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'm not going to confuse the issue by talking about SN schools because I'm conscious I don't know anything about them.

I don't give a crap about uniforms and posh buildings.

JoanOfArgos - and how do you 'ban them', exactly? Would this extend to all educational establishments?

Would these schools all get taken on by the State, thereby increasing the burden on the public purse?

And how about private home tutors?

Or how about looking at ways of raising the levels of state education instead? Like I said earlier, the Left wants equality - at any cost...if that means an equally sh*te system for everyone, so be it.

But if you wait for state comprehensives to have the same exam results and statistics and academically selective private schools, you'll be waiting forever! And that's really unfair!

well, as I just said - what dd1's school gives her are the same things (obviously differentiated) as a MS private school. smaller class size. better qualified teachers (for her needs). more extra curricular activities. if you want to go back to playing bingo, it also is a much nicer building, has better facilities, and has lovely grounds.

so, I sent dd1 there for pretty much the same reasons as I have sent dd2 to private school as well.

so, am I wrong in that?

or is it excused because it is absolutely clear that the private school (for my dd, I hasten to add) is getting far better results?

Ok, I don't think I have much else to say really. If you're going to just say the state system is shite, then there's nothing I can argue.

Comprehensives are comprehensive - or as near as possible. Of course their results aren't going to be as impressive across the board, because they can't turn away thick kids or poor kids, like the private schools can.

'But if you wait for state comprehensives to have the same exam results and statistics and (sic) academically selective private school, you'll be waiting forever.'

I think you've argued the pro-private point better than anybody else on here Joan.

Absolutely agree with JoanofArgos.

JoanOfArgos - so it is exactly as I say, you want to lower other children's attainments, in order to make up for that achieved by your own.

How negative. Why not seek to improve rather than pull down?

The really depressing thing, as UQD said much further up the thread, is how unbelievable it is that people just don't understand the basic premise that it is immoral to have an education system whereby a child's right to a decent education should be dependent on their parents' income.

I agree mottledcat. But that is the reality. It isn't the fault of the parents or indeed the children.

mottledcat - 'immoral'?? Seriously?

You sound incredibly naive. One might as well blow a gasket, getting oneself worked up about the way people don't do everything they can to further the chances of their children.

do you know what I find extraordinary?

posters have repeatedly refused to engage with me, and other parents of SN children, on this issue.

Joan cited her reason as "not knowing anthing about Sn schools"

well, the majority of posters on this thread clearly know nothing about private schools (or the reasons why parents might prefer them) but that hasn't stopped the comments.

SN schools, are schools, like any other. the private ones are (sometimes) in nicer buidings, and (sometimes) have better grounds and facilities. and osmetimes they are in pre-fabs, and have bugger-all facilities. a bit like MS private schools, then - a range of different schools to suit taste/need.

yet no-one will comment on whether SN schools are as much of n abomination as private MS schools.

why is that?

the fact is, I do not like what the state offers for dd2. so I have sent her to private school, as I do like what is on offer there. just as I have for dd1, except hers is a SN school (but the reasoning in the same - I do not agree with what the state were offering for her).

plenty of people are happy to comment on my decision as regards dd2, but none on my decision regarding dd1.

why?

I think immoral is putting it a bit strongly. Very unfair, certainly.

Where I live you can get a decent education:

• if you are Catholic

• if you are a regular Church of England attendee (though there is only one CofE secondary)

• if you happen to live in the (mainly expensive) areas within about 500m-1000m of one or two reasonable comprehensives

• if you strike lucky in the lottery to get into one of the two private-turned-academy schools

• if you live close enough to the city boundaries to get a place at a school in one of the neighbouring local authorities' schools

• if you are clever enough and have a low enough income to get a bursary to one of the private schools

• if you are clever enough and have a high enough income to pay for one of the private schools.

I know that is not fair. But I don't think the solution is to abolish private schools and force everyone into one-size-fits-all comprehensives, but to make the state schools better and give a real choice.

" it is immoral to have an education system whereby a child's right to a decent education should be dependent on their parents' income."

That is ridiculous. A child's right to a decent education is dependent on many things other than their parents' income such as where they live, what religion they are, whether they are regular church goers, what primary school they went to, how they perform in an exam...

Grimma - you may say people don't conflate these two separate things and maybe you don't, but that is the overwhelming tone of these threads. As to how a non-paying alternative would work - good question! I'm not an expert and it shouldn't be my job to come up with it. I'm just proceeding from the basic principle that education should not be an "Abel & Cole vegetables" commodity.

notrightnow asks me "how would the unsatisfactory state school in my area be improved simply by my sending my children there, instead of the local private school?" Well, I'm the wrong person to ask. You tell me how it is "unsatisfactory" first, and why not maybe ask some of the parents who actually send their children there, if you know any of them?

How did a situation come about where some comprehensives are "more equal than others", I wonder?... Terrified middle-class flight to the faith and private sectors, perhaps?...

Not all children are the same and the comprehensive system assumes that they are.

Anyone here been skiing?

Had lessons in ski school? Remember how they stream the classes by ability - beginner, intermediate, advanced?

Imagine if you'd been put in the wrong class.

The way to improve the state system is to allow schools to run themselves, re-introduce selection by ability and give all parents a voucher to the value of what is spent on each child...which can be topped up by their own money if they wish.

A proper free market, in other words.

exexpat - I agree that we should be striving for improvement in the state sector, but it would be nice to think we were genuinely "all in this together" rather than Dave just saying it in his insincere way.

While there remains a buy-out option for those who can, the possibility of improvement in the state sector will always have huge barriers.

"... and give all parents a voucher to the value of what is spent on each child...which can be topped up by their own money if they wish"

No no, you can't have people topping it up with their own money.

I am certainly not naive I can assure you, far from it!!!

NoSuchThing - I am afraid that your post betrays a great deal of ignorance about how state comprehensives work. Giving children equal opportunities is not the same as assuming they are all the same. That is surely a basic principle of "equal opportunity", so basic that I didn't really ever expect I'd find myself explaining it to another adult.

I am dubious that a "voucher" system would change anything. We often hear a lot about it, but I can't see how it would improve anything. I fear my perception of what education should be is a long way from yours - which is a shame, as we agree on the value of streaming by ability to an extent. A "free market" in education sounds absolutely horrific.

UQD, there will always be a buy-out option for those who don't want to be controlled by the state, and who can afford not to be. That's just the way of the world.

And, UQD (sorry to pick on you!), you can give equal opportunities ad infinitum, but there will always be a large group of people who don't want to use them, and who are prepared to inflict that attitude on others who do care and who do want to use them. What would you do about that?

Well, with the ski school analogy.....(hmm, it would be ski school but there you go...).

What if x and y aren't very good at ski-ing but x's mummy pays for x to move up a group, even though x isn't very good?

So that just shows up Dave's "big society" and "all in it together" bullshit for what it is, doesn't it? I'm not actually a "leftie" most of the time, to be honest, and I have a knee-jerk reaction to those who think the last lot would be doing a better job than this current one, but it really does annoy me to be preached at by an old Etonian. And I was at Oxford a few years below him, so this state grammar school boy is just as good as him. :)