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"

There was no simple way of removing the unfairness without abolishing the grammars. I don't especially believe that they should have abolished them. I would've adored a grammar education. I was top set for everything so assume I'd have got a place despite my background.

What I fundamentally object to is being lectured to on the issue of fairness by people who had wonderful educations by virtue of their grammar school places, which gave them the opportunities to go to Oxbridge when DP and I, in our respective crappy, financially depressed hometowns ground out the best results we could. These people then have the frigging temerity to object to my children having the good education.

I actually agree, Joni! I did the best I could with what I had.

It is disingenuous for MC parents who use state education to suggest that their children in state education are receiving a comparable education to the one I had and the one that many children around the country still have.

I've said it twice on this thread already but the biggest difference is not between good independents and good comprehensives but between good comprehensives and bad ones.

SWC. Yes.

On the one hand, we have the ethical principle of good education available to all, regardless of ability to pay. Unarguable.

On the other, we have the ethical principle that each parent is responsible for doing their utmost for their children.

Small - I totally agree with you. It's no-one else's business, it's personal choice. Admittedly private education is not a choice which is open to everyone. But if you splash your cash on flashy cars a big house or luxury holidays no-one bats an eyelid - choose to give your children what you personally think is best for THEM, and you get crucified.

The rule seems to be you can spend money on anything so long as its not something that really matters.

I'd really be interested to have someone explain that to me.

What about cars ? I drive a volvo because it has the best safety record and i have an isofix car seat because i can afford it, should we ban NCAP rated cars because some people can't afford them and might be killed due to a lesser safety record, surely that's a greater unfairness, the implications are far far worse.

There's no logic or consistently to the left's position. The true equality would only come if we bred clones which might indeed be perfectly possible so every child has the same IQ and looks and then you educated and let them live away from their parents like in the early Kibbutzm in a house apart from the parents and thus you eradicate the unfairnesses that come about through genes and environment or you pay doctors less than street sweepers which China tried for a bit or you send intellectuals for cultural retraining to Siberia in mines as in the cultural revolution in China. Most of all this has been tried and it fails

What capitalist societies like ours need is enough people educated to the level we need and to ensure that those born with good genes adn other potential have some equality of opportunity. The left has failed quite miserably on this because the dragging down to the lowest common denominator system does not seem to take chidlren out of poverty in a way that selection by IQ at 11 for grammar schools did manage for some (but by no means) all children. It still remains possible to do well from a por home. I know loads of people in the City who worked very very hard to get an education in very bad schools but they are rare.

If state school parents think state schools are as good as private then they can hardly object to private schools.

If state school parents think privaet schools are better then surely they as loving mothers should get themselves off their sofa and out to work to get their children the better education some state schools bring.

If they think private schools are much worse they can just chuckle at the waste of money 6 or 7% of parents choose to expend.

but it is a libertarian issue. We are free to earn what we choose. We are free to send our chidlren to school or not, to send them abroad to school or not and we are very lucky to live in a country where those rights are not eroded.

What capitalist societies like ours need is enough people educated to the level we need

Yes. We do need that.

and to ensure that those born with good genes adn other potential have some equality of opportunity.

No. Every child needs 'equality of opportunity' - opportunity appropriate to her abilities, that is. Opportunity to fulfil potential. The country needs top-notch scientists and engineers but it needs skilled mechanics (etc etc) too.

Completely agreeing with Betty again. That has always been my ishoo with the grammar system. It's only completely fair to clever but children from poorer homes if you can measure their ability against all the children who were hot-housed in prep schools or given tutors by middle class/professional parents. But you can't, so it's a nonsense. There are no doubt thousands of equally or more intelligent children not in Grammar school because their parents did not play the necessary games to help them get there.

And, Grammar schools seem to give better 'value added' scores than most bog-standard secondary moderns or comprehensives as well, which is the mark of a good school after all social problems have been factored in. I'm not keen on the idea that the state will pay to educate very clever children better than they can be bothered to educate mine, who are merely slightly above average. I see no reason why very bright children cannot be dealt with by streaming/setting in the comprehensicve system. That way, my children, who could never pass the 11 plus in our area because they are all decidely lacklustre at maths, could learn History or English at the same level as the Grammar school pupils, which they could cope with.

And take ART and DRAMA for example - our local Grammar doesn't appear to have anything less than an A grade on its radar at all - are all those very brainy children all Van Gogh or Laurence Olivier as well?

SWC, I'm interested in what you say about a 'hard case' ie yours. Now, whilst I'm not suggesting I am in your position, I think my argument earlier on the thread about the catchment I lived in was a similar hard case.

Houses 500k upwards, 50k cars outside our catchment primary etc. Whether we used it or not would have had absolutely no affect on the school at all.

So the argument that if helps the state system just doedn't fit.

She's right you know. If you took the 7% of private school pupils and put themn in the state system they would not, as a rule, be pitching up in failing schools in the middle of sink estates.

The country needs top-notch scientists and engineers but it needs skilled mechanics (etc etc) too.

And do you think you can't be either of those depending on which school you went to ?
That's simply not the case, but what does hold them back is bad and inaccurate advice, poor teaching and lack of ambition none of which can be addressed easily or with money alone.

I don't understand what 'good genes' are. Are you saying that rich people are genetically more intelligent? That they are better?

That is a dangerous argument.

If state school parents think privaet schools are better then surely they as loving mothers should get themselves off their sofa and out to work to get their children the better education some state schools bring.
I know loads of people in the City who worked very very hard to get an education in very bad schools but they are rare.[Loads that are
rare, really?]

Why are you so obtuse? What if both parents are working and are something valuable like nurses? What if a parent has to stay home because they're caring for a child with SN? Or disabled themselves?

What exactly is good genes?

Liberatrians are generally selfish people that have a wealth of opportunity and therefore little understanding of the lives of 80% of the population. Some of the most awful people with the most violent and nasty views have been libertarian.

And of course Capitalism needs people to do well and earn lots, but these good earners forget the low earners keep them in their job and lifestyle.

But people are more likely to become rich (or at least self-sufficient and affluent) if they are intelligent. And in turn they will know what to do/not do to produce a 'nurtured' intelligent child. The 'nature' side of intelligence may or may not be a major factor; the jury is still out, and probably always will be on that.

And do you think you can't be either of those depending on which school you went to ?

Its a heck of a lot more likely if you go to a good school of an appropriate type, isn't it?

At state school in certain areas no child thinks they can become a doctor or have even heard of traders, project managers and those sorts of jobs.

Friend of a friend does admissions at an Oxfrod college.

Says he'd love lots more state school kids turning up, and blames an awful lot on a) paucity of knowledge and ambition for their pupils by some teachers and b) schools drive to lift results for the Bs and Cs rather than stretching some of the As.

As I said before in a not terribly academic school 30 odd years ago we usually had half a dozen or more boys doing Oxbridge.

Because we always had. It was usual

If a state school doesn't send kids to Oxbridge this year... they probably won't next year.

Xenia's point of view, ugly though it is to be seen written in black and white, does, however reflect a more truthful view as to why people see 'nothing wrong' in paying for an education.

Whilst I can understand the sentiment that one should be able to buy whatever one likes, and it is no-one else's business etc., it wouldn't matter with education except for the fact that those 7% who are paying for their education are disporportionally represented at universities and thus top jobs.

No doubt there would be many, many children who are bright enough to gain entrance to a selective private school but whose parents cannot afford it (even without foreign hols, flat screen tvs blah blah blah) who are losing out on university places due to an equally bright child whose parents can afford it.

Now most people on this thread will say 'so what?' I'm lucky I can afford it/go without luxuries etc, which is fine. And there is the difference, I don't happen to think it is fine.

If everyone were educated under the same system, at least it would be a level playing field for entrance into further education.

I have no personal axe to grind. My older DCs are/were at top universities the same ones as Xenia's DCs but without the benefit of a private education. However, those universities are chock full of privately educated students, do we all think it is because they are much brighter than their contemporaries at a not v good state school??? Surely the children from the not v.good state schools may be just as bright but have not had the benefit of smaller classes, no disruptive pupils, in fact all the reasons people pay for private education in the first place!!

mottledcat we may have crossposted.

One reason why there's disproportionate representation is that not enough kids are put up from some state schools.

Oh, and I know one teacher who's a partial sort of reason.

"You won't like Oxford, it's full of posh people. Go to Leeds".

You can't see anything wrong in paying for education surely if you also accept some children will have better parents or be born with better health or IQ. If we changed this from paying for education to paying for tutoring as Blair did or moving to a good state school or parents reading to chidlren.. if we started saying okay that's not fair therefore all parents must never read to chidlren and we will coral the children into identical foster homes to weed out all advantage... that's what the anti private school people must mean if you take their argument to its natural conclusion. If they spent more time working than posting on mumnet about education they migh be able to afford to send their chidlren to better schools anyway. They are the ones failing their children and society, not those of us who work hard to pay fees.

mottledcat - it still comes down to: why would I not give my children this opportunity, because other children are not able to have the same?

swc and I have both posted a few times about our situations. and I think she is spot on - n one will comment on the "hard" cases.

but my dd1 gets a whole lot more provision (at great expense) than a lot of other children with ASD. does the fact that the other children don't get it mean I shoudl not fight for my dd to have it? does the fact that at her last school, she was failing as badly as all the other children mean it ws right that they shoudl all fail? or is it right that she is now in a school where she is not failing? and is progressing, and is happy, and learning, and maybe, she just might not be fully dependent on tohers for her needs all her life?

because, if you listen to and believe the LA, my dd getting this provision is at the expense of a lot of other people's children. is that my dd's problem? does it mean she should have remained non-verbal for the rest of her life?

bollocks to that. it is neither her problem, or mine. I fought long and hard ot get suitable provision for dd1. why on Earth should I have accepted the lowest common denominator education for her?

but it is not available to all. it came after 3 years of fighting the LA, and taking them to Tribunal more than once. it is not a process for the fainthearted.

does that make me angry for all the other children? yes it does. but this is not a system I can change form within - to have left dd1 there would have meant she would be reliant upon others for eveythign, for the rest of her life.

does it mean I won't take up the opportunity for my dd? not for a second.

So, you'd rather stick to your rather questionable ethics and damn the damage done to your children's long-term prospects?

Marvellous. Well done.

Oh well, at the end of the day, it's only ourselves that any of us have to answer to.