is private REALLY better?

[ChuppaChups]

just out of interest, i would appreciate some OPINIONS on this area as i am seriously considering the move to private from state. The main reason being is we are now financially able to do so.

So, is it better and why?

Thanks

It isn't as grand as it sounds. Really a large prefab building containing the pool and two cramped changing rooms that really could do with a big upgrade.

A few members of staff used to swim regularly after school but to be honest the communal changing rooms put most people off.

Our state primary school has a swimming pool too - largely maintained by PTA fundraising.

I think OrphanAnnie has used her initiative to improve the options for her DC but social mobility is not guarenteed by going 'private'.

Seeker - I think OA is being tongue in cheek (at least I hope she is)

I know she is, thedolly. But it still sums up the attitude a lot of people hold - if not in such extreme terms.

I used to teach in a very challenging school in London, where a lot of students couldn't do extra-curricular activities after school because they had to help out parents by picking up younger siblings etc. The head was fantastic, and was really keen to get as many activities in as possible, so she condensed the school day slightly (shorter lunchtime) meaning that we could "close" at lunchtimes on Fridays, then all Friday afternoon was extra-curricular activities. Staff offered whatever they chose, so there was a huge variety, and staff who did do activities were paid extra (we also had a fabulous business manager who secured extra funding for this) The whole thing was very very successful. Activities were compulsory for Yrs 7-9 and older students could choose an activity, or use the time for coursework or extra lessons if they wanted to.

Seeker, do you politically and philosophically object to private education because it is elitist?

I don't think private education is elitist, some schools possibly but not all of them. Parents work really hard to pay the fees. You could also say that state schools are elitist if this is the case, people who can pay more for a house in a better area with a better school will do this, it's basically a private education but in a different way. Religious schools are also elitist, they accept mainly children from their own faith unless you are very lucky. Those that are not in these 'groups' are not given access. I don't see children from poor areas being given access to the outstanding primary in a different catchment area.

Partly, thedolly, although I think I am talking more about privilege. I have no problem with elitism if it's based on real talent, or ability. I do have a problem with the perpetuation of a system based on the premise that being rich automatically makes you better, and more capable of running the country.

My dd has been fortunate to attend two excellent state primaries, there has been a social mix at both with children from council estates and temporary housing to those who could easily afford fees.

Private education is elitist, it is only used by a very small percentage of the population.

I went to a state primary school with its own swimming pool. It sounds a lot like Mrz's - prefab building, shabby changing rooms, but a POOL. Imagine. Had no idea how lucky we were. It was built in the 60s (or early 70s?) I think - the parents went and helped to dig the hole for it.

Of course private education is elitist. How can it not be?

I'm an advocate of grammar schools so you may ask why I believe in one form of elitism and not another. The answer is that schools should be about education, not money (or faith) - and that giving children with different educational requirements a different education is not wrong.

Giving children a separate ("better") education in a school whose entry criterion is the fatness of Daddy's wallet is wrong. How can it not be?

I think quite a few of the primaries or middle schools down here have pools as did one of the state secondaries I taught in as a student teacher. The staff used it all the time. Infact I think the school I teach in used to have a pool, I think it was where our theatre is now.

"Giving children a separate ("better") education in a school whose entry criterion is the fatness of Daddy's wallet is wrong. How can it not be?"

Why is it wrong to spend one's disposable income on better educational opportunities for one's child rather than on cars, second homes, restaurants, clothing or any other consumer choice?

There are lots of inequalities, even within the state system. For instance, I'm amazed that feenie's school offers specialist music lessons for free! We even have to suscribe £000s per year if we want to take part in the the wider opportunities scheme for whole class music lessons.

I think we get the first term free and then we have had to pay after that.

But I agree that there are too many inequalities in the state sector and that a good state school has more in common with a private school than a poor state school.

It's wrong that those with more money have the luxury of choice when it comes to something as fundamental as education - is it not?

I'm always surprised that people use the "second holiday and cars" argument. For one thing, that isn't the choice facing the vast majority of families, and for another, you can't lump education in along with those consumer goods. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong to do so.

The state system is not perfect, but that doesn't mean we should actively add to the inequalities. You often see this argument in different contexts: "X is unfair, so why shouldn't I do Y, which is also unfair?" To argue for a state system which works is not necessarily to embrace all the imperfections of the one which is currently in place.

Second homes was a telling example, another way wealth can create divisions in society.

I am very honest about the fact I am uneasy around money, I became a very unpleasant person when I had a lot and it changed the people around me. That probably has a lot to do with my attitude towards private education as does my experiences working in the state sector at both ends of the spectrum.

Please explain why spending money on one's child's education might be considered morally less acceptable than spending that money on cars or second homes (and, yes, those are viable alternative purchases).

But the point is improve the state system don't slag off the private.
And actually they do not descriminate on the size of your wallet, everyone could do what I did, my tax credits pay for the % of the school fees not covered by the busaries, what is to stop every other parent making the choices we made ?

Orphan Annie - why does the state system need to be improved any more than the private? Teachers in the state sector have much more opportunity for professional development, and also have to be qualified! Just because you pay for it, doesn't necessarily mean it's good!

BA because it's seen as buying your child an advantage.
Where as actually the child would have exactly the same advantage over a poorer child even if all private schools were scrapped tomorrow.
I was good enough to play for the school football team but had to catch the school bus home as my single dad worked so therefore couldn't be included in that opportunity, many many other activities took place after school and so anyone with a parent available with a car had a massive advantage over me even within the state sector, that's life, it's shit sometimes but unless you are going for a full communist state then we make the best of it don't we ?
And even in a communistr state some pigs are more equal than others so again make the best of what you have, move house, pay for private school, home educate everyone has options.

There is always room for improvement in both sectors, you're absolutely right.

And why is it wrong to buy your children an advantage? In my book that is what parents are supposed to do: ensure their children get every possible advantage in life.

Exactly BA but some would rather drag you down in the interests of fairness.