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"

JoanofArgos

I didn't send my kids private.

I don't despise you for your beliefs, I despise you for your attitudes and behaviour. Does that make you feel better?

I copletely agree that if oyu take SLD out of the equation, private schooling is a luxury.

but, aside form the fact that dd1 can now learn, relax, and progress, her school gives her all sorts of opportunities.

why would I not give those same opportunities to dd2?

and those opportunities come because she is at a private school.

so, SLD aside, there is no way I would give different opportunities to my children.

This is now reminding me of the baby earpiercing thread where the OP started off saying it was immoral and disgusting. Then someone came on and said she did it for religious reasons and the OP said, 'Oh ok then that's different. Then someone came on and said she did it for cultural reasons and the OP said, 'your reasons are ok too' 'But not everyone else!'

So, where do we draw the line? When I talked about the socio-economic situation in my catchment yesterday, Joan told me then that my case was obviously unusual/different.

Xenia, you repeatedly get things very wrong. Lots of people work hard but not all can afford private school, some people don't work that hard and can afford to pay for private schooling. Please stop implying that affording private schooling for one's children is intrinsically linked to how much work a person puts in. Just because other things are unfair doesn't mean education or health should be. Every child in this country should have equal opportunity to achieve their individual potential.

Yowch, Onemorechap!

And no, SWC, I don't feel sorry for you, stop bastard well telling me what I mean.

~It could be said that people that don't work at a marriage fail, those that put the work in achieve that stable perfect family.....but it wouldn't be true would it? It would then imply that DV shouldn't have an effect, splitting up still fucks up your family, neither does it allow for the death of a parent.

ThePosieParker, don't rise to the bait with Xenia and remember she is no more indicitive of fee paying parents than the fat council estate mother who swears at her childrens' teachers and complains only when they're not allowed chips with every meal is a model of state using parents.

See it always difficult to draw a line.

And I for one would not want to an arbiter.

Health for example is certainly not always a case of life or death.

So someone may chose to pay for fertility treatment, when others are not able to do so. You can say all you want that everyone should have free access, but they don't, so should the rich couple not try for a baby? Are they wrong to pay when others can't?

What about braces?
Should a parent not pay for one, because another child can't have one?

Who gets to decide?

JoanofArgos.

Health isn't always a life or death issue.

DP, is disabled. It isn't life threatening, but it is life limiting. He recently had something supplied to him from the NHS which he needs in order to be able to walk. The thing in question was dire. He then paid £800 for the same thing supplied by a private company. Much better, although it's wiped up out financially.

Applying all of you arguments, you'd rather him hobble 'round than have paid for the better thing.

'us' not 'up.'

Socialism is always much better in principle than in practice.
...And I say that as a lefty!

I suppose I just struggle to understand who puts themselves forward to play God and say...you must not do this, or you must not do that. This is wrong but this is permissible.

For me there are always too many shades of grey to make hard and fast judgements.

...and easier to argue!

Much easier.

Once you start taking account of real humans and their stories, nothing is ever that straight forward, I find.

Right, 9 more posts left (after this) if anyone thinks they have anything new or useful to add.

I would just like to say I am heartened and amazed that over 1000posts this has rarely become personal or nasty.

That most people do their best and that you cannot pigeon hole either group.

Add message | Report | Message poster Normantebbit Fri 18-Feb-11 18:01:55
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.

I've followed this for days and it's been fascinating. Betty you've kept your calm and been very logical throughout.

It's not whether if you can afford it you can pay, it's whether or not such advantage should be for sale....that's the issue. Most of us would pay for better healthcare, it should be the case that money can buy it though.

Thank you, Tabliope!

I am aware that I am fortunate. I am aware that it's a luxury. I grew up in what can only be discribed as a slum.

I hope people understand that I am, as an ex teacher accutely aware of the unfairness in our education system.

But as I've said all the way through, I fundamentally believe that the biggest unfairness is not between my children and those at well performing state schools in good areas but between those state schools who are doing well and those who are not.

I would love it to be fairer for those kids but sadly, I don't believe that my decision affects their prospects in any way.

Posie, I just want to add that 'advantage' is for sale in so many ways. I honestly think my children at at an advantage from having a huge garden and lots of greenery. From having 3 holiday a year. From being taken to see interesting things and interesting places. From being fed a very good diet.

All these things put my children at an advantage in life. Many parents who use the state system also buy these advantages for their children. The 'life isn't fair' line is used too much but so many people whether they use state or private are buying their child advantages every day.

What the Left hate most is that some people are brighter, more articulate, more well-rounded, cultured, personable, likeable, ambitious and refined than others and these people will always be able to give their children an advantage over those that are not so gifted.

Abolishing private education and/or home tutors would make no difference to this.

Such qualities lead one to earn more money, to select similar qualities in a mate and to perpetuate such differences by siring children that will be similarly advantaged.

And yes, IQ is hereditary and largely ignored in discussions such as this.

Love it NoSuch!

..perpetuate such differences by siring children that will be similarly advantaged

Country's been going to the dogs since they stopped droit de seigneur ...

Perhaps those that are really brighter, more articulate, more well-rounded, cultured and likeable will also have more considered and compassionate political views ( than to vote tory ! )?

I really can't see how it isn't a good thing when people who can afford to pay for things privately, to do so, and free up state money for people who need it.

Why on earth begrudge anyone for not taking money from the state?

You can't seriously think that the tiny minority of privately educated people in the country are significantly affecting the tertiary education and career prospects of millions of others just because of their secondary education, can you?