Director of Education privately educates their children

I imagine it's a lot more practical to have his DC go to a school their parent is already working at...especially for school runs etc. Plus it means the mum can probably watch their assemblies/nativities which teachers usually don't get to do.

He's just a public servant who works on implementing government policy regarding schools. He doesn't have to believe in it. Just like whoever is in charge of implementing rent control policies is free to own their own home.

Do you judge someone in a Morrison's uniform buying groceries at another store? Or an NHS doctor providing or using private healthcare? Or a railway worker who uses a car?
I don't understand why people are so judgemental about other families trying to choose the best school for their children. This man's private life is separate from his work and is none of your business.

Private schools usually offer substantial staff discounts on fees for their own children at the school, and I imagine it's loads easier logistically, than having to get the children to a different school.

There are arguments over whether private schools should exist at all, but given that they do, I don't see the problem with the director of education hearing about how private schools deal with things, and if that knowledge gives him ideas for how to approach issues, it's no bad thing (though probably he's just tearing his hair out about money and how he can't do things in the same way because of that.)

Oh dear, OP!

You think that those in charge of a service, like state school service in their area should send their children to a state school?

What next? Believing that Labour MPs who abhor selective education, such as grammar schools and private schools will only send their child to the local comprehensive?

No, a lot of Labour MPs and their supporters, when push came to shove, did whatever they could to make sure their little darlings got into the best selective school or private school, not the nearest okay or good comprehensive school that's supposed to be good enough for everyone else.

In the case of Tony Blair, Diane Abbot and a lot of other Labour MPs it was a case of do as I say not as I do. Decrying selective education and private schools, when sending their own children to such schools.

Even, Shami Chakrabati, now a Labour peer, who opposed grammar schools on the basis that they were socially divisive and contributed to segregation, sent her own child to a private school.

There is a word for such people. Hypocrites!

I think you are reading too much into it. Its a job, nothing more. Many senior officials work in different departments or areas, but that doesn't mean that their life choices must be determined by their jobs. A director of local authority housing department will not be living in a council flat, nor would they need to in order to do their job effectively - it doesn't mean that they can't provide strategic leadership for the department.

This happens all over the place. It’s rampant. That or sending DC out of borough for selective. It’s not great not at all surprising

Yabu

It's true that there are huge problems with state education in a lot of areas. You surely can't believe that the person holding the job of Director of Education for the council actually has the power to magic these problems away. He doesn't have the budget, he doesn't control the constraints that are set by the government, he has no control over the cultural issues for the segments of the population that don't value education, nor control the demographic distribution of those who he is responsible for. He is doing what is possible with what he has. As a highly experienced professional with oversight across a system employing thousands his salary will be sufficient that he can spend on more than just the basics of existence. He has as much freedom to choose to spend his disposable income on a better quality of education if that's what he wants. Perhaps he would love to be allowed to raise taxes so that every state school receives £20,000 per pupil so that everyone gets a well-resourced education, but he's not allowed to do that. He is allowed to spend that money on his children though, and his children do not deserve to be deprived of that opportunity just because their dad happens to be heading a team with "education" in its remit rather than "health" or "social care" or "housing". If someone else in another job with the same salary is allowed to do it then he should be allowed too.

Do you know anything about his circumstances or his children?

i would not judge him. He is an employee of the state. Not a politician. And you have no idea if his kids are severely dyslexic or adopted or have another compelling reason to be in a smaller setting.

It might just be easier logistically to send the children to the school where their mum works.

Also it might feel quite uncomfortable from the mother’s perspective to see the opportunities afforded to children at the school where you teach and where you could send your children for little cost but not to do so in order to make a public statement related to your husband’s job.

The local head of education here sent her children private when my elder two were nearing secondary school.

Her reasons were varied. When she moved here her job was to sort out the absolute shithole our local schools were in. To do that she made some really unpopular decisions. She really cracked down on a lot of staff and a lot of issues locally. Now people think she's wonderful, but in the beginning they did not.

She worried about the impact of her unpopularity on her children, and also on the issues she could have interacting with staff in a school they attended in her role and as a parent combined.

She was also bluntly honest enough to say that she moved her children from an area with very very good schools because she wanted to take the job - she wanted the challenge of making education in our area good from where it was - so the compromise with her ex husband was that the children (who were starting secondary the year after she moved) went to a private school that matched the outcomes of the schools in their old area (as private schools go it wasn't great, but was better at the time than the state schools).

Just so obvious ... the state schools are good enough for us but not for him. OP is entirely right to be unsettled. And the ' choice' he makes is a choice available only to a very small number of people. He s given his state primaries ( which must include some great, some not) a big fat vote of no confidence.

I wonder if the council's head of tourism takes holidays abroad.
I wonder if the head of housing lives in a council house.
I wonder if the head of libraries owns any books of their own.
I wonder if the head of public transport drives a car.
I wonder if the children of the head of childrens services live in a council residential home or with foster parents?
I wonder if the head of seniors social services has put their parents in a home.

Actually he probably fully understands some of the limitations of state schools in a professional capacity and has chosen to privately educate. That would actually make me respect him more as he has chosen what he believes best for his own children without the job getting in the way of that. Why should his children have a different choice of schooling and give up a staff discount on the basis of ideology. He isn’t a politician but doing a job linked to state schools. There is nothing in any public servant job description to say they have to only use the public services their job relates to.

Do as I say, not as I do.

I see this as along the same lines as Bill Gates pushing vaccines on the masses, but not vaccinating his own children. Those in on it know.

This. If he sent his kids to state school despite having access to discounted staff places at the private school, his wife’s colleagues/school parents might think it odd. So as a couple, they can’t win whichever choice they make.

I guess I just feel like if someone’s entire job centres around ensuring the state schools in our area are of a high quality, they should in theory send their children to one of these schools.

His job centres around ensuring the state schools are of the highest quality possible, with the pittance paid towards them by the government.

That's not his fault and there's no point in cutting his kid's noses off to spite his own face.

He's director of education at the council not a wizard who can make state schools in an over stretched and underfunded system as good as private schools.

He can be trying his absolute best and doing a wonderful job in his role AND the private school can be better that any of the state options. Two things can be true at once.

In the same way an NHS nurse, doctor or leader maybe want to use private health care to skip queues. The brand manger at Tesco might shop at Lidl because it's cheaper or Waitrose because it better quality. You can't expect a council leader to act against the best interests of his family to make a point.

Actually a PP makes a very good point.

every little thing would be scrutinised if his kids attended a state school. Every test result, competition, every bit of funding. Easier to remove yourself from the equation.

I see what you are saying but from his wife’s perspective, would the parents at her school not be saying the same if she didn’t send her children there?

He’s entitled to do that but I agree with you op it sucks and totally undermines his position

Its none of your business, his and his wife's choice. If his children were educated at x council school, he's been scrutinised unfairly for every dealing with that school.

Honestly it is not a good sign! He sees it from the inside and doesn’t want what he sees for his own kids. It’s fair enough but also useful information to you. Conversely I know a state school locally where multiple members of staff, including the head, send their own kids. Again that’s useful information.

I presume he has to make sure it is of the highest quality within the resources he has for role he does - that doesn’t necessarily equate it to be iactually of high or good enough quality.