Private schools - want to shout IT'S NOT FAIR!

[Yermina]

Went to PIL last night and heard all about sil's children's school. One of her boys is already attending a fantastic private school. Just found out his two brothers have also got places at very good private schools.

In the mean time my dc's are in classes of 31 at the local state school. My youngest needs additional support (sn) but isn't statemented (diagnosed but no statement) so doesn't get it. SIL's middle child has got into a mainstream private school that has outstanding support for children with dyslexia, which he's been diagnosed with. And will be in classes of 18.

Our middle ds is musically talented but there is really poor provision for music teaching at his state school and very few children there are learning an instrument. We struggle to pay for music lessons for him outside school.

Is it wrong of me to feel eaten up with jealousy and anger at the unfairness of a school system which privileges the children of well-off people so openly and seemingly without anyone else seeing it as something that's wrong or deeply, deeply unfair?

How would you explain to a group of children: you lot over here will have XXXX spent on your education, and lots of opportunity to develop your talents, and you lot over there will have about half as much spent on you, and will have much less attention from the teacher because there'll be twice as many of you in the class. Oh, and you kids with sn or specific gifts - unless your parents have money, you probably won't get the help you need to thrive educationally.

I know it's the way the world is but at the moment I feel bitter about it. Really really bitter. And jealous

Every time I go to my PIL's and have to hear about all the amazing thing SIL's dcs are doing at their school, their academic achievements, I want to go home and hide under the duvet and cry.

We'll never, ever be able to afford private education. We'll never be able to afford to move to an area with really good state schools. We'll never be able to get our children into church schools as we're not church goers, and our local grammar schools (2) are bursting at the seams with children from the local private prep schools, who bus their students in to take the 11+ en mass.

It's just so fucking unfair. It really is. I just want to get that off my chest.

That is all.

I'm with tough on this: I'm finding some of the comments on here infuriating. We've had comments that state education is shit, basic, terrible.... It isn't.

And my child isn't a 'social experiment' either which is why I wouldn't want them in a private school environment

Never mind the private schools not being fair - I want to shout that IT'S NOT FAIR that my local school is low-achieving and rough, so I stump up huge amounts of money to send my children private.

Friends in better areas (same cities but more expensive) or other cities (often cheaper than where we live) have much better FREE schools (whether comprehensive/academies/grammar) on their doorstep. I would love to send my kids there!

Like someone said, it's not just about private schools. State schools are most certainly not equal to each other and do not give children equal opportunities.

I do wonder if people on mumsnet don't realise that 93% of the population use state education? It 's the only explanation for the way state provision is usually characterised. Unless, just possibly, using private education makes you arrogant and insensitive? Which of course it doesn't. So it really must be that the perception that, as a dear friend of mine said once " Everyone goes private for secondary in Richmond"

*The thing with giving up your youth to hard study and choosing careers with high earnings is that if everybody does it there aren't going to be enough of those jobs for all of them, however clever they are and however hard they graft- so it can only ever be a real choice for a limited number.

Only so many new companies can survive.

Some academics get very high rewards- but a number of equally clever and hardworking ones end up struggling; often it's about something as simple as being in the wrong year group when funds are around.

It is naive to imagine that the number of managing jobs is infinite; more workers than managers are needed and if everybody gets 5 A's at Alevels, then some of the working jobs will have to be done by people with 5 A's.*

cory - it really doesn't work that way!

seeker, that's right.

"I do wonder if people on mumsnet don't realise that 93% of the population use state education?"

It's 25% of secondary age kids here.

And there are lots of state schools I'd love to send my kids to. Just not the one we were allocated. And don't get me started on the private-schools-are-unfair-but-I'm-going-to-buy-an-expensive-house-in-a-good-catchment brigade!

Reverse snobbery is ever so pathetic and glaringly obvious.
However, if it makes so many of the posters here feel better about themselves, their choices and decisions, and most importantly, superior to others, well, let them get on with it.
Doesn't matter an iota, you see.
Doesn't change a thing.

"It's 25% of secondary age kids here."

You live in an are where 75% of secondary kids are privately educated?!

One of the reasons why it is indeed unfair is that one of the lies we are told is that we live in a meritocracy. We can all work hard and pull ourselves up by our bootstraps.

So two babies are born, same time, same day.

Baby A has wealthy professional parents who live in a large house, have great connections, will send Baby A to private schools, pay for music lessons, sports etc etc. At Baby A's school there are 18 in a class. Baby A therefore gets to talk a lot more and gets a lot more personal attention. Baby A's confidence and social abilities increase because more practice is available. Baby A's curriculum is ahead of state schools' curriculum, at Common Entrance a lot of the GCSE syllabus is covered. At A level further work is given which, for example in maths alone, increases the likelihood of a top university (step maths). All of Baby A's advantages have been bought.

Baby B has a school with 30 in a class etc etc etc

Hardly a "level playing field" from which to enter the world.

There is nothing wrong in parents buying their children advantage.

""It's 25% of secondary age kids here."

You live in an are where 75% of secondary kids are privately educated?!"

Sorry, typed that the wrong way round . 25% private.

[cue an avalanche of posts from people who profess to have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps while caring for their alcoholic junkie swinger one-legged toothless mothers]

Of course it is easier to do well if your parents confer you advantage even if that is just they read you bed time stories and have a wide vocabulary but to single out private schools is rather strange. You could equally have a thread headed it is unfair my daughter is really ugly or thick as a plank or very fat.

Whilst sharing a one bedroom flat with said junkie mother...

^ You are not willing to take the responsibility for the education of your children as you expect the state to do it all.

Erm, you know nothing about me or how I raise my son. All that I said was that the Education Act places a duty on parents to provide an education for their children. That duty can be discharged by home education or school education. It doesn't mean that parents have to educate at home if they choose state education because of some bizarre batshit notion that state education is 'basic' education (something along the lines of Sainsbury's basics maybe?) that requires parents to 'top up'.

Well I think a more comparable thread would be 'dd is overweight and PIL keep on and on about how slim and lovely SIL's children are'. Even leaving aside the dubious alignment between going to state school and being fat, ugly or stupid.

Sending your child to Eton is not the same as reading them bedtime stories.

Anyone see Blood Sweat and T-shirts (BBC2, some time ago, fashion-conscious young people sent to India to make clothes).

There was a man who was convinced that everything he'd done in life he'd achieved by himself. He was from an unprivileged background. He couldn't see why the Indians couldn't do what he'd done and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", after all he'd had no advantages in life.

Only when he went out there and tried living their lives did he see all the advantages that he had benefited from - free education, enough to eat, didn't have to go out to work aged 8 to support his 10 brothers and sisters, etc.

Not sure what my point is really, except to say that in this country we are all very privileged on a world scale. (Except maybe the children of toothless junkies...)

HullyGully

Baby Bs parents talked and read to their baby every day, sang songs and spent time with him/her.
As Baby B grew, his/her parents took their baby to interesting places, kept reading to him/her constantly, kept singing and playing with him.
Always talked to him/her and explained the world as his/her world grew bigger. They fed the Baby B good nutritious home cooked food and played a lot in the park.
Baby B was running and jumping and climbing trees and his/her parents were there to teach him new things.

When Baby B started his '30 in a class' school, he/she was one of the top students, he/she was bright, articulate, confident and had a great general knowledge.

What's wrong with that?

Okay, two children born on the same day. Both go to the same very good comprehensive.

Child A's parents live in a big house near the school, bought with a view of ensuring they were in the catchment area. Child B lives in a council estate which falls in the catchment.

Child A has swimming lessons, music lessons, sports coaching, dance lessons, assistance from parents or with a tutor, if she or he struggles. Child A gains 4 A/A* at A level, and because her or his parents have encouraged her or him, is in the top set for maths, where additional work is covered, enabling her or him to get a place at a top university.

Child B etc etc.

They go to the same state run school, but Child A's advantages have, again, been bought.

The OP is jealous of her SIL's DC. I could sit around moaning about how it's not fair that others were born into more priveledge than me, and my DC. Or I could make the most of what I have, with what is available to me.

''Sending your child to Eton is not the same as reading them bedtime stories. ''

Somehow I doubt there are any children at Eton whose parents didn't read them bedtime stories.

Than I.

I'd just be happy that child a and b got to go to the same school in that example... Didn't stop child a getting her results, did it?

rollmopses - of course there's nothing wrong with it! It sounds an ideal childhood. But when Child B in that class of 30 still isn't going to get the time/attention/facilities/sport/extra-curricular/contacts etc that Child A is.

I should say at this point that I have had dc at state, private and grammar so have experienced them all. When my dc were at private school for a few years (prep) my eyes were truly opened to the meaning of Advantage.

Bonsoir, my point is that it is not all right for education to be paid for and to advantage a child whilst we pretend we live in a meritocracy. You ignored that bit.

^ Somehow I doubt there are any children at Eton whose parents didn't read them bedtime stories.

Do rich parents love their children more then? Sorry if you don't mean that, but it's an incredibly dodgy thing to say.