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"

Oh, ski school analogy is great fun. (It speaks volumes that this particular metaphor should be chosen, doesn't it?)

Never heard a school being called 'indie'. I don't see why it's selfish. When I was younger and more naieve I would never have sent kids to private school but now, if I could afford it I would

"I was at Oxford a few years below him, so this state grammar school boy is just as good as him."

You've got to admit though UQD, DC's done pretty well for himself since leaving Oxford

Hey, c'mon...let's not go down the class war route, surely? I learnt to ski in the Army and went to a state comp.

But to address the concerns of those regarding paying extra to move their children up a class - what would be the point? If you're in the wrong class at ski school you have a miserable time.

If the money pays for extra tuition, which has the effect of pushing someone up a class, so be it.

I'm having a chuckle - what a silly post and you are obviously very insecure and feel intimidated by those choosing to send their kids to Indie schools! PS my DCs at state schools!

So, if one was in a ski school class and A N Other ski school child wasn't much good, but their parent paid for them to be put up a group, would you be irritated???

Would you feel it would be a bit annoying that not v good ski school child then got into top ski team because their parent paid, not because of their innate ability??

(Am thinking ski school analogy is working better than state v private school here...)

but mottledcat. the parents of A N Other wouldn't be paying to go up a class (unless, as NoSuch says, the money went ot extra tuition, and as a result better skiing), they would be paying for a different group. maybe one with a higher ratio of instructors to pupils.

unless you are suggesting that (royals aside) Eton et al take anyone who pays, rather anyone who can pass their entrance exam (numbers permitting)?

We started using private because our catchment school is failing and has bad Oftsed results.

We also chose it because it goes from nursery all the way to 18, so dd started at 7 months and is still there now at 6. DD2 is now in the nursery too.

Other reasons - she's one of 10 in her class. I think that's important. The school has a real 'family' atmosphere with the older children encouraged to look after the younger ones.

The fees are pretty much the same as I was paying for nursery.

Jobs of parents in dd's class - probation officer, Virgin tv installer, teacher x 3, HR Manager etc. No one seems to be 'rich'.

Our house is a 3 bed semi in a not great area, cost £140k 6 years ago.

Wages - mine are around £10k over average part time, dp's are around £5k under average.

So we do afford the fees by having an old car, a house in a slightly dodgy area, no holidays etc. Is it wrong to say that? Is it still bingo if its true?

I feel really sad that you can only have the choice if you have money. Seems wrong. But I'm not going to send DD to a failing school because the system is inherently unfair. Does that make me a bad person then?

If you genuinely think your local state school is bad, could afford to go private but don't because of your principles then fair play to you. Well done.

OK so they pay for extra tuition, and then they go up a class.....better??

Passing the entrance exam to Eton etc for some not awfully bright children entails extra tuition (if not several years at prep school....) which requires money, and not the sort that can be found by 'not having a plasms screen tv or foreign holiday' before anyone suggests that....

Aaaaanyway, the end product is that they have miraculously become much more clever!!!

*plasma obvs

The anti-private brigade hate the fact some parents choose to remove their children from the state system. They fail to appreciate that as a parent I didn't choose for my nearest secondary to be a 'specialist sports college' with crap results

What happened to gobehindabush? She never responded to my question about how exactly she was doing the best for my children by sending her children to state schools.

UQD: sorry about the "addressing" dig. It just seems so much a bureaucrat word, not a writerly one. I did mean it as a kind of compliment. Honest.

mottled, I don't agree with the analogy. Plenty of children get bad exam results in private schools. Plenty of children in both sectors are very thick and the average IQ is 100. YOu can't buy better exams. you can buy better teaching and your children can be lucky enough to be born in a home with educated parents who talk to them or be born pretty or with good health or a nice nature. Life is full of inequalities.

YOu might pay for your children to have goodf organic food whereas mine slum it on Tersco value chicken and may be your feeding of yours will get them better exam results than my children's private schools will achieve and by the way children work very very very hard to get any exams in both sectors. You don't sit in a private school and be handed A level certificates. You work very hard indeed with a longer school day than the state sector and probably with less scope to skive and likely with parents at home making sure you work too.

The interseting issue is whetther the private education heps you throughout life (as might the good food you eat at home or the fact your parents didn't abuse you etc) - is David C reasonably well off because not only did he go to Oxford with unequiet d but because of the private education? So the state schoolers might get into Oxbridge but if you roll forward 20 years will we see perhapsd simply because of difference of accents and a heap of other things including resilience and confidence, that the private pupils continue to do well later and the Oxbridge state schoolers struggle hampered by class, accent, low expectations or whatever? Or not?

Fair enough jonicomelately. That would drive me mad.

But it's the bigger picture really that needs to be addressed.

Xenia, of course you can buy better exam results. Why are all those private A level/GCSE tutoring colleges in Oxford/Cambridge/London in business then???

"But it's the bigger picture really that needs to be addressed."

Yes, but how, and by whom? And what are we all supposed to do in the meantime? I was let down when in education. Is it fair that I should make my child experience that as well?

Joan, you wrote "every bit as offensive as I find the suggestion that my daughter at her state comp won't learn manners and morals, or doesn't get to do any 'extras', or that there aren't any/enough motivated parents at the school to make achievement a priority." and I take issue if that was directed at me. I wasn't talking about state schools in general or your daughter in particular. I was talking about my own experience and my own choices. Your daughter's school may be fantastic: I hope it is. My local school is not. There are great state schools (my friends and family teach in them!) but not all are, and it's disingenuous to pretend that's the case.

I see the point you are trying to make, but it only holds true if, as Xenia says, you also eradicate faith schools, schools in areas with expensive houses and schools with sibling policies. So how do you have a system of truly comprehensive education that is equal for all? Because what we have no certainly isn't equal, even within the state system itself. Children are being terribly let down, and that is very wrong. Wwhy does doing the same thing to my child, when I can avoid it, make for a more worthy choice?

You seem to imply in your sarcastic comment above that you do think that it's motivated parents that make a difference to a school, but that's only part of it, and it can't make a difference to the other stuff. Only a change in govt. policy, teacher training, educational theory and attitudes within education will do that. No determined parent can change the curriculum in the course of their own child's schooling.

It's taken me ages to write this in between doing other things so the discussion has probably moved on now, but as you had taken the time to reply I didn't want to leave without responding. I'm getting out of this discussion now though - seen it too many times on here before where everyone just becomes more entrenched in their positions and the same ground gone over again and again.

But only if the child is bright. You cannot make a silkc purse out of a sow's ear. You can of course improve results by the parents helping at home, by having a quiet home to woirk in, by feeding the child well making sure it sleeps and all that stuff which we could equally argue was morally represensible for mumsnet posters with chidlren in state schools to do when others at the comp have children with little food in the house and parents on the floor shooting heroine. Life isn't fair.

Picking simply on fee paying schools but not unfairness between state schools or what happens at home or a myriad of other things is just silly. The moral wrong is in parents who could afford to buy a better education but choose instead to spend the money on holidays and shoes. Those are the mothers who ought to be in teh stocks or those who are idle at home when they could work and pay school fees. They are the ones we should be villifying - hark at you putting yourself above your children. Shame on you for not working to pay fees at a better school etc.

Omg. It's gonna kick off now...

jonicomelately Thu 17-Feb-11 21:05:39
"But it's the bigger picture really that needs to be addressed."

Yes, but how, and by whom? And what are we all supposed to do in the meantime? I was let down when in education. Is it fair that I should make my child experience that as well?

Exactly. Well said.

And that is what I have been trying to get at, Brianandhisballs, but no-one wants to give me an answer!

Children are let down in poor schools by:
inadequate teaching
a restrictive and unimaginative curriculumn
a repressive culture around health and safely that stifles creativity and risk taking
a lack of discipline
a lack of ambition for every child - endless making excuses about how social ills make it hard for children to learn
etc etc

I really, really don't see what the 7% of us who chose private education can do about any of that, without being (a) in the government, (b) training as teachers, (c) sitting on governing bodies of schools. And maybe some of us are doing those things.

Hmmm...not wasting my time on this thread anymore.

Brianandhisballs - do you have one child?

Oh..... sigh and shrug.

The assumption that it's about wanting to bring children down is depressing and wrong.

FWIW I do disagree with faith schools - less sure about sibling policies, but just because I have some reservations about some of the admissions policies of some schools doesn't mean I don't think the state system is right.

It's not me who thinks motivated parents are the key factor - it's a lot of the people who've cited that as a factor in choosing private.

I think it's a bit silly to say I can only think that if I am prepared to uproot my whole family in year 6 stage to find the least well-performing school, find a house for sale in its catchment, and then get a place there. Not terribly practical for most people, really. About as impractical as finding school fees would be for anyone living there already would be, I should think.

Bibbity - two, one at the school and one at the integral nursery.