In what respect is Private better than state education?

[halfrom]

Reading many of the posts I came to the conclusion that Private wasn't always better than state.

My main reasoning is A) If an entrance exam i.e 11+ is passed and the teachers at a particular school are supposed to be brilliant teachers, then why are some under performing students asked to leave. Surely the teachers can teach them to their required level. B) Some teachers are hand picked for ability as was my dh as a leader in a very specialised subject has visited most private/ Independant schools when required. However, he has also taught joe bloggs from down the street. Hence the children had same tutor, gained same results. Joe bloggs paid far less as a school didn't charge more. A friend has dd who has private Drama and speech coaching on saturday, does exams through I imagine same board as Private schools, and is a fantastic public speaker. So how do Privately educated children gain?

I also went to a very bog standard comp (33% A-C grades now!) I was bullied for being bright and a swot, but managed to get to university and build a good career.

We live in the midlands. The state schools near us offer an educational experience very much like mine. So I am choosing to spend a vast proportion of my income putting my children through a top public school. My children have an education and opportunities that I could never have dreamt of. And it shows in their confidence, their achievements and their love of going to school. They are very lucky. The school also isnt particularly selective. It is mixed sex and mixed ability, but it gets great results.

If we had great state education nearby I would use it. I would be massively better off financially. But I am not going to put them through an educational experience like mine if I can avoid it.

It isnt right that in many parts of the country, the state offers so little educational opportunity to so many. BUT dumbing down universtiy requirments to make up for poor state secondary education is not the answer.

Interesting the point about open days / evenings.
At DCs school, helping at open evening is voluntary so, guess what, its packed with the nice, well behaved, middle class kids - giving an utterly biased view of the school.
Tee hee.

You see it's that sort of thing that winds me up. People who say they are choosing to use a vast proportion of their income to put their children through a top public school. For the vast majority of people in this country, all their income wouldn't be enough to do this. The movers and shakers automatically pay for their children to go to public school. And enough other people can afford to do it to create a sense that if you don't, then somehow you're an uncaring parent who would rather spend their money on package holidays to Marbella, Malibu and Marlborough and let their children go hang. It really, really isn't a choice for most, even if they wanted to make it. It's a common theme on Mumsnet "if you fished down the back of the sofa you'd find enough small change for school fees. If you cared enough."

Seeker, What an incredibly odd comment! you are massively projecting here. Who said anything about uncaring parenting? Yes, I am lucky to be able to earn the money to send my kids to private school, but I dont think any less of anyone who hasnt had the opportunity to make the same choice. Most of my friends children are in state ed. So what?

I didn't read elastamums post quite like that. I read it as explaining how her experience affected her choices. And that she was not born with a silver spoon so this is a choice with a substantial downside. Articulating that it is difficult does not, to me, suggest that anyone can do it.
I have seen the 'anyone can do it if they just sacrifice a bit' and they are indeed dim. I didn't see that in elastamums post.

I guess we see the things that annoy us. I get as irritated by the 'it's just about avoiding poor people' comments but apparently that kind of sweeping superior judgement is fine.

X-posted

seeker - I really don't think that most people on MN think that and I agree with elastamum's post.

Most of us do live in the real world even if you think we don't. My parents couldn't have afforded to send me to private school, my siblings can't afford to send their children private. Do you really think that I sit here smugly congratulating myself on being a better parent than them? Hardly.

I have been financially successful so I have a wider range of educational options open to me. That doesn't make me a better parent just a wealthier one.

The real issue is the patchy quality of state education. If state education was consistantly good then people like me having the choice to spend money on private education wouldn't be particularly relevant.

Another thing that shaped my choices was the emphasis put on education by my parents. They didnt get the opportunity to go to university at all as they couldnt afford it. My dad left school at 14 and became an academic eventually after putting himself through nightschool whilst working.

We had the importance of education drummed into us from an early age. As a result I worked really, really hard and did well enough to be able to afford private education. As a result of our upbringing, both me and my brothers have sent our children to the best schools we possibly could.

I don't think for a moment that if everyone fished down the back of sofa they would find school fees but you could suggested that if more people who could afford private school felt morally obliged to pay then it would free up spaces in state for those who could never pay in their whilst dreams. I think it's absolutely right that people who can pay do and would apply the same to the NHS

The patchy provision of state education grotesquely penalises far too many and needs to be fixed. Even if this wasn't the case I can't be accused of criticising those who go private, it couldn't bother me less.

If my local provision was rubbish and I could afford to, I'd certainly buy in. But I'd be very cynical about what I was buying. I wouldn't be swept away by a single instance of good manners from a youngster yet to get an offer from Harvard or Yale, however much he waxed lyrical about the in-house Ivy League team. But I might make hurried excuses if I detected snobbery or arrogance, both deeply objectionable traits. Or if someone mentioned 'networking'. I'd be straight out the door.

My quarrel is simply with those claiming superiority of top independent over top state, because it's clear that they're out of touch, if they've ever been in touch, with what's offered. I claim parity, that's all.

As for lowering of university standards: those sending their children to independent schools because they recognise their own local state provision is poor must therefore accept that the use of contextual data to try to find the most meritorious candidates for scarce places at top universities makes absolute sense.

This is a thread I have just read from beginning to end as DH and I are facing the decision of whether to go state or private with our DS next year. I live in an area that is renowned for being deprived of schools. Our nearest school is 1k away from our house and apparently we are not close enough to get in (my neighbour's son has just been rejected on this basis). Now we are weighing up the other options which are a) sending him to the next state school which is closest to us - which is basically quite rough b) getting a faith place - could conceivably work or c) going private.

We have looked at private schools and basically there are some where the children are really not very nice (one private school in particular is getting a reputation for badly behaved, miserable children) and other private schools which are beautiful. However, if you have the finances available you will be able to choose the school which is right for your child and they will be happy which is why I defend the private sector.

What I find really sad is hearing stories of children being bullied at schools and not getting the attention they need to fulfil their potential - the product can only be unhappy adults. I don't feel that it is fair to defend the state sector when you are basically a product of an elite state school and have no concept of the problems faced by those who have no other choice.

"What I find really sad is hearing stories of children being bullied at schools and not getting the attention they need to fulfil their potential - the product can only be unhappy adults. I don't feel that it is fair to defend the state sector when you are basically a product of an elite state school and have no concept of the problems faced by those who have no other choice."

Two points. First, if you think bullying doesn't happen at private school you've got a shock in store for you, and second, who is defending state schools from that position?

My top state school provides as superbly as your top school though at nil cost to parents therefore I condone all bullying and execrable teaching and lack of control in poorer quality state schools. Also knife crime.

Sure.

I have to say that the arguments of the state school parents on these threads do appear to significantly better reasoned than those of the private school parents and in several notable cases (myself excluded) are vastly more eloquent.

appear to be

Blast.

get the top universities to cast their nets a little wider.

Seeker: how about wrapping your mind around the revolutionary proposition of ... tada!

reforming state education provision????? ANYTHING else is rearranging the deck chairs.

The PROBLEM is the comps. Not 'privilege', the middle classes, private schools, the universities.
The problem is state education and the stranglehold the wrong people have on that education. The ideologies theories taught in PGCE should have every one of those 'lecturers' replaced.

Thing is though, if your DC are at an independent school and you find out they're being bullied, or the teachers are shit, or the HT has gone doollally, you can exercise your most powerful weapon; choice. You can upsticks and move schools.

That, it always seems to me is the fundementally best thing about going private for anything. You get to choose. You can say I like that one but not that one. You don't get what you're given.

Because despite all the flannel, choice within the state system is utterly illusory (to quote Unquietdad, late of this parish)

Sorry if nt articulate enough for you yellow i'm dyslexic and had a shit (state) education.

bitwobbly that's all fine and good but there does have to be an interim fix to try to get the best kids into the best universities.

I'm not aware that I've ever criticized your spelling word, you've often said that you've struggled with dyslexia.

Besides which, poor spelling and poor reasoning are two distinct things.

I agree yellowtip

I also think the most intelligent people on a thread are those who agree with me.

Oh.

Well the idea that those with kids at decent state schools must support knife crime isn't too sharp.

That works both ways, though, wordfactory- if your face turns out not to fit at q private school you can be out the door before you know what's happening!

If we are all judged by others posts then everyone on mumsnet is thick and Petronella Wyatt is probably right.

abitwobbly
top universities give everybody who applies an equal chance.
the shocking thing is that there are schools (and a particular LEA) that do not put pupils forward to RG Unis.

Comp schools are NOT the problem.
Comps, done properly, are the solution
in that every child (no matter how lazy, thick or absent their parents) has the chance to be spotted by the school and pushed to the top sets and the best opportunities.
Children with unmotivated parents are very unlikely to go to either Grammar or Fee Paying schools
and are therefore unlikely to reach their potential
and therefore less likely to contribute to the economy
UNLESS they are at a good comp that can open the doors for them

As I have said, you are welcome to pay for your kids schooling if you want selective or religious
but I strongly object to being forced to pay for it out of my taxes