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.

Wishful thinking, made up nonsense - employers don't give a shit what type of school applicants went to by the time they are evaluating them for a jobs 5 or 6 years later. Universities have the contextual scheme to widen acess to university and don't give a damn beyond that - as long as they offer the requisite number of contextual places and can report on that, they care about bums on seat and tuition fees. They don't care if those fees come from rich parents, loans or bursaries.

I employ graduates and we barely notice the schools - I would only know if the were private if it was a recgnicable name and I very rarely ask for or get that information. Mostly 'institution-blind now so I know degree subject, class, a Level subjects and number of GCSEs. That's it. I really don't care where they went to school either.

Who cares, I’m pretty sure all the people who hear moaning about inequality do very little to balance all the other inequalities in life. There’s some form of inequality everywhere you look, is that a good thing? Of course not but you can’t stop it, inequality is on so many levels, many of which can’t be changed.

‘f, 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’

its not some ‘weird’ anythinG, it’s the implementation of DEI policies couples with the fact that more and more senior people
in companies are no longer from privately educated backgrounds.
the stranglehold of 6/7% privately educated people iIs finally starting to ease.
about time to.

The DEI policy is a very broad stroke one. Not aimed at employers to block anyone because that is discrimination.

Brunetemic, not sending your kids to private school is a good place to start

'The DEI policy is a very broad stroke one. Not aimed at employers to block anyone because that is discrimination.'

The reality is, in my huge global company, we are now looking for, actively seeking, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, state educated and using everything we can to do that - including recruiting A level student grads into entry level positions, offering work experience and apprenticeships to state educated people and those from more diverse backgrounds, supporting younger staff from lower socio economic backgrounds with extra payments so they can afford to take our entry level positions, favouring candidates from state schools & rejecting Oxbridge, St Andrews etc canditates.
It's very easy to do this without 'discriminating' - for starters any real evidence of actual work experience - bar work, fast food, shop work etc is preferable to 'interned at mummy's gallery' 'worked' at daddy's friend's music company.

The reality is - we want a smart, diverse workforce that reflects the real world. ANd the real world isn't the 6% or so who go through private education, it's everyone else.

Getting rid of the private schools won't solve a thing. Those folk expecting the government to both a) find more money, and b) put it into the education system to support the influx of kids from private schools are delusional.

All that will mean is all the kids get whatever scraps of education the government think they can get away with.

A far better option would be to force all independent schools to fill at least 20% (just plucking a number out of the air) of their places with means-tested scholarship students, and fund it themselves - likely primarily using their charitable status.

My school did it, and I benefited from it - as did my daughter - because our school did exactly that.

That'd be around 120k pupils suddenly getting access to a better education and the state system being relieved of that financial burden, rather than 600k pupils descending on an already overstretched state system.

I don't care what individuals do about schooling - most people do what they think is best for their own families. I do care that my taxes are subsidising their children getting an advantage over others when it could be going to the state education system., so I strongly feel that the businesses that run these schools should NOT be tax exempt.

Intriguing idea @xyxygy
One problem with that is that it would further siphon talent from state schools. I speak as someone whose children would have been shoe ins for such help (unless means tested). They stuck in with the state system and literally couldn't have done better grade wise.
Scholarships and bursaries are about buying talent. Sure it might be good for the student (or may make no difference). But it's always good for the school.
Parents are always flattered by the school chipping in because they think it makes their child special. But the benefit goes both ways

Interesting tho. And do think private schools will always be with us. I don't like them, but I really don't see them going anywhere. The best way to weaken them of course is to strengthen the state system. Trouble with that is that the decision makers send their kids private, so have no skin in the state game.

Well, the way I see it, closing the private schools is completely unworkable - the government wouldn't be able to afford the assets, or the education of 600k students, or the teachers (we'd effectively be in a TUPE situation, which means they'd have to maintain those teachers on their existing benefits packages).

The obvious thing to do is to co-opt them as part of the state system and take them over from the inside - that way, everybody wins. The schools get to stay open, the scholarship kids get a higher-value education, the non-scholarship kids are in less-overcrowded schools, and the government gets a win on education (something they haven't had in decades, if ever).

Of course, it would require that the government don't use the opportunity to cut the education budget - per-pupil funding would need to increase proportionally.

There will never be a situation where the education system is equal by financial status. Hell, there's just as much geographical inequality within the state system as there is between state and private schools. It strikes me that fixing the postcode lottery when it comes to state schools would be a far more useful endeavour than the politically-charged war against affluence...not least, because if the state system is in a more equal state (preferably more capable, rather than a lowest-common-denominator approach), then the other side of the problem goes away anyway.

Oh, and on "it would further siphon talent from state schools" - the state schools which would lose that talent aren't really serving those pupils well enough in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't lose them. While there's obviously a "greater good" aspect to consider, the individuals are important too. Sacrificing their potential education for the sake of ideology helps no-one, IMO.

D and I policy means diversity and inclusivity i.e. everybody in. Whilst work needs to be done on breaking the public school stranglehold in some areas, to automatically exclude privately educated pupils is just another form of discrimination.

Also those who suddenly are 'very church-attending Catholics/add whatever religion you like here' to boost their kids chances of getting in.
Then are never seen in associated religious institute again

This catchment area argument applies to so few kids. At the school
Mine attended there was no choice. Unless parents on low or average paid jobs were going to up sticks and risk all.
I find this argument is generally made by people in an income bracket which doesn't apply to most of the population. Choice is a pipe dream for most.

Some people just send their kids to the local schools, having moved into that area before kids were even on the agenda, mind blowing, I know

In our area there were three primary schools. They built a big one so shut two down. Unfortunately the New school wasn't big enough so they've divied up the children between the two remaining schools. The class sizes are pushing 40 because the catchment area has also increased. The education authority who had assured the head that new classrooms would be built, more teachers employed have reneged due to the cut backs .

They're looking to close another three schools to save money. So I can see the attraction of taking your kids out when despite a 10% rise in our council tax this year our school system in our county is in such dire straits financially.

'D and I policy means diversity and inclusivity i.e. everybody in. Whilst work needs to be done on breaking the public school stranglehold in some areas, to automatically exclude privately educated pupils is just another form of discrimination.'

Approx 93% of the population aren't going to be losing any sleep over any perceived 'discrimination' against public school grad. Not a single minute.
And as there IS a stranglehold that needs to be loosened, DE&I means NOT having the same old-same old faces, classes, schools anymore.

We need talent, not nepotism and privilege.

Absolutely agree but inclusion has to mean everyone and the best people for the job regardless of background.

Also need to bear in mind that only a small percentage of that 7percent are from the top schools where nepotism may play a part in future careers. Kids from local private day schools are not necessarily more advantages than their neighbours kids in leafy suburbs who go to local comps and have parents with social and monetary capital.

@ChunkaMunkaBoomBoom
Around 20% of sixth formers go to private school so it’s not that niche. In Edinburgh 1 in 4 pupils are at private school. Would you really automatically exclude that whole group from being considered for employment because your perception is that they haven’t had a tough enough life to be employable (which is a strange criterion for employability).

I’m not sure about defining living in the real world as being only about going to state school. In my class at a selective girls’ day school, one student immigrated to the UK and had parents who spoke very little English so had to translate for them and work in their business; one tragically lost her mum at 15; one lived with her mum who worked in a supermarket and lived in relative poverty with a dad who funded school fees; one was adopted and was in care until age 14, 2 were on bursaries from families on under 30k household income; many more went through difficult life events like parents divorcing etc. Of course many girls were from very privileged backgrounds but I don’t think many fitted the stereotype you clearly have in your head. Standard was one parent who was a doctor/ dentist/ pilot and other who was teacher / social worker / lecturer etc.

Most people were smart at least in purely IQ terms (they IQ tested everyone at the school once and the average was 125).

The majority had completely normal Saturday jobs like working in shops or waitressing too.

Of course if you were looking at Eton the picture would be different.

Exactly. There's also another case which doesn't really get talked about - those like mine, for whom the state school environment is entirely unsuitable. I'm autistic, undiagnosed while at school, and I was bullied to hell at primary school; there is no evidence this would've been any different at secondary level in a state school (in fact, our local state schools had a habit of excluding anybody outside the norm as quickly as possible). The private school I went to on a scholarship, however, provided a safe and rich environment for me to discover myself both socially and academically. The teachers there were incredible, and had both the time and the resources (as well as the experience) to know that I was a bit different and help me figure out how to navigate the world, without ever using the word "autism" or trying to palm me off on the local "special school".

I'm not the only one, either - I know of many others who had the same experience, both at my school and elsewhere.

Had I gone to either of the state schools, there would have been precisely zero chance for me to have the life I have now. I was incredibly lucky to have had the opportunity, yes - but then, so are a lot of other kids these days, who'd be completely left behind by the system supposedly designed to help them.

Am I a private school snob? No, not at all. I've never once taken advantage of the name of my school or its background or its network, just the education it provided, and despite earning six figures and having a great life I'm basically seen as a bundle of wasted potential compared to most of my friends from there. Am I happy? Yes. Am I glad to have gone there? Absolutely.

In my experience many in the 900k camp are opposed to private schools and vote labour, without realising the hypocrisy.

I went to a state school in a deprived area that I dropped out of at 16 when I developed a serious, long term illness. I'm on a relatively high salary now in a professional career (never been on benefits) and just spent £280K alone on my first house.

I've dated a few former private school boys and they all seemed bitter they hadn't achieved a lot. Not saying that's true for all, but they definitely felt like failures. One was on benefits and constantly repeating years at uni.

You get the IQ, drive and resilience you're born with. Throwing money at it is just nepotism - everyone knows including the student.

I’m grateful to families who choose private school - it’s because of them that we got our son into the outstanding local state comprehensive from the waiting list. We wouldn’t have got a place if people who were offered places hadn’t declined them in order to go private.

Also, I don’t see the issue with people who can afford it paying for services.

Around 20% of sixth formers go to private school so it’s not that niche

Lies, damned lies and statistics, though. If you were at state schools from 5-16 and then at a private school for less than 2 years to do your A levels, you are state-educated really, aren't you? I think the 7% figure is a more accurate one regarding the percentage who are privately educated.