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.

If we assume that democratically elected officials care about the things that are important to voters, then a general dissatisfaction with the state of the schools should result in greater resources being put into schools.

I mean, you may be right that this isn't actually how things work. Supposedly people care about the NHS, and yet democratically elected officials continue to run it down. Plus the British public appears to have actively chosen lower economic prosperity and "sovereignty", which obviously means fewer economic resources for public infrastructure. We are in a very sad time where nationalistic ideology appears to be the most important thing to most people.

So anyway, you may have brought me over to your side. People in society make irrational and selfish decisions all the time, so why would anyone bother improving state schools.

I tutor SEND (I'm an EOTAS tutor employed through the LA). The education system for SEND in the UK is inadequate and very often fails to meet need. Most of my students are funded by the LA as part of an EOTAS package so this is regardless of parental income. These are the "lucky" ones.
I love my job but the reality is I am privileged in that I can afford to do it; as a qualified teacher of 21 years I would be earning considerably more as a class teacher. I don't get a penny if I am off ill or in any of the school holidays. And, at the end of the day, I need to be able to pay my rent and bills. This goes some way into explaining why there are not that may of us about and why there is a waiting list for tuition.
But I totally understand why a parent of a SEND child may choose to pay privately for tuition if they can or could. Lots of children in mainstream with SEND are being failed - not due to anything the schools are doing wrong - but because schools simply aren't able to meet need for many reasons (not least, budget restraints).
Ultimately the right provision for SEND should be accessible to all but this is sadly far from being the case.

As long as people are honest with themselves and others that they are buying privilege then they can as unusual do what they want with their own money. But as @Fearfulsaints points out about it being segregation by sending to a private school that makes it very different to tutoring. Just admit you are keeping your kids away from the great unwashed and own it. My fave is my die hard Labour voting mate who sent his kids to private school. Going on about the rich and privilege and unfairness but being a massive hypocrite by buying privilege.

My kids are in state schools, I like the shorter days and being closer to home. Also I thought there were some really lovely kids at local state school, and I wanted DC to be like them. They also have tutors, and the state they attend is considered best in county.

If DH and I died tomorrow, they'd inherit about 1.5 million each (after house and business sold).

I think my DC are more privileged than many in private school. Just having your health is a privilege. I think private school is a bit of a gamble, it's a lot of money that may or may not pay off. I know a few private school kids who's lives haven't turned out as their parents would have desired/ imagined. I once heard someone describe it as a scam.

I can't say I'm politically against private school or tutors.

Oh, but I forgot to address this point:

"How can the 1 million parents who use independent schools magically make a difference where 18 million have failed?"

The wealthiest and most influential people will be in these numbers. They have more money and a greater ability to change the system for the better.

"general dissatisfaction with the state of the schools should result in greater resources being put into schools" I would love that to be true but it sadly isn't.

Unfortunately when polled on list of priorities, education barely makes the Top 10. I conclude that as a country we simply don't care about education. So politicians don't prioritise it.

I would LOVE for state schools to be properly funded but they aren't and won't ever be, no matter which government. So it falls to individual parents to plug that gap, whether by tutoring/home schooling/reading to their DC/independent schools.

I just find it mind blowingly hypocritical that many parents have this moral stance about independent schools, whilst using the very best state schools + tutoring + buying their DC every other advantage in life. But no, independent schools are the problem!

I don't think private school necessarily is "better" than state. In my opinion, as a very experienced primary teacher (22 years soon!) the most important aspect for a child (if no additional needs) is parental support/input.

It could also mean a literal lottery for oversubscribed school places (which Brighton tried for a few years).

We can't afford private school but we live in an ok catchment area and pay for the DC to do extracurricular activities so I wouldn't judge anyone for using private school.

" The wealthiest and most influential people will be in these numbers. They have more money and a greater ability to change the system for the better" but statistically there are more wealthy and influential parents using state schools!

Like I said, Sutton Trust clearly says that the top 200 state schools contain the same cohorts as the top public schools based on parental wealth/status/jobs etc.

But why would you assume they would have any incentive to change "the system", as opposed to change the individual state schools that their own kids are now forced to attend?

Perhaps they would use their immense privilege to come up with some new system where, I don't know, schools which get very good grades are given additional funding to reward and incentivise "great results and teaching" - resulting in even lower funding for poor performing schools? Or come up with new structures for donating money for new buildings "run by local parents for their local schools" - resulting again in huge amounts being funnelled just to their schools?

Private school parents today aren't making a whole bunch of donations or wielding influence on behalf of other unrelated private schools, so why would they suddenly go do it for some state school in the NE?

By resilience I mean all the things mentioned here - large class sizes, lots of disruption, teachers appearing and disappearing, a pretty shoddy building with a tiny library, etc etc. She is learning to find her own path through all this, to create her own opportunities, to make things better where she can (volunteering, joining the school council, etc). She goes to my son’s primary school to help out too. Some of it is hard - there’s a lot of challenging behaviours and it’s a very mixed school. But some has been wonderful. It’s amazing what the teachers can do with ancient equipment and a bit of creativity and I think it’s teaching my children a lot.

But none of this happens in a vacuum. At the end of the day they come home to our house with two parents and lots of books and food and safety unlike many in their schools.

I think the thing people think about when you say 93% of children are in state and it’s still not improving is the relative wealth of that 7%. Also in my city it’s more like 20-25% of children in private so the divide is really impactful. And to be clear I absolutely put my time and energy into improvements and have not bought my way into a specific catchment. I am on both PTAs and I created and volunteer at the first school library at the primary school. I go to community council meetings and on litter picks and I help out at clubs… and work full time. It’s important to me, but I don’t think badly of other people for choosing something else. I assume everyone has a key issue they will put their time and energy into and it doesn’t have to be the same as mine.

I agree with some of this but I don't view school as something to be survived. I don't view it as survival of the fittest, I want DD to enjoy it. I personally don't think it's a positive thing for her education to be impacted by other disruptive pupils.

You are also assuming that DC in independent schools don't experience setbacks in life eg family dying, illness etc.
DC in independent schools live in the real world and mine get enough "resilience" building opportunities outside of school. She doesn't live a bubble wrapped existence just because she goes to a certain type of school.

Hang on. Many many very wealthy people send their children to state schools. By state schools - of course usually grammar schools or the best ‘outstanding’ state schools. Do you think these people have a greater ability to change the system due to their wealth and influence? According to you they would. So why don’t they?

I’m not anti private school - but I do feel upset that all these affluent families with huge privileges have unlevelled the playing field. It is actually a lot worse than it was 30 years ago.

I went to state primary in the 80s and got a place at what is today a super-selective. Back then it was a local-authority school that selected pupils based on reviewing our exercise books and a short 1:1 interview of the pupils who applied. I had learned two instruments for free (recorder and guitar) in Year 2 and 3 then I switched up to two other instruments (subsidised group lessons at school with borrowed instruments) and had got to grade 4 in both which I think made the school more interested; I was otherwise just a bright kid who liked reading. That secondary school got me straight As and a place at Cambridge university. That would be probably an impossible route for me today.

Now, my old school gives most prospective pupils 11+ style entrance exams; if you can’t pass that, you can try to get in based on proven musical abilities (and grade 4 wouldn’t cut it).

So of course everyone is hot-housing their kids with tutoring. Who cares if your average rich kid is then able to beat the poor bright kid? And many people will say super-bright will pass the exam without tutoring. Sure, a few will. But for many it is untrue. Many superbright kids still benefit from to be taught ahead of the level of Y6, or learn to question-spot or pace an exam and handle nerves or deploy an exam strategy. You can learn to pass those entrance exams convincingly. But not a single state school I’ve ever heard of offers coaching; so the playing field is most decidedly NOT level. The tutored kids are always advantaged.

There is no free music tuition now. That’s a huge loss.

Kids usually have two working parents, so there’s no time to walk to the public library after school - it is closed by the time after school club ends.

Meanwhile my primary school was fabulous: teachers were free to teach anything! I learned huge amounts very quickly - we raced up to year-7 level maths and we didn’t waste time on SATs or waiting for the teacher to get the classroom under control because some of the 20% who have SEN are kicking off again.

Nearly all SEN resource is targeted at kids who struggle; only a tiny amount is invested in SEN of the gifted or talented.

So what I object to is the loss of access to a great education in the state sector. It is geared towards mediocrity. If there was a free alternative that aimed for greatness then fine. I wouldn’t care if you tutor or go private, knock yourself out.

But you’re cheating the poor kids like me, who are bright but lacks the privilege that has become necessary to access the best education on offer in the state sector.

I agree with all of that which is why it's ridiculous that some posters try to excuse the privilege of tutoring above independent schools.

The state school system is broken and yes, only those with ££ can navigate through it, either with tutoring/parental support/independent school etc. It is completely disingenuous to say tutoring is fine but independent schools aren't.

I’m anti them. But I don’t judge individuals who need to make choices based on what is best for their child. I’m actually more against tutoring than private schools! It pretends to be a meritocracy rather than bought. But we all know it isn’t at all fair. At least paying is transparent.

You’ve got no idea what I do or don’t oppose or what I am trying to do about anything from one single post where I broadly outline my views, which are that private schools (and indeed the two-tiered state school system) upholds massive inequality in our country. In fact, I am involved in lots of professional research initiatives and campaigns to facilitate equal education, as well as having decades of experience delivering tuition and literacy/arts programmes in underserved communities across the UK and the globe.

Elite private schools serve a symbolic as well as a practical function is my point, which is precisely about the elevation of 1% above everyone else and who does or doesn’t hold power to make change.

As I said in my PP delivering an equality of education across the board is actually not how this county is set up to function, so in order to bring about change in that direction you would need such sweeping cultural and political interventions it would be impossible - that would include dealing with the housing crisis, food poverty, addiction, mental health and more - including the middle class accepting that their children are not inherently better or more deserving than poor/working-class children. Until that happens there won’t be a public appetite for change. That doesn’t mean I can’t ideologically oppose the current system, while also understanding that some people choose to elevate their children above others through educational and networking options. I am not going to spend my life trying to convince other people my vision of a socialist democratic education policy should be how they personally make their choices!

@PurpleThistle7 Thank you for answering my question.

OK so basically you can't answer my Q so you are diverting. That's fine because no-one else I have asked has been able to answer it. Which leads me to believe that it hasn't been thought through and is just an ideological soundbite.

Let's not pretend that many state schools are not also enclaves of privilege. The ones in solidly middle class areas with big houses, versus the ones on council estates. The difference is immense. Compare those leafy state schools with private schools, there is very little difference, so if you are at one of those, by privilege of living in the catchment, give your heads a wobble.

What is your question? How would state school only provision bring about better education for all? That would obviously depend on a complete change to the way schooling functions in this country - and a complete redesign of our education system. In the first instance closing private provision, ensuring a mix of incomes/socioeconomic background in each local school and changing allocations to avoid gaming would mean those with most wealth/power had a vested interest in making sure that all schools meet a threshold of quality. It would also raise the diversity across the board in all schools - part of the entrenchment of poverty and inequality through education is about the fact that children in the poorest areas are schooled with other children in similar circumstances and the stress and physical results of poverty are reproduced at school where teachers are firefighting across the board. Research shows that in programmes where children socially mix there are improvements across the board in things like literacy and critical thinking, not just for the poorest but the most privileged too. So in my view yes doing away with the private/state system would bring about positive change. I also think it would be positive to remove the symbolic role of elite private provision in upholding our class system. Obviously the finer points of a new system would need to be worked out at policy level and can’t be summarised in a social media post.

I am not this poster, but from my perspective, one of the few things that an individual can do to effect change is to opt out of supporting private education with our money and our decisions.

Some people just live their values (in this case, sending their kids to state school rather than further entrenching a two-tiered system). If more people shared the same values and did the same, then you may see broader change in society.

I appreciate that you are hung up on the fact that state schools in wealthy areas have better resources and outcomes. But most people don't really have time to campaign for huge changes in the educational system, and it is in fact a political decision not to go private.

My child attends a nice state school in a nice area, and I can assure you that the private school(s) up the road have more attractive facilities and offerings in most cases. I would rather my child attend the state school because (among other reasons) this is an (admittedly small) thing I can do to avoid further entrenching systemic inequality. Even just going to school with less wealthy children hopefully will help my child to see herself as part of a greater community which she can feel invested in, rather than being surrounded by entitled brats who think they are too good for yucky state-run institutions.

Anecdotally, the children who left my child's state school for private have been absolutely insufferable, entitled bullies. This leads me to believe that there's something in my position on state v private.

No that clearly wasn't my Q 🙄

This was my Q:
If everybody’s children had to attend local provision my view is that the facilities, standards and quality would rise across the board". This is just bollocks trope - 9 million DC go to state schools Vs 550K in independent.
So how can those 550K make such a fundamental difference where the 9 million can't? It's statistically impossible unless the 550K in independent schools are innately superior? Which I don't believe they are. So how would they improve things?

Don’t even dare considering living in an enclave of privilege!

Lots of scolding on this thread.

Wow so you are basing your prejudice on the anecdotal examples of a handful of DC? Well that's critical thinking for you

And this sums it up perfectly: rather than being surrounded by entitled brats who think they are too good for yucky state-run institutions.

You are talking about children. Would it be acceptable for me to throw around insults about state school DC? I presume not but you feel it's fine to do it to independent DC.