To think you can’t take the moral high ground on private schools if….

”I don't know what the answer is to be honest, I don't know how you make parents do it better but in the end that is the root of why so many opt out of catchments or state entirely.”

I agree that for most parents choosing to opt out of catchments has got less to do with class and more to do with concerns about anti social behaviour caused by poor parenting.
The earlier comments about parents suffering from “class anxiety” were way off the mark imo .

So now we have people criticised for not putting their kids in state to experience diversity and equally criticised for doing so as "museum exhibits" to wonder at. The fact is there ARE different kinds of kids and background. All are equally real and none are more "worthy" than any other to have a good start in life. There always have and always will be communities built around common factors, whether that is wealth, culture, nationality. It doesn't have to be a bad thing so long as people are taught that not everyone is the same.

Cripes.

We do run a uniform swop and it's used by middle class families as well as those less financially able so the whole swop culture is normalised for the kids that need them. PTA funds don't need to be directed at things like that.

And no. Languages are provided by the teachers as lunchtime clubs. And language days for all are funded by the PTA with a £1.50 voluntary contribution from parents. But it's simply asking school to cut the fifth day of football club and thinking about non-sporty / other extra curricular activities to have a breadth of experience which makes school better for all.

Music is free for kids, including loan of instruments through musical charities. We pay for extra on top (at a discount through the charity). But it's about having invested parents who find out about these opportunities available and utilise them to the benefit of all - because they have the inclination and ability / headspace to do so.

No one is judging anyone that doesn't have that headspace.

And as I said before, my background is working class kids so I hardly need put my kids into a school to mix with a wider socio economic group. They have cousins and family across the whole spectrum of wealth. It's just that where those of us who have higher income have it, it's been done on the back of a solid education, university (with loans now paid off) and slogging it out for a few years in the city. We worked our way up.

And for the record, I also studied Latin.

Yes it’s another way of buying a better education- and savvy as you get to keep the house meaning more of your money goes to your future and a few philanthropic acts doesn’t make it any better especially when you pick and chose your charity to benefit yourself as much as others

So you demand music, languages etc which you pay for. How do the families using food banks in your community pay for music and language classes? And why is it your middle class agenda controlling PTA monies? Surely supporting struggling families eg. with uniform costs as an obvious suggestion would be more levelling than literature workshops? You sound like you want your kids to experience poorer kids like museum exhibits, something to be seen and observed with the hope the odd music lesson in close proximity will somehow improve their lot. I mean, how exactly does any of that make you better than those pesky private school parents who also pay for music, literature etc? Pretend you’re doing those poor kids a favour with your superiority in the arts?

Is the elephant in the room here the undeniable fact that there ARE parents who don't give a shit, who don't read to their kids, who don't take them to libraries or museums or castles or swimming lessons or teach them manners, turn taking, appropriate language? Not can't but don't. No-one wants to say it but we all know it's true and those kids become v quickly disruptive at school, feel out of place and cover their embarrassment by bullying, being "top dog" in the playground because they are bottom of the heap in the classroom. Those kids are predominantly from low achieving, low expectations homes, often in areas where a major industry has closed and you have generational issues. This is why all gov that refuses to blame poor parenting openly will fail at trying to improve those factors. It doesn't take money not to swear in front of your kids, or teach them manners. It doesn't take money to get books for virtually nothing from charity shops or libraries. But noone is brave enough to say that. I don't know what the answer is to be honest, I don't know how you make parents do it better but in the end that is the root of why so many opt out of catchments or state entirely.

You make A LOT of assumptions about children from working class backgrounds.
I teach and have taught in good schools in very disadvantaged areas . The assumptions you make are simply not true. A good teacher can encourage passion for Latin / Shakespeare/ Maths in a talented but disadvantaged pupil.
I’ve seen it happen time and time again.

I do agree that if the pupil’s home circumstance is not just disadvantaged by poverty but by other factors ( alcoholism/ mental health/ abuse etc) then it does become very difficult for them to thrive at school.
Poverty within a loving home is not a barrier to high achievement if the education is of good quality.

“one of the arguments for putting VAT on private schools was to drive invested parents into the state sphere to improve standards. And my argument is that it's possible to do so.”

But you chose a village primary school. I don’t think that is the same thing as putting your children into a local comprehensive in a disadvantaged area.

your choices are not morally superior to a parent who has chosen a private school rather than move to an area with a good village school.

I agree they should have more of latin and sports and all the other good stuff. All I’m saying is very few working class kids develop a passion for Latin. They may be exposed to it at school, but w very little or no support for pursuing this kind of interest at home, few get into it. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the subject in school and be given the opportunity, quite the opposite! But if you think that the lowest income fraction abound w kids studying Latin for fun in their spare time, you’re truly unaware of the realities of life for poor people. I went to a not very good state school and trust me, the kids I hung out with didn’t study Latin.

Well in my case it’s because I have the time and mental energy to fight for them. Plenty of parents at the school don’t speak English, are dealing with nonstop bureaucracy just to keep food on the table, are working multiple jobs with awkward hours or any number of other things that make ‘fill out a 10 page application for an inclusion grant’ fairly impossible.

Is it fair that the ptas in affluent areas have infinitely more funding than we do? No. But that doesn’t mean our kids shouldn’t have clean uniform or iPad covers or a school library. It just means someone has to fight for those things. And I - personally - take some responsibility for that as I am able and willing. And do not judge the parents who can’t or won’t - I have no idea what challenges they are facing every day.

Nothing is stopping other parents demanding those things and I would hope that they do. But I think it's fair to say they often don't. Low confidence and/or a willingness to accept the status quo.

It's not meant to come across as middle class saviour BUT one of the arguments for putting VAT on private schools was to drive invested parents into the state sphere to improve standards. And my argument is that it's possible to do so.

And I don't claim to be morally superior. I'm just invested in my kids' education. And welcome anyone else who is also as invested in theirs.

Oh and my influence over PTA spending comes from being on the PTA. And being involved.

There are a lot of assumptions about class on this thread.

That’s great .
But “refusing” to pay for private schools doesn’t make you morally superior.

@JustMarriedBecca what is stopping other parents demanding those things? Why do you have more influence over PtA spending and other classes than other parents? It comes across that you are saying that those who may struggle economically don’t care about those things and are lazy to ask for them. Comes across as a bit middle class saviour tbh.

We did this, paid considerably more for a house in a fixed catchment (we are in Scotland) to guarantee the best state schooling. I feel no guilt over it whatsoever but don't have any strong feelings about how people choose to spend their money.

That is being taxed. On the death of the occupier. And the Govt are, to be fair to them, standing firm on it. See the tax grab on agricultural and farming families death duties which was being used to avoid taxes.

And I assure you my income earned from working is being taxed.

Indeed @Loudcloud , what ("top") state school would refuse a place the offspring of a cabinet minister or prime minister? Is it immoral to use one's influence to get into an excellent state school rather than use one's money to go private?

We fit this criteria. Refuse to use private schools but live in a nice catchment with an outstanding village primary and pay for multiple music, language and chess lessons. We also work in professional services (accountancy, law etc.) so our social circle puts the kids in to mixing with middle class people

However, the village catchment has a complete mixture of socio economic groups with some parents using foodbanks and financially struggling and actually, I'd say we are driving the standards UP in the school by demanding extra chess, extra language, extra music and using PTS funds to support the arts / diversity in literature and move away from the age old "spend money on sports" etc.

That is giving the kids from lower socio economic groups an opportunity to upskill and engage in wider extra curricular than they may have otherwise had.

An opportunity that was afforded my husband and I (working class background, no previous members attending university) as a result of similar education.

I think it’s right that we should all acknowledge and be aware of the inequalities that exist.
I think schools in disadvantaged areas should be given a great deal more financial support than schools in affluent areas.
I don’t think any parent should be judged for making the decision they believe is best for their own child. No one has a duty to sacrifice their own children’s education in order to help even out the inequalities .

I admit that privilege freely. Why 'admit'? It's nothing to be ashamed of.

I can't see how it would benefit either individual children or society as a whole if all children are forced to be in a class where there is constant disruptive behaviour. Similarly, as I said above, why would it be a good thing if all children are restricted to learning just one modern language, and not really learning it properly either, just being taught to parrot a few phrases without understanding the grammar? Instead of being outraged that some children get the chance to learn the more demanding stuff what about being outraged that not all children get that chance?

I for one would happily pay more tax if it was guaranteed it would go into support for families with very young children, improving housing standards and making housing more affordable, and all the other things that are getting some kids off to a very poor start in life. It would be an investment if it resulted in more kids reaching their potential and getting good jobs that enable them to pay taxes later on. Also, we all pay the price further down the line when children go off the rails and disrupt schools, get involved in crime and violence, addiction issues etc etc. Prevention is better than cure.

I actually do think that ‘but’ am would also say that doesn’t work for everyone so not judging. Our own privilege isn’t either living in a nice catchment or private school - our privilege is raising our kids in a house with two parents who focus a lot of attention on them.

We both work full time so sometimes it’s a challenge, but we spend a lot of time, effort and money on giving our kids lots of experiences. I admit that privilege freely. A lot of my children’s friends are in council housing, with single parents in precarious work, small flats sharing bedrooms with multiple siblings, refugee housing, etc etc. They have neither a good catchment, private school, or the situations we are able to provide for our children. So my kids aren’t being neglected or failed by their lack of an amazing educational setting.

“But the system IS inadvertently keeping the poor down.
All the privately educated are being asked is to at least ADMIT that.”
This isn’t exactly what you were saying earlier.

Earlier in the thread you were arguing that middle class children should have same “distractions” and difficulties as disadvantaged children .

I think everyone would agree that that education for the poorest in our society should be improved.

I think where we disagree is the implication that it’s the responsibility of privileged parents to put their children into unsuccessful schools in order to improve the standard of the school.

You do realise that according to the child poverty action group it now costs £260-£290k to raise a single child to the age of 18. That is about £16k per year.

A person who chooses to have one child and send them private is far less a privileged family than one who can afford to have 3 and not send them private?

It’s not morally superior to put your kids in state school. It’s morally superior to acknowledge your privilege if you afford private OR a home in a good catchment.

all I’m saying.

no one says there’s a ploy to keep the poor down by parents who simply want the best for their kids.

But the system IS inadvertently keeping the poor down.

All the privately educated are being asked is to at least ADMIT that.