To be annoyed that private school parents are demonised?

[Imsorryyoufeelthatway]

Starting this threat to vent and as an antidote to the Closing all private schools would benefit state schools thread. In short, I'm a bit fed up with private school parents being bashed for buying a better education for their children, while parents who 'don't believe in private education' and spend a fortune on homes/second homes/rental properties in catchment areas for 'good' state schools then another fortune on tutors seem to get off scot free.

I'm also fed up with private school parents all being lumped in the same category. We're not all selfish, mega-wealthy, Bullingdon Club (or female equivalent, if there was one...) alumni; many of us are ordinary people (I'm a working class lass from a council estate whose parents worked as cleaners and in warehouses) who've worked bloody hard to be able to afford a better start in life for our children than we had. We were the first people in our families to go to university (on full grants, when they existed), the first to have careers not just jobs, and the first to own our own homes. No-one has ever handed us a penny – my DH got the train to university with £4.50 in his pocket and had to get a job straight away to buy food. No bank account, no trust fund, no-one paying his rent. We've managed to achieve social mobility against the odds, yet we're not allowed to celebrate this because we've chosen to invest in our children's future rather than over-priced property in 'good' state school catchment areas.

Yes, we all know that private schools are a major cause of inequality. Parents like us have literally lived and breathed that inequality our whole lives and we'd do anything to prevent our children having to do the same. We think that all children should have access to high quality education in safe, inspirational environments where they can achieve their potential, not just ours. But most state schools in the UK just cannot meet this requirement. We also know that if catchment areas for state schools were mixed-up, and the schools in deprived areas had an influx of children from more affluent areas and vice versa, then this would likely make things more equal over time. But our children are not part of a social experiment. In short, if those of us who had difficult starts in life and went to terrible schools choose to work our arses off so our children don't have to, can't we be given some credit?

So please, the next time you're tempted to lump a private school parents into the same category and give them a bashing, take a moment to consider their reasons and background. Rant over.

So you just want to massively boast how you’ve overcome an unfair, unequal situation - only to make the situation just as bad by sending your kids to private school (whilst still bashing the unfair unequal system)5087 and boasting that your kids now have advantages? Unreal.

How is she boasting? If you read this OP post as anything but frustrated that he/she being demonised (which you have just demonstrated) it just demonstrates your own very insecurity. To anyone who worked hard in their life to do anything different is BOASTFUL.

The majority of state schools are good. Some private schools are terrible. It's not as straightforward as "state schools can't provide a good education". I get heartily sick of state schools being talked down by people who would always have gone private whatever the state provision.

I agree with you OP. Inequality exists, it’s stupid to pretend otherwise.

Where I live, the choices for middle class families are move to an area where houses are £900k and aim for a state grammar.

Or stay where the houses are £500k and pay for private.

Both have privilege, and in some ways the £900k option more so as they retain equity in the house.

However, the £500k option is jumped on and demonised.

Both are highly privileged but treated differently.

I understand you feel aggrieved at the characterisation of people who send their kids to private school, but this all smacks of "well Lord Sugar is a billionaire and he started off as a market stall trader".
Exceptions tend to prove rules. Most children going to private school have parents who were born into wealth. Private school perpetuates inequality. They also don't get better educational outcomes. It's the soft power of private schools that people pay for.
And children are always part of social experiments - no-one tested the impact of the internet / hyper-connectivicity on adults before unleashing it on a generation of children.

I've worked bloody hard to give my children a better start than I had too. Still can't afford private school fees. Some of that is down to the career choices DH and I made and some is just pure luck. Do I not deserve the same credit you do?

Also the fact a school is private does not automatically make it better than a state school. So much depends on the ethos you want, the aspirations you and your children have, and the personality of the child.

If my child wanted to be a top chef I'd sooner send them to a state secondary school with strong links to the local technical college that had a decent catering course than a pushy private secondary that pushed for high exam results and prided themselves on how many pupils got in RG universities.

Fully agree OP.

I’m curious to know what the anti-private brigade would suggest for my two DC:

• DS has autism, he wasn’t coping in a class of 30, was being disruptive during lessons. Now in private school, 12 children in the class, he is coping so much better and likes going to school.
• DD had ok grades at state school but not excellent, during lockdown it became clear that she was actually bored with the lessons. Maths for ex she would give the right answer and then sit watching the teacher count dots one by one to get to the result. Now in private school she has differentiated work, is challenged and way more engaged.

So in short, what about the children with SN and the gifted ones? Should they be denied a model that fits them better just because not everybody can afford it??

There will still be inequality even if you eliminate public schools. Some parents have houses full of books and other parents spend their money on tattoos instead.

The problem that I have with public schools and perhaps with schools in general is that parents want to give their children a head start, but a head start in what? The rat race? Keeping up with the Jones? I'm sure if your beloved child became a doctor or a dentist or a lawyer you would be very proud of them, but in my experience they are usually quite ignorant.

Some people might not be professional high-fliers but they take an interest in the world. They read newspapers and books. They might use their leisure time in participating in sport or music.

I'm saying this because my parents sent me to public school but I was never given the opportunity to learn a musical instrument.

Exactly this. The majority of state schools are better in many ways than private.

Horses for courses. Spend your money on what you believe is best for your family

lets put you into a local school in Shanghai at 15 and see how you cope? Or vice versa.

Exactly this. You are perpetuating social inequality in a society which is increasingly unequal. Deal with having this pointed out to you.

If people think in China (Shanghai comment above) it's all state school education they are wrong. You got no idea the amount of after school classes they parents put their kids through. They have a busier schedule than most full time working adults.

Yep same here. ND DD13 now thriving in a small private school with class sizes of 10.

In her state primary she would come home traumatised and broken by the noise and distractions and endless masking.

Her private school is just about affordable on the school fee plan, the parents there are all like me, working and struggling to pay for it.

This whole issue about everyone being treated the same in the state school system is bloody nonsense. Treating everyone the same is sometimes the most unfair thing to do. It doesn't create equity at all.

You can give your children what most other children can;t have. ~You can perpetuate the inequality, you can contribute to the problems of inequality. You can choose whatever schooling you like for your kids.

You can't have all that though AND be free from any opinions on you doing it. Life doesn't work that way. You can make your choices,other people can have opinions on those choices.

But if you are living in an area where all the catchment area schools are rated badly. You are just going to help the social inequality and send your kids there. Or do you spend more money buying/ living in a place that has better schools in the catchment area? Explain this to your kids later when they struggles.

It’s a bit like when you buy a fast pass at the theme park - there will always be those in the longer queue giving you the side eye (even if you did have to queue a really long time yourselves as children). People don’t like others being able to buy advantages they can’t (or won’t) in any sphere of life.

But I agree with you. I buy the best I can for my family (whatever that may be and in every context, unless I think something is a waste of money) and would have thought most others would too.

My observation is the biggest critics of Private Schools are often those who spend massive amounts of money moving into the "right" catchment.

Getting rid of Private Schools won't magically make failing schools better. Just drive the insane catchment areas

The responses on this thread is why OP started it in the first place. Oh our education system is bad, instead of working together to make sure teachers gets better support/better pay etc let's drag down the parents who are trying to provide a better life for their kids. OH no ! What sacrilege! Get a grip of yourselves.

Most parents want to do the best for their children and much of this doing your best perpetuates inequality. A child with a parent who reads with them every night will likely have much better educational outcomes than one who doesn’t but I’ve never seen an argument that people shouldn’t read to their kids because many parents don’t have the time/ capacity to do this. Ditto sharing a second language / special skill etc with children or taking them to the library / museum etc or feeding healthy food. A SAHM or parent who works part time is giving up money in the belief this benefits her child at a real economic cost to society but again I’ve never seen the argument that it is wrong to give up money to give children this perceived advantage - it’s seen as personal choice.

I went to a state secondary school for a while and absolutely hated it to the point I was in tears every day and developed OCD. My parents had the option to move me to a private school which suited me much better. There were no other state options. I’d think most parents would do that for their children if they had the choice when their child was so distressed. Politically my dad was left wing and anti private education but luckily he didn’t put that before my happiness and well-being.

Destroying the best part of our education system in order to level the playing field is just a race to the bottom. It’s like arguing for professional sport to be outlawed because not everyone can participate.

Inequality is rife in the state system itself.

Why not focus on that first?

For instance actually include sen training in the pgce and insist that Senco are properly trained.

Why not introduce flexible reading schemes so no children are left out of reading?

I think getting rid of private schools would be a negative for the UK. They are believed (rightly or wrongly) to be excellent and they attract people from around the world. That's good for the UK and our standing in it. Getting rid of them would also dump a load of kids onto a schooling system that already can't cope with it's numbers. Finally, the rich who can afford it would just go back to doing what they used to do which is have tutors. There will always be them and us.

As a PP said, the current schools do give the opportunity for people through bursaries and scholarships and they also allow those who can afford it to try to invest in their children. I know the schools get benefits from the bursary scheme (charitable status and they up their average grades as they invite the kids who are doing well elsewhere), but so do the kids.

I'm one of those parents who is struggling with the cost of living crisis, but thanks to a bursary I've got my kids in a private school which they love and which is having a great beneficial impact on them. We're aware of some of their friends who are struggling with the mainstream educational system. Life is hard for me as a consequence of this decision. I make a good wage, but don't see much of it at all, but I do have happy kids. The class sizes are small, the teachers are good and so are the facilities. The extra curricular activities are great too. I do not however think that my kids are necessarily going to get higher grades because of the school, but I think they will enjoy getting those grades more and have better mental health.

There are negatives. Some of the kids there are disinterested wasters who are only there as their rich (and often disinterested) parents sent them there. Some of them are bullies, but then bullies are everywhere sadly. Its also reducing what we as a family can afford on other things such as holidays (which are not happening). I realise that the charitable status the schools have is contentious. However, if you stop it and apply VAT to these schools then many will close and many more parents will be unable to afford the increased fees. If that happens then there will be tens of thousands of children now needing to be taught in state schools at the tax payers expense.

So, stopping charitable status will potentially reduce the UK's international presence through the closure of schools, reduce social mobility (Keir Starmer's parents got him into private school through a bursary) and potentially cost more than it would save. It would also put increased pressure on state schools, especially the ones that are doing well academically as people with the means will move into their catchment areas, to the detriment of those who can't afford to do so.

@Circe7
How does a sahm cost society? Surely a sahm with loads of time to support dc and stuff benefits society?

I don’t understand this analogy. We aren’t entitled to be professional sport people. All children are entitled to excellent education.

So simple. If the state schools provided a high quality education that enabled each student to realise their potential nobody would pay. Blaming parents is a cop out.