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, I'm simply saying that is would not become an equal system but yet I would expect less people to bemoan the fact because it would become more equal for their child.

I didn't say it was the same thing, Joan.

But, if I live somewhere where the state schools available for some reason won't provide a good education for my child, and I'm lucky enough to be able to pay for an alternative so that she comes out with more between her ears - shit yes, it'd be wrong not to. She's my responsibility ultimately, not the state's.

People with disabilities are among the most marginalised in society - right now I wouldn't begrudge you paying for better care for your LO.

But surely you recognise that there is mainstream private education which gives more privilege to the privileged?

As an 'intelligent person' I can hold both these views, I think.

It would be helpful (at least, a start) if more people admitted it was a luxury - many do not. There was a whole thread on this very subject about a year ago.

I kept using the very phrase "luxury item" about private education and was roundly shouted down by a large cohort of its supporters.

My ASD child also needs specialised help. He gets it within the state system (and no, we don't live in a nice area) because he is entitled to it, our taxes pay for it, the infrastructure IS there, and I bloody well insist on it.

All this crap about children's "very survival" depending on private schooling

Our primary schools are not workhouses. Most of them are fucking excellent, even in crap areas. They have dedicated, well-qualified teachers. And books, and even pencils!

Well I did just that about 3 posts ago. I've never suggested otherwise.
...But I don't think the 'luxury' tag applies if your child has a specific need not being met by the state sector.

I like the word sprog

'If my daughter does get into any university it will be entirely through her own efforts -part of which is being informed how the system works.'

What you actually mean is she'll get on because of the inside information you have. She may deprive a state school child from a less savvy background a hard fought place

You are obviously a bright guy UQD. To coin one of DP'd phrases you do not wear your learning lightly.

It is therefore difficult for me to comprehend how you could be so very hypocritical.

'DP's'

Chocolatecosmos, I think everyone understands the reasons why people choose to opt out of state education.

I object though on a bigger level to the very existence of a set of schools which aren't available to 93% of the population and all the privileges etc that are bestowed upon that small proportion of people in the long run.....

I agree with all of that, Stiflersmom!

Most of our state schools are excellent. But as I keep saying The biggest difference is between good state schools and bad state schools.

Nobody is saying that your ASD child is not receiving excellent care but many state schools are not providing the necassary support for children with SLD.

But Betty I thought you were only going private for the extras - do you really not think your child would learn to speak and communicate effectively in a state school?

I am just paying for the extras. I was talking about SWC's child.

Ok so if I say that I would spend money if a child of mine had cancer, and that I understand why some people whose children have specific and severe issues have needs with mainstream schools can't meet, could we just stop throwing those arguments around?

I just don't understand the difference Joan, between paying for extra healthcare that others can't access and paying for extra education that others can't access. Why are they different? And why do your principles apply to one but not the other?

I don't think anyone is "throwing these arguments around"

it is a valid part of this debate.

so, if it is taken as read that dd1 has needs which are addressed at the Private school she is in, why on earth can it not be true of dd2, just because she is NT?

but, that aside, if I am able ot choose what I see as a better school for dd1, then of course I am goign to choose what I see as a better school for dd2. why would I differentiate between my own children?

And children with broken legs get all those crutches that healthy ones don't?

You keep claiming your kid as a special case and daring anyone to think you shouldn't send him private - I'm saying ok, fine, special case. Not necessarily indicative.

Health is different because it's life or death - schools are not. The issue for me with schools is that it's the next generation you're moulding with ideas about segratation and relative worth. Whereas you don't get people waltzing around with a superiority complex because they got cured of cancer.

Well to be fair to SWC, her posts asking those in favour of a blanket ban to address her concerns were being ignored.

Just to be clear, I have 3 children, none of whom have those sorts of SLD being discussed. For me, private education is a luxury. I have never suggested otherwise. I am quite sure I could have sent them state and 'topped up' with lots of extras and they would have been fine and received a very good education.

However, something else was on offer, above and beyond a good education. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it, so I bought it.

Is it unfair? IMO, it's certainly not unfair to all those whom my DCs would have gone to state school with. Unfair to others in the country? Perhaps; but no more unfair than the postcode lottery that is state schooling in its current form.

Oh fine then SWC, I think you're a tit as well for going private and despise you as much as I despise anyone else who goes private, does that make you any happier!

I begin to see why UD won't argue with you!