to think there is not much difference between private schooling and moving into catchment area of a good school?

[knowitallstrikesagain]

Lots of people I know consider themselves to be against private education. But the vast majority of them aspire to live in an area with a good high school. These area are more expensive to live in, so basically they are talking about using money to get their children a good education, they are just going about it in a different way.

AIBU to think you should not be 'morally opposed' to private education if you move into a desireable area just to be near good schools when you are well aware that other people cannot afford this location?

shew at least your honest.

Sorry you're

^Thing is, most people want to do what is best for their DCs. (I do know parents who don't give a stuff what school their kids go to but let's disregard them for a moment.)

I think its the parents who don't give a stuff, that make everyone else flee from the schools their kids go to, that is the root cause of the whole issue.....

Totally agree OP.

Also agree with Tannhauser:

"There is a differenceactually- private is cheaper where we are than moving into the catchment of a decent school!"

At my son's primary school, they offer French lessons after school once a week. DS1's grandparents live in France, and he was keen to have a go. Should I have denied him that opportunity because some of the children in his class may not be able to go because their parents can't afford it? It's a genuine question, what would those people do?

Everyone does the best they can for their children. I will do the best I can for mine, including languages/music/sports clubs if I can afford it.

It is not about not doing what is best for your childre. It is understanding that you are in a position to be able to do so. People who privately educate choose to use their money in this way. People who buy specifically into good catchment choose to use their money in this way. It is all a way of paying for a good education.

I am not judging people who pay for private school or who buy into catchment. I am just pointing out that both involve paying for schooling, to greater or lesser amounts and in different ways.

Good point whatme.

I've been in several secondary schools and there are many great teachers, resources etc. What would make me move catchments is the fact I want my child educated rather than the teacher spending all their time doing "crowd control". Even in my DC "good" state school, too much time is taken up by this. How can you blame parents for choosing private especially when taking into account the much smaller class sizes too. They get at least twice as much individual attention plus no time wasted in constant disciplining.

Private education - Wrong but understandable.

Whatmeworry: "I think its the parents who don't give a stuff, that make everyone else flee from the schools their kids go to, that is the root cause of the whole issue."

Well, yes. Or at least one of the causes. There's a massive social problem that it seems to me the government is avoiding dealing with, namely all those kids who go into school with no idea of how to behave, who shout in class, who swear, who punch other kids etc etc and whose parents will then support the kid rather than the teacher. There has to be a way of sorting that out. It makes me want to cry when you then hear people like the Chief of Ofsted saying that teaching isn't really stressful and that teachers should stop whingeing. If schools aren't going to be supported by parents or by government or Ofsted, then who are they supposed to turn to?

And yes, knowital,l whether you pay fees or move into a good catchment area you are buying a better education.

I don't think there's much different op. it was far cheaper for us to put our 2 children into private school than move house. And I certainly don't think people who work in tescos are thick. Particularly as 2 as my best mates do work in tescos, one in the garage and one restocking the shop floor. What a massive generalisation.

I do understand that knowitall, and never denied it! But some people on this thread are saying they would/think I should have completely disregarded local schooling when deciding where in the area to live.

I am interested in their thoughts on whether paying for the French lessons is hypocritical/whether they think I am sacrificing anyone else's child by doing so.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my decisions and understand that I have perhaps more choices than some others. I do think as I've said that it's not black and white and that all choices are not equally 'bad' and I'm interested in where people see French lessons on the scale.

AFAIC anything you do with your child's education that costs you money means that someone else will not have the same advantages. Does not mean you should not do it, just that you should be honest about the fact that you are paying to give your child the best you can in life. You paying for French lessons for your child does not disadvantage the next child any more than a parent who has an additional language teaching it to their child, or the one who plays piano teaching them an instrument, or the one who has a maths degree helping them with their homework. You pay for French lessons because you can afford to, someone else can't. It is a sliding scale, with private education at the top end, but everything you do financially which benefits your children puts them at an advantage above children who cannot afford it or do not have access to resources.

I disagree that private schooling is 'worse' than moving into catchment in all circumstances. Private schools have nothing to do with the area as people come from all around. Moving into a catchment area because you can afford to groups you with all the other people who can afford to and therefore can create pockets of (relative) wealth.

What I really dislike is the attitude of 'All children should be treated equally and that's why I hate private schools' from people who can afford to choose to move to a decent catchment area.

We all earn money in order to spend it. You choose what you value most and spend it on that.

Do the best for your child. But be honest with yourself about it.

Echt...re independent schools being shored up by the government - you could argue about the cost of this vs the cost to the state of educating all of those children currently in private education, considerably greater I would guess. Also there are bursary places for a few children each year for those parents not able to afford it, this charitable is it not? Buying a house or paying a school are both choices of how to spend post tax income.

Using money to give your children the best possible education is very understandable - but you are doing this whether through paying fees or paying for the right address, to pretend one is morally different from the other is hypocritical.

The bursary places don't go the clever working class children.

Spare me the argument about saving the state system money.

As I said, the system would fall apart if the independent schools had to fund the cost of pensions. There's the hypocrisy, pretending it's a free economic choice. It isn't; the independent system is propped up by the general taxpayer. Unlike buying a house.

Echt I think your argument, such as it is, is for another thread and concerns the system, not personal moral assertions.

The effect of buying a property or an education is the same, it costs an individual money. Thus you are buying advantage one way or another and the person buying the house is not morally superior to the one paying the school.

I'm not sure if that last posts is dire ted at me knowitall, but it case it is, and at the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, I am honest with myself and anyone else, and have at no point denied that I am in a direct or indirect manner 'paying' to give my children a good start in life.

(As it happens houses of a similar size and type in the catchment area of the other school in this area are of a similar price but I accept the general point anyway)

I just think it's perfectly possible to be 'against' private education in most circumstances and not be equally 'against' paying for French lessons or taking schools into account when moving, that's all.

I am still interested in the point of view of those who consider me a hypocrite for not disregarding schools when choosing which town in this area to live in on the French lessons.

To be consistent with being 'against' private schools should I have refused my son the lessons?

Flowery it wasn't directed at you in particular and I can see your argument, but I think it boils down to not liking the system but (quite naturally) doing the best you can for your children within it, as most of us do. As you say, to totally disregard what schools are like when you are looking to move, or to not do the French lessons on principle would be sacrificing your children on the altar of your moral views.

Agree with OP. I was privately educated. My local state school was in the bottom 3 in the city and my mum wasn't prepared to send me there, havng taught there herself. Moving into the catchment for one of the top state schools would've meant my parents having to pay an extra 200k on a house, which they couldn't afford to do. However, they could afford to make a lot of sacrifices and pay school fees - after much hand-wringing (state school teacher and charity worker parents).

echt - the bursary places in my school did go to clever working class children - 3 of my best friends were children of gas fitters, mechanics and families on benefits and all 3 were the first in their families to go to university. I grew up in an industrial town and the kids at my school were from ordinary families, many parents had remortgaged their houses to send their children to a good school.

In my last job, 'privately educated' was a term of abuse amongst my colleagues. I found it a bit hypocritical that one of my colleagues paid for her son to have a tutor - giving him advantages others couldn't afford, yet went on about how awful private schools were.

That's exactly it sleepwhenidie.

I think some people who are not against private education at all would think I'm sacrificing my children by not sending them to the private school which isn't that far from here and where they wear ridiculous blazers .

Some may think I'm being hypocritical by not sacrificing them as far as I possible can, and denying them French lessons or whatever.

I'm somewhere in the middle. As are most people I guess.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest that some people think I'm hypocritical. I'm genuinely just interested in the view points.

Laurie That house in dulwich village pops up often on the website often i wanted to have a look at it and surprise surprise it had gone the day it was put on (this was last summer) lots of properties are let empty around here to get children into the schools

yes i did move not jsut for the schools as where i lived before schools are very good but to be in a nicer area (west dulwich, 5 min walk to dulwich village) better quailty of life (parks, great little shops, cafe, restaurants) being in a better area was a big factor too. got our sixth choice :( so may go private after all

but i still very happy we moved

As I said, the system would fall apart if the independent schools had to fund the cost of pensions. There's the hypocrisy, pretending it's a free economic choice. It isn't; the independent system is propped up by the general taxpayer. Unlike buying a house.

How? Economicaly nearly every parent with a child at an independent school is paying tax, demographically probably a lot of tax, and yet not consuming state school places.

wanted to add that my political views go out of the window when it coems to what is best for my child, do i agree with private education not really but i can over look that if it means my son gets the best education that we can get for him

I think it depends on why people are against private education. If it is because of the inequality in some being able to afford it, then yes, nobody should pay for extra-cussicular activities at all. Why is it OK for your child to get something when another can't afford it? Does it matter whether it is £100 or £10,000? To someone who hasn't got it, £100 might as well be £10,000.

curricular

As I have said many times, I have no issue with people using their hard earned cash to do the best for their children. I just hate the superiority of people who look upon private education as an unfair advantage while still using money to pay to advantage their children, just in a different way and to a different extent. Why not accept that we all use money to do the best we can for our children?

In my first job after graduating I had a boss who was against private education. He believed that middle class parents like himself should stay in the state system and push for schools and standards to be improved rather than jump ship and go private. This was why he thought that all private schools should be banned. If MC parents had no other alternative then that would motivate them to try to improve the schools they were at.

That was the speech but when it came to walking the walk .... He lived in a three bedroom cottage-like terrace house in a rich area 45 min from work. The same money would have bought him a 4 bedroom detached plus garden near where I lived and it would have been 10 minutes to our office. The problem was that my area was an ethnically and economically diverse area and the schools reflected this.

He disliked parents who used money to buy a better education for their kids. The fact that he was spending money on an expensive house in a desirable catchment area was not, in his opinion, him trying to buy a better education for his kids.

It was my first exposure to 'private education is bad' hypocrits. And now that I am on MN I have a chance to meet many more :o