Sam Freedman wouldn't send his kids private

My post above should read:
"Minifingerz I know you loathe all private schools and all who sail within them, but state schools also have faults".

it's sad but true often families with more money eat better which does affect brain development height and overall health (such as skin and hair) they may also prioritize looking good.

Minifingerz - surely it's not the fault of the private school if the children are slimmer?
Actually, come to think of it, many many moons ago I went to a private school where the food would have provoked a riot in a Victorian workhouse so disgusting was it.
I think my stomach shrank like a jockey's as a result of so little food passing my lips and I'm sure that's the reason why I've never put on much weight as an adult.
I know you loathe all private schools and all who sail within them, but they also have their faults:
My dd went to a local prep school and she and the rest of her year went on to various secondary schools including a public school and a state school in the same nearby town.
In her first term my dd saw a girl she'd been friendly with who was now at the state school and greeted her warmly.
Her former 'friend' completely ignored her and walked past as if she wasn't there.
The same thing happened with other pupils at my dd's school when they attempted to say hello to their former classmates now at the state school.
They'd obviously been told not to speak or fraternise with the ghastly 'posh' children.
My dd was sad about it.

Really I've heard it all. Private school kids are now better looking? And height is not only a privilege but one achieved through attending a private school?

I drive past three secondaries every day. One is a lovely old building with big playing fields that is in need of some tlc but with smart, mainly well behaved kids. Second has similar kids but a big shiny building and great facilities and fields. The third building is a concrete block with no fields, and the most noticeable kids are those that are causing trouble. They're all state schools in the same county.

if you have a choice at all, it's between one or two schools. The meta-analysis only serves to help people justify their choices. For me, the choice in the end wasn't a philosophical one (though some might argue it should have been). It was between two actual schools. I didn't need to defend all private schools or criticise all state schools to make my decision, nor did I need to criticise all private schools and defend all state schools. I only needed to look at the two schools I was choosing between.

Great comment ontopofthesunset. You "win" the thread for me.

I am a fan of abolishing private schools, and all religiously selective state schools .

Ain't going to happen..

Every day during school term time I drive past one of the most prestigious private schools in the U.K. It's right next door to my dc's comp. The private school is beautiful, with enormous grounds, state of the art science labs, several playing fields.

My dc's comp has double the number of students crammed into a site half the size and no playing fields.

You can see the difference between the kids. The ones at the private school are taller and slimmer, and mostly better looking.

It deeply offends my sense of justice to see such blatant, ugly inequality between children laid out in front of me every day. To know that the children at the private school already have much, much more, even before you take their expensive education into account, and yet being clever, tall, healthy, well supported - it's still not enough. They have to heap privilege upon privilege.

The existence of private schools is morally indefensible at a population level. I understand why people want to send their children to them, but society shouldn't do one single thing to support or perpetuate such a morally appalling system.

Nobody has said all state comprehensives are bad, or even most. But just like you can't have grammars without secondary moderns, in the present system we can't have good comprehensives without bad and mediocre ones. If the system is basically good then why the outcry about reallocating funding? Surely if all these great comprehensive areas exist across the country then all those schools having their funding cut to the same low levels will remain great.

Most mumsnetters do not live in deprived areas. So 5,10, 5000 posters on here saying how fantastic their dc's school is doesn't prove that is the case for everyone else in the country.

noble you don't need me to work out the percentages or proportions for you, it's still closer to the private schools funds.

No, that doesn't mean I think London state schools are like private schools. But compare the funding alone and they have more in common with a cheap private outside London than a badly funded state one. And although not applicable to a deprived area like tower hamlets, the best London state schools have more in common with cheap privates than they do with the sink schools.

Also, won't the £400 extra per child be in part down to having the funding to have qualified, experienced teachers? I know they are paid higher across the board in London because of living costs, but higher levels of funding suggest they aren't being forced to hire nqts with no subject qualifications like schools on the lowest funding.

Most schools are bubbles. Islands of their own particular class/tribe.

Many British people have very little idea how people different to them (significantly richer or significantly poorer) live. I am often surprised by it on MN.

It's true of lots of other countries too of course. But social mobility is so appallingly poor here. And only getting worse.

"The same as the posters on here who apparently are opposed to grammar schools yet choose to use them because you 'have' to in a selective area."
This particular chestnut relies on the bizarre thought that someone opposed to selective education might be only opposed to the grammar part, not state selective education as a whole.

Oh of course you can't get private education on state funding. Is anyone really that thick?
I'm fine with a bit of Ovid, by the way.

I'm not sure Tatler is right. Holland Park's Head has a fairly marmite reputation. But perhaps I have met too many disappointed parents who thought they were getting a top London Private education without paying. Aspirations tend to be super-high in what might be Britain's most expensive catchment.

Where do the Rees-Mogg brood go?

Sorry, the Latin was just what I thought was quite a well-known quote (I thought) about seeing the better way and approving, but following the worse - I wasn't trying to show off. It's sort of a catchphrase that we use quite often.

In practice, in my case, my choice was between a school that was in the bottom decile for progress, to which none of my son's friends were going, going to church retrospectively (impossible), moving retrospectively, or paying. I acted expediently. My kids only had one chance to go to school.

I believe that the education system in this country would be much fairer and better for everyone without any kind of selection - religious, grammar-style, fee-based. But that isn't the system we've got. Could I have tried to change it from within? Yes. Would it have practically made a difference to the system? Probably not. I give my voice where I can in another way by my work in local education.

We talk a lot in our family about why we took the decisions we did about schooling. We've always been very open about our ambivalence about private education and we're not pretending to be moral crusaders. We're flawed human beings with selfish instints. The children went to a local primary school and have friends and acquaintances who've followed different paths. They understand why we took the decisions we did and understand the unfairness of privilege.

You certainly are not principled! Why on earth bother to say you are opposed to private schools if you send your children to one?

The same as the posters on here who apparently are opposed to grammar schools yet choose to use them because you 'have' to in a selective area.

It's not true, you do not have to use them.

Really? Our local catchment school gets very good results given it has consistently had about 93% free school dinners. So well that it is not one of the schools that attracts contextual offers from Bristol University. It has some brilliant Ofsted reports outlining how well it supports a difficult intake.

But... local MC parents will read the University destination list and be more ambitious for their own children. Not delivering to high aspirations, whilst delivering a lot of other important support and opportunities, does not mean "crap".

I assume also that the school also loses some of its more talented pupils at sixth form to grammars, and new selective state sixth forms.

Does it not depend on what the Principle is? Is it that education, like health, should not be a private commodity; or that all children should have the same provision regardless of talents; or simply equality of opportunity. I'm not really sure, but then I clearly don't have principles.

Whilst I don't think that all state schools are crap, I do think they are all vastly underfunded.

Sixth form in the state sector is simply untenable at this level of funding.
We saw the numbers of successful candidates to Oxbridge from the state sector go in the wrong direction this year. I have no doubt that will be replicated elsewhere.

No matter how great the SLT, the situation is, frankly, crap.

I agree. Nobody wants to send their child to a crap school- and nobody should have to. But for many people, comprehensive and crap are synonyms.

We must meet the same people

Our experience was that having decided not to move (or rent strategically in the right catchment), tutor or get religion, but simply work very hard and pay, we were roundly criticised. Somewhere between reception and sixth form, the criticism has died off. I don't know anyone from baby group days who sent their child to the local catchment school. Plenty used state, but without exception desirable state schools, with all sorts of moral fudging. In general the outcomes, in terms of University places, were similar, though State seemed to produce a bigger range. My observation is that Private kids may have come away with a better enjoyment of education (one big concern with the more pushy Grammars) and a wider range of skills gained from EC. But conversely state educated kids have a wider social experience.

"Often it is not about the system, but about the child"

You mean " I am a huge supporter of state schools, of course I am. It's just that Mary is so clever/struggling/sensitive/outspoken/musical/artistic/sporty/withdrawn/over confident/ insert adjective of choice that we just had to go private. Any other child........."

Not sure what is the point of your Latin phrases unless you are trying to show off your superior intelligence to us simple earthlings.

There's a difference between accepting cars cause pollution and being 'strongly opposed' to something.
How do you justify your choice of school versus your principles to your children?

Often it is not about the system, but about the child.

Some/most will do well in any competent school. But it is not unusual to see late entrants to the private system, whose parents are surprised to be there but hoping a move is the solution to bullying/SpLD support/etc problems.

It is also not unknown for grandparents to offer to step in financially to help facilitate a move that may help a child to the next stage. I have come across adults who have regretted that parents did not use the options available because of principle. Presumably not sunset's DC!

That's exactly what I said. I said that I'm not very principled in practice. It's perfectly possible to believe in something but not do it. I believe it would be better if I didn't own a private car because of pollution and congestsion and only used public transport, but I don't do that either. Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor and all that.

"I'm strongly opposed to grammar and private schools and any kind of religious or academic selection on principle, but am not very principled in practice, given my choice of schools, and so have sent my children to a selective private school."

Isn't that more or less a definition of unprincipled?