If you are anti private school are you also anti tutoring?

[WWGD]

Putting aside the obvious - that a tutor is about £2k a year and private school about £25k a year…

My kids are state educated. Many of our friends are surprised by this as they go private, but our objection is political as much as financial. We just don’t believe it is right to buy that level of privilege and opportunity. We’d also rather spend that money on holidays etc.

dd has asked for a tutor in subjects she is struggling with. I have arranged this. But this too is buying privilege and opportunity. Though not the networking and prestige.

I am comfortable with my decisions. I am just wondering whether people who are anti private school for political reasons also think tutoring is beyond the pale?

I was going to put this in aibu but actually am interested in people’s views rather than being flamed.

Tutoring is like anything else that you can buy that gives you privilege - nicer house, better quality food, extra curricular activities, lots of books ...

So not the same objection as to private school IMO

I used to be anti private school. But then I realised I had no objection to tutoring and was in favour of other paid educational opportunities - music, dance, sports lessons etc. and I felt that was inconsistent so I changed my stance on private schools.

I dont object to private school so im not the right person to ask.

But im going to give an opinion anyway.

Lots of things buy privilege and tutoring is one of them.

I dont think it has the same segregation element though.

I’ve never understood why some people think private school is not ok but other forms of bought privilege are fine.

I systematically, idealistically am against them...so would vote against them. But the world doesn't work that way so I'm not really against individuals choosing to use them.
The cost of private school makes it more extreme in terms of how rich you have to be to afford it. The casual nature of tutoring I think makes it fairer...but still not fair.

I don't see them as the same: nobody's getting their foot in the door anywhere just off the strength of their tutor's name like you can with (some) private schools - not all, obviously. Having a tutor doesn't imply much about your social standing or function as shorthand for the 'type' of person you are in the way I've seen private school be used. On the more negative end of things, and only based on my own anecdotal experience working with a lot of privately educated people in the past, having a tutor also isn't likely to grant you the kind of cliquey, self-important world-view I experienced either.

I think the difference is that private schools negatively impact the vast proportion of children whilst disproportionately benefiting a minority - if they didn’t exist, there is no doubt that education would be a much bigger government priority, better funded etc. Standards and opportunities for all children would increase.

Paying for tutoring for your child so she feels more confident and becomes more able in certain subjects isn’t having a detrimental impact on other children, unless you take it to the extreme and extrapolate to her taking the uni place from an untutored child, for example. That’s a stretch though.

So not the same objection as to private school IMO

Really? What's the difference? I've never understood why it's OK to buy a house in the catchment of a good state school, or to use your social and to some extent financial capital to get your child into a faith school by getting them baptised and attending church for the required period (and getting that recorded), or paying for music or sports lessons that get the child into a school that selects on aptitude, or paying for tutoring to get the child through the 11+ (and then paying the travel if they're at a distance from the grammar school) - but not to just straightforwardly send them to a fee-paying school.

I’m against it ideologically for core subjects, in the same way I’m against private schools - the state should provide adequate education in this so private schools and tuition shouldn’t be necessary.

i’m not against it for “added extra” subjects, although I do think clubs should provide bursaries if they can (and I’m aware a lot do)

You're buying privilege and entrenching the status quo as you're buying out of the current poor system. You've just found what you think is a loophole to justify it.

Is what I'd say if I was against it all, I'm not.

The church just takes a Sunday School register, it’s free.

Isn’t spending that much on holidays also privilege?
I have no problem with people buying the best education for their child if that is the best option for their child.

We didn’t go private for the networking or prestige - you sound like the kind of person who wrongly thinks all private schools are like Eton.

So I would say you’re doing precisely the same thing as us, just hypocritically, You don’t think the education the state is providing your DD is good enough so you’re using your privilege to plug the gap
and to get your child ahead.

(I would also add that by the time you get to sixth form (sixth forms in schools) they are all academically selective and some more so than some private schools.)

It's not a stretch, though, is it? An 18yo from a family with enough money for tutoring is likely to have a huge advantage over an 18yo whose family don't have that kind of money. It won't stop at tutoring. Access to books, educational trips, plenty of room to study, parents advising on which courses and institutions to apply for, work experience etc etc.

if they didn’t exist, there is no doubt that education would be a much bigger government priority, better funded etc. Don't understand this. 93% of the UK's children attend state schools. Their parents will mostly have the vote. The 18yos themselves will have the vote. If they want education to be a higher priority, they need to get out and use that vote to get the message across to the poltiicians. How does the existence of private schools for a minority of children affecting that?

If you have a house within catchment of desirable schools, you already have privilege. I know that's not a popular opinion, or what you even asked, but it's my opinion.

I observe these conversations from a house that is blocked from accessing the better performing schools. We are able to consider a few selective private schools, and that choice absolutely influences my opinion on the debate. I'd rather pay than move to a 'better' area, and I view both choices as equal.

Privilege but not segregation. It’s less bad.

I don't think you're beyond the pale to pay for tuition for your child. But I don't think your positions are consistent. There are numerous ways that you can "buy" "privilege" for your DC, and of course most parents do this where they can because they love their children and not other people's. I used to disagree with private school until I had my own and realized that of course I would pay any money for them to have the best of things if I can. Don't care about other people's kids

My biggest problem with private school is the way it divides people - some kids who go to private schools don’t seem to know anyone who doesn’t! Whereas state schools have a mix of people and everyone has to learn to rub along together.

That and what SuperSugarHigh said about the impact on education as a political priority.

Yes, that's why I specifically mentioned social capital. Parents who are confident with bureaucracy and well educated themselves are far more likely to be well enough prepared to manipulate the system by getting their children baptised and taking them to church and getting that recorded. That's social capital.

I would find it very strange for a parent, who had the financial means to pay for something that would be very beneficial for their child and that their child might even be asking for, but refused to do this on the ideological ground that not every child can afford this privilege.

It makes sense to me that a parent might have political reasons for preferring state school that don't relate to money, e.g., they think the overall state experience is superior because it is a better cross-section of society or the child will have more local friends etc. Or, for example, to not get a tutor because you don't want to hothouse your kids. But "I think X is better for my kid, and I can afford X, but I'm not going to give X to my kid on principle" is very alien to me, whether X is private school OR tutoring.

Paid for education is paid for education, whatever setting it’s in.

You’re are either ok with it or you’re not, but don’t be a hypocrite and claim one is an acceptable way to buy privilege and one isn’t.

Also, do you ensure your tutors pay tax on their earnings; many don’t, and many people don’t have a problem with this (either from the paying parent or the cash-receiving tutor) despite believing that private school fees should be taxed.

I say this having purchased both private education and tax-registered tutoring for my DC, and happily funded both (& not taken money out of the economy for the education of my DC). I can afford it, the fees I pay give people jobs and my DC have received a good education, despite their additional needs making them unsuitable for mainstream schooling.

Totally! I find this so strange. When you have your own kids, who cares about others people's (in comparison of course. We all care about kids)

What did graucho marx say? If you don’t like my principles, I have others!

it sounds like you want to justify your private education principles while glossing over the tutoring.

look, I’m a massive leftie. My kids went to comprehensives for GCSEs and then grammars for A levels. All their own choice.

At the end of the day you all have to decide whether your principles and your desire for your kids to excel, meet or diverge.

It's a good point to consider OP. I'm anti private school but would think nothing of private tuition. The way I see it I want my children to reach their full potential. I don't want them surrounded by competitive or elitist people. They are privileged in that they go to dance class drama etc, but my wish would be for all kids to have that privilege, not to remove myself from those that do not. In fact I see it in reverse, my kids have a big house and go on 3 holidays a year, we can afford most things we want. The last thing they need is to he surrounded by only children who are similar or wealthier because they will get a very narrow view of the world. I want them to understand diversity in all it's ways and appreciate the life they have is not because of some inate entitlement but sheer good luck, which may not last.

I have moral and political objections to the stark structural inequalities in our society and in our education system. It cannot be right that someone's life chances are largely dictated by the postcode in which they grow up or the number of digits on their parents' bank balances, and I want us to do much, much more as a society to tackle this.

However, I would never blame any parent for using the resources that they are able to access to do whatever they believe to be in the best interests of their children. That is surely what all good parents do. In some cases, that might be private schools or tutoring. In others, it might be buying into the catchment of a good state school, funding and facilitating extracurricular activities or simply using their their own time and skills to support the child's development.

The issue is not that parents are doing the wrong thing by giving their children the very best they can afford. The issue is that some parents have next to nothing to give, and their children are unfairly disadvantaged by this.