Page 14 | If you are anti private school are you also anti tutoring?

twistyizzy · 19/10/2025 05:07

Marchitectmummy · 19/10/2025 04:29

I wouldn't politicise my children, I would do what's best for them.

Sadly some on here believe children should be used as political or ideological pawns

the7Vabo · 19/10/2025 05:23

teacupzs · 16/10/2025 20:28

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),

I don't understand the above, my parents were immigrants with little who happened to be catholic. What social and financial privilege did they need to go to church which they would have done with or without dc?

They have the privilege of being Catholic in an education system that has some very good Catholic schools.
I might send my child to private because we are the wrong religion for the best school in our area. I struggle not to feel resentful that my child can’t access the same school as our neighbours because we happen to be born into a different religion.

TeenagersAngst · 19/10/2025 05:34

eastegg · 18/10/2025 12:05

Hard to disagree with this. 6 pages in and I don’t think I’ve seen a good argument as to why this isn’t true.

To be fair to the OP though, they were being self-critical from the outset.

Show quote history

The OP has also contributed nothing to the conversation. I doubt they had genuine motivations in starting this thread.

TeenagersAngst · 19/10/2025 05:44

amigafan2003 · 18/10/2025 20:26

I didn't say VAT is a luxury tax, rather that there aren't any other luxury goods or services that are VAT exempt.

Show quote history

Err, you kind of did say it was a luxury tax. You also said no other luxury services are exempt from VAT only to be given several examples a few seconds later.

I’d hazard a guess that a) you aren’t a VAT expert and b) you really dislike people who send their children to private schools.

Marchitectmummy · 19/10/2025 05:50

the7Vabo · 19/10/2025 05:23

They have the privilege of being Catholic in an education system that has some very good Catholic schools.
I might send my child to private because we are the wrong religion for the best school in our area. I struggle not to feel resentful that my child can’t access the same school as our neighbours because we happen to be born into a different religion.

Show quote history

But it isn't being born to a different religion is it, it's maintaining a different religion. No-one is stopping you from converting to Catholicism, only your own belief.

It's another example of the overuse of the word privilege

Howseitgoin · 19/10/2025 05:52

WWGD · 16/10/2025 19:32

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.

"privilege"

Privilege comes in many forms including intellectual & behavioural.

Lots of kids that attend private schools have minor learning disabilities, lower IQ's or behavioural problems that private schools cater better for. Boys in particular benefit from teaching techniques more suitable for them that prevent them losing interest.

Private schools also take the burden off the public purse & by extension are able to provide more resources for kids from lower income families so it's not a zero sum game.

In terms of tutors, it depends how they are used. Lots of wealthier families are exploiting the system by using tutors to 'hot house' their kids into higher classes & better Universities/degrees that keep them artificially ahead of the rest but then the kids often flop out when left to their own devices in Uni or the workplace.

From memory, tutoring was recently banned in China because desperate poorer families were avoiding having further children or getting into huge debt to keep up with the 'Jones'.

the7Vabo · 19/10/2025 05:55

What about the morality of converting to another religion to get into a school?

the7Vabo · 19/10/2025 05:59

Marchitectmummy · 19/10/2025 05:50

But it isn't being born to a different religion is it, it's maintaining a different religion. No-one is stopping you from converting to Catholicism, only your own belief.

It's another example of the overuse of the word privilege

Show quote history

Not true. Where I live people in authority in religion are v cynical about people converting because they know damn well it’s for schools. And it has been blocked at times.

Sandyshandy · 19/10/2025 06:12

I think people should be able spend their money how they wish within the law.

Private schools, tutoring, extra curricular lessons and activities, private health care, orthodontic work, dentistry, a healthy diet, books in the home, private SEND and mental health diagnosis, sports, cultural visits (theatre, museums etc) a warm and comfortable home, holidays, well fitted shoes.

All of these are to greater and lesser extents privileges, all things that some people choose to spend on and others can’t afford or don’t prioritise. All improve life chances. It’s irrational and hypocritical to pick private schooling for particular scorn - it’s born of jealousy and inverted snobbery.

twistyizzy · 19/10/2025 06:17

Sandyshandy · 19/10/2025 06:12

I think people should be able spend their money how they wish within the law.

Private schools, tutoring, extra curricular lessons and activities, private health care, orthodontic work, dentistry, a healthy diet, books in the home, private SEND and mental health diagnosis, sports, cultural visits (theatre, museums etc) a warm and comfortable home, holidays, well fitted shoes.

All of these are to greater and lesser extents privileges, all things that some people choose to spend on and others can’t afford or don’t prioritise. All improve life chances. It’s irrational and hypocritical to pick private schooling for particular scorn - it’s born of jealousy and inverted snobbery.

Unfortunately we have a government who clearly put ideological pettiness above anything else eg fiscal or common sense.

Howseitgoin · 19/10/2025 06:23

Sandyshandy · 19/10/2025 06:12

I think people should be able spend their money how they wish within the law.

Private schools, tutoring, extra curricular lessons and activities, private health care, orthodontic work, dentistry, a healthy diet, books in the home, private SEND and mental health diagnosis, sports, cultural visits (theatre, museums etc) a warm and comfortable home, holidays, well fitted shoes.

All of these are to greater and lesser extents privileges, all things that some people choose to spend on and others can’t afford or don’t prioritise. All improve life chances. It’s irrational and hypocritical to pick private schooling for particular scorn - it’s born of jealousy and inverted snobbery.

The problem is that merit is often compromised that has negative consequences on society. A child who has had the benefit of private schooling & tutoring is given an artificial edge on those who don't that obscures their true potentiality in the workplace.

It's also concerning that people from wealthier backgrounds go to more elite universities that are often pipelines to position of power & by extension don't have any real world understanding.

twistyizzy · 19/10/2025 06:31

Howseitgoin · 19/10/2025 06:23

The problem is that merit is often compromised that has negative consequences on society. A child who has had the benefit of private schooling & tutoring is given an artificial edge on those who don't that obscures their true potentiality in the workplace.

It's also concerning that people from wealthier backgrounds go to more elite universities that are often pipelines to position of power & by extension don't have any real world understanding.

Show quote history

And kids from wealthy families who use state schools?
9 million DC in state Vs 550K in independent. Statistically there are more wealthy families who use state than independent considering 25% of DC in independent are on fee assistance

Sandyshandy · 19/10/2025 06:32

Howesit- but that’s an argument for raising standards in all schools, not against private schools. Unless you are arguing that a well educated work force harms society.
We need the best people for each job regardless of the route they’ve taken.

Howseitgoin · 19/10/2025 07:11

Howesit- but that’s an argument for raising standards in all schools, not against private schools. Unless you are arguing that a well educated work force harms society.

Look, true but realistically that's not going to happen & certainly not to the level of private schools. (My children were privately school educated & I was not BTW so I see both sides). I'm by no means suggesting private schools don't serve a societal purpose as my comment upthread states but I do think we need to account for how they negatively effect society in terms of false merit & facilitating the wealthy into positions of power who don't necessarily have an interest in the social good.

And are they really the best people is my point? This excerpt is about elite college selection process in the USA but it's relevant about how we determine merit.

"The view I had taken was that, in the selection process, we’re mainly rewarding capacity to perform post-admission. A person who exerted a lot of effort might be expected to do especially well given that we’ve identified them as someone whose preferences or orientations are such that they’re a “hard worker.” A person who experienced the privilege of being born into an upper part of society might well be objectively better placed to perform. Now, the fairness of that is another issue, but if the institution is only concerned about performance, then the fact that the high performer is a high performer in part because they’ve benefitted from privilege should not count against them.
But I can see a more subtle argument, one I associate with John Roemer’s book Equality of Opportunity, that says let’s classify people based on their background conditions—you came from an inner-city high school, your parents had relatively low income, your peer group had relatively few people who were going on to college and so forth. You had certain test scores and certain grades and they may not be especially distinguished given those background conditions, but when I compare you to other people with similar background conditions you’re way in the right-hand tail of that comparison. That tells me something about you, about your resilience, about your determination, about your fortitude, perhaps about your aptitude because I’m comparing you to other people who have similar background conditions in an effort to tease out what individually distinguishes you. For you to come in the middle of the distribution of Harvard applicants from a background where almost nobody goes to college tells me that you are an extraordinary person and that’s the bet that I’m going to make. I’m going to bet on that extraordinariness. Still, my objective is I’m trying to forecast who’s going to perform well, but I’m thinking you’re going to perform well, notwithstanding the relatively modest profile that you present in conventional academic criteria because when I compare you to other people of similar exigency, of similar circumstance and opportunity, you look pretty good. Notice that, in doing this, I haven’t really changed the fundamental premise of my selection model, which is that I’m trying to find the people who are going to perform best after admission; I’ve just enriched my prediction model by using your relative performance among peers. (The question remains as to the role of race per se in making such relative assessments.)"

https://quillette.com/2020/12/16/the-question-of-affirmative-action-an-interview-with-glenn-loury/

The Question of Affirmative Action: An Interview with Glenn Loury

Education was not equal in 1930 for blacks and whites, nor in 1950, nor in 1970 for that matter.

https://quillette.com/2020/12/16/the-question-of-affirmative-action-an-interview-with-glenn-loury/

twistyizzy · 19/10/2025 07:14

Howseitgoin · 19/10/2025 07:11

Howesit- but that’s an argument for raising standards in all schools, not against private schools. Unless you are arguing that a well educated work force harms society.

Look, true but realistically that's not going to happen & certainly not to the level of private schools. (My children were privately school educated & I was not BTW so I see both sides). I'm by no means suggesting private schools don't serve a societal purpose as my comment upthread states but I do think we need to account for how they negatively effect society in terms of false merit & facilitating the wealthy into positions of power who don't necessarily have an interest in the social good.

And are they really the best people is my point? This excerpt is about elite college selection process in the USA but it's relevant about how we determine merit.

"The view I had taken was that, in the selection process, we’re mainly rewarding capacity to perform post-admission. A person who exerted a lot of effort might be expected to do especially well given that we’ve identified them as someone whose preferences or orientations are such that they’re a “hard worker.” A person who experienced the privilege of being born into an upper part of society might well be objectively better placed to perform. Now, the fairness of that is another issue, but if the institution is only concerned about performance, then the fact that the high performer is a high performer in part because they’ve benefitted from privilege should not count against them.
But I can see a more subtle argument, one I associate with John Roemer’s book Equality of Opportunity, that says let’s classify people based on their background conditions—you came from an inner-city high school, your parents had relatively low income, your peer group had relatively few people who were going on to college and so forth. You had certain test scores and certain grades and they may not be especially distinguished given those background conditions, but when I compare you to other people with similar background conditions you’re way in the right-hand tail of that comparison. That tells me something about you, about your resilience, about your determination, about your fortitude, perhaps about your aptitude because I’m comparing you to other people who have similar background conditions in an effort to tease out what individually distinguishes you. For you to come in the middle of the distribution of Harvard applicants from a background where almost nobody goes to college tells me that you are an extraordinary person and that’s the bet that I’m going to make. I’m going to bet on that extraordinariness. Still, my objective is I’m trying to forecast who’s going to perform well, but I’m thinking you’re going to perform well, notwithstanding the relatively modest profile that you present in conventional academic criteria because when I compare you to other people of similar exigency, of similar circumstance and opportunity, you look pretty good. Notice that, in doing this, I haven’t really changed the fundamental premise of my selection model, which is that I’m trying to find the people who are going to perform best after admission; I’ve just enriched my prediction model by using your relative performance among peers. (The question remains as to the role of race per se in making such relative assessments.)"

https://quillette.com/2020/12/16/the-question-of-affirmative-action-an-interview-with-glenn-loury/

Edited

"negatively effect society in terms of false merit & facilitating the wealthy into positions of power who don't necessarily have an interest in the social good" which you could also say for any of the top 200 state schools due to their cohorts ie wealthy families.
Cohorts at top state schools are very similar to those in independent schools as they can afford catchment house prices of said schools

twistyizzy · 19/10/2025 07:15

Howseitgoin · 19/10/2025 07:11

Howesit- but that’s an argument for raising standards in all schools, not against private schools. Unless you are arguing that a well educated work force harms society.

Look, true but realistically that's not going to happen & certainly not to the level of private schools. (My children were privately school educated & I was not BTW so I see both sides). I'm by no means suggesting private schools don't serve a societal purpose as my comment upthread states but I do think we need to account for how they negatively effect society in terms of false merit & facilitating the wealthy into positions of power who don't necessarily have an interest in the social good.

And are they really the best people is my point? This excerpt is about elite college selection process in the USA but it's relevant about how we determine merit.

"The view I had taken was that, in the selection process, we’re mainly rewarding capacity to perform post-admission. A person who exerted a lot of effort might be expected to do especially well given that we’ve identified them as someone whose preferences or orientations are such that they’re a “hard worker.” A person who experienced the privilege of being born into an upper part of society might well be objectively better placed to perform. Now, the fairness of that is another issue, but if the institution is only concerned about performance, then the fact that the high performer is a high performer in part because they’ve benefitted from privilege should not count against them.
But I can see a more subtle argument, one I associate with John Roemer’s book Equality of Opportunity, that says let’s classify people based on their background conditions—you came from an inner-city high school, your parents had relatively low income, your peer group had relatively few people who were going on to college and so forth. You had certain test scores and certain grades and they may not be especially distinguished given those background conditions, but when I compare you to other people with similar background conditions you’re way in the right-hand tail of that comparison. That tells me something about you, about your resilience, about your determination, about your fortitude, perhaps about your aptitude because I’m comparing you to other people who have similar background conditions in an effort to tease out what individually distinguishes you. For you to come in the middle of the distribution of Harvard applicants from a background where almost nobody goes to college tells me that you are an extraordinary person and that’s the bet that I’m going to make. I’m going to bet on that extraordinariness. Still, my objective is I’m trying to forecast who’s going to perform well, but I’m thinking you’re going to perform well, notwithstanding the relatively modest profile that you present in conventional academic criteria because when I compare you to other people of similar exigency, of similar circumstance and opportunity, you look pretty good. Notice that, in doing this, I haven’t really changed the fundamental premise of my selection model, which is that I’m trying to find the people who are going to perform best after admission; I’ve just enriched my prediction model by using your relative performance among peers. (The question remains as to the role of race per se in making such relative assessments.)"

https://quillette.com/2020/12/16/the-question-of-affirmative-action-an-interview-with-glenn-loury/

Edited

"negatively effect society in terms of false merit & facilitating the wealthy into positions of power who don't necessarily have an interest in the social good" which you could also say for any of the top 200 state schools due to their cohorts ie wealthy families.
Cohorts at top state schools are very similar to those in independent schools as they can afford catchment house prices of said schools

Howseitgoin · 19/10/2025 07:24

twistyizzy · 19/10/2025 07:14

"negatively effect society in terms of false merit & facilitating the wealthy into positions of power who don't necessarily have an interest in the social good" which you could also say for any of the top 200 state schools due to their cohorts ie wealthy families.
Cohorts at top state schools are very similar to those in independent schools as they can afford catchment house prices of said schools

Show quote history

Yup, don't get me started on them. I'm Australian BTW & we have a state system that has a highly accredited selective schools component for the 'best & brightest' that isn't income tested chock full of wealthy people because of the prestige involved. My children's orthodontist who owns 3 surgeries told me he refused to send his children to private unless they got a scholarship so opted for the top state schools instead. I mean, those spots are supposed to be for kids that can't afford private.

At my kid's private schools there are scholarships that aren't income tested that go to wealthy families who 'donate' so their kid gets the prestige of having won a scholarship. It's …..disgusting.

AlternativeView · 19/10/2025 07:25

State education is good in parts ,excellent in others and woeful in many
I'm fully expecting to get DD tutors as she nears GCSE level because I know one teacher can't give enough attention to all those students to get them through.

However in your situation whilst I agree with tutoring I think what you are doing is giving your daughter somethjng better than private school because tutors are bespoke like rich people in the old days aren't they

So on the one hand you are claiming not to go private but simultaneously leaping it all by buying a bespoke private tutor.

With your rigid ( misguided ) principles I would struggle with this .

With my knowledge of how DC learn ,how teachers have to teach to the pack ,I don't.

DoubledTrouble · 19/10/2025 10:40

The thing is that when people say that some state schools are better they don't have any extra funds. In fact grammar, catholic and state schools in expensive areas are also horribly underfunded as they might get a bit extra from the pta but will have less pupil premium funding.

Really the difference is that the peer group will be academically able (grammar), wealthy (expensive area) or just organised parents that are part of a community (catholic given most dysfunctional familes won't be able to get up every Sunday for mass)

Probably these families would gain better results in any school. However the school s themselves may also be better as the school culture will be different, pupils will be positively influenced by their peer group in terms of their aspirations, teachers may need to spend less time managing behaviour or social problems and teachers are more likely to stay as their jobs will be less stressful.

You could write the second paragraph about independent schools as well. They obviously however are better funded with smaller classes as well.

NavyTurtle · 21/10/2025 10:50

The difference between state schools and private schools is that private schools open up a whole new world of opportunity - who they meet, who they interact with, the opportunities that they have on offer. I bet if you looked at the difference 20 years later, the private school kids (not all of course) will be in a higher earning bracket than state school kids (not all of course). You don't hear of many privately educated kids living on a council estate on the drip. (although of course there are always exceptions). I would have thought parents would do the best they could afford for their kids and not bring political objections into it as that is only an opinion and not fact, one that your child in time may totally disagree with.

FourIsNewSix · 21/10/2025 11:05

NavyTurtle · 21/10/2025 10:50

The difference between state schools and private schools is that private schools open up a whole new world of opportunity - who they meet, who they interact with, the opportunities that they have on offer. I bet if you looked at the difference 20 years later, the private school kids (not all of course) will be in a higher earning bracket than state school kids (not all of course). You don't hear of many privately educated kids living on a council estate on the drip. (although of course there are always exceptions). I would have thought parents would do the best they could afford for their kids and not bring political objections into it as that is only an opinion and not fact, one that your child in time may totally disagree with.

I bet if you ... You don't hear of many privately educated kids living on a council estate on the drip.

Which doesn't prove anything about the value of private education. It just shows that people who have money for private school have money to help their children to get a property. People with money can support their children through those unpaid internships leading to high income jobs. People with money are more likely to have contacts to help their children go to higher income jobs.

everychildmatters · 21/10/2025 11:11

We must all know the UK state education system in the UK is broken beyond repair? Mostly due to funding and the teacher recruitment and retention crisis. I left primary teaching last year after being in it for 20 years and nothing - nothing - would make me go back.

oldwhyno · 21/10/2025 11:22

I am fervently in support of the right for people in this country to be able to educate themselves independently, with whatever means and resources they choose. Independent from government control of educational content, standards and resourcing.

Privilege, opportunity, networking and prestige are bought in myriad ways by people in all walks of life. Providing it's nothing illegal or corrupt, it's a fundamental pilar of a free society.

pottylolly · 31/10/2025 17:03

I personally think private tutoring only works when you do it proactively BEFORE a child has any problems with their subject. Eg my children have had tutors since the age of 3 in languages, maths and english. We do private school too. And we may be hiring a summer governess / teacher who basically teaches the kids at home over the summer for 5 hours a day.

ForlornLindtBear · 31/10/2025 17:15

pottylolly · 31/10/2025 17:03

I personally think private tutoring only works when you do it proactively BEFORE a child has any problems with their subject. Eg my children have had tutors since the age of 3 in languages, maths and english. We do private school too. And we may be hiring a summer governess / teacher who basically teaches the kids at home over the summer for 5 hours a day.

Why?

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

Interested in this thread?