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.

@Blondewithredlips

I believe you. I'm making the point that state schools would only disapply in extreme circumstances and it wouldn't help their figures at all.

In reality we all know it wouldn’t work like that though.

It’s not a straightforward binary. However as shortages worsen it is becoming worse. A lot of state schools, particularly large MATs have many young teachers and don’t appoint/support older teachers as they are older and less likely to agree with every bonkers new initiative. Add to that that many state schools have fast turnover and a lack of specialist teachers in subjects such as Maths and Science. My school is a well established independent school in a popular city. Last time we advertised an English post we had 80 applicants. We have teachers with PhDs in many departments. There are many teachers who stay long term and we have freedom in how we teach our curriculum, we are not tied to PowerPoint presentations. Our class sizes are smaller. It’s absolutely not a level playing field but our students have a great educational experience.

I don't judge people who send their children to private school, as long as they don't feel terribly sorry for my son in a lowly state school😑

Yabu. State schools can be very good. I've worked in both. Imo private schools are often a waste of money, but I dont think they should close, there should be personal choice.

Makes me laugh when there's an assumption private school children will automatically do better. If your child is capable and has good support at home, they'll do well in either. If they aren't capable, they won't be a brain surgeon, regardless of the school you choose.

Someone up thread jokingly mentioned 'doing away with families', which some didn't find funny but which actually holds some truth. Research shows outcomes of those with well educated mothers to be greater than those who haven't.. How do we measure the advantage bestowed by having a degree-educated mother or worse, two university educated parents? the type that come on here and know how to navigate the whole education system, 11+, UCAS, uni choices etc

Solely focussing on private v state won't going to address that. Middle-class educated parents exist across both sectors. It's not like all the educated parents are in the private sector - only a small percentage of them actually are...which makes one wonder about the popular myth on MN that if all those private school parents moved over to the state, State education will be saved. What about all those middle class sharp elbowed parents of the 93% state educated kids? if they have not been able to push up standards why do people think the parents of the 7% will?

I was the one who made that joke. I wasn't laughing st kids in care. I was laughing at the people who think they're providing some kind of service to children kn care by sending their kids to state school. Middle class children in the state system simply bring up the results for the school, so it looks like they're doing well, when actually the parents are doing all the work at home. It doesn't actually benefit the kids that don't have that support at home at all. That was my experience of state school, anyway.

Of course, there are sensible reasons for sending your kid to state. Like, you don't think private is worth the money. Or you think it's a better broader education to mix with more different people. You want their friends to live close by etc.

They don't just 'bring up the results', @Dobby123456 . It's genuinely important to have a mix in a school. At DC's school it became apparent that despite the stupid strapline they had which wittered on about Aspiration and Ambition, there was nothing of the sort. Certainly not coming form the school. But a scattering of families where that was the norm really did help other students. Our family (like yours I expect) expected our kids to strive and achieve and do something special. Many other families just wanted at best the same as they themselves had. It wasnt a saviour complex, it's just the way it happened: DD's best friend would never have gone to university and studied engineering without that friendship for example. Her family were dead set against it. Now the friend has a great grad job and all that family angst is in the past.
You'll attack me for virtue signalling. I know you will. But those were the completely unintended mechanics of the situation. And of course my own DC got something out of it all too, learning to accept that there are good reasons why some in society have to fight a bit harder or get left by the wayside.
I'm so pleased it worked out for both girls, who are still best friends and going great guns in life.

There are a lot of interseting points on the thread so thanks for everyone's good points on all sides.

1. On the poor boy asked at an Oxbridge interview how would he cope coming from a bad school - that is probably rare in Oxbridge interviews (although none of my 5 private school children tried Oxbridge which is the case for most children even in the most academic private schools -usually in the top state grammars and the very selective private schools about a third might go or try). It is a known interview technique to make people very uncomfortable and see how they can argue a point - the interviewer makes one controversial comment and sees how someone can fight through to a brilliant argument on the other side. I am sure state and private school parents try this at home as we certainly do - I just wish people had my views at home at times as it can be argument central on so many points. However I still think it was not a politically correct question to ask so probably not a good idea to pick that one.
2. Many private schools cater for not so bright children eg compare Millfield and Winchester or compare say Royal Masonic with St Paul's girls. In richer areas like London there will be a pecking order of evne up to 10 private schools and more with those at the top very hard to get into (impossible for many children) and those at the "bottom" who do very good value added work and take the child even if their entrance exam paper were not too good (and some that are very poor private schools taking anyone and adding no value. So it can be a bit unfair (as it can about the state system) to generalise about all the schools.
3. On do private schools have better teachers - my children's father has taught in both sectors and I think he is pretty good and certainly very well qualified too. He left the state sector where he felt he was like a policeman (although he ius actually pretty good at controlling a class) and I do not think he would ever go back. Obviously with 20% of sixthformers (or 17%) in fee paying sixth forms and I am not sure how many state grammars, it may be that some fee paying schools do attract good teachers with a degree in their subject etc. In a sense I paid for the ability of the private school to hire and keep eccentric teaachers, rule breakers, fun ones, unusual ones so you get a wide variety of staff which perhaps it is harder to find in the state sector. I certainly also paid for a peer group as teenagers tend to follow the herd - so if most of your class go to university you probably will as that is the norm. In our case we chose single sex schools too.

'It's not like all the educated parents are in the private sector - only a small percentage of them actually are...which makes one wonder about the popular myth on MN that if all those private school parents moved over to the state, State education will be saved. What about all those middle class sharp elbowed parents of the 93% state educated kids? if they have not been able to push up standards why do people think the parents of the 7% will?'

This is a good point.

'Makes me laugh when there's an assumption private school children will automatically do better. If your child is capable and has good support at home, they'll do well in either. If they aren't capable, they won't be a brain surgeon, regardless of the school you choose.'

They may do well in either, but many capable children are given more opportunity to coast rather than get challenged in state.

I generally find people that have been state school educated, have more 'rounded' personalities, if that makes sense

I generally find people that have been state school educated, have more 'rounded' personalities, if that makes sense.

Quite apart from the fact that both state and private schools vary massively (some private schools are pretty shit and a far cry from the well-known ones which confer huge privilege and sometimes a real sense of superiority), there are a lot of factors which form people's personalities.

I've been a teacher for 27 years in private and state. I' personally have seen far more lack of roundedness in the state schools tbh. Parochial, insular attitudes, more racism, sexism and homophobia. That's not bias talking btw - I was state educated, as are dh and my dc. There are obviously different kinds of lack of roundedness in private schools, but I've generally found the students more outward-looking and less insular.

No it does not

I agree 100% @Dobby123456 the grades are not the endgame - it’s the experience (I think I said further up on this thread) my kids get to do so much more at their prep school. They still do a lot of their external activities as before, but I can’t describe how different the prep is - we love it.