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"

I love how this always turns into a slanging match.

tbh, If I could affford to feed fillet steak and organic food, and afford to pay to let them exercise with the best coaches. Noone would have a problem (or would they)

I don't but I can afford to send my kid to private school, it doesns't affect your child directly.

watfordmummy - this is precisely why I say what I said above, that education should be "free" (i.e. paid for by taxpayers,. like most "free" things) and not a shop-bought commodity. It's not like fillet steak.

JoanofArgos

Can't you see though why people may think, if it's good enough for Ruth Kelly, Diane abbott et al, why not us.

My other bugbear is the huge proportion of politicans who have had the benefit of a private education themselves. Who are they really to tell us where to end our children.
I was always vehemently anti-private. I mean, rabidly against it. And then I thought about how other people have enjoyed privileges I haven't over the years.
And I also think about those people who I've admired for their political views over the years, such as Paul Weller (think Red wedge in the eighties)who have all sent their children to private schools.
Now that I am in the position financially to send my children to an excellent school (which happens to be private) I'm thinking why the hell not?

But it is 'free' me sending my kids to a school I have to pay does not impact upon the education your child receives.

It is exactly like fillet steak.

I don't think that all education from private schools is btw better, it is different and costs money! It does not mean that your child is educated any differently!

Who makes the best employees?

Well, doubtless it depends on the sector. My DH (the product of a mediocre private school, he can't understand why his parents sent him there rather than GS) used to manage and often recruit PhD level scientists and the like. He has commented to me that nearly all the applicants would be either from GS or private (sorry comps, that's simply his observation of what arrived in the in-tray), and the former were usually the best in practice. He has bemoaned the 'entitlement' issue with some of the privately educated - in science you have to be able to really do the job not just put on a good show.

His conclusion is we need more selective state schools and scrap mediocre private ones if this country is ever going to flourish again.

I'm the first to wonder what the point of mediocre private schools are. I never understand people opting for private esp at primary when said school is on a tiny plot and offers less in the way of facilities and breadth of curriculum than the state school up the road.

I tend to find you get 2 types of parent who use these (massive generalisation but simply based on my experience)

1)Parents who simply want to pay and would never consider anything else. They are generally paying for the exclusivity.

2)Those parents (much as they may annoy Seeker and UQD) who felt that their sensitive, not particularly academic child was being lost in a class of 30 or being bulied.

So, they may appear pointless and mediocre to me but I guess they are exactly what some parents want. Just shows that there is no such thing as a fee paying parents in the collective sense. We are, in fact, a very diverse bunch just like state school parents or parents in general.

I have a feeling the "it's just like buying [insert name of consumer item here]" needs to go on the bingo card. Can't argue with people who don't get it.

Yup. Its not the same at all. I'd be interested to know if theres any answer to a question I put earlier though:

^its not 'just like' because your choice of exercise venue doesn't really matter. Education and healthcare do really matter, which is why the rights and wrongs of private education and healthcare are more complex.

On the one hand, they are so vital that ethically its impossible to argue against the proposition of equal access to excellent provision.

On the other hand, in a real world where resources are limited and all-round excellence can't be achieved - what then do you say to someone fortunate enough to have excess income? That they can spend it on any stupid material thing they want but not on the very things that matter most? That too, is (IMO) unethical.^

The issue here, if we're all honest, is the relative poor quality of state education. Politicians for generations have been saying that they want to improve state education to the point where no parent feels the need to pay and go private. And yet, the gap in performance between private and state schools grows ever wider, despite past Governments spraying money at the problem.

When will they realise that it is the egalitarian ethos that imbues the teacher training institutions that holds our state-educated pupils back? That and the ?child-centred? learning and the fostering of ?skills? over imparting knowledge. Plus the refusal to select/stream by ability.

The Govt?s proposals to make universities seek lower grades from ?poorer? students get my blood boiling. Do they not see that this will devalue any state school pupil?s education and create the moral hazard whereby it will no longer be in schools? interests to get higher grades from their pupils? Indeed, getting higher grades will make it harder for subsequent intakes to get in. Talk about removing an incentive to improve state education.

"Can't argue with people who don't get it."

Exactly what I've been saying :)

There's been one post which has convinced me what a great shame it is that we can't get rid of independent schools.

LadyOfTheManors.

I wouldn't want to destroy the schools which simply try to fulfil potential (unless the state sector is one day able to universally do the same) but I'd really like to get rid of being able to buy into the Old Boys network. But then, if you shut down Eton etc no doubt they'd find another way to perpetuate this...

If you shut down Eton there would be a great number of people working as governesses etc which would mean outlawing home schooling as well.

"Can't argue with people who don't get it". UQD, are you talking about yourself there?

Me too, Grimma. I have no idea how you overcome the problem though :(

Yes, that though had occurred - ban private schools and you'll revert the really privileged people a couple of centuries back to private tutoring.
Or they'd ship their kids abroad, since many board anyway, and there would no longer be earnings from 'top' schools educating foreigners so it'd be yet another net drain on national wealth.

Reality is a bugger to deal with.

Ok, but to UQD and others, I would genuinely like to ask a serious question.

If state provision was massively improved and then recognised by all as being an excellent standard would you still think it wrong that other people paid for a school that offered the extras above and behond that.

I mean if both the local state secondary and the local independent offered the same standard in terms of education but at one you could pay to top up with all sorts of other things that those using the state sector could also purchase outseide school. Would that be acceptable? If the education bit was more equal.

Or do you think it is ethically wrong that some parents could still afford those extras?

This is a genuine question and always confuses me.

I partly ask because Seeker mentioned yesterday that she thought many parents who use independent schools weren't honest in their reasons.

So I often wonder if for some people the equality of education is just one part and if they're honest, they also find it unfair that some parents are able to afford the extras too.

Hildegard: I am talking, as you well know, about people who falsely equate education with consumer goods to make a rhetorical point.

Betty: I'd prefer to talk about the system as it is and not how we'd like to to be. But in a sense what you describe already happens, because music lessons and sports lessons are available "extras". We're not talking about core provision there.

But there's no point in onjecting to something if you're not prepared to discuss an alternative, surely?

I'm not talking about sport and music btw. I'm talking about stuff like during Y5 lesson on heart/lungs, two of the parents who were cardiac surgeon brought in a life like practice thing that surgeon use to train and performed as mock operation. Also, Y3 doing the Romans and the school hire a company of actors to come in dressed as Roman soldiers and announce they are taking over the school. The children had no idea and it was all very dramatic and was to help them empathise with the Celts. That's what I pay for and consider to be extras.

My point being that however much we raise standards in the state sector, the state budget is never going to be able to strech to stuff like that.

I also think that standards in the state sector in a lot of places are fairly high already btw.

I know you were, UQD. But you have so many fixed assumptions about other people and their motivations that you often appear not to hear anyone who doesn't fit your stereotype. Instead, you revert to the same old mantra about paying for education not being the same as paying for a [whatever consumer item it might be]. Now I think about it, you definitely qualify for inclusion on the bingo card.

I think BettyD asks some good questions, and I also pay for education precisely for the sorts of reasons that she mentions.

To be fair on ds's state school, they do a lot of things along the lines of what you describe Betty. I don't think it's just a case of money - it's imagination and enthusiasm that's lacking where these things don't happen. It's a shame more children don't get these opportunities (in whatever sector they're being educated).

BettyDouglas - lots of schools buy in extras like that. Drama practitioners, visiting writers, etc. (I work as one of the latter.) Often it's ring-fenced budget from G&T, often it isn't, and I've noticed it's not necessarily the schools in the better-off areas - often the reverse is more likely. So what's your point?

And btw, unless I've misunderstood, I think you confuse two things above, one of which is provided on a voluntary basis by parents and the other which would be bought in by school.

Interestingly, just about every pro-private school poster in this thread and every other is guilty of the conflation/confusion I mention above in my Wed 11:40 post. It's telling that nobody has addressed this or tried to separate the issues.

Hildegard - the reason I "revert to the same old mantra", as you put it, is that it happens to be true. I don't get why I need to change argument just because it's a bit close to home for some people.