What I would say though, is from a musical perspective children to not do as well at boarding school unless they are very motivated and disciplined or at a music school. DS1 practices for 15 mins 3-4 times a week. He is working on grade 5 flute and this is just not enough time. DS2 never practiced when he boarded which is why he is now flexi-boarding! Schools also vary and I think the larger a school the better provision there will be for orchestras, ensembles, tours etc.

The biggest problem is having even less contact with the peripatetic staff and being at the mercy of the Heads of Music - most who seem to take personal offence if a mere NW make a query.

That's all I'm saying.....for now!

So what are we discussing - pros and cons of boarding school in general, or provision for music practice in boarding schools or what? Sorry, being a bit dim this morning possibly. Are you anticipating a descent into squabbling?

Well I think it will end up coming down to the pros and cons in all areas but I am trying to be as impartial as I can and only discuss music. Of course, if someone wants to tell me that my kids are dooooomed then I may have to puff my chest out!

Your kids are dooooooooomed!

I suppose it must work for some people, after all they keep on going year in year out, but I couldn’t begin to contemplate boarding school for my kids. Not saying it’s wrong or anything, but just doesn’t feel right for me and mine.

Musically speaking I would say that a child probably has to be very self motivated to make progress on an instrument in any but a very musical boarding school but I would say that that is probably no bad thing once they are secondary school age. My sister boarded from the age of 8 and gave up piano lessons within the first couple of terms. Those of us who stayed home struggled on under sufferance for a fair while longer but the end result was the same - unmotivated children eventually give up.

There are a lot of musical opportunities at good boarding schools though - even just the fact that a practice room can be made available rather than relying on ousting people out of the family room to play the piano in the evening can make a big difference. But, as I said, the child has to be self motivated - and maybe a motivated musical child will find ways to acheive under whatever circumstances?

Oooh - I'm waffling. Basically - I'd say don't let the fact that your child plays an instrument put you off sending them to boarding school if that's what suits you and them otherwise - but be prepared for the fact that progress in some areas (especially exam taking) may be a fair bit slower.

And make a contingency plan in case that particular boarding school doesn't work out. Schools aren't one size fits all and that's particularly important in a boarding environment because, for half the year, that's the child's 'home' life as well as their school.

Well that's the thing. What works is going to vary from family to family, and from individual to individual. Some people love boarding, others hate it. Others hate it but find it does wonders for them academically. Some people love it so much but then can't understand when their child hates it. Within families, child 1 might really take to it while child 2 just can't cope with it for whatever reason.

So my learned opinion (as someone who doesn't have children, but was once a child ) is to give things a try with an open mind and find what works best for the individuals and the family involved.

I wasn't a boarder, I went to a school two bus rides away, not the 'default' school for my area. In my village, there were 3 girls my age, and we all went to different schools. So I went to school (journey was about an hour each way), was part of school, but didn't get much social stuff from school / no after school stuff.
Twice, my parents considered switching me to a different school, which was boarding. But I would have been a day pupil. I'm glad they didn't, as it would have given me an even longer journey/day, the same social isolation in my home location, but also I imagine some isolation at school as well, being one of the freaky day pupils instead of a normal boarder!!

Totally agree with this. I know a couple of people who sent their daughters off at 11. It was for music and it was what the indivividual children wanted. Must've been a hard decision for the parents. I couldn't contemplate it for mine but then, thankfully, I 'm not in a position of having to decide whether to put a potential career/ kid's wishes ahead of what I feel is important for a family and young ones as a whole - which is to be with their family and have parental input (or just a good hug) on a daily basis.

I'm also not in favour of having to pay for basic education (here I mean the essentials - literacy, numeracy, science, etc, not music lessons) as I feel one should get a good education regardless of financial situation ... but that's another discussion altogether (will run of and hide now)

No! Don't hide!
I think this could be a really good thread because everyone here is pretty good at taking other people's ideas on board even on such an emotive issue as child rearing (and congrats to 'Boarding Mum' Nitwit for being the brave O.P. )
I agree with you about not having to pay for essentials in education. There are State Boarding schools out there and I think there should be more. I work part time and live on donated bread and margarine but a lot of my friends, who want to buy their shoes from places other than the Oxfam, hardly get to see their children at all because they have to be at breakfast and after school clubs in order to allow their parents to work. I think, for a lot of people, a boarding school (or at least weekly boarding) would work out better.

I know some very caring and loving parents who decided that boarding school was the right thing for their children, and some where the mere idea would be like selling your soul to the devil.

I have heard the political discussion about the rights and wrongs of paying for education.

However at the end of the day philosophically do I care about free will or determinism, and whilst I care about free will, the fact parents choose to pay to exercise there free will and choose to send their children to boarding school having discussed the decision with their children who believe they are benefitting is a moral freedom I am prepared to defend.

This is not to say it would be my choice, and I still want there to be money to put aside for a basic universal education to 16. I still want there to be standards set over the level of that education. However I see no wrong for the "haves" and the "talented" having the option for more and if that means boarding then so be it.

I also mean just because I might disagree with something as long as it is not harmful, it does not give me the right to impose my views on the way other parents may wish to nurture their children.

Completely agree, very well said. We may disagree fundamentally on all kinds of things, but we will resolutely defend each other's right to think, say and do them.

I'm not a parent of school age children any more and have no experience of boarding but what really surprises me here is that children learning instruments are not timetabled for practice.
This is particularly surprising to me if the lessons are in school. If I was a parent with a child learning an instrument I would expect the school to enable practice in the same way I'd do so at home.
If this wasn't the case I'd consider myself to be wasting money on lessons.

At the schools I worked at there were timetables for some children and 'opportunity' times for others to practice - but there were any number of other things (especially Cricket ) which came before music practice in the schools' scheme of things and so music practice was easily avoided by all but the keenest. Also - sitting a child in practice room A12 from 7.20 to 7.40 doesn't mean that productive practice is taking place.
Schools also tend to care a lot about 'extras' being offered but not nearly so much about extra things actually being learned. I know a lady who teaches LAMDA (a drama thing) and she loathes teaching the public school children because they never practice and don't take the work at all seriously. The same children 'learn' dance, music, martial arts, and any number of other 'extras' in exactly the same way.

agree... I don't have children either but my parents made a similar decision for me - whether to send me to a really good all-girls' school or keep me at my quiet little neighbourhood co-ed school with 10x fewer opportunities. They picked the latter, and I'm very glad they did as I really would have been unhappy otherwise. I don't think I'd have survived the teenaged-girl politics.

Let's remember that, even with scholarships, bursaries etc, independent education, boarding or otherwise, is financially out of reach for the vast majority of families. Free will doesn't always enter the equation.

True. However, I have always felt that the worst defense for snobbery was inverted snobbery. i.e. Just because one does not have the money to send little Lee to Eton, does not mean that Tarquin's parent's are wrong to send him there when they can afford the fees and he's got the place.

Please note I'm neither my hypothetical "Lee"'s or "Tarquin"'s mother here (and I'm much closer to Lee than Tarquin).

Also Lee's mother quite probably doesn't know about the means tested bursary provision available at most independent schools. Which is a pity - if one of those schools would be the right one for hypothetical Lee.

Lee's mum probably didn't know she'd given him a working class name - no stereotypes there then!

You lot are all too boring balanced today. I was expecting some heated debates!

It's very tempting to get into the public vs private education debate (elsewhere, maybe?) but back on the topic of musical implications for children at boarding school...

I really agree with MNW and tonedeafmum's realistic assessment that, unless a music (or very music-oriented) school, conditions are quite likely not to be optimal for encouraging kids' musical development. This boils down mostly, although not exclusively to practice.

I think there are quite a few things to investigate before making a decision about which school, or even which house within a boarding school:

1. Practice conditions (rooms, location, availability). From experience I can tell you that if piano practice has to be done on a honkytonk piano in a common room, that is a gross deterrent!
2. Encouragement to practice. sbhoa's suggestion of timetabling is part of that but not all. A supportive housemaster/mistress can be key - either on an individual level or through encouraging mutual support amongst pupils.
3. General importance of music (and of son's/daughter's particular instrument or speific musical interests) in the overall scheme of things. I went to a school that had a pretty good reputation for music but it was stronger in some areas than others and it organised to work best for day girls, not boarders (the opposite of some cases already mentioned). Total lack of interest on the part of the housemistress was not a help.
4. Flexibility of the music teachers. Possibility to change teachers if not working well (more common instruments) or to be able to engage with some way on how they work with your child/children. Of course a really good music teacher (like many of those on here ) will adapt to the needs of the student anyway, and will know what conditions exist at the school and be creative in finding ways to encourage the student to make the best of them. But of course that doesn't always happen.
5. Being able to keep in touch with your child/children and the school. Of course some will discourage your "interference" so you may want to factor that into your decision. It's a lot harder for parents who aren't even in the same country unless they have some kind of family back-up mechanism so then it's also important that the family members are musically encouraging.

Very much my OH's point of view. He didn't understand the need for private instrumental lessons for a long time. He sort of accepts them now.

Personally I'm not hung up about private education, having worked in an Independent school for several years and seeing the product of some of the local ones amungst families we know. I don't think our experience is typical of the type of education that is sought after. There's a lot of choice in our area and probably in some quaters not a lot of aspiration. I think some of the local independents fulfill a desire for status rather than academic excellence.

Boarding is not a choice I'd make for my girls even with the financial means but I do think that people have the right to make their own choices.

Katica makes very good points, especially point 3.

Music at DS school could be described as phenomenal for an average independent school. Strings are amazing, (Carducci Quartet in residence) as is voice and piano. I have no other experience of any other instruments but DS has played the two rarest instruments in the school and there are very few opportunities for him. He would need to be more advanced before getting into an appropriate orchestra because the appropriate orchestra/ensembles cannot fit a bassoon in.

Another point, which is trickier to find out, is whether opportunities are open to all or just the best musicians, or as in a previous school, the Head of Music's favourites! Of course, this could be the case in a day school, but once boarding it is impossible to supplement their music with external performance opportunities/competitions.

As for practice, many schools have all the facilities and set up and will say practice gets done 5 days a week for 20 minutes but this is not always the reality. Dopey DS1 frequently is late or forgets and he has the option of a catch-up session or a detention during break. Being a rather feeble soul, I'm sure he he opts for detention from Nov-Mar so as not to go outside!

If you think that music is important to your child (or that you want it to be) then you need to work at it as a parent. This means that if the child is at a boarding school you need to check it out maybe more thoroughly than you would check out the music dept at a day school where you would have the option to organise teaching and playing opportunities yourself. I looked into one particular option a couple of years back - purely because there was a come and see opportunity - and fell in love with the school which appeared to have everything I wanted for my child and would have wanted for myself. My other half didn't think that music was sufficiently important to overcome all the cons of the place (OK mostly money).

There are SOOOO many issues to consider and the one thing I would say is TALK TO PARENTS WHO HAVE BEEN THERE. If the child is keen and talented they will probably make it all work; if they're a bit "meh" about music then it can easily fall off if music isn't a priority in the school. I don't think you can really generalise about boarding schools vs day schools in terms of what is best.

I'd often wondered what would happen with practice at a boarding school as I know none of mine would practice without encouragement and, if they did, their practice would be not that great without me around to make suggestions and generally show an interest. I'd always assumed boarding schools would make proper provision for this...

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that boarding school is not a proper environment for a child. It's an institution. Even if they like it that doesn't make it a good thing. I loved my do-what-you-like (literally) trendy primary school but I'm not sure that the complete lack of education was a particularly good thing for four years. Children genuinely don't know what is best for them.

The downside of a school where the music is great and self-contained is that there's no music making with people outside school. Home ed boy already plays and sings with three different groups and is meeting lots of musicians of different ages and from different backgrounds.

With all the bursaries in the world (short of all the fees paid) we could not have afforded to send our children to private school, not that we'd have wanted to. They've all done tremendously well academically at their very bog standard comprehensive (son one has just got a first at Durham), so I can assume, very smugly, that people only choose otherwise because their children are too thick to achieve anything without a lot of extra help! (Head down and run for the hills, or rather, a cello concert that we'll be late for if I don't get off this computer).

Banjogirl, that is an outrageous and very "thick" comment to make. There are many reasons people choose private education with a large majority who wouldn't even dream of stepping foot inside a state school, regardless of their DC's ability. FWIW that's not me!

Off to check if thick DS IQ report actually reads 1Q way above the ceiling mark of 170 or if they meant to type 107!

Well it was meant to be outrageous!

But seriously, there is a problem with children from certain private and state schools being helped too much in their education, because they need to be in order to get the grades the school needs for its reputation. Children from comprehensives do better at overall than children from private schools starting at university with the same A level grades.

IQ tests are very useful as firelighters but haven't been thought much use in assessing intelligence for a very long time.

I agree wth Banjogirl, I can't quite see the point of private education, and aside from the fact that I would hate my children to live away from home, think it would be a big risk sending them to a private school, as well as being a horrendous waste of money.

I have a colleague at work who went to a very prestigious boarding school for the sixth form on a sports scholarship. He absolutely loved it there, and had a fantastic couple of years. However, he said there were some very messed up kids there, some of whom had attempted suicide, and the discipline was terrible. Drugs were rife too. I know that discilpline is bad at one of our local independents too, because I know a couple of teachers who work there. My son would have been eligible for a full bursary to go into the sixth form at that particular school, based on his GCSE results, but I could not see any advantage in him going there at all.

I can see the point of specialist music schools, but feel that it is hard to make a decision to send a child there until the sixth form. I can also see the point of a grammar school system, but am concerned about those children who don't get in, and lose confidence in their abilities. I was at university with someone who had gone to a secondary modern having failed the eleven plus, had got very good GCEs and A Levels, but still lacked confidence in her abilities.

Your wish is Banjogirl's command.
My sister sends her daughter to Public School for less than I spend on music and dance classes for mine. A friend of mine who home educates calculated that it would actually be cheaper to send hers to a boarding school especially as she could go back to work full time. She, like you, thinks that institutions are not a good place to bring up kids - but then she's privately educated herself so obviously a bit thick.


Speaking as someone with 3 postgraduate degrees and a low IQ I suppose I should agree with Banjogirl ....

but I'm not gonna!

I personally think that what she had to say on this topic is actually flaming - so maybe the mods will be kept busy after all.


Happy now, MNW?

I don't think you can generalise. There are good schools and there are bad school in both sectors, there are pupils who mess up their lives and take drugs in both sectors. Boarding schools are necessary for some families due to overseas work, or constant movement (eg military families) or specialisms such as music, or sometimes just because family life at home is awful.

Our local comprhensive is dreadful, it is heavily undersubscribed and people go out of their way to avoid it. There are other options, trying to get into the good comprehensive in the next district works for a good number round here, also there are grammar schools 8 miles in one direction and 17 miles in the other direction, and there is an academy type state school with a very good reputation. There is more choice for girls than for boys, two girls grammars, but only one boys, and more independents for girls. In the end you have to look at what is right for you and your family. There are a lot of people who could afford an independent education that don't want to prioritise their spending that way, they would rather have a foreign holiday every year. I know people at independent school who are from very working class families, either on full bursaries, or fees paid by hardworking grandparents, who have more disposable income. A lot of working class children do very well in the state sector, but it is the amount of support that they get from home that is important to the progress they make, in just the same way as with music practice.

Our daughters are at state grammars and our son is on a hefty scholarship at an independent. He loves school the girls aren't so keen, but I don't think that has anything to do with the type of school. We picked the schools that we felt were best for the children. The girls were also offered scholarships to independents, but we felt that there was an excellent education to be had at the girls grammar, but we didn't like the other two local grammar schools.

I think families have to choose according to their own position and that of their offspring. The main thing is to find the right school for any particular child. My daughter did fine at her state comprehensive, but I've often thought, looking back, that it would have benefited my son to have gone to a school where more of the children had a flair for Maths (his subject), because I think when a boy is particularly good at a subject there's little incentive to work hard without the competitive element (perhaps that sounds sexist, but I've found girls will work anyway, but boys respond to competition). On the other hand, if he'd been the sort of boy to eat and sleep Maths he'd probably have put the work in anyway for fun. As it is, he enjoyed a wider range of subjects, including, of course, music.

One downside we've seen to private school education is that the children are very "nannied" when it comes to homework (or prep as it's often called) compared with those in state schools. This of course gets better results for the school, but we've seen with our friends' children that it can mean that when the nannies are finally absent, at university, the lid comes off and the student doesn't achieve at the level expected. Of course, that doesn't apply to students with a genuine interest in their subject, who would do well at any school; but those who are not really very academic but are helped to acquire results above their natural level can find they struggle at the better university they end up in.

Whatever your strengths, they clearly don't include statistics.

We are beginning to consider an independent school for our daughter because we cannot see her fitting into the huge state schools around here. We also have the problem that we live in a grammar school area. Daughter is bright, but dyslexic and therefore takes longer over her work than her peers - and our experience with our son who is at grammar school, is that the pressure is quite intense and the amount of homework can be overwhelming even for someone who works quickly (3 hours on a piece of science homework and 21/2 on art this week, on top of the usual). Factor in her desire to practise her (at present) 3 instruments and go to orchestra on a Saturday and the workload is going to overwhelm her. She also struggles when surrounded by lots of people as she cannot process all that movement, and most schools around here take 160-220 kids per year group. But if she doesn't go to a grammar school I can see she could end up quite bored and the music at the non-selective schools is generally not brilliant - or even non-existent. Most girls around here seem to go to an all girls school, which again would not really suit her. State schools also seem to only be interested in what level a child is at and what they need to do to get to the next level - which isn't what education should be about!

So we are looking at a smaller independent, mixed ability mixed gender school where the pastoral care is very good (so I am told). I can't see her fitting anywhere else

I assume the science was meant to take 3 hours, because if not you should have stopped her after the set time and written in the homework diary. That is what all four of the schools my children have attended have said was the right thing to do with homework. Schools need to know if they are setting too much homework. They also need to know how much a child can do in the time. It cannot be good for the child to take 3 hours on a half hour piece of homework, it is demoralising and if the school thinks they can do it in the time then they won't address the problem.

I fail to see why Tonedeafmum thinks that Banjogirl was flaming. IQ tests are probably best used for firelighters, all they test is how well people can do IQ tests.

I'm not going to go into what my son can and can't do but to suggest that thick kids are sent to independent schools to get a leg up is ridiculous. Here are the reasons people send kids to independent schools:

1) To get away from bureacracy, health and safety and continual medalling from governments that are determined to dumb down education and fool everyone into thinking they are capable for university life.

2) Class sizes. Whoever came up with shoving 30 five year olds in a room together was frankly bonkers. In fact school is a bizarre concept but I'm not going into that now.

3) Have never even considered state education in the same way some people would never consider private education.

4) Doesn't have a "prizes for all" culture.

5)Manners, discipline, self-esteem, far more opportunities - if anyone thinks even a grammar school is in the same league as Westminster, Harrow, Winchester etc then they are deluded!


and so many more reasons.

Banjogirl, I'm sorry your pride was dented because my son is soooooooo much more intelligent than yours!

puzzles me why anyone would want to get away from health and safety - or would imagine that going privately would achieve that. I take it you mean meddling rather than medalling? The boards doing exams remain the same, and have the same dumbed down ness whether taken from the state or private sectors. And the fact remains that thick rich kids who are shoved into hothousing establishments for their education will indeed get a leg up - institutions with better teacher:pupil ratios, better provision of books, longer hours too....and as far as capability for university goes - it always was the case that universities attracted ranges of ability, and that the intellectually less able but financially better off still stood a chance of going if the money smelt right.
yep, agree with both of those - and in fact, whether boarding or day pupil - schools are institutions. Having said that, I love the comments from a famous man who landed up in the clink for a while - he adapted to prison life far better than the poor delinquents who'd not been away from home before, just because he'd boarded at school . As far as I can see, the educational value of schools is relatively limited for many, and their main function would appear to be as holding places for kids whose parents need to bring in an income, and of course also socialisation/survival of the fittest training.
in which case, given the amount of money they pour out, over and above what goes out in taxes, they're probably not the most thoughtful of people. The difference is, that private education is not a choice for everyone - state education is.
indeed - but on the other hand, I find over competitiveness equally revolting.
opportunities born already out of the social spheres those kids grow up in, for the most part. And the rest of the comment is frankly insulting to the majority of the citizens of the country.

hopefully more reasonable than some of the ones given above....

*takes a moment or six to sort out the blooming quotation bits*

If you want to buy your kid violin lessons then why not?

If you want to buy your kid trumpet lessons then why not?

Violin is not better, just different. Same thing with schools? And to be honest, no-one is all that interested in your kid! We are all more interested in our own and we choose whatever we choose for them according to our opinion and funds.

Time for a nice glass of wine eh?

I could be insulted by Banjogirl's comments about thick kids and IQ tests not being valid and so forth but I musn't because I know I am right on this occasion and I'll leave it at that!

Can we discuss boarding school now please, which includes state boarding schools!

Well done anacrusis on the quotes!

My friend had a son at a state boarding grammar school. He was a day boy with occasional stoppovers, but was expected to be there from before breakfast until after tea 7.30 am until about 7pm I think, and whilst the education was free they had to pay fees for the extra hours, even though it was compulsory. It was a good school, but academically it was just like any other grammar school. They had to be there on Saturday mornings too.

On boarding - well, kids get a view of life which includes how others think they should be reared.

Whether or not one would want to give up that responsibility for such a big proportion of the year, every year for all of their schooldays remains the issue - since society will be more than happy to blame everything they see as negative about my kids on the way I've brought them up, I'd rather take the actual responsibility for the job myself, than abdicate it to others. That way at least I avoid the bit where they say I didn't do enough.

Of course, it is also possible to do far, far too much....

I hope Musicalnitwit is joking when she talks about her sooo intelligent son. Otherwise it's just a very strange comment. Why does she assume that her "DS" is more intelligent than Banjogirl's children?

Herein lies the crux of the matter. I know someone who didn't want her daughter bothering with my girls. The mother was in my year at school and not the brightest spark. They packed daughter off first to the local inde then for senior school to a larger inde with a good reputation. Over the school holidays she was kept in the house to avoid contamination from the more lowly.

The girl came away form the school with nothing of any significance has tried college but doesn't seem able to stick at it. At just 16 the boyfriend was living in her house with her parents and she could hold her liquor with the best of them.

It's strange that daughters friends from the state comp are all more purposeful and have sensible parenting.

I'm not by any means suggesting that all people who pay for education have this type of attitude or go down the same path. Merely making the point that everyone who gains a place at Public school is not a genius.

When deciphering posts one should look at emoticons to get the feel for what the poster is trying to say!

Chris, do you hope Banjogirl was joking when she said that parents only send thick kids to independent schools?

In the past it wasn't unusual for parents to avoid the stigma of a statement by sending their kids to private school.

Nor is it unusual for parents of exceptionally able and talented children to send their kids to private school because they feel the state sector has failed them or is unable to teach them.

I KNOW she was joking! She was just being provocative...

I do think this country would be better off without private schools, though

(Or am I joking?) Possibly not entirely....

I'd like to assume this is tongue in cheek, otherwise I find this comment very, very offensive.

So Warning: rant coming on....

I went to a relatively small, down to earth, highly academic independent school which was primarily populated by the children of hardworking parents who valued a good education. I was fortunate to get a free place so it cost my single mum no more than the local comp. She took that option because I was bored senseless at the local state school that catered entirely for the middle ability of the class and left the bright and the struggling to find their own way. For some reason, she didn't think that was good enough and wanted the opportunity for me to be stretched and challenged. I am grateful that I had the opportunity to have had a great education that taught me to think for myself, to enjoy learning for the sake of learning, that wasn't constrained by the syllabus but taught the wider subject, encouraged true understanding rather than rote learning and pushed me to not be satisfied with "good enough". The benefits of this stood me in good stead at University when I was the only person in my year, on a Master of Engineering course, to get a first.

However, I would not be so ignorant or narrow minded to then assume that this means that all independent schools are good and all comprehensives are bad. This is patently untrue, there are good and bad of each and each parent needs to do what they think is best for their own child.

So, lucky you, Banjogirl, to have such a great comprehensive near you, not everyone is this fortunate, and not all children thrive in the comprehensive environment - in the same way that not everyone will have a good experience at an independent school. Parents that make different choices to you should not be subjected to such offensive judgementalism as this.

Your my bassoon buddy so lets not fight. Or was that Chris O?

After reading so many amusing comments about DS over recent months this HAS to be a joke! And MNW is evidently thoroughly enjoying the banter with Banjogirl and so I hope the latter is too.

This thread is really interesting but I am biting my tongue (more like, putting the brakes on the fingers) or it really could get flaming (don't want to provoke thread deletion )... trying to keep focused on the musical implications.

Over here, unfortunately musical opportunities up until now have been hugely better in private schools ("public" means state over here), with the exception of one arts-oriented state school. Though thankfully there are quite a lot of really exciting initiatives to improve access to music all over the country, which doesn't seem to be the case in the UK right now from what I read on other threads.

I don't agree with most of MNW's arguments in favour of non-state/boarding school education (except class size, and that's a big factor to consider) and I strongly think that state education systems should be well supported and used. But I don't have kids. If I were in MNW's position and had the opportunities and resources to access a good private education for my children, with the prospects of today's world and wanting to give them the best options for the future, I'd definitely think about it... I don't think that musical opportunities would be a completely determining factor but certainly an important one, if that were important to my children.

EDIT: This is such a Hot Topic my answer has entirely been taken over but concurrent posts... better stick to one sentence replies here or you can miss the boat!!!!

I think you misunderstood me the school I was talking about was a state boarding grammar school.



How would the country be better off when it would be paying for the education of thousands of children who currently are not taking up a place in a state school? The cost to the country would be huge.

Off topic, but parallel. It amuses me / winds me up when people complain about people who choose to pay for health care. They are still paying into the state system, but they are taking them selves out of waiting lists, moving everyone below them up closer to treatment, and freeing up resources for those that can't afford to pay. Yes it would be lovely if everyone could have everything free, instantly and gold plated, but this is the real world.

Sorry, no bassoons in this house, just a piano, three saxophones, two guitars, a poor neglected voilin, a very neglected zither and several recorders in states of disrepair

And a clarinet.

Oh good, that means I can swear at you then!