to hate it when people talk about "indie" schools

[gobehindabushfgs]

in an attempt to make it sound cool, edgy and alternative? it isn't. it's private education. it's a right-wing, ultimately selfish decision.

"indie"

The unemployment rate for young people is shockingly high atm. As a child, growing up in a mining town with a very high unemployment rate I wouldn't think twice about sending my children to private school if I thought it would help them get a job.

Anybody who says that's unfair should understand that I have met people my entire life who have had more money, better educations and more advantages generally. So has DP who remembers vividly the long periods of his father being unemployed.

I wouldn't send my children to a private school to keep them away from state educated children. Why would I do that when I sent my ds to state and went to state myself. I abhore snobbery. When I see it on these forums I'm on to it like a terrier. I do however worry terribly about the future. We are not wealthy. We don't have anything to fall back on. I just want the best for my children. That doesn't mean I cackle at the thought of other kids being 'left behind.' All kids deserve the best education possible. I just don't like state education at the moment.

DontKnowWhat wrote:

"I?m all for free choice but tbh if you sent your children to a private school ? you?ve bought their university place and their A-Level and GCSE results. "

Sorry, but that is complete rubbish. One of my state-educated dc is on track to get 11 A*s at GCSE. She's bright, she's at a good school, she works hard.

My second child is not going to get 11A*s at GCSE, no matter what school he goes to. I will make it my business to ensure he gets the best out of his education and achieves the best he can, but he is not a future Cambridge first. He doesn't have SN, he's reasonably bright, but he just isn't in that league.

Look at Prince Harry - the best education money can buy and he came out with what, a B in Art and a D in Geography (thanks Wiki). And that's at a world-class good private school, there are plenty of people paying money for a less good education than the one other people get for free.

Sure I'd be lying if I didn't sometimes feel hacked off that we have fewer options for my dc's education than people who can afford to pay, and it definitely hacks me off that the education available on the state has significant shortcomings compare with what would be available if we could afford to pay for it. But then again I'm giving my dc an unfair advantage by helping with their maths, and sending them to music lessons, or ferrying them to sports events, or taking them on holiday.

The overall state of the UK education system is undeniably bonkers and unequal, and some children are clearly being failed by their schools while others are being coaxed and pushed and supported to achieve slightly higher than their natural level. And yes, if one was designing the education system from scratch, you'd be aiming for state-funded schools that would attract everybody regardless of income or status. But it's certainly not as simple as saying that paying school fees equals buying your child's results and setting them up on any career path they might choose.

I'm not being deadly seriously for Christ's sake - but if a kid from a private school got AAA at A-Level compared to a kid with AAA at an average comp... who would actually have the most academic potential? The one with smaller class sizes, decent careers advice and more contact time with teachers (private)? Or the one that might have had to self-teach bits, be in a class of 30 and had a lot less contact time (state)? Private schools are designed to spoonfeed kids for exam results and fluff up personal statements ? that?s why most parents use them. Children don?t go into private school as borderline geniuses and probably are only statistically a ?bit smarter? than their state educated peers but yet the Oxbridge intake of them floats about the 45-50%.

Luckily, I got to choose a decent state education for the first time ever in my life. Just wish I went to a half-decent high school so I won?t have to over-compensate by putting so much more effort in than my ?indie? peers.

seeker Wed 16-Feb-11 11:43:32
"Unfortunately some state schools are so bad, if you choose to support them, you are giving your dc a miserable childhood and poor education. Catchment areas for the best state schools have a lot less social diversity than at the indie schools around here."

I would really like evidence to support both these statements. Where are these schools which are so bad that children at them automatically have miserable childhoods and poor educations?

And where are all these socially diverse private schools? This is a line that is always being trotted out - and it's simply not true.

come to Bristol, it ticks every box.

Middle Class white schools, failing state schools, very diverse (lots of boarders from all over the world) Muslim independent schools (don't get me started on that gem) all girls, all boys, academy.........

awful term - and from what my private school headteacher friend tells me, its loathed by anyone who actually works in one!!

Don'tknow's point is pretty valid. You're average slightly dim child can come out of private school with good results, if not still good opportunities....state school's results more accurately represent a child's hard work and natural intelligence.

Dontknowwhat.

You are where I was twenty years ago. It made me angry like it makes you angry. I hated the fact I felt I had to work twice as hard as other people. It should've made me feel proud but it just exhausted me. That's why I don't knock private education.

What really makes me mad is not that fact that some parents are able to buy a bettter education but that education isn't available FREE for everybody.

I have to say I'd be seriously considering private if I lived in Bristol. The schools (well, lots/most) are dire. There's a state school on the edge of Bath mainly populated by Bristolian girls for that very reason.

Having said that I'd probably move, if it was more affordable.

What gets me smallwhitecat is that if you had a thick child and enough money to send them to a private school why would the ant-privates not understand why parents would want to do that

I'm not anti private.....if I could afford it my dcs would go in a heartbeat. But the reason people pay to send their dcs there is surely to get a better, and therefore easier, education? Otherwise why bother? If you didn't think they'd get better results and you aren't trying to segregate them from their local community (which I can't think is the reason very often) then why send them?

Jenai...dc1 is off to secondary in a couple of years, we are hoping to be out in the sticks by then!!

Theposyparker, I don't pay for easier or exam result. I paid even though we lived in an area nationally recognised as one of the best for stste education. As I said earlier, if you told me they'd come out with the same Alevels, I'd still pay. I'm paying for the experiences they get, the amazing breadth just not available at a state primary. Not available at all private schools mind you, but certainly at the one my DCs were at.

Don'tknow, Don't you think the state educated kids in areas like we were in would still get all that help and input? When your parents live in a house costing upwards of 500k and ferry you to violin, extra maths, ballet, horse-riding etc, you're going to do well. When your parents are doctors/lawyers/teachers/bankers etc and that's the ebnvironment of all your friends, your upbringing is going to be pretty similar to those neighbours who go private even if you went state.

I always say it but the difference isn't between those who went private and those who don't it's between those whose parents are motivated and interested and those who don't have that privilege.

Sorry, Theposieparker.

smallwhite cat I just want you to know that I don't think your ds is thick and I think you are doing brilliantly by him
xx

has anyone actually answered swc's original question?

are parents who send their children to private school like Jigsaw and Treehouse as elitist, snobby, and selfish as other private school parents?

Sorry smallwhitecat.

You've totally misinterpreted my post

I perhaps wrote it badly.

What I MEANT to say was in response to people who say private school is for thick rich kids. My point is if you are rich why WOULDN'T you send your child to a school that would help them the most (ie private)

It was in no way talking about your situation.

so it is OK to call kids with learning difficulties, dyslexia or below average intelligence thick, so long as they are rich?

well that's OK then.

The reason this arguments are utterly pointless on mumsnet seems to be that those who don't agree with independent school occupy a little bubble of bitterness where no one who has been more fortunate, whether in opportunity, upbringing or sheer luck can POSSIBLY understand how tough it is for people that haven't had the same opportunities. They firmly believe that there is no possibility of empathy, and that no one luckier or better off than them, no matter where they have come from and how they have got there can possibly empathise with those who aren't as financially well off, and any comment about people having made any kind of sacrifice is met with hollow laughs because there is no way that those with a good income can even understand the concept of sacrifice.

On the other hand, the anti-independent schoolers also believe that they understand everything about the lives and motives of people who send their children to independent school, better than the parents understand themselves. The varied reasons for sending children to private school are dismissed as the anti-independent schoolers know better and refuse to entertain the thought that there can possibly be any reason but snobbery. There are jeering remarks made about bingo cards and, for example, wrap around care, but no one seems to offer an alternative solution if the local independent school offers wrap around care and the opportunity for both parents to stay in work and the local primary doesn't, it's just dismissed as "Yeas, but really you're just a snob aren't you? Aren't you?". All independent schools are like Eton and full of overpriviliged children who will grow up to be bankers and fox hunters and all sort of other terribly stereotypical "upper class" things.

So it's never going to be a debate, and there is no point explaining or trying to justify reasons for sending children to private school because, in the main, the people who are anti-independent school aren't listening, as they believe they understand entirely what those who use independent schools think and anything that doesn't fit into their sterotype of an independent school parent is dismissed as a lie.

So, utterly pointless.

well that is really on the one hand and on the same hand

but anyway

"So it's never going to be a debate, and there is no point explaining or trying to justify reasons for sending children to private school because, in the main, the people who are anti-independent school aren't listening, as they believe they understand entirely what those who use independent schools think and anything that doesn't fit into their sterotype of an independent school parent is dismissed as a lie."

Pot, may I introduce you to my friend, kettle?

I would never call people with special needs 'thick.'

I was making a wider point as I've tried to explain.

It is...but it's true. It's the one thing on these threads that drive me nuts. the 'snobbery' assumption.

I was writing it as "On one hand it is believed that people can't empathise with what they haven't experienced" and "on the other hand people who are anti-private school understand everything about the motives of people who use independent schools, even though they haven't done that themselves".

But however many hands it uses its still pointless arguing about it