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.

I went to one of those poor state schools and didn't have to pay fees - got a full maintenance grant. I don't think I would have gone otherwise. I don't remember places being limited when I went - quite the opposite we were actively encouraged - this was in the 90s. So it was accessible to all.. I now work in a inner city college and know that many students are put off by the huge financial debt.

Whether or not everyone should go to university is a whole other issue.

As a country we need well educated people, we need to be able to produce Doctors and Engineers.

Those people cannot all come from a privileged background.

In many countries an education is seen as the way out of poverty. Why do so many not have the hope / ambition that education is what will life them out of poverty?

How do you know private school parents are more likely to vote Tory? Genuinely interested.

This is interesting not exactly the same as you can’t conclude every parent that sends their dc to private school had a private education. But I would guess a lot do!

https://amp.theguardian.com/education/2023/apr/08/going-to-private-school-makes-you-twice-as-likely-to-vote-tory-study-finds

I have no hate or a strong opinions on private schools but
take a moment to consider their reasons and background
Doesn't almost everyone have pretty much the same reasons to send their kids there regardless of their background?

If you read further on you realise that people have voter tory once or 3 or 4 times. Unlike America, British voters are more likely to switch their vote depending on how happy they are with the government. In my area a lot of the private school parents hate the tories at the moment because they all work for the NHS. This article might as well read 'privately educated people are able to think for themselves'.

In many countries an education is seen as the way out of poverty. Why do so many not have the hope / ambition that education is what will life them out of poverty?

Let's face it - mediocre degree holders are a dime a dozen. And now we have arrived at the point, the employers demand degrees for entry level, minimum wage jobs that in the past - 16 year olds would do. Also trades seem to be in a better earning position ATM. So going for tertiary education can be hit and miss.

Now back to original subject. University is not compulsory. Secondary education is. Going private buys a somewhat better experience of it.

I did read it all and that’s a generous interpretation - I think you dreaming that up here. Interesting as it is - it’s only one study.. would be an interesting one to have followed up with a much larger sample.

Everyone I know went to state school and we have all done very well out of it. My children go to state school and my dd got straights A's last year for GCSEs. I have taught in both state and private schools.

However my point is that everyone in my 'circle' has come from backgrounds where education is regarded as very important (it does annoy me when some private school parents say 'we think education is really important' - seemingly implying that the rest of us don't!) and most importantly from stable homes.

I firmly believe that children can do well anywhere but they need that support from birth - which is why children's centres were so vital for many families - and which the government have helpfully been closing down.

I'm not dreaming anything up. The article made our that privately educated people we're consistently voting Tory every election, read on and that's not the case at all. Considering that Labour policy is to tax private education or abolish it altogether, the surprising thing is how many people who have benefitted don't vote Tory and how many if them write for the Guardian.

most importantly from stable homes

all the research points to maternal education levels being the biggest indicator of educational outcome for children. The proverbial ‘stable home’ is something smug marrieds like to promote as them somehow being ‘better’ than everyone else. Stable home is about far more than two parents being together.

My children have been brought up between 2 households by two adults with a deep acrimony between them. Both my ex and I value education. There is expectation that they do as well as they can from both of us. So far, so good (one in uni, one about to go to uni and the other about to do GCSEs.)

When I said stable home I didn't mean conventional 2 married parents etc!! Not at all! I meant as you have just said - being brought up in a home where education matters.

But I didn't get from the article that 'privately educated people are able to think for themselves'. - and that was your interpretation of what was written.

Anyway it would be better to read the original study - as one thing I do agree with you about is how journalist tend to put a spin on things to confirm their biases.

I suppose I accidentally implied that people from state schools couldn't think for themselves - which wasn't what I meant at all! I got from it that British voters don't tend to be loyal to one party, and that private school educated people were more likely to consider voting Tory, but wouldn't do that every election. Not quite the same as two thirds private school educated people are died-in-the-wool Tories, which is what the first few paragraphs implied!

Personally, I'm not convinced of the usefulness of this type of research. We'd be better off putting money into researching school systems that would work better to keep children engaged and prepare them for employment. One of the reasons parents use private schools at primary level is for the extra-curricular programme. Offering working parents better after school and before school options would keep more people in the state system.

In other words, how much the primary carer who generally will spend the money on the household, values education.

Not rocket science really.

@Dobby123456
"Considering that Labour policy is to tax private education or abolish it altogether...'
Nice way to first misrepresent and then simply lie about Labour's policy.

Perhaps I'm misinformed? I thought abolishing private education was a Labour ideal, even if they might not actually be planning to do it the week they get back into government. I wasn't intending to misrepresent! Clearly, a lot of people weigh this up and still vote Labour somtimes.

@Dobby123456

You're not misinformed, you're making things up for political purposes. The only policy is to require establishments with charitable status behave like charities or lose the tax benefits thereof. There is no reference to abolishing private education, nor any indication that there ever would be.

You are so right! I'm actually an employee of the Tory party come on here to deliberately misinform - but you've caught me out! 😂

Let me rephrase: Considering that the Labour Party attitude to private education tends to be more 'anti' you would perhaps expect more people who have been through the private sector to consistently vote Tory than actually do. Quite a number of the journalists who work for the Guardian have been through the private system. People are able to look objectively at the school system, see the pros and cons for society in general, and weigh up other factors, rather than blindly clinging to a system that they've benefitted from.

@Dobby123456

As you've 'rephrased' twice now in the face of the facts the suggestion that you just invented things for your original post has some credibility. Yes, Tories will vote for their self-interest, it's the main principle of the modern Conservative Party. Whether or not their self-interest should be promoted due to privilege and result in disadvantage for others is another matter, and the education of journalists is entirely irrelevant.

I wouldn't stick my kids in private school if millions fell out the sky into my backyard. My dad and sister both got given free rides at mostly fee-paid single sex colleges decades apart.

Both full of nasty one-upmanship, snobby Yah-Brigade teenagers who bullied the few working/lower middle class kids who got there with their own brains instead of someone else's bank account. DSis's in particular was very mean girls, had an eating disorder epidemic, and even pregnancies which didn't happen in my rough secondary.

I'd rather my kids associated with normal, decent folk and the odd little shit than that hellscape.

My attempts to rephrase were in order to have a more constructive conversation. You are being very unnecessarily antagonistic and rather proving the OP's original point!

I think I'll leave this now.

@LuvSmallDogs

Isn’t that the truth? I had the unfortunate reality of going to a private school for my secondary Ed. 100 percent scholarship based on my brains and not my parents wallets. Awful, awful girls. I’m still miles ahead of them now too. I yearned for the local state.

Universities and employers are now looking to actively avoid having private educated candidates. It’s started to not have the kudos it used to- employers want smart candidates, grounded
in real the real world. Not people who’ve been hand-held, coddled and coached through their entire life.

It’s started to not have the kudos it used to- employers want smart candidates, grounded in real the real world. Not people who’ve been hand-held, coddled and coached through their entire life

you know lots of people who've been through the independent system then? enough to say that they've all been hand-held, coddled and coached? Because in my experience, the ones who are coddled are those in state schools with parents who refuse to take responsibility for their parenting (or lack of) and who see their children as best friends, not children who require routines, boundaries and rules. Most independent school children have been big in sports, having been coached into team members who help and support each other, often taking on coaching responsibility for younger students in school. Sure, they may well have tutors when struggling but mainly they work hard and play hard and go on to work hard at university, acheive good grades and move to their chosen field of work. Of course, some kids in independents struggle to reach that level of acheivements, and of course are hand-held and coddled and coached. But it takes all sorts and most of us find our way, even if for some of us, we take longer than others.

If, as an employer, you are turning someone down on the basis that they went to an independent school then you are guilty of some weird discrimination but also won't always be recruiting the best person possible to the job available. I have yet to come across an employer that discriminates on this basis because it is ultimately about getting in the right person in the right place to maximise profits/success. Otherwise, why exist? I would suggest having a look at your own prejudices before dismissing literally thousands of people as not smart, not grounded, coddled and coached. It certainly isn't true in my experience - and I have worked in a number of schools with differing catchments.