Director of Education privately educates their children

The state system is, by and large, shit. I don’t blame him at all. Just because he’s working on trying to make something better doesn’t mean it’s not shit.

Or, one could be very happy that the Director of Education had done a great job at enabling the education services in their area to deliver great results across a number of schools, but accept that they want something different for their children. And by them choosing something different, they have freed up a space for someone else with a greater need for it.

And who gives two fucks. Good on him.

This entire thread encapsulates the 'bring your whole self to work' thinking in a nutshell. How the guy chooses to educate his kids is absolutely none of your business. Does he do his job well? Hit budgets and targets? Motivate and retain good quality employees? Work well with the schools within his remit? Would you be happy with a poor performing DoE as long as they sent their kids to state school?

I think PP got the benefits package mixed up, you’re offered a discount via one of the staff discount schemes but you’re not offered private healthcare as a direct benefit. I can’t see the publicity of such a benefit going down well. The same applies to the Civil Service as we get a discount through Edenred but not a direct healthcare benefit.

My OH gets the direct healthcare benefit and I absolutely rinse it for all I can.

Private education bothers lots of people

I’ve never heard of NHS staff getting private healthcare as a perk. Where is this?
Hospital managers maybe?
GMC provide it for their employees though.

What’s wrong with that? If you don’t believe private is better then going state shouldn’t bother you as you are making the better choice?

In the last Borough I worked in the Director of Education lived 120 miles away, wfh most of the time and had no intention of moving.

Even on £100k+ salary it was only filled at the 3rd round of recruitment.

Well not especially - plenty of people teach in tricky state schools, but make sure their kids go to better performing ones. It's not a uniquely state v private situation.

Of course. Why is this surprising? Not many people wouldn’t, if they could afford it.

I don't think you are being unreasonable to feel as you do, but it comes down to whether or not he is good at his job.

It may be private schooling is a non-negotiable for his wife, that his kids have additional needs, or the state schools he could get into really were shite. Or it may just be he wants to do whatever he thinks is best for his kids.

You're equating steak to childrens education?

Your reasoning seems to be along the lines of...someone works in quality control at Lidl, therefore there is something wrong with Lidl if they shop elsewhere?

And if the chef who works at a steak restaurant is a pescatarian so doesn't eat the food they cook, this must be attributed to a lack of confidence in the food?

People are allowed to choose where they spent their money.

The director of education role is actually very little about holding schools to account, especially as more and more schools are academies so the Council duties are around ensuring provision of sufficient places, support via the quality assurance and support process and then things like school transport, attendance and exclusions, provision of Day 7 education after permanent exclusion and then EHCP as well as section 19 provision and oversight of EHE. They also provide LADO for investigation of harm by school staff. By statute they also have to coordinate the transition rounds for reception (middle school if the area has a tripartite system) and then Year 7. Where the LA has community and voluntary control schools they also have to provide an appeals service but this comes under a different directorate usually. Councils can't investigate complaints about schools and have very little power over them even if they are community schools and not academy/voluntary aided/free schools. The old role of the LEA doesn't exist and hasn't got well over a decade

As it stands, we have private schools in this country. And as it stands, they provide a FAR superior standard of education compared to state schools.

Classes that are often a third of the size and more diverse subjects that often just aren't available at state schools - certain languages, musical instruments, specific sports etc.

Due to years of underinvestment and poor working conditions for teachers, our state education system is currently an utter shitshow. There may be some schools around the country that are doing better than others, but even the best state schools don't compare to private schools as they simply don't have the same resources. Look at all the threads we see on MN where there aren't even teachers for exam year classes, they're being taught by generic TAs!

We have amazing teachers and TAs in our state schools who are providing support to a wide range of children, many of whom need more specialist SEN environments but are dumped in mainstream instead. Huge classes, not enough staff, and a regulatory body that changes their mind with the wind about what it expects. No wonder so many teachers are quitting.

I have no issue with any parent who wants the best for their child - and for many, that might be private schools. Interestingly, not every child is better off in private schools, many are absolutely appalling for SEN and are disinterested in children who struggle academically.

Until our state system can offer an education that rivals what's available privately, I've got no issue at all with the existence of private schools nor the parents who use them. It's not a race to the bottom. And frankly, the more people that use private schools, the better, as it means the very meagre resources in state schools stretch further.

I am a million miles from ever being able to afford private school and my DC have very significant SEN, so it wouldn't be for us. But if you can afford a better education for your child then I bear you no ill will at all. Our children all deserve the best education possible, and it's good for the future of our country. I'd obviously prefer it if ALL our children could enjoy the very best education but we are such a very long way from that right now.

That's entirely wrong. Many small private schools are perfect for kids with ND who just need quieter, calmer, more flexible systems. They are not all fiercely academic hothouses.

Obviously I don’t know these people, but one of the reasons that I chose DD’s (independent) school was that they had great extra curricular activities. Many of these, if you are local enough to be able to join them, take place in the morning; the results is that many of the staff have to be in school really early in order to start running their various clubs/activities at 7.30. The morning traffic is awful in our area so God only knows what time they have to set off if they live outside town. I also often pick DD up from activities at 6pm, so all the teachers running those clubs presumably won’t get back to their own local areas through the town centre traffic until maybe 7 or so.

If the mum’s in that position, and the dad’s in a senior role also working long hours, it’s quite possible that there’s no breakfast club opening early enough or after school club opening late enough at their local state school for them to make it work, even if they’d wanted to. And yes, other people have to make it work and find childminders and ask grandparents and rely on friends and…. etc, etc. But those people are often feeling frazzled and burnt out and falling out with grandparents over childcare and paying a fortune for the precarious patchwork of wrap around care that they have managed to cobble together - if they’re lucky. Sometimes they’re not lucky, and their jobs are at risk.

So can’t we give this family a break? They quite possibly just want the mum to keep her job - something we’d all want to do. Why should she be forced into a massively stressful childcare juggle / risk getting into trouble at work when they have another solution, just so that her husband can look good?

I have a friend who works in international development where he helps ensure children in sub Saharan Africa have clean drinking water. Meanwhile his own children have all the clean drinking water they could possibly want, and orange juice too! What a hypocrite 😏

We know state schools are holding pens for wild animals and anyone with any choice would choose private. What I can't believe is the number of people here defending this man, "oh, what if they were bullied' etc etc, so what, plenty of other kids have to suck it up and don't get to opt out

To use your analogy of the chef, if they were forced to work in a place that didn't follow safety rules/had terrible staff etc, they probably wouldn't advise their family to eat there. Just like a lot of NHS staff have said they wouldn't want their family treated in an NHS hospital-even if you're a brilliant chief doctor, you can't change everything, you can only do your best-and if there's an alternative that is much better for your family, you might well use it.
Like many parents who use state schools, I'm in awe of some of the brilliant and hard-working teachers, but I can't say my children are getting the experience that rich ones get.

Assuming fees are £15k per child even with say a 50% staff discount that is £15K out of net/taxed income they would need to find for 2 kids. I think people are forgetting that. They simply may not be able to afford it in the same way many people can't and hence don't send their kids private even though they may wish to.

Well, quite. But various PPs are conveniently ignoring that the children have two parents with equal say and similar job related reasons to pick particular educations!

Perhaps even with staff discount they simply could not afford it.