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"

Yes, it's very hard to understand their position. if the educatino is better they are saying deprive our chidlren of it and yet they don't in other aspects of their lives deliberately harm their children by not reading to them, shooting heroin front of them, beating them with sticks. It's an untenable position borne of jealousy.

I can't see anything wrong with paying for better education.

I can see something wrong with paying for 'contacts', where less able people may end up with oxbridge places and 'top jobs' (still less able despite having had better educational chances, people who have overconfidence rather than true ability)

No idea how to deal with the latter. Just abolishing private schools in the UK wouldn't do it.

I posted a while ago on the dire situation my son was in- making no progress,low expectations, school defensive- a while back.
Well he is now in a private school receiving a fantastic, rounded education. Work has appropriate level of challenge and he is thriving. I am making a decision to spend most of my income on this and is one of the best decisions I have ever made.

Some people are lucky in the state system, others not so and it is a bit smug to critisise others for what may have been difficult decisions. I am not happy about the fact that other children may be having a similar experience as my son in the state system but , lets face it, those children are unlikely to be the children of the average mumsnetter who would generally be informed enough to intervene in some way. If I had not been able to scrape the money together I would have home educated . What I definately would not have done is leave him in that situation to make some kind of political point.

It is a conundrum.

On the one hand we are told we are wasting our money.
Okay, fine. what's the problem.

On the other, we are told we are buying priviledge. Okay, well don't we all do that for our children?

Don't we buy/rent the nicest house we can?
Don't we keep it warm, fill the fridge with nutricious food?
Don't we buy books? Music CDs?
Don't we pay for music lessons? Ballet lessons? Brownies?
Don't we buy cars so we can take our DCs to Brownies et al?

Don't we give our DC the greatest privilege of all? Our time.

All these things give privilege. Many many children don't get them.

indeed, swc.

or, of course, they could say that it si ok for us to choose that for our (ASD) children, but then how could they justify vilifying us for choosing it for our NT children?

as you said earlier - if the argument does not stand up for the "hard" cases, then it probably doesn't stand up at all. after all, isn't this whole thread about one rule for all

grimma I know what you mean about contacts.

But to be honest contacts are just people you know...friends and acquaintances.

DH's and mine include a lot of people who would be considered useful to know. I suspect we might be considered useful to know.

But it's not pre-planned. It's just who we get to meet.

I would also say to anyone, that in this day and age, you can get yourself some contacts whatever your background.

The age of social networking is upon us.

Have not read the whole thread, but puzzled as to why just because you are 'forced to live in' a 'grammar school area' you are also forced to send your child to a grammar school - there must be alternatives maybe they are just not good enough for your own child?
Seeker comes across as not only supremely selfish - she is depriving the children whose parents would actually appreciate a GS place, but also hilariously hypocritical.
There are probably many parents on here who send their children to indies rather than state schools,because, (just like Seeker!)they live in areas where there are no acceptable alternatives for their children
Back to the OP - independent is a more accurate description than private, and indie a useful abbreviation - do those who object always laboriously type out Dear Husband etc in full in their posts..?

completely agree.

They will never address your situation SWC.

Or they would have to either tell you you are doing the right thing, or tell you to go back to your state alternative, which was clearly failing your child...

It's a bit like someone saying they had to buy a life saving drug. What do we do? Tell them to die for the sake of equality?

Another point that gets mostly swept under the carpet is in respect of home educators.

If private schools are undermining the education system because those supportive interested parents have no vested interest in state schools, then that must surely apply to HEers. Doubly so, since those parents are so committed.

Do thos who wish to abolish private education seek also to abolish the right to HE?

Almost everyone who supports private schools on here is doing one of two things, or both.

• equating education with a purchasable commodity like coal-fired central heating or organic vegetables. (I'm sorry if it annoys people that I keep saying this, so here's the deal - I'll stop when you do.)

and/or

• equating a lack of "choice" or "options" with an automatic right to have an alternative which is available only at an exorbitant price. (And please don't insult my intelligence by trying to claim that it is "affordable".) It simply doesn't seem to occur to people that one does not automatically provide you with the other.

On to the objections about selection now...

I haven't read all this thread (too long) but I'm getting the gist. I initially thought you were speaking about schools with lots of Indian pupils

I've been asked why I went to grammar school (because my parents chose it for me, is the obvious answer, but I did have some say in the matter, albeit only at the age of 13 when I wasn't necessarily the best person to ask).

By implication, I am some sort of heinous hypocrite for supporting a divisive intellectualist hegemony when I would deny other parents the Magic Power Of the Wallet.

What I would say is this: don't assume that I (or anyone else, but I can't claim to speak for them) necessarily want to keep the state school system that we currently have in every detail. I would be happy for some form of selection to exist, because this would reinforce and develop the principles which already exist within the state system (yes, they do, actually). Please don't (deliberately) misinterpret this to mean that I want a return to the blunt instrument of the 11-plus, or even widespread re-introduction of ONLY the two options of grammar schools or secondary moderns.

It is disingenuous and mendacious in the extreme to claim that the offering of equality of opportunity in education means "assuming everyone is exactly the same". This is not the underpinning ethos of equality as it relates to gender, age, race or sexuality - the acknowledgement of diversity is a key element of these aspects of legislation. Why, then, should educational opportunity be misunderstood in such a deliberately obtuse manner?

Plus, the idea of the state school system as some sort of sausage factory which produces obedient little clone-drones is a hilarious fallacy, just as the "knife-wielding ASBO kids" cliche is. Both could only be put forward by someone whose experience of the system was at best glancing, and at worst gleaned only from newspaper articles.

Does 'Equality of opportunity to fulfil potential' come close to the ideal?

I htink UQD would say he did address our points, swc, as he did (in fairness, lol) say " almost all parents on tis thread...". I guess the missing ones are us

but it doesn't actually go very far towards addressingn our points, does it?

No, I'm not ignoring special needs parents. But you must see that it's a whole separate can of worms requiring its own thread. SN has its own section on here. (Not saying that to imply you should not be posting on other threads - just to point out that MN considers it deserving of its own section, so it's a huge and complex topic. Would you rather I wade into commenting on your specific situation and be berated for not appreciating it properly?)

Forgive me but I don't know what "NT" stands for.

None of that invalidates the rest of what I'm saying.

NT = neurotypical

not a terribly nice expression

I have a child with ASD, he attends a bog-standard state primary school. We fight for his needs when necessary, as do all the other parents when their children need them to. It's a normal British primary school, not the Magdalene Laundries.

Having a SN child isn't an automatic exemption from having principles, nor is it an excuse to throw out said principles because your child is different. It pisses me off when people try to pull that tbh.

If you've chosen to pay for education, it says all the same things about you as it would if your child had no SN.

UQD sorrt but that's a cop out.

You always always take the piss out of indie parents saying their children are super sensitive etc...

yet here are two parents laying it baldly before you.
Their children were not receiving an education from the state.
So they have paid for it.

Do you say they are wrong to do so?

It's an easy peasy question, not requiring a degree in education or semantics

I note UnquietDad you haven't addressed how the ability of MC parents to get their own way should be addressed?

I have no dog in this fight, but I'm unclear how you feel that presumably abolishing private schools & grammar schools(?) will address this inequality of provision and opportunity.

E.g buy house in "naice" areas; fake a religion (abolishing faith schools? could be a good idea).