Discussion over private schools brings out illogical viewpoints, sheer hypocrisy and the worse traits in people?

[ByPeachJoker]

First off, not that it should impact an objective debate, but we do send our son to a private primary school but would consider ourselves middle income earners.

As you can imagine, this is linked to the PMs debate just now, but having read a recent MN thread on a lady who wanted to know how she might be able to avoid paying VAT on school fees should Labour come into power, I was shocked at the vitriol thrown her way. As far as I could tell, the issue wasn't so much that she wanted to avoid the VAT but the majority of comments were coming from people who essentially felt like this lady was somehow getting her comeuppance, that she automatically deserved to suffer some form of penalty just by virtue of choosing to send her DC to a private school. She made a 'bad' choice and should suffer the consequences.

One comment was simply 'how about sending your kids to a state school like 93% of the population'. It completely disregards the fact that there is a child at the heart of this and that a fairly arbitrary tax change is a) going to lead to an additional cost for exactly the same thing and b) for many parents, this change will mean they cannot afford the fees and this may lead to a child's education and social environment being uprooted. I'm not here to necessarily discuss the actual fairness of VAT being imposed on private school fees but more that there is this automatic reaction by a majority of people whenever private schooling is discussed and that this reaction is rooted in nothing logical and is based on the worse of human emotions such that people ignore the fact that many parents are making a financial/lifestyle sacrifice for their children.

Much of it comes from this completely incorrect assumption that you must be wealthy to send your child to a school. I get the impression that many are misinformed and assume that most private schools are like Eton or Harrow and have fees in excess of £20k a year which really is not the case. I think the negativity comes down to the fact that it's people's children that are involved and so people naturally come to see parents who send their kids to private schools as paying for some form of advantage and this being inherently unfair. Now I accept that there are a lot of people who simply could not afford private school fees BUT (and I know this will be incredibly unpopular) to be quite frank, most middle class families can but the parents simply aren't willing to make the financial and lifestyle sacrifice to send their kids to private school and yet they are happy to try and hate on those that do.

Ultimately they might choose to spend their money on a more expensive car, a bigger house, a nicer holiday etc. I used to live in a new build housing development where people in one bedroom flats had brand new Range Rover Sports parked up outside. It was ridiculous that people who could seemingly 'only' afford a 1 bed flat were buying or leasing cars that were almost a third of the value of their home. However we let them make their choice and move on.

Now you can argue about the ethics of private school education but I think those who automatically view parents who send their kids to private school as people who should endure some form of suffering or deserve whatever is coming to them need to look at the hypocrisy they show when compared to their own lifestyle choices but also understand that we're not all millionaires and have actually made a sacrifice for what we hope is the benefit of our children - have you done the same?

It's a bit rich calling me "foolish" and "silly" whilst complaining about "unnecessary digs". You could have made your point without resorting to insults. I didn't make a dig at you at all; I simply pointed out, correctly, that a word you used as a verb isn't one. The fact that you're so outraged about it is your problem. By the way, people who speak English as a second language don't tend to use colloquialisms unless they're very fluent indeed.

Don't you think you should drop this before you make yourself look any more foolish? How many languages can you write well enough to engage in a conversation on mumsnet?

I did not insult you at all. Read my post again.

I’m far from outraged. You’re the one who seems overly invested in me misusing a word. Very very odd.

Clearly I don’t know the right colloquialisms seeing as you had to correct me on using the word “glee” as a verb, and then kindly advised me to check these things for myself.

I’m not sure why you’re so obsessed over my use and knowledge of English.

In any event, I’m going to leave this thread as it’s not worth engaging with you any further.

Did you use 'glee' as a verb? I assumed you meant to write 'people's glee at children's lives being uprooted' and mistyped it. Anyway, I know plenty of very highly educated people who make the odd mistake in written/spoken English as it's not their first language. And 'glee' isn't a colloquialism - so pp has used the wrong word there herself!😂

I honestly can’t remember whether it was deliberate or a typo but at least I am now fully educated on the use of the word. In fact, I feel glee at having received a Mumsnet English lesson! 😂😂

'Equality of opportunity' for all is the fundamental hypocrisy spouted by all opponents of independent education. The thing is equality of opportunity simply does not exist and certainly does not exist just because a group of kids attend the same school. Aside from the fact that there are huge disparities between the quality of state education provided to different children; with such disparities largely predicated upon parents' ability to pay for things such as houses attached to the best school zones, private tutors, and extra-curricular activities to facilitate entry, there are vast differences in life chances enjoyed by pupils within the same school. Again, most often predicated on socioeconomic variances between families. I've yet to see one set of parents denying their children the advantages conferred by their relative affluence, professional contacts or education, or foregoing that exciting, mind enhancing trip to [insert historically significant and captivating location here] because Timmy in the next class doesn’t have the same access. If I was to suggest this the response would be that "We've worked really hard to get to this point, so why should our children not benefit?". Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Now I accept that there are a lot of people who simply could not afford private school fees BUT (and I know this will be incredibly unpopular) to be quite frank, most middle class families can but the parents simply aren't willing to make the financial and lifestyle sacrifice to send their kids to private school

@ByPeachJoker I'll bite. I'm tired of private school parents suggesting that people who don't choose to go private don't care about their children's education. I'm fortunate to have a high quality state school nearby. My children are thriving there. For various reasons, they would qualify for a 75% discount on fees at one of the local private schools, but I don't consider it good value for money. Private isn't always better

I think most people will try to find the best school for their child in their own circumstances. This is going to include all kinds of considerations - the child's personality, personal values, the kind of environment you want for your child etc. I think it's a bit ridiculous to say that people who don't scrape together the cash don't love their child! All I ask is that, having not made the choice for private school, you don't then make it harder for everybody else.

@ByPeachJoker "Now I accept that there are a lot of people who simply could not afford private school fees BUT (and I know this will be incredibly unpopular) to be quite frank, most middle class families can but the parents simply aren't willing to make the financial and lifestyle sacrifice to send their kids to private school"

:)

Then you who are currently educating your children at private school will be experts at cutting your budgets to find the extra you need per week.

However, the data on who privately educates their children shows that actually the majority of households that do, are in the top income decile, so you are wrong.

@ByPeachJoker I'll bite. I'm tired of private school parents suggesting that people who don't choose to go private don't care about their children's education. I'm fortunate to have a high quality state school nearby. My children are thriving there. For various reasons, they would qualify for a 75% discount on fees at one of the local private schools, but I don't consider it good value for money. Private isn't always better Edited

I bet you’d consider it ‘good value for money’ if your nearby state school wasn’t high quality though.

Actually this is the definition:

give up (something valued) for the sake of other considerations.

So yes, to some families those are sacrifices. But never mind, let's all race to the bottom.

@Alwayssomethingup

I'm always surprised at the sheer number of private school parents that don't live within the catchment area of a school that isn't at least near a good school ( I mean this may happen if you live very rurally).

What I actually think happens in many cases, and in my experience, is good/outstanding state schools are just looked at unfavourably and excuses found not to send their children there.

I can honestly promise you that we, and all our friends/family who don’t live near us (apart from those in London) absolutely do not live in the catchment, or indeed anywhere near good state schools. If we had an excellent state school we would absolutely have chosen it.. certainly not looking for excuses not to!

@Alwayssomethingup This is what confuses me.

You have, on average, 102 k to spend over 6 years for secondary school for one child but can't get a mortgage big enough to pay to be nearer a good school?

It was even shown here when a poster talked to me about my mum's native Durham, insisting that it was impossible to buy in the catchment of the best school in the city/country unless you had a fortune.

I can find 5 houses on sale right now that you could easily afford if you had that kind of money to play with. One which has room for a pony 😆

There are many many reasons why people can’t move; family ties, responsibilities and in our case, our work means we literally can’t leave the house we live in, let alone area. We certainly do not have ponies!

@Alwayssomethingup

Fair enough, but the "no good school nearby" trope is wheeled out by almost every MN poster as the reason they can't send their child to a state school.

It can't be true for the majority.

The way parents need to think of it is this , you have benefitted from a loop hole in the past ,just be grateful for that!

6 to 7% of the total population is in private school. It's hardly a majority, is it?

My nearest senior school has been RI for at least the last 10 years. The one I managed to get my kids into (because I worked there when my youngest was in Year 6) has gone down hill in the last few years to the extent that I made a difficult decision to remove my youngest in Year 10. The one he is at now is just about better. We live in a broadly very deprived area. There are, of course, pockets of wealth and middle-class parents. But overall, it's really not great and I live in the thick of it. I can't afford to move. If I could afford it, my kids would have gone private and as I teach in a private school, I can tell you that many of our parents are professional people (not rich people) who are making it work with the school fees because the senior schools around us are all shades of not great. We know some of them will not continue if Labour does what it says it's going to do.

The amount of threads about this topic on mumsnet is very revealing.

Find it ironic that OP is despairing at the lack of logic and common sense of others yet asserting that middle class could afford it. The average income in UK last year was 35k, if two parents were on that I very much doubt they would agree. But I have a feeling OP's understanding of middle class is different.

Another very simple logic is, private education is a service that people are choosing to pay for. Private schools are not charities and do not deserve the status.

It is the very definition of a first world problem.

Which loophole?

Private schools are not charities and do not deserve the status

Private schools educate. They don't make profits for shareholders. They're not businesses.

If private schools aren't charities (I am inclined to agree) where does that leave actual charities who support people who are wealthy? Because not all charitable aims are to support the poor. Is it wrong of a charity to support a millionaire suffering with a terrible disease, for example, because they could buy the support they need? And if it is wrong, where does that leave all charities who look to help people with circumstances that are not related to their wealth? Remembering of course, legacy fundraising is a key element of many charity fundrasising strategy, particularly those that deal with end of life matters. Should charities be able to take from the rich but not provide any kind of support to the rich whatsoever? Who gets to define what rich is in such circumstances?

It is very complex. Morally, at least, the charitable status 'thing'. It isn't as easy as just saying 'private schools are not charities'.

@notbelieved

I meant the majority of posters on MN who claim it as a reason for sending their children to private school.

I've always asked then though, where do you live that you can't move when you have (on average) 102k of income to spend on private schooling?

If you had this type of income/disposable cash, you would move.

@Matronic6

"Find it ironic that OP is despairing at the lack of logic and common sense of others yet asserting that middle class could afford it."

Yet on another thread I've been castigated for pointing out the a family that already spend nearly 46k a year on education for two children, should have no problem finding 500 quid a month in flex from their budget.

It's not complex. The definition of a charity is an organisation set up to help those in need.

No one needs private education. Private schools do not operate to help those in need. Therefore they are not a charity.

@Matronic6

I think they retain charitable status by being shown to conducting business for public benefit and not making a profit.

Although I believe the charities commission has said that they need to do a lot more, this hasn't been enforced.