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?

But if you live in a council house you can do what a friend of my DD did, that is accept sight unseen a house which comes up and is in the catchment of the right secondary. Another friend appealed first to move her eldest to the "best" school, and then for the youngest to go there when all her siblings had left. (Shewonher appeals both times, and without MNshelp.)

There's a huge difference between private and moving into catchment of a good state school....

...when your kids leave the state school you can sell up and get the money back...

Echt, houses are bought with taxed money too.

mummytime, such houses are generally hugely in demand. You make it sound far easier than it is.

Echt, can I counter your argument about the taxpayer propping up the private sector by pointing out that many parents of independently educated schoolchildren are higher rate taxpayers.

Hackmum - "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" that's the very sort of behaviour I won't tolerate in my choice of school and my DC's school won't tolerate either. A child would be in deep mire if they didn't fall silent and stand when an adult entered the room, then greet them with "Good morning Sir/Madam/Mr Jones/Mrs Smith", heaven only help them if they were shouting in class!

Narkedpuffin, you've hit the nail on the head

Why do so many people think that it's morally wrong to send DC to a private school?

Blimey.

I really wish I could resist the temptation to read these threads.

I thought MOST people sent their children to state school? Is it really that bad?

DP and I earn £25k between us, have never taken a holiday and have a 2nd hand VW Polo - there are NO sacrifices we could possibly make to get anything like enough funds to privately educate DD.

I thought we were normal.

These threads genuinely frighten me

tangerine - please don't worry. MN is not normal when it comes to schooling, honestly it isn't. It used to freak me out when I first came here too but i've learned better now

I am as MC as you get, as are the majority of my friends, all of us are interested and involved in our DC's education and I only know one person who use private schooling (and one who aspires fruitlessly to it). I went to a private school but am happily using state provision for my 3.

You are normal Tangerine! Most people do send their children to a state school, and in most cases no it isn't that bad. What frightens you?

What's normal anyway? Far too much 'them and us' around these days.

Phew! That's OK then

Some people on here (MN) do seem to think state education is best avoided at all costs and I do wonder if I should feel guilt at not being able to afford an independent education for my child.

Outraged The fact that some independent sector parents pay higher tax does not counter the argument that independent schools are not truly independent.

Their charitable status and their staff being able to access the state teachers' superannuation funds mean they get staff more cheaply than if they paid the going rate, e.g. staff having to purchase private pensions.

This means that the ethical issue raised by the OP, those who move house into a favoured catchment area are NOT being hypocritical as they bear the full cost of their choice.

Addressing purely the OP, as I have no wish to be caught up in yet another of these threads.....

You are totally correct OP. Paying an extra £50K or £100K for a house in the catchment of an outstanding school is, in my opinion, no different to paying for education. It's just that this gives the "right-on" among MNers the moral comfort of being able to say they are opposed to independent education, while ensuring their DC's are not disadvantaged.

Anyone who says otherwise is either fooling themselves, or a liar.

I don't have a problem with schools having charitable status. I knows what it takes to get that registered charity number, and they are still schools, that are there for the benefit of children. Education is a charitable enough cause I think. I don't know how pensions work, but I don't see a problem with the state supporting teacher pensions in the private sector. Those children still deserve their education to be supported by the state somehow, and those teachers are still teaching children.

echt - You seem to be saying that the hypocrisy depends on how much money you actually spend on paying for a better education. One is either hypocritical or not. Like being pregnant, one can't be just a little bit hypocritical.

I would say that a fair few parents paying for private education pay a fair bit of tax. If they choose to pay out more money for their DC's education so be it. They are not using the state education paid for with their taxes. Why is that a problem?

In answer to your question OP. I'd say some parents who move to expensive areas and are 'morally opposed' to private education secretly wish they could afford both.

No, PoshTun. I was responding the OP who asserted hypocrisy on the part go those who move into a favoured catchment area to use state schools. The money they use is entirely their own; it's not a matter of how much but where it comes from. There is no degree of hypocrisy here, they're just not being hypocritical at all.

I have not accused private education folk of hypocrisy, but would if they claimed to be exercising a freedom when their choice is shored up by the state.

I am not against private education but think they should pay the full whack, not a penny of state funding of any kind.

Echt: do you not think the government makes a saving by me sending my child to private school? State funding is taxpayers money. I pay my tax, if I chose the state school place the government would be paying between £4000 and £5000 for that. But I haven't taken that place even though my money had gone into it. Instead I pay an additional £5500 to send my child to a private school. So even though I pay my tax and don't take up a school place, why do you think I should pay more? If the private schools closed and we moved into the state system it would cost the government a lot more than that in additional school places. Plus I ( and no doubt many others) will be competing with you for those decent state school places. I think that 7 percent would have a significant impact. I guess people really would be moaning then. It's easy to be smug when you live in a good or reasonable state school area.

Echt..I don't know whether you are being deliberately obtuse about the topic to vent about your views on private schools and their funding/charitable status but just in case you aren't;

The OP isn't accusing people who buy property to get into catchment areas of hypocrisy per se, only the ones who vociferously take the moral high ground and disapprove of private education and/or criticise those who send their children to private school. I think most people on this thread agree that there is no moral difference, whichever route uses money to get your child a better education.

I am completely about your repeated argument of exercising "freedom" wrt to private schools, surely everyone, providing they can afford it (or get a bursary) has as much opportunity and choice to access private education as anyone else? How does the charitable status/pension arrangements affect how it impacts upon individuals, the fees are what they are?

echt - In what way is my choice of a private education for my DCs being shored up by the State?

At the risk of being accused of stealth boasting, the tax paid by DP & I is probably greater than the income of most of the purveyors of your argument. If the tax man were to make private fees a tax deduction then I can understand but I am paying taxes which go to fund the NHS etc. If I choose to take what's left and spend it on a private education then its no one else business.

Anyway, we are going off topic. I have spent a life time listening to people rant about the well off and the rich only to then listen to them go on about their tax dodges or expense fiddling. If that is their mind set then a few forum exchanges isn't going to make them see themselves as hypocrites. It's a bit like those politicians who are against selective education, whether private or grammar but when it comes to educating their kids ......

I'll try again.

Pooshtun, private education is shored up by the state by charitable status and by private schoolteachers having access to the Teachers' Superannuation Fund, the same one that state teachers have access to except that..er.. they are private school teachers.

Sleepwhenidle try reading the OP why don't you? Where do they say, or imply "vociferously"? The OP says "morally opposed" which is not the same thing. See the first paragraph for the pensions argument. There is not the representation of poorer working class children in private schools that you'd expect from bursaries; they are mostly taken up by the middle classes.

Take away the charitable status and the pensions, and then you would have truly independent education. As I have said before, I'm not against it, but feel the users should pay the full price.

So you're not against it, you just want to make sure it's so expensive that the vulgar middle classes can't access it.

Do you feel the way about all subsidies? Subsidies for renewable energy or food, for example? How about tax relief on private medical care?

Why should they pay full price? Please explain further.