Choosing to go private - and why it's an incendiary issue in the US too

There is a lot to be said about private education, on both sides of the spectrum. It's definitely true that some parents would love the opportunity to send their child to a good private school - at the very least to benefit from smaller classes. Recent comments by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg will have resonated with many: “ I am not holding my children’s future and education hostage to a game of political football. I am a father before a politician,” said the Lib Dem leader.

Some parents are angry that they are stuck in the "state school lottery", enviously watching their richer acquaintances gush about the wonderful private school (and marvellous private facilities) their child benefits from. Still others - and this includes many who educate privately - feel uncomfortable about the disparity between private and state education. They wonder (sometimes secretly) how much state schools might improve if all those other articulate, pushy parents were forced to get involved.

In new research published today, the most important reasons for not going private are that parents are satisfied with the local state schools and/or because they feel they cannot afford the fees. However, a sizeable number of parents say they would not go private because they wouldn't be happy with the social mix of a private institution.

Nearly a third (31 percent) apparently fear that their child would not “fit in”, while a similar number (30 percent) say that independent schools are not socially or ethnically mixed enough. More than a fifth (23 percent) said they worry that “the other parents are too different from us”, while a sixth (17 per cent) take this to the next level, worrying that their children “would grow up to be too different to us.”

This report raises numerous questions. It will please those who dislike the fact that private schools are always seen as the solution to how to get the best possible education for your child. Instead it demonstrates that for many parents, the situtation is far more complex. Some people might be very keen for their children to mix with a wide variety of children from different backgrounds (also a possible problem at some faith schools) and won't feel that this could happen at a place where fees are more than £10,000 (out of taxed income, remember). Others are worried that they, and their child, might not actually fit into a school which has a particularly rich cohort of pupils. Being anxious that their child will grow up "different from us" is another concern from the point of view of independent schools. It suggests that scholarships are not the answer either.

Private education is always an incendiary subject, presumably because education matters so much and we all want the best for our children. Often this leads to accusations of hypocrisy. Remember the flak that Labour's Diane Abbott received for sending her son private? Meanwhile Martin Samuel recently wrote that only the rich can really "afford" state education (he doesn't quite explain how the poor can afford private school fees - many parents are sick of the "just don't buy a wide-screen TV, have expensive holidays and Sky plus" argument. They don't have a wide-screen TV, go on nice holidays or have Sky plus....).

The issue is also huge in America, and with Democrats as much as Republicans. For, not only did Barack Obama attend a prominent public school in Hawaii (albeit on a scholarship) but he appears to be sending out mixed messages on his educational beliefs too. As blogwonks points out, the Democratic presidential candidate spoke out against giving parents educational choice (he said it would hurt failing schools even more), but sends his daughters to a private school. John McCain (who also educated his children privately) is not the only one to have criticised him for this.

In a fascinating article in the New York Times, Sandra Tsing Loh lambasted Obama for this decision. As a "PTA mom" she's particularly angry that the educated, articulate Obamas removed themselves (and any possible contributions they might make) from the public school scene. She says that research indicates that poor children benefit hugely from mixing with middle-class children, and that immigrant children learn English faster when they are in classrooms with native English speakers. But she adds that unfortunately this isn't happening as the native English speakers are being removed from public schools. Tsing Loh clearly wanted Obama to set an example.

The article drew a huge number of comments. Some pointed out that Obama's daughters attend their school (the University of Chicago Laboratory School) because their father taught at the university, and could take them with him to work. Many also defended Obama's decision to "do the best" for his children (rather than "sacrifice" them to the public sector). Others, however, point out that while Obama, Biden and McCain educate or educated their children privately, Sarah Palin sent hers to the local school.

Is it really such a sacrifice to send your child to a public school in America or state school here? Is the situation different in cities, as opposed to rural areas, and what are the options for those parents who don't have a choice? No parents wants to give up, but the playing field often doesn't feel very level anymore.

Read School Gate on:

The true cost in the rise of private school fees

Applying for a primary school

The stress and expense of school uniforms

Why class size matters

Who gains when parents bully teachers?

 

Comments

[whimsey]

The single main advantage of a private school is that they can control their intake and, even more importantly, control their expulsion as well. The dire problem for state schools is that they can't - so they get dumped with the head case kids with crap parenting who are disruptive and aggressive and stop all the other children learning.

If we could crack that problem in the state sector it would start to solve all the other problems. Head case kids are like a cancer - they have to be dealt with for their own sake, and the sake of the other children, not to mention the teachers. But schools are neither empowered nor funded to do so adequately. The government uses schools as some kind of 'container prison' for the derelicts who will do nothing in their lives but be a pain in the backside, to themselvs and everyone else. These wretched children need saving from their own dysfunctional families, but most schools are not resourced to do that.

However, that isn't to say that a good headteacher and a lot of determination and enthusiasm can't do a lot to mitigate the problem even within the constraints the state sector has to operate within.

Also, despite my opening paragraph, a lot of private schools don't like to expel because it reduces fees, and often the worst children are the offspring of the richest parents who bribe the school with lavish donations and manipulate the governors etc to keep their children there.

[Noah]

Moving my children from public to private school has cost the state school 5k per head in reduced funding and cost me 6k per head for new school fees. Given the private school has to make a profit this means they operate on a similar cost basis. The difference in performance is less to do with funding and more to do with ambition. The private school has much higher standards for behaviour, homework, results, sporting achievement, personnal development etc. This comes from the ethos that the private school has to determine these things for itself in order to create a brand whereas the state school just defaults to "good performance benchmarks".

With respect to the social mix of classes penalising poorer kids when the middle classes move on - there is nothing makes me mopre angry. This is obviously a 2 way street. If my kids bring others up this must be matched by my kids being brought down! Am I to tolerate this because out of duty? Who has the right to demand this of my kids? Somebody please justify this.

[j]

It may help with the debate if we define the different types of public school.

Across the country we have the good oldfashioned grammar school, where kids and parents alike are scruffy, but bright and well motivated and sit in classes of 25-30 learning a traditional academic curriculum. Some places, it's still free, others you have to pay and suddenly you are "using private schools".

I'd distinguish these from schools that offer a very glamorous lifestyle to young people- often, these are baording or semi boarding, to accommodate the fact that parents either work all the hours there are, or live abroad or in the depths of the country, or both. A very different ethos, and average income, can be found there.

Should "grammar school kids" go to the local comprehensive? I did, and it wasnt great; it would be even worse today. I sent my eldest to the local comp and they begged me to take him away and use the local feepaying ex-grammar, so I did.

[JM]

One of the main reasons we scrape together 10K pa fees to pay for Private schools in Inner London, is NOT for the usual reasons trotted out - ie. the smaller class sizes, better teaching and the hugely better SATS results.

It is really for the totally non-PC fact that I want to avoid my children having to attend school with the large number of appallingly behaved children I see at our local comp. Their behaviour on the local buses and streets is extremely intimidating to me (never mind my children). Added to this is the awful behaviour of some the parents at our local primary school and I always think of a comment a friend of mine made which was:
'she would scrub floors if needed to avoid her children attending such a school'.

What I really resent is the image of privately educated children as being somehow posh and rich. It is totally untrue of schools in cities such as London. While there are obviously some wealthy Families in these schools, there are also an awful lot making large sacrifices to afford the fees.

[Tim Atkinson]

Something you never see discussed in this debate is the fact that some parents (a minority, hopefully) choose to go private regardless of the fact that the school they choose is actually inferior to a state alternative. (It does happen, more often than you'd think.) It's like going to a fancy restaurant, or buying exclusive wine whether you like it or not; the feeling seems to be 'it's good because we're paying for it' which is pretty stupid.

[Snuffy]

Whimsey has hit the nail right on the head!

[Mary]

Like JM, we didn't feel that there was a real choice in our area. The point about private schools controlling the children who are on the roll is of course correct, but having been in a number of state schools I found the really depressing thing to be the total lack of ambition that the teachers displayed for their lessons and their pupils.
Of course there are wonderful exceptions, but my impression is that an awful lot of teachers in Inner London (and probably other places) feel run down, under-appreciated, under-paid and just don't care that much any more. What I saw was crowd control, not teaching. How to get out of this situation is a difficult one as once teachers get so demoralised we are not going to recruit good people to work in the profession. They need to be given their pride back in order for schools to turn around. The schools that manage that appear to be the ones where a strong, visionary head takes over and creates a situation where both pupils and teachers care about the school and want to make progress.

[LM]

I live in a large US city with a fairly inept school board and one of the highest rates of children in private schools in the country, and yes, I believe ther's a correlation. In fact, the latest hot issue is that the school district has known for at least 2 years that in the parts of town with the best elementary schools, they will be over-subscribed for kindergarten/early grades starting in 2009, based on the current assignment criteria (catchment area, siblings, other mysterious "assignment rules"). In this situation, we'll either have to move or probably go private - if we get in - because I am not sending my child to an vastly inferior school (facilities, class size, expectations, etc) simply because the city & school district (separate entities) don't have the ability to plan ahead or the political will to extricate themselves from the mess.

(I'm also wondering when the lawsuits will start).

[LM]

Btw, why did Obama need a scholarship for a public school?

[Pdev]

As a parent living in inner city Melb this discussion strikes a chord. My son is in Yr9 and daughter from next year attend a govt high school that is highly sought afterwith a very middle class demographic. It performs as well academically as many private schools and costs nothing<$300/yr for materials. The Howard govt increased funding for private schools has allowed the growth of the private sector especially in the suburbs where the aspirationals are keen to distnce themselves from their neighbours. Our family income is over $250k and many people only are sending kids to private schools for the snob value or because they can not get them into desirable govt schools.

[IK]

My daughter (4+) attends an independent school (private for those unfamiliar with the UK system) and we pay £8,000/year(this year, it will go up as she gets older).
She is in a class of 16, has swimming, PE, music and the usual reception activities. She mingles with 6th formers so is confident and chooses her own lunch. She gets dressed & undressed by herself,for PE and swimming. Her class is 50% white/british and 50% other minorities. Several of the 'white/british' children are half british/half another nationality, just like my daughter.

I really don't see the problem with choosing a private school over a state one. After all, from the moment they are born we choose the best for our children: best clothes, best pram, organic food for weaning, vaccinate them, buy them educational toys and games, send them to the best nursery, teach them to swim...so why should we not 'buy' the best education we can afford?

I totally agree that state schools should be outstanding, have all the facilities necessary and churn out well-behaved children that have been educated to the best of their abilities, but that is not the reality in 2008 and no, I am not going to 'sacrifice' my daughter's future for the sake of the common good. Maybe this has to do with our level of tolerance with bad behaviour and incompetence nowadays. Like another poster said here, I am sometimes intimidated by the local school kids on the bus and no one stands up to them. We should have the same attitude towards a government that has failed in one of its most basic of duties: to educate the future generations. Not to mention those famous last words: 'education, education, education'....

My daughter might not necessarily grow up to be top of the class but she will have all the tools available to her plus a safe and welcoming environment in which to have a go. I am happy to forgo £8,000/year for that.

[Gipsy]

LM - I'm guessing that Sarah meant 'public school' in the British sense ie Private school. I have absolutely no idea why the British call fee paying schools 'public', and have often wondered about it.

IK - oh yes, state school kids can't dress or undress themselves at age 4. If you think that the education system under the labour government is bad, see what the Tories will do to it when they get into power (and I hope they don't). Under the last Tory leadership, funding was cut back and back on schools, and they've already made it clear they're going to cut public spending.

[Daniel]

Am I alone in thinking that a school not being sufficently "socially mixed" is a good thing?

I would rather my children were not dragged down by the dregs of society for the sake of a failed social experiment in education.

[Sara]

I went to a fee paying school, it wasn't snobbish, rich and neither did we wear hideous old fashioned uniforms. There was a large ethnic mix, and wealth range. Some were single parent families or had ex council houses, while some had veritable mansions. My school allowed me a huge range of subjects which were also academically valued. However the daughter primary school was scary and churned out robots or emotionally damaged children. So I say stay away from private primaries but definitely consider private secondary.

[JM]

Gipsey - I also always wondered where the term 'Public' school came from in the UK, until it was explained to me.

To be clear, it only really refers to the older more establised UK Private schools (obvious examples being Eton, Harrow, Christs' Hospital, etc), and not to the newer Private Schools.

The reason these schools were called Public schools was because before they were establised, everyone was educated (to a greater or lesser extent) at home. Then schools were created that were open to the sons (not daughters, of course!!) of the gentry, clergy etc.

Not really relevant but quite interesting!!

[Helen]

One of the main reasons people choose private schools is to keep their "nice" children away from other people's "nasty" children, though as Whimsey says, you can get nasty children at private schools too - the difference is their parents are more likely to do something about it.

I'm lucky enough to live in an affluent area where the state schools are good and most of the kids are "nice". I was lucky enough to go to a state grammar school, as was my husband, but my son will not attend one unless we move to somewhere like Kent or Gloucestershire. You can tell me that people on council estates send their kids to private school - well maybe they can because they haven't a mortgage to pay! Lucky them - why are they in a council house if they have afford £8K+ pa fees per child? Also I pay vast amounts of tax every year and I want to get value for money by educating him in the state sector. If that doesn't work for him I might think again - he's only in year one at present and a lot can change between now and year 13!

[Anna]

Average children, and those with special needs do well in state schools. The teaching staff take care of them, so that they reach the national average or get good results. Clever children do much better in private schools where they are challenged, and where time is actually spent on them.

It is also much better I feel, to send children to private school in the primary level - apart from improving their confidence, they develop much better study habits, which will help them in secondary school. My children currently get homework almost everyday and have been disciplined to do it as soon as they get home. It only takes 20 minutes but this is very good grounding and I doubt they will have problems adjusting to work later on in life.

[LM]

Thanks Gipsy - you're probably right. It was just confusing because 1 or 2 paragraphs below, she talks about Obama's daughters & public school in what seems to be the context of "state school".

[ShyGirl]

I go to a private school at the moment. I've just started Lower Sixth (year 12) and am having a fabulous time. I went to a state school for three years and was bullied throughout the whole time. Never a particularly confident person, the daily humiliation depressed me severely, and I firmly believe laid the foundation for selfharm a year or so later.

The behaviour was abysmal too, as a fairly bright person (I think!) it was extremely hard to learn anything in any lesson. The teachers could never control anyone, and in the worst incident I was spat on twice.

My brother went to a diffferent state school for two years, and although he wasn't bullied (I don't think...) he struggled with the large class sizes, and the overall size of the school.(2,100 roughly)
He has now joined my school in Year 9, and finds it so much better. Those two schools may not have been great examples, but the fact remains, we are both much happier at an independent school.

As to ethnic mix, the school takes boarders as well, so we have many Chinese/Hong Kong/Macau people,many Africans,a couple of Russians and several Germans. And that's just in my year!

In other years there are French and Belgians, and at least one West Indian.

There's a diverse wealth range as well, especially among the day pupils.

Although it was a wrench leaving my old school, I am now so glad I did and indeed wish it could've been sooner!
(Although it couldn't have been, unfortunately, because the money came from my Dad's redundancy payment.)

[EFM]

Where I grew up (urban East-Coast United States, juuuuuust before the revitalization/gentrification of an otherwise drug- and unemployment-ravaged port city), EVERYone with ANY money sent (and still sends) their kids to private schools--boys' schools, girls' schools, day schools, boarding schools, Catholic, Jewish, Quaker, non-religious, strict, relaxed, urban, suburban, exurban/semi-rural--there is a school to fit every temperament and budget within 25 miles of the city. I went to the best one, a private girls' day school with uniforms and sports and music and art and recess and a world-class French program that started in kindergarten, but I knew NO ONE who lived in the city limits who went to public school after age 10 (there were a few acceptable elementary/primary schools in affluent neighborhoods). They were holes: dark, dirty, grim, scary places with intimidating kids lurking around, and exhausted teachers who had to adhere to the lowest pedagogical standards and spend more time on discipline and not getting shot than anything else.

I realize that this is a direct result of the majority of parents removing the smart, talented, well-adjusted kids from the system (and with them, the family's time, involvement, money and oversight), but who's going to send their child to a war zone for school? It's a vicious cycle: schools are crappy so parents send kids to private schools, so the schools are crappy, so...you get the idea.

My school was not as diverse as other, cheaper private schools, but we had lots of non-white girls (sure, they were doctors' children, but let's not split hairs) and a handful of scholarship inner-city ones too. JM has a point, that other people's badly behaved kids are a threat to his/her own, but I saw some pretty appalling behavior at my school, too.

The question for those who for whatever reason cannot afford 12 years of private education, or who want to give the public schools a chance, is this: do you send a young child to public school and then private school later, so that s/he benefits from the quality of teaching when it matters for college, but risk the dangers and deficiencies of public schools on a small child, or do you give the kid a private education until high school and then send him/her to a public high school on the grounds that early development is crucial and s/he will do well after that regardless of the environment, but risk the chance that the child will be frightened and unable to cope in a large public school if s/he wasn't acclimated to it early (not to mention the resentment backblast you might get--all my parents had to do when I complained about, well, anything, was to threaten to pull me out of my cozy little prep school and chuck me into the deep end of public education)? I suppose it depends on the schools in question, and the child's disposition...

The ideal solution would be top-notch public education in all districts, with private education available for the truly exceptional, but we're a long way from that!

[Laura]

The problem I have with state schools is that it is very much "sink or swim" and there is no flexibility. Children are made to feel bad about themselves for being an individual and not a clone.

I was very lucky to naturally fit in with what is desired out of state schoolchildren, so I did well. Those who do not are abandoned to failure because the resources aren't there to cater to every child's needs. For example, the government prescribes a curriculum for state schools without taking into account the natural talents of the children. A lot of money is wasted forcing children to sit through lessons in subjects in which they will never succeed when they could be doing something far more productive.

I have known several people who went through private education.

In their schools, the school could adapt to the needs of the child, instead of trying to force children to all be the same. As a result, they have been instilled with an enduring confidence in themselves as people, their abilities and their right to exist and enjoy life.

No one ever made them feel a failure because they couldn't remember history dates or some French vocab. They just studied another subject instead. One friend was moved up a year because it suited him better, I can't believe a state school would do that.

This flexibility is why I want to send any children I may have to an independent school. It's not just grades, it's a whole attitude toward life - and not a snobby one at all.

[Mollie]

As a state-educated grammar school girl I have chosen to send my son to an independent school. One simple reason - I want him to have the quality of education that I had for free.

[Delilah]

I'd say a good state school system is probably the most effective way that a government can forge social cohesion and mobility; and lack of one is the quickest way to fracture society and create pockets of underclass and hopelessness. We are fortunate to live in a good school district where practically everyone uses the local state school system from Kindergarten to high school graduation. There are a few wingnuts who choose private schools for religious or exclusionary issues, but they are definitely in the minority. Having kids of all colours, backgrounds, and academic abilities under the same roof, participating in the same sports teams and clubs, and school-related social activities, is a completely different experience to being one of many isolated fee-paying schools. My daughter shares classes with the offspring of university professors, electricians, lawyers, cleaners and builders. And it works. It's successful. She's getting an excellent education (she's pretty bright) but she's also learning how to communicate and work with all sorts of people, not just the academic top flight or the children of social climbers. Hopefully, she'll go to college but some of her friends won't; some will get apprenticeships with local businesses. A few will doubtless drop out or be expelled; but the majority will come out with a set of qualifications that matches their abilities AND their aspirations. Serving a normal, diverse community like this doesn't happen by accident, or by hankering after some Victorian model - but with good school buildings, and an intelligent and pragmatic approach to education, discipline, and child development, it CAN be done. It's a scandal that so many school districts are allowed to blame failure on "the system", when so many others with the same basic resources and demographics show how possible it is to succeed.

[Pdev]

As an Australian can anyone on the post tell me the reason why so many govt high schools in the UK seem to be so bad? Is it purely to do with the demographic/ethnic mix of students or is more to do with schools performance. How is this measured.

[whimsey]

PDEV, I'd say it's primarily because standards of decent behaviour amongst the pupils are not enforced (possibly not enforceable, thanks to a government that refuses to allow heads to get the head cases out, or fund them to treat the head cases adequately).

Once you lose the 'good behaviour' and every lesson is, as someone said earlier, reduced to 'crowd control' (or, more likely, lack of it), then everything else goes as well. If you have a class full of disruptive, inattentive children who are talking on their phones, doing drugs in class (oh yes, I know personally of this!), doing everything they can to stop the teacher conveying any lesson information at all, then, obviously, you can't have any actual teaching going on.

Pupil behaviour is the key to education - no one can teach anything to children who are basically out of control (ie, self-control).

Only when you can turn around the behaviour of pupils within a school, as the good 'turnaround heads'/'white knight heads' do - they tackle it as their first prioirty, to restore order, can you then start to tackle the educational issues.

[JM]

PDEV - I think the problem in UK State Schools is primarily in the big cities, particularly in London. Student behaviour is out of control in some of these schools and middle-class parents have sent their children elsewhere. There are a very few very good State schools which are massively over-subscribed (such as Tiffin, London Oratory, etc) which take highly tutored middle class children and sons of our ex Prime Minister!!

Outside London and the other big cities you can find some perfectly good State Schools and this accounts for the term 'middle class flight' as Families move out of the cities in search of such schools. (Actually I believe it is pretty similar in big USA cities (such as New York).

[j]

Well I agree with Delilah that the ideal system would be as she describes, and indeed it was when I grew up, much closer to that than it is today. We are among those parents who were state school educated, used state primary for all the kids and then were advised by the state secondary to go private because they just didnt have the staff to teach the eldest child. Who is the offspring of University professors.

Some of his friends- also offspring of U Ps- are still there at the state secondary, as is his disabled sister. But now they are all in 6th form, the diference in academic outcomes is very sharp.

They are all still friends, though. And his state school isnt a posh bubble, its a scruffy, cheap ex-grammar school that has big classes and spends every penny on staff. As for ethnic and social mix, it is full of kids from working families new to the UK, who spend everything they have on education. Having moved country and given up so much, they want their kid to go far in this country.

[j]

sorry, not his state school his private school. confusing of me.

[Jo]

I ended up at one of those rough State Schools where they had also decided it was a good idea to have mixed ability teaching. I simply stopped working and being quite bright and well behaved I was ignored mostly by the teachers. My mum eventually realised I wasn’t doing any work and confronted my form teacher/maths teacher he just laughed and because she complained I had to sit every maths lesson with the head of maths. English classes were a torture as many of the children hadn’t been taught to read properly and so I spent most of the classes reading another book under the desk. I was bored and not challenged and as I didn’t want to be bullied I was pulling back from work. Some very sad circumstances meant my mother was able to move me to a small independent school where the focussed on teaching people and not controlling the class. It was probably quite old fashioned and not the best school in the world but it suited me for those for years and I came out with good GCSE’s. I then moved to my brothers State School (Catholic All Boys) where I was pushed really hard to achieve and I did. Girls from similar middle class backgrounds as me (there were a few) manged to cope with the first state school and did really well, however, I didn’t have the character for it. I needed support and that is the point if you can parents need to recognise what their children need and how they learn and try and find the best way of educating them they can.

[Caroline]

The state vs private discussion stikes me as partially missing the point. Both in the US and the UK, you must pay for high quality schooling, either by buying yourself into a good school district (catchment in the UK) or by going private.

The Obamas live in one of the most racially and economically diverse neighborhoods in America (Hyde Park on Chicago's South Side). I actually think it's braver to live in Hyde Park and send the kids to the Lab School, than to scoot off to New Trier, a very affluent northern suburb with excellent public (state) schools.

Moreover, there is a large body of academic research that suggests that the really important thing for educational outcomes is the socio-economic status and involvement of parents. So read to your children, talk to them, ask them lots of questions and answer theirs. They'll be fine.

[R Villiers-Trott]

I was privately educated and would not be half the man I am had I not been. A good public school imparts a dignity and gentility rarely ecountered in this sorry age.

[j]

"I was privately educated and would not be half the man I am had I not been. A good public school imparts a dignity and gentility rarely ecountered in this sorry age."

I am hoping this is a spoof.

you cant do the experiment, RVT, and find what you would have been, had you been educated elsewhere.

you also cant know where all the decent people you know were educated. Many of them may have been state educated.

What is clear is that no gentleman would make such a sweeping remark about others and their education ;)

[CJ]

I was educated at an average comprehensive school, with streamed classes, and was fortunate enough to get a place at Oxford University.
To supplement my modest income, I now tutor on a one to one basis. All of the children I tutor attend private schools, with many of the parents complaining about the standards and how their children are being left to fall behind.
I have to bite my tongue to avoid asking 'So why pay such extortionate fees?'
I have concluded that a private education is far more about the social connections a child will make than the standard of education.
Fortunately, these parents also have the cash to provide an army of private tutors to supplement where the expensive private schools are failing.
I'd love to know how high standards could be raised in state schools if all the private schools fees were pumped into the state sector instead.

[j]

"I was educated at an average comprehensive school, with streamed classes, and was fortunate enough to get a place at Oxford University."

me too CJ, except we werent streamed. And to get even close for my son 30 years later, I have had to go private because of where I live.

but no way have I ever paid a penny in private tutor fees. No disrespect- Im sure you do a great job. But as you say, I expect the school to do it- and it does.

I think maybe we are talking about 2 different kinds of school, as I said in my very first post on this thread.

[Canadian girl]

I'm a grade 10 girl in Toronto, and recognized as 'gifted'. I live in an educated, white, upper-middle class area near excellent public (ie state-run) schools as well as well-known private schools. I have many friends in my neighbourhood at both public and private schools.

After getting an excellent educational grounding during pre-school/kindergarten at a private Montessori school, I switched to my area's public school. It bored me. The people weren't as advanced, lacked in diversity and frankly didn't interest me. I also found the curriculum slow. I was lucky to have good teachers who tried to challenge me with extra work but school wasn't fun.

I switched schools, but my parents didn't go private again.

I now go to a public school a neighbourhood over. This school and neighbourhood have a really undesirable reputation which almost scared me at first, but I enrolled in the enriched program there. Since it's a public program, I now have classes with smart kids from all over the city, of all racial origins and socioeconomic backgrounds. For those who believe that private schools are always academically superior, know that many kids in my program were sent there over a private school, or even transferred from a private school.

The one aspect in which I would admit private schools are superior to public ones is in social connections. Girls attending a private school here in Toronto become a part of that "Old Girls' Club" which, when we grow up, will include most of the powerful female lawyers, surgeons, and businesswomen.

Is that worth 20 000$ a year plus uniforms, school 'donations', supplies and trip fees?

It's up to you.

[Nina]

I enjoyed a private education and my children do too. My reason for choosing private over state? My eldest child attended the first two years of education in a state school. I was so horrified by the type of language he brought home and the poor standard of education he endured from a seemingly good state school that we felt we had no choice but to invest in sending the children to a decent moral school environment where they laid the foundations properly for a sound education. And I'm delighted by the result.

[David Vinter]

A few years back, my daughter was comprehensive till age 13, where she was constantly bullied----for coming top and playing in a local silver band! She then transferred to our local Grammar--all free, started 1552. She said going was the best day of her life. Now graduated, says it is a great memory.

[j]

Hi Canadian girl,

what you describe used to be possible here, too. It still is, but only in some parts of the UK. What makes us all frustrated is we agree it should be possible everywhere.

In the meantime, do you invest your own child in the system and hope for the best, or manage the risk by opting out, so your kid is fine but you dont contribute to the solution?
that's the dilemma. Would be nice if voting helped- but it doesnt. Too much else is on the table in the general election.

[Jo]

The problem with this discussion is that schools are so variable across the country here in the UK and I assume the US. There are great State Schools and mediocre Private schools. It depends where you live and what your child is like, what they need from a school. I think most people posting just want the best education not the contacts, I know that is what my mum wanted when she moved me. What can we do to change it - not the lottery Sarah Ebner suggests?

[abm]

PDEV
If you are not a snob why are you sending your child to the top state run school in Victoria on your income (250k)? I went to that school and there is no way in the world my working class parents could have afforded such an education in the private sector. I believe those spots should be for bright working class kids who cannot afford a private education. People like you want to monopolise the best and invest nothing.

[lex]

I am an american student in private school and believe private schools are better for two reasons:
1. Private schools expect more. Half the people at our local public school drop out and no one bats an eye. They do nothing to regulate drugs and sex, and focus more on sports and extracurruculars.
2. Because parents are paying more for a private education, they really care about the quality of the education. My public school friends' parents are all from lower-middle class socioeconomic groups that coulnd't care less that a bomb threat was posted on their children's lockers and the state police were there yesterday.

The education at private schools is better because the schools don't waste time with dumb students. Anyone can go to public school and many times smart students are held back in class because the teacher has to spend an extra ten minutes explaining tricotomy to an idiot.

[J]

What gets me most is it seems that the most prominent anti-private school reason seems to be that the 'poorer' people can benefit from the rich attending public schools. It is a fact that private schools gives a better education to children and people are not even giving consideration to the welfare of the original private school children.
Children with rich parents made sacrifices too. They might not see their parents that much, they face much more pressure to do well accademically, behave themselves etc.

[Devon_Skylark]

I work in a very good state comprehensive school and was lucky enough to have three excellent state comprehensive schools to choose from for my two children, one very bright, one severely dyslexic. They both did very well at their local state school and are now at University. Would I have looked at paying to educate them if the state schools hadn't been up to scratch? Yes, I would, even if it meant no holidays or luxuries and working three jobs. Our children are our future and although I thoroughly support the state school system, as Nick Clegg said, firstly I am a parent and my political views come a long way behind that.

[Rachael B]

I would like to send my children (if I have any) to the best possible school in the area whether that be state or private. If that means private, then so be it. Education is the most important thing you can give your child (apart from love).

[JC]

We have freedom of choice in the UK and if a family is fortunate enough to be able to afford private education (through extreme hard work in many cases) then why should they not exercise that choice? Why on earth would I choose to send my children to our local comprehensive in North London where a police car sits outside the gates during the day, when I can afford to, and choose to, send them to one of the country's leading public schools?

[JAM]

My eldest child has just started prep school (aged 5). She is loving it. Lots of her friends are at primary schools and, as far as I can tell, they are all on a par in terms of reading and writing. The difference seems to be smaller classes - and single sex classes - in her school mean that "class control" is less of an issue.

[steven]

Since the site launched on the 11th March 2009 more than 1,000,000 searches have been made for information on school fees, private school fees and so on. This has led nearly 5,000 families to visit www.allaboutschoolfees.com to create bespoke fee and attendance schedules for their children. There is clearly a huge number of parents who are worried about the cost of private education. Fortunately for them there is a dedicated site that tells them exactly what they need to know.