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"

Do you know what makes me laugh on here?
When parents post that they are worried about how good their child's state school is, certain posters quickly jump in and say,

'it's the home life that matters. They'll be fine as long as you give them a good drounding at home. Homelife is the single most importsnt factor.' etc

Yet, when it come to parents who use private day schools then apparently they will 'grow up unable to communicate with normal society. They will grow up intolerant snobs who are educated above theit intelligence.'

How does that work? Imean if parental influence is the biggest factor then as long as you teach them respect and tolerance at home. As long as you don't bring them up in a bubble they'll be fine, right?

Or doesn't it cut both ways?

grounding not drounding obv

? is that to me mamatomany?
Do you have me confused with the OP?

"It is a shocking myth that almost everyone who pays does so to be elitist."

Yup. This is actually my biggest fear and reservation in the taking the decision to use independent schools. I want my kids horizons to be broadened not narrowed. I'm doing it soley for the quality of education, all the social rubbish is anathema to me.

What about when you have tried the only primary offered to you by the LEA, which was absolute shite?
If the LEA refuses to offer you anything else, because the half decent schools are full, do you leave your child to be miserable and underachieve because of your principles?
Yes, you can join the board of governors, and try and turn it around, but that takes time. If your child is desperately unhappy and being taught very little because they are trying to make themselves invisible in class, how long do you leave them like that? A couple of terms was enough for me to see my poor ds suffering terribly. I had no choice other than accept the shit school, go for "indie", or home educate.
I chose "indie" school. Interestingly, many of the other parents there are also at "indie" school because they have also been failed badly by the state system.
There are more people in 4x4's at the good state schools near us, than at the indie schools, if that's how you judge wealth.. They are the ones who managed to buy an expensive house in the right catchment, but somehow it's more acceptable to buy a school place that way.

now the salaries need to drop and they need to teach smaller class sizes, therefore less stress and sickness, more productive schools.

Private school teachers often are paid less than state. And indeed, they get the benefit of less stressful classfuls, less constraints on their teaching, which is why you'll find excellent teachers willing to work for lower salaries. I don't remember any of DDs primary teachers being off for anything other than maternity leave.

I'd love to see someone sell the concept to the unions!

sorry, typos a-go-go

you could just rent a house in a good area.

what about all the parents who are forced to send their kids to shit schools because they cant afford the fee paying alternative? you are lucky in that you can.

thats exaclt why there should be no fee paying schools, we should not have a situation where the rich can move thier kids out and the poor are FORCED to accept whatever is left over.

''ll be sending my DC independent because I'm academically minded, married to an academic, and we believe that the kind of education we got free, on the state, is no longer available. '

Yup, that's our thinking too.

Very wanky. People call it that on here a lot. Just makes me think of a school where you might go to play edgy guitar pop and grow your fringe like Brett Anderson circa 1993.

Kinitted, renting a house in a good area can cost even more than buying one.

Renting a house on my street - in the catchment area for one of the very few decent comprehensives in this city - costs about £2,500 a month, ie more than private school fees. The mortgage would probably be less than that, but because there are lots of students around here, there is huge demand for rental property and rents are sky-high.

"thats exaclt why there should be no fee paying schools, we should not have a situation where the rich can move thier kids out and the poor are FORCED to accept whatever is left over."

But that's exactly what's happening in residential areas around the country right now, especially in cities. Rich move into the good catchment areas, prices go up, the poor move out and are forced into the lower achieving schools. It's always been the case that money buys priviledge.

So knittedbreats, should there be no extra curricular stuff that more affluent parents can pay for?
Should there be no bigger houses with acerage for children to play in and swing from trees just because some kids don't have any garden?
It is fair that some parents can take their children on an 8wk visit around Oz and NZ whilst others are lucky if they can afford a week in a caravan in Devon?

I'm asking because there are many things in life which mean that all children do not have a fair and easy upbringing. Which school they go to is only a small part of that.

yy

yy was to The Beast

GrimmaTheNome love that bit about the unions being opposed to smaller classes. It's the government

Do you really think any government would trade off smaller classes against lower wages?

They already get it cheap by employing TAs and HLTAs to teach classes which should have qualified teacher in front of them. Oh, and the classes are STILL 30 and more.

When rolls fall in a school, are classes reduced in size? No, they're kept the same, 30+ and teachers laid off.

exexpat, that was my point in an earlier post where I explained that the last catchment we lived in had a minimum house price of around 500k (many 1m+ though not ours).
How is that any different?

We could rent a house in the very expensive catchment of a good school, within about 200 yards of it, get in the school, then move back to our house in a more affordable area, as we are not wealthy. Is it more morally acceptable to work the system this way, or pay for "indie"?

If you were in the government and nice and rich and privileged and sent your children to your private alma mater, how much time would you spend worrying about pleb schools?

a. None
b. Less

no there shouldnt be extra curricular activities that are only for the priviliged few.

you cant compare the size of the house a child grows up in and the educational opportnities that should be available.

how many kids from state schools do rowing? very few, how many state schools offer rowing? pretty much none. how many kids from state schools would row if they had the opportunity? lots. it is unfair and unacceotable to have xyand z for the well off and fuck all for the rest.

this horrible stinking attitude that is so ingrained in the class ststem of this country stems from fuedal times, except your place and that be that. we treat the poor in this country with a similar level of access to mobility as we used to offer to black people. its fucking disgusting. how anyone can stand up and support private education is an absolute disgrace. what will it be next healthcare?

So affluent parents who send their kids to state school should not be allowed to join the rowing club too?

GrimmaTheNome love that bit about the unions being opposed to smaller classes. It's the government

Is it? I can't think of any evidence TBH.

Do you really think any government would trade off smaller classes against lower wages?

I can't think of a single reason why they wouldn't, except they know darned well they'd never be able to make that trade.

I'm sure the unions wouldn't be opposed to smaller classes at all but do you really think they'd accept the trade-off?

everyone should be rowing.

no private schools but everyone rows

my new manifesto- rowing for all :)

We need to change everything. We need a revolution.

Now.

What I am saying is that the biggest difference IMVHO is not between private schools and 'outstanding' state schools in very affluent areas. The difference there is often negligable.

The biggest difference is between the experience of those children in affluent areas reagrdless of whether it's ind or state and those living on difficult estates and attending failing schools.

It's not as simple as state Vs private. Do you honestly think if private schools were abolished those parents would start sending their kids to the failing schools a few miles away?

And it's naive to think that state school using affluent parents who also pay for ballet and rugby and horse riding are not influencing the overall education of their child.