ideas and opinions.

I would avoid a school if the classes were too small, in the same way as if they were too large.

It does seem odd that people will assume you are rich if you private school but not if you are a working mother with a pre-school dc in nursery. I guess those with free child care or at stay at home parent don't realise just how expensive it is.

But also how easy the pre-school years are compared to school years for working parents- you send them to nursery from 8-6 (most are flexible either end as well), they are always open, if your dc's key worker is sick they arrange the cover and food, preschool 'teaching', naps etc all happen in once place. I can see the temptation to just continue with that level of care in a private school setting.

I get what others are saying about the negatives of small class sizes, but I'd take that over large classes anytime. I'm currently hoping we get ds into a good state school, I think once I only have to pay for wrap around care I might finally feel rich if we do go private, it'll be a bit like someone turned off the light at the end of the tunnel and I shall never actually have any money...

But you are rich! You just choose to spend your money on school fees! If you weren't rich you wouldn't have the choice.

When mine were at school, grammar, correct spelling, teaching science as separate subjects 'ooh, aah science' instead as DS referred to it), cooking (save for things like making sure to bring packet of Angel Delight into school and being shown how to get rid of the lumps), French by pictures, mainly, and definitely nothing as oppressive as learning verbs.
For a boy full of curiosity, it was torture.
There are a heck of a lot of good Comprehensives but some of these require an arm and a leg to move house to get into the appropriate catchment area. Undoubtedly there are good State schools - and that's the best of all worlds.

Seeker - I wasn't saying it doesnt mean you can send your DCs to state school without being 'rich' but that nursery doesn't seem in the same way a thing for 'the rich' - perhaps because if you only have 1 DC it is still cheaper than a nanny. But still, if you do need to have arranged your finances to allow for nursery, you can easily afford prep, and that for the 2 years before state school starts, it's often cheaper than nursery. I can see how the writer in the orignal article 'drifted' away from every actively making the decision.

I (and most parents I know) saved before and during maternity leave to cover some of the childcare costs for pre-school children. And did so knowing that it was for a fixed length of time and actually the cost would come down during that time (babies being more expensive than 2 year olds and 3 year olds getting early years funding). And all breathed a sigh of relief when their child started school. Not quite the same as committing to paying for years and years as private school (as is likely the case if your child starts in pre-prep at 4).

I know where you are coming from DontmindifIdo.

The parents at DD's school are not rich - just working parents (99% of the mothers work) teachers, Drs, nurses, own businesses, builders, solicitors, hairdressers, firefighter, police etc

Most are older parents in their 40's. Plenty of only children.

If you've paid always childcare then you just keep paying.

(I'm in the north - some of lowest house prices in country and i'm talking fees of £500 a month - not boaters/£15,00 a year territory!)

There are a lot of people who simply can't afford it-they don't have holidays, smart cars etc to give up. They are working just to get the basics of rent, food etc.

And many have had free child care, pre-school.

exoticfruits - yes, those are also the parents who couldn't afford to go back to work unless they had free childcare. If you've done the sums once when pregnant/on maternity leave deciding if you can afford to go back to work if you have to pay out for childcare, then a continuation isn't that big a deal. Whereas, even someone on the same income suddenly thinking about finding £1k a month would be hard for most.

You tend to start threads if you disagree - it has nothing to do with jealousy.

Why did she write an article drawing attention to herself and her choices, Flicktheswitch? Presumably not to tell the world that it's none of their business, they shouldn't be bothered by her opinions of have any opinions of their own on what she wrote and why should they even care?... And why do some people think that expressing an opinion on other peoples' opinions is a sign of jealousy???? And why did you comment?????? Oh no - you weren't expressing an opinion, were you?!.....

Maybe she was forced to write the article by her editor?

Why would anyone care about anything?... Bleach, anyone?

The bit of the article I was interested in was not the bit informing us about her choices for her own child - I don't have any interest in where her own child goes to school - but the second half of her article in which she made several unsubstantiated comments about state education in general, private education and what other people might want from a school, all of which I thought was a lot of badly written drivel.

I've read the Janet Murray article and what concerns me is that gradually the print version Guardian Education section has become smaller and more opinion pieces than conveying useful information to parents.

There are key points in the school year - chosing schools (primary & senior) is one of them - but is there an article really investigating this 'choice' situation? No.

How much actual choice do you have in London? in Liverpool? in Leeds? in Bristol? What happens if you put down a school ridiculously far from you as your first choice? Why aren't they interviewing LEA's administering this system and finding out what the constraints are so parents can make informed choices. Next Dec is the deadline for primary - perhaps the Guardian can start doing some reporting on this difficult decision for the benefit of the thousands of families who are struggling to make this decision for their first child.

Now the other concern is that the education pages seem to be publishing opinion pieces and 'fashionable' educational solutions. Again - these need balance and investigative journalism.

I agree with a lot of the sentiment that Janet Murray made a decision because it was easy, safe and she was in the very fortunate position of affording to do so. However, she raises a good point - it was also about finding a child care solution to her own working life when her DD1 was in nursery.

Why isn't there more flexible/ wrap-around childcare (in nursery or primary school)? What do other countries do? How is it paid for? That is the newsworthy story I think. So Janet Murray - if you're following this discussion - why not prove your worth as a journalist and look into this. It applies to a vast number of people who are facing this struggle of juggling work and child care. STAHM are becoming rarer - and 'our system' doesn't accommodate that - why not? The cost? No political will? No one's thought about it? It's a huge problem - just look at the Mum's posting here worrying about staggered reception starting, which they didn't realise would happen. (it caught us out too!) Parents need information and help with this. Of all papers, The Guardian should be investigating solutions and campaigning for change!

Very good points, PastSellByDate.

If the government wanted one parent / 50% of each parent to stay at home rather than go to work, abd the majority of people could afford to do this, then I can understand that the current school hours / holidays system is perfectly acceptable.

However, both parents are encouraged / find it necessary to have full time jobs, and the school system doesn't appear to have caught up with this; instead, it seems to be working along the same hours that it did 40 years ago when parents had different working patterns.

Society has moved on, but the education system set-up is lagging behind, and it is no wonder that some people are looking to access private education to provide the support systems that they need that are lacking in the state sector.

Don't most state schools have breakfast club/ after school care? Ours does and a summer playscheme - in fact there are several summer play schemes, some council run ones are very affordable indeed.

I've heard the after school care argument before - but parents at state schools have demanding jobs too! What do they do? Also private schools have such long summer holidays - how does your average hardworking, banger-driving, sacrifice-making (as mumsnet would have us believe) private school parents cope?

Also many families choose to suck up the cost of nursery knowing that in a few years they won't have to pay any longer - exposing yourself to that sort of investment long term is a different proposition and one that only a tiny minority of parents (like that journalist) can afford.

The notion of 'choice' is an illusion in both sectors though - in the end it's the well off who benefit whether by buying an expensive house in a particular state school catchment or paying school fees.