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'll pay for private schooling, not least because the families of privately-educated children are more likely to take an active interest in their children's education, thereby increasing the likelihood of my daughter being amongst motivated and driven people...for whom there are no limits other than one's own ambitions - very different from what I experienced at a state comp, where I was discouraged from applying to Oxbridge because I'd "be disappointed if I didn't get in".

Didn't stop me though

OK , UQD.

"It sees that when this issue is discussed, people often confuse/conflate/blur (deliberately, in some cases) two quite separate things:

(1)Their ethical or principled objection to a state-controlled education

and

(2)The availability of/ability to obtain an alternative.

It rarely seems to cross their mind that the purchasing of the alternative depends only a little bit on (1), but, practically, for most people, in great part on (2)."

What do you mean, this hasn't been "addressed"? (And you, a writer, using that word!)

1. I have objections in principle to state controlled education.

1. I can afford one lot of junior school fees. Given my dislike of state education, I am very lucky to be able to do so. My other children's fees are paid for by scholarships. Not everyone who would like to use private education is that fortunate.

Where's the conflation?

Thank you Hilde!

Jenai, I was a state school teacher and often saw shades of this and indeed, did as much as I could myself.
However, the quality and quantity if far more widespread in the private sector. I'm not suggesting the quality of teaching is necessarily better as the state sector is full of excellent teachers. But things like hiring a pack of actors to burst in, dressed in all thr regalia and 'take over' is the sort of thing that is usually out of reach.

*Interestingly I do know of one LEA that used to have a team just like this who went around in appropriate costume to support history lessons but the funding for it was cut long ago.

What's wrong with the word "addressed"? That just seems like a cheap shot because you don't have any real arguments.

OK, you've separated the two things off, which is a start. (Now that I've asked.) That is rarely done.

Isn't it pretty normal to want everyone to have the same access to heathcare and schooling?

ThePosieParker: I'd like to think it is pretty normal, but you wouldn't think so to judge by some of what's posted on here.

I agree with Hilde! I'm not sure what you think I'm confusing.
I understand your POV. That doesn't mean it's true or that I agree with it.

Also, I know full well that lots of schools buy in bits and pieces but having taught for many years, I know they are few and far between rather than regular inclusions in the curriculum.

BettyDouglas - to clarify, then (as if I hadn't already), you have mentioned one thing which is a voluntary provision - OK? - parents bringing in props from work, which costs schools nothing - and another thing which is a bought-in extra, the drama/history group, which either requires funding or requires parents to pay. You used both these things to illustrate the same point, when they are different. Clear now?

ThePosieParker, what I'm trying to ask is where is the line drawn?
Do you and others believe that the state should fund the sort of education my children get? If so, who is going to pay for that?

Or do you think that parents like me should accept less because that's all the state can afford to provide for everyone?

I have no issue with increased funding for state education and I'm happy to support that but what I want cannot possibly be afforded by the state. Should I not have access to it because we cannot afford to provide it for everyone?

No, the parents time was free but we had to pay for the loan of the expensive equipment! Now do you see?

In my day Indie was all about baggy jeans, Ian Brown and a couple of Es...

Like we (as in school) also had to make a contribution for the RAF to land a helicoper in the grounds and allow students intersted in a Forces career to have a nose.

JaJA The way I understand it, consultants do both NHS and private work and apportion time between the two. This means private patients get seen more quickly because either there are fewer of them or there is more time given to treating them.

So you are not leaving a space for someone who needs it, you are in effect jumping the queue.

This is my understanding although there may be a surgeon on this thread who can help out.

Also links that can only happen in a 4-18 school such as Y2 doing a contrasting location and talking over the internet to the 6th formers who were on their geography trip to Peru. The little ones could ask lots of questions and see videos streams etc. It just all adds to their experience in my mind.

You either have issues with state education or you don't. Some people realise it is imperfect but work to make it better as it is a good thing in principle.

But I do think there is a constant, insidious, gaslighting reiteration of the false idea that, if you have a big enough objection, you automatically have another "choice". As if the two were somehow mutually dependent.

The falsehood being put about, directly or indirectly - and often, I'm quite happy to admit, without people even realising they are doing it - is that your ability to go private depends on the extent of your loathing of the state system, and everyone who supports the state system must think it is all wonderful and perfect.

(Maybe you have issues with the NHS too, but you'll need it at some point, unless you are a very well and /or lucky person indeed - just about everyone's child has to visit A&E sometime. So it's not really a like-for-like comparison.)

Turkey

You have to understand that the Indie parents are actually subverting the system by paying to allow Hero and Tybalt to express their individuality instead of being crushed by the iron fist of state regulated education with its undercurrent of desperation and violence.

The Stone Roses, baggy jeans, Happy Mondays, Acid, those were the days..

Well, you made it sound as if you were only talking about the time given up. You didn't make it clear that there was a hire charge for the equipment.

Although I couldn't affprd Es all that often as they were expensive in 1992.

Oh UD..... you're just jealous. And a hypocrite. And a communist. And anyway, no-one gets his or her knickers in a knot when I buy a satsuma, so why is it any different to believe that poor children and rich children should be educated in different buildings? Hmm? Riddle me that one, and then shout HOUSE!

Joan: that's it! Perfect

Well, UQD, you clearly haven't read my posts. I have no hatred or issue with the state sector. I don't actually think, in the main, it's that poor and in many areas it is very good.

However, I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I can choose a school equally as good but offering a little more on top.

I could have gone state and topped up with bits and pieces. I chose the 'one bill' route.

You really are pigeonholing.

It's completely disingenous to pretend that all you did was consolidate your bills. Even if you don't understand that there's more at stake than that.

No 'hire charge' just a nice donation to the hospital for borrowing their rather expensive equipment. Anyway, I didn't realise it was an inventory or audit!

BettyDouglas Thu 17-Feb-11 16:52:15
ThePosieParker, what I'm trying to ask is where is the line drawn?
Do you and others believe that the state should fund the sort of education my children get? If so, who is going to pay for that?

Or do you think that parents like me should accept less because that's all the state can afford to provide for everyone?

I have no issue with increased funding for state education and I'm happy to support that but what I want cannot possibly be afforded by the state. Should I not have access to it because we cannot afford to provide it for everyone?

Well we know there's enough money in the country for education, because private schools don't run themselves on air, it's just that it's not directed at gov.

UQD, I would have thought most people could see the difference.

I don't object in principle to state-run schools, but I do object to the narrow focus of the national curriculum, Sats, constantly changing government targets, and general lack of interest in providing a highly academic education in the state sector (at least in my area - I know that is not true in all parts of the country). I can afford to pay for an alternative, so I do. I have friends who share my objections, but cannot afford to pay for an alternative.

I know that is an unfair state of affairs, and I would be very happy if the education system could be reformed so that there would be more genuine choice. At the moment, although I do have ethical problems with paying for a kind of education I know other people would like but can't afford, I am still sending my children to independent schools because that is where I believe they will be happiest. I moved DD to an independent primary in KS2 after I realised quite how bored and unhappy her brother had been in yrs 5 and 6.

I suppose my justification at the moment is that since the independent option is there, and some children are benefitting from it, why shouldn't my children benefit from it too. But I would be much happier if I knew that anyone who wanted it and could benefit from it had the option of an equally academic education.