Can State Schools Be As Good As Fee Paying Schools?

^ Disagree.

In the fundamental sense - no, a school is not somewhere to 'dump' your kid while you go to work. Education and personal development is the paramount concern. However, having a child go to a school that has the facility to look after your child for a longer period does assist parents with keeping down a full time job. Granted, these extra services do come at a cost but a parent willing to pay for these services so they can go to work is a good thing - if this facility was not available, said parents wouldn't be able to spend as much time in work and our economy would suffer.

Like i said earlier, to use this service costs me a lot of money but its worth it, my son gets a good start in life, is well fed and the services he has access to are amazing.

For people who can afford to pay these fees, the option of extended care times are there, however for people in less well paid jobs who cant afford it they either have to quit their jobs or take a massive cut in hours (and pay) the money the government would have to spend on providing full daycare facilities for children would surely outweigh the cost of the level of unemployment we have now.

I'm not saying we should offer every parent extended care, just those who require it (ones who have jobs and want to keep them and thus keep paying in to the countries pot and not live of my taxes)

Ive gone of the main subject here a little bit i understand...

sorry.

The cost of childcare for working parents is astronomical. I do agree that the government should do more to help parents by providing extended care times.

If adults want kids then one of them should fooking well give up work and look after them full time.

You can send them to the best school in the land, but it won't make up for mummy & daddy being at work all day.

Selfish is what it is.

Most parents work hard so that they can provide for their kids and make sure they have a good upbringing. The cost of childcare is crippling a lot of families financially. Asking one of them to give up work hardly boosts the economy. It's not selfish, it's reality.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Most parents work hard so that they can provide for their kids and make sure they have a good upbringing. The cost of childcare is crippling a lot of families financially. Asking one of them to give up work hardly boosts the economy. It's not selfish, it's reality.  

If you want a kid then you should damn well look after it. If both parents have to work to keep a roof over their heads they shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

Would you buy a new car then keep it in the garage for 18 years?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Would you buy a new car then keep it in the garage for 18 years?

It's a silly analogy. The government needs the workers so they can collect income tax. If every working woman had to give up work to raise their children, the country would be in a right old pickle.

Natasha Whittam wrote:If adults want kids then one of them should fooking well give up work and look after them full time.

You can send them to the best school in the land, but it won't make up for mummy & daddy being at work all day.

Selfish is what it is.

Trolling is what this is...

Natasha Whittam wrote:If adults want kids then one of them should fooking well give up work and look after them full time.

You can send them to the best school in the land, but it won't make up for mummy & daddy being at work all day.

Selfish is what it is.

I have to agree with Nat on this one.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

It's a silly analogy. The government needs the workers so they can collect income tax. If every working woman had to give up work to raise their children, the country would be in a right old pickle.

Bloody hell, when did having a child have anything to do with tax and the government?

When you were conceiving your children with Mrs Trotter were you thinking of income tax and Winston Churchill at the time?

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

Trolling is what this is...

It's not trolling. If you're old enough to have a child one of the parents should stay at home to look after he or she, especially in the early years.

I don't understand parents who have a kid and then fook off back to work before their bump has gone. What's the point?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

It's a silly analogy. The government needs the workers so they can collect income tax. If every working woman had to give up work to raise their children, the country would be in a right old pickle.

Bloody hell, when did having a child have anything to do with tax and the government?

When you were conceiving your children with Mrs Trotter were you thinking of income tax and Winston Churchill at the time?

He probably was  

Every government/country needs a healthy workforce. If only the wealthy could afford to have children there would be anarchy. That's why working people pay income tax.

Reebok Trotter wrote:Every government/country needs a healthy workforce. If only the wealthy could afford to have children there would be anarchy. That's why working people pay income tax.

You're obsessed by tax.

Think of the bloody children. What child wants to be brought up by a nursery or pre-school?

And I should make it clear I'm aiming this at couples, not single parents like Reebok Rebel.

Nat, its just the way the world works now. I have respect for people who take their maternity leave then return to work instead of sponging off taxpayers.

I see your point and if a family is in a position to afford to have one parent off work then great, but some families are more reliant on money for a certain lifestyle - to afford to provide this (nice house, good schooling etc) then most parents have to work.

I have more or less full custody of my child, he gets plenty of time with me, we 'do stuff' at weekends and he gets everything he wants/needs. I couldn't provide the standard of living he has now if I didn't send him to nursery and go to work, not to mention the damage it would do to my career prospects...

Reebok_Rebel wrote:Nat, its just the way the world works now. I have respect for people who take their maternity leave then return to work instead of sponging off taxpayers.

I see your point and if a family is in a position to afford to have one parent off work then great, but some families are more reliant on money for a certain lifestyle - to afford to provide this (nice house, good schooling etc) then most parents have to work.

I have more or less full custody of my child, he gets plenty of time with me, we 'do stuff' at weekends and he gets everything he wants/needs. I couldn't provide the standard of living he has now if I didn't send him to nursery and go to work, not to mention the damage it would do to my career prospects...

As I've said, I have no problem with what you are doing. But if you were married I would expect one parent to stay at home at the pre-school age at the very least.

And you don't have to sponge off the state - my sister gave up work to have and look after a child, she doesn't claim anything - they just gave up a second car, fancy holidays, expensive clothes etc. Its called sacrifice.

My youngest went to Wymondham College which is a state boarding school.
Basically, the education is free but you can dump your kids there all week if you pay for boarding.
When they finish school they have an hour off before 2 hours of supervised homework (prep FFS) and then an hour or so recreation before they are sent to bed.
90% of pupils get more than 5 A* to C grades at GCSE which is better than most private schools including Bolton School, but maybe that's because half the kids are trapped there 5 days and nights a week (the other half being day pupils) 
So state schools can be better than private schools and it's better for kids if their parents to send them into educational slavery than look after them at home.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

When you were conceiving your children with Mrs Trotter were you thinking of income tax and Winston Churchill at the time?

When I was having Nigerian discussions with Mrs Trotter, Maggie Thatcher was the PM.

Maggie once said, ' There is no substitute for a good education.'

Reebok Trotter wrote:The cost of childcare for working parents is astronomical. I do agree that the government should do more to help parents by providing extended care times.

Agreed with both RT and RR on this bit BUT a school is to educate only - teachers do not have child-care degrees or child care experience.

IF a school was to facilitate the option of child-care before and after school then more child carers would have to be employed thus making more of a strain on the Governments public purse and then who will be crying out about public servants being a strain on the country???

Bit of a vicious circle, in the end!!