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"

UQD - Don't be mean, I've read the whole thread although I may have skipped a few posts just tell me again in a couple of sentences, pleaseeeeeeee

lol at SWC describing anyone as unpleasant

the personal insults are flying now!

So if my ASD son attends a normal state primary, does that mean I love him less, because I choose not to buy him a different world to live in for a few years? Is it only him, or do I not love my "NT" son either? Is it OK if I keep my principles in place for the non-SN one, but not his brother?

The SN angle is a huge, obvious cheap and unworthy diversion. Paying for education is paying for education.

I firmly believe that if private schools were abolished and things were more equal 'up top' there would be none of these threads. Parents like UQD would not be on here complaining about inequality in education.

In fact I'm quite sure the vast majority of them wouldn't be giving such inequalities a second thought. And children at the bottom would be out of sight, out of mind.

So what would happen to kids like the children of SWC and Silverfrog? Nobody would be interested and yet there'd be nowhere for them to go. My kids would still be fine. We attend the local state schools which are excellent anyway and pay for extras on top.

I'm quite sure that 'selfish' label is too easily pinned on me when it fits rather nicely elsewhere.

hellooooooo

I am not swc (lovely though she is ). and you are not engaging with me, either.

I have already set out - no agenda, no landmines. I amnot going to ambush you with "aha! I knew you wanted my disabled child to only work in the mines" or similar.

I want to know, genuinely, what you think of the choice I made.

not knowing anything about SEN education is not the point here.

I had the choice of a (allegedly) very good state SN school. in fact, i had to take my LA to tribunal to stop them sending my dd there. other parents take the LA to tribunal to get their children into there. horses for courses.

I chose the private route. and yes, I would have vastly preferred not to pay that £50k per annum. yes, that's right, roughly twice as expensive as most other (boarding) private school places.

I also chose private for my dd2, because it suited her better too. if I could have found a school offering her what her current one does, but wihtout paying, do you really think I wouldn't have sent her there?

so, should I have done so. I outlined my reasons for choosing dd1's school earlier. the same reasons as I had for choosing dd2's school but with vastly more at stake.

are you really saying I should have left dd1 in a school where she was withdrawn, isloated, unhappy, not even speaking she was so scared, and certainly not learning anything, just so that all children can start form an equal footing?

OK - I don't think education is a commodity like food or cars because I think it should be, like healthcare, available to everyone equally.

And when I say people conflate the two things, I essentially mean that it doesn't seem to have occurred to them that there may be people in their neighbourhood, even their street, who are like them and share their concerns, but are not in a financial position to go private. Going private deal-breaker is surely going to be financial, not ethical.

That should read, 'we would attend.

But it shouldn't be discussed in terms of one's own children.

'If you can get your child into a great state school, then I am sure most would'.

Actually some people wouldn't dream of it.

There is another tier of people, not the sort of people on this thread (apart from the obvious one :)) who would never even consider educating their children in the state system. Hence David Cameron suggesting his wife is a bit edgy and down with the proles because she went to a day school. Let's not forget them.:).

silverfrog - what I think, essentially, is that you were fortunate to be in a position to make a "choice", and that your child could just as easily have had the same special needs without this. Your situation flags up an important point for improvement in the state sector, of which there are many. Even its supporters admit that.

It is so bloody rude to assume that just because I pay, I have no understanding that the majority cannot afford it. Of course it's a luxury. I've never suggested otherwise.

But it's a luxury to go to an excellent state school too when thousands of kids have no chance of that either.

Actually, how about we abolish private schools for most people, but let there be fee paying ones for children with special needs, such as SWC and silverfrog. Seriously.

Though I'm not sure it is a luxury if your child's very survival depends on it.

If my child had ASD and there was a private school which would drastically improve his life chances, I'll sell my soul to pay for it and bugger any principles.

BettyDouglas, I think many posters on Mumsnet do argue that it isn't a luxury, but a necessity.

I don't think education is a commodity like food or cars because I think it should be, like healthcare, available to everyone equally.

Should be. But in the real world that's never going to happen. If my DD had some cancer, the treatment for which cost more than the NHS could afford to fund for everyone - shit, I'd spend every penny I had with no hesitation. Wouldn't you? Wouldn't it be immoral not to do everything you could for your own child?

UQD - Thank you, I get you.

but, and don't hate me it was going so well ...

I know there are other parents who care just as much for their children as I do and who care about education but can't afford private and have no choice but the (crap) state school near us. So because they can't afford private should I also not pay for it? Why is me depriving (in my eyes) my dc going to help them? Genuine question and sorry if its a bit Education 101 Ive never really been on one of these threads before.

Also you said earlier not to pretend its an affordable choice but I think it actually is. It costs the same as nursery per month and most who work have to pay that bill.

My DP works in a factory as an engineer, earns about £18k, we still afford it for two. Im not stupid enough that I think everyone could but a lot more could than you seem to imply.

And, as we all know, having cancer is the same thing as not being able to study latin, or sitting in the same room as a naughty boy.

While there are people like UQD who would use his inside contacts to get his sprog into Oxford, there will never be true equality in education.

Another (probably dumb) question for you UQD, you mention healthcare. I think in some instances that treatments available overseas have been cures (or life extenders) for illnesses that couldnt be cured in the UK. So you'd need a lot of cash to pay for that treatment in the US. So, if your child had one of these illnesses and you could afford to pay for the treatment in the US would you refuse because other people couldnt afford it?

And if not, how is it different from paying for education?

BettyD, that's a bit bizarre. When you say

"...if private schools were abolished and things were more equal 'up top' there would be none of these threads. Parents like UQD would not be on here complaining about inequality in education. In fact I'm quite sure the vast majority of them wouldn't be giving such inequalities a second thought..."

you seem to be implying that it's a good thing to keep the inequality of a two-tier system so that the articulate and educated middle-classes, like me and many others on here, keep banging on about it and keep inequality in the public eye! And that we'd have no idea it was happening otherwise, because we're only moaning when it affects our own children.

This seems... a little perverse.

It's like me saying you need a bit of sexism so that articulate feminists like Natasha Walter can keep writing high-profile articles denouncing it, because otherwise it would only affect the disenfranchised and inarticulate and they wouldn't have a champion.

Well said wordfactory.

This is a can of worms and it is easy for people who have done well out of a system to dismiss the experience of others.
UQD seems to have great faith in academic selection and streaming. I have less so having seen children ridiculously underestimated in schools. Research shows that two children of similar ability, but streamed differently will perform to expectations. We all have preconceptions (yes, even teachers!) and statistically some children fare less well in schools ( white working class and black boys)- hence the Diane Abbot syndrome; if you can afford it, get out. Similarily although teachers do their best it is difficult to provide for complex needs in a class of thirty.
This seems to be a case of my particular form of privelidge is fine ( as many posters have pointed out)but yours is not. At least recognise that your experience may not be other peoples.

joni - thanks for the use of "sprog". If my daughter does get into any university it will be entirely through her own efforts - part of which is being informed about how the system works.

I wasn't pitying you, SWC. I was simply saying that I don't think your case is the same.
In fact, Joan has just added nicely to that very argument; Perhaps latin is not as important as cancer but I'd say my child learning to speak and communicate with the world actually is.

I shouldn't have compared it with healthcare really - it doesn't stand up. Education can't really be compared with anything else, not even that.

Why SWC? Because, as you have pointed out, your child needs specialised help.

The vast majority of children don't need specialised help (unless you count specialised help to get 10 A*s at GCSE....).