Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To wonder if Private School parents think we can’t read?

1000 replies

Captainmycaptains · 26/06/2024 10:00

Work/volunteer in Education so following the whole VAT debate.

SM is full of private parent groups ‘organising’ to get the proposed VAT on fees cancelled - fine you would, wouldn’t you esp.if you’re used to getting your own way.

They’re advocating hassling local schools, councils, demanding stats and figures that don’t exist, wiring to MPs - telling people to ‘claim’ their state place to ‘disrupt’ the ‘system’ while also saying ‘ Obvs we won’t be taking Charlotte and Hugo out of school, we’ll find the money’ etc strive harder, getting granny to chip in’ but this might make the council ‘panic’.

Do they think that people in support of the VAT aren’t seeing/hearing/reading all of these plans???

the funniest one yet is the poster who said ‘ well going to claim our state school places then! See how they like that! We’ll going holiday, pay the mortgage down, shop at Waitrose and save £700k in the process, ha!’
I. no you aren’t 2. Okay - go for it! Who on earth would think £700k is worth it?? Behave like a normal person then…

YANBU - yeah, they’re noisy as expected but the rest of us are as think/ concerned as they seem to think. Also - it’s too late for Sept - waiting lists only…

YABU - applying for school places you have no intention of using is daft, and of course everyone can see what they’re trying to do.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
winterrabbit · 28/06/2024 11:33

IwillNOTplayfastandloosewithpublicfinances · 27/06/2024 16:19

OP

Education in the U.K. is a postcode lottery. You must realise this surely, given that you’re ‘in education’ as you claim. Some areas have fantastic state schools. Others not so much, Some have selective faith school options. Some have the grammar system. Some have excellent independent schools. Some have crap independent schools.

Its all very well talking about the situation in your area. Every area is different.

You talk about this policy as if it’s actually come as a shock to ‘private school parents.’ It hasn’t though - Labour have been on about it for years. They used to talk about a ‘mansion tax’ too, though not sure what happened to that idea. Maybe that will affect you OP, as you say you are wealthy? Perhaps an inevitable ‘mansion tax’ combined with higher stamp duty will inhibit people moving into grammar school areas, or outstanding state schools?

We all know where Kier Starmer lives and can have a good guess at the state school his kids attend. No surprise there.

Every private school is different and every school will react to thid policy differently. So talking about ‘private schools’ ad if they are a homogenous group is a nonsense really.

For instance, I’m in SW London. Within 3 miles of my house, there are private schools which charge about £6K basic per term (or at least they did a few years back) - eg. schools in the GDST group which tend to be s bit cheaper. Then there are schools like St Paul’s, Godolphin and Latymer etc where the fees are more like £9K basic. Outside London, I’m sure basic fees are cheaper. But then there are more schools in the countryside which are boarding / flexi-boarding, or which offer long days (pupils staying until 6 for prep etc) - so those fees will be even higher. I’ve no idea how much full boarding is.

I’m saying this to make the point that the way schools pass on costs to parents varies a lot anyway and this will continue to be the case. For many, it will just be the equivalent of paying for lunches or not, or paying for a trip, or paying for music lessons etc. Fees go up every year anyway. When my eldest started reception in about 2007, it was less than £3K per term. By the time he left, it was almost £10K per term all in.

For instance, another one of the day schools one of mine went to had high basic fees (it’s was about £8.5K but this was some years ago) BUT a significant proportion went to the bursary programme there and this was the core ethos of the school. About 20-25% were on full bursaries there and it rises year on year. Will they be able to continue this - who knows?

As for your snipe about Hugo and Araminta or whatever - what planet are you on? Most people in London independents are British Indian / Chinese / European. Hardly anyone has two British parents born in the U.K. Hugo indeed!

The reason people pay in London is because if your local state school achieves 20% 9-7 at GCSE, but you know you have a bright child who could possibly pass the exams for a selective independent where 98% of all grades are 9-7 and you can afford it - what are you going to do? People don’t pay for connections or to be posh and that malarkey. It’s not the 1950s. People pay for results and safety.

Then there is the fact, if your child isn’t academic they won’t get into a selective independent anyway. One of mine was is very dyslexic. Rather than A-levels, they wanted to do another type of course leading to uni (not BTEC but similar). They went to a state college to do this (the only place that offers it locally) - the place was state of the art. Millions had been invested in the facilities and environment. Far more than anything I had seen in the independent sector…

About 5 weeks in, a student was fatally stabbed in broad daylight, just outside the main entrance to the college and witnessed by local school children. The boy killed was a refugee living here more or less alone. The boy / group of boys who killed him were 16. This never made the press and to this day, I don’t understand why.

Sorry for the essay (!) but basically the way I feel is this - schools and everything in the U.K. are woefully underfunded and more tax is inevitable. This school fees tax is just one easy headline for Labour. If the money is used effectively (I really hope it is) - fair enough. But it’s going to take more than extra maths teachers to put right what is going wrong in U.K. schools. It’s a social problem. A malaise. No wonder teachers are leaving in droves - they are expected to be social workers as much as teach.

Anyway, whoever gets in, a raft of taxation will be inevitably coming to everyone - whether explicitly like with this policy, or by stealth. I just hope the money is actually used effectively and makes a difference because nobody wants to live in a society where teachers are scared, pupils are failed and society is increasingly polarised. Nobody benefits from that. Just hope for the best really.

Just to add, Kier Starmer's son goes to the same state school as my son and it is not an outstanding school - it's rated as Requires Improvement and has a pretty challenging intake. I don't like many of his other policies but kudos to him for sending his kids to the local state even if not great unlike the likes of the hypocrite Diana Abbot and Tony Blair who sent his kids to the Oratory and Grey Coat Hospital - not the same!!

Araminta1003 · 28/06/2024 11:45

“Just to add, Kier Starmer's son goes to the same state school as my son and it is not an outstanding school - it's rated as Requires Improvement and has a pretty challenging intake. I don't like many of his other policies but kudos to him for sending his kids to the local state even if not great unlike the likes of the hypocrite Diana Abbot and Tony Blair who sent his kids to the Oratory and Grey Coat Hospital - not the same!!“

I hope the DC is question is happy and thriving and gets lots of extra time in the day by attending a local school
and has local friends. But I don’t see it as “kudos”.
Every politician should be able to exercise a free choice and send their own DC to the best school for that child, weighing up all the choices they may or may not have. It’s only kudos if Starmer and his wife chose the best option for their DC. If they chose for ideological or political reasons or fear of the media, then sorry, that is not good, in my books. It would be very worrying indeed.

winterrabbit · 28/06/2024 11:47

Araminta1003 · 28/06/2024 11:45

“Just to add, Kier Starmer's son goes to the same state school as my son and it is not an outstanding school - it's rated as Requires Improvement and has a pretty challenging intake. I don't like many of his other policies but kudos to him for sending his kids to the local state even if not great unlike the likes of the hypocrite Diana Abbot and Tony Blair who sent his kids to the Oratory and Grey Coat Hospital - not the same!!“

I hope the DC is question is happy and thriving and gets lots of extra time in the day by attending a local school
and has local friends. But I don’t see it as “kudos”.
Every politician should be able to exercise a free choice and send their own DC to the best school for that child, weighing up all the choices they may or may not have. It’s only kudos if Starmer and his wife chose the best option for their DC. If they chose for ideological or political reasons or fear of the media, then sorry, that is not good, in my books. It would be very worrying indeed.

Yes, agree. At least he does try and practice what he preaches though.

OneWorldly4 · 28/06/2024 11:47

Captainmycaptains · 28/06/2024 10:42

Given that the worst that is going to happen is a child attends a school similar to the one 93% of children use in the U.K. it really is laughable the fuss that is being made over this.

But you're the one making a fuss, starting a thread and gloating?

What has it got to do with you? What joy are you getting from a situation that will affect many, many CHILDREN? Children are at the heart of this. Children with SEN that couldn't cope in mainstream and so the parents sacrifice all they have to ensure THEIR CHILD gets the setting where his/her needs will be met.

The parents of a bullied CHILD that had to be moved and again, they sacrifice everything to make it better for their CHILD

Do you have a mortgage? Do you have a car? Go on holiday? Get take outs? Go to the hairdresser and treat yourself? Days or nights out? Of course you do. That is YOUR CHOICE. Are we sitting her wishing your CHILD ill? No because its not our business what you do with your life. So leave us to live ours.

twodowntwotogo · 28/06/2024 12:29

Vivi0 · 27/06/2024 22:09

Is it cheaper to buy a catchment area house or send your child to a private school?

Where I live, private school is the cheaper option (depending on the number of children you have, of course).

I have two children in private school, and am happy to pay the VAT. But I understand that other parents are in different positions and are of course, entitled to their views and to air those views.

What I do find repugnant though, are people much wealthier than me who, rather than pay school fees, invest their money into £1,000,000 plus properties to ensure their children attend the best state schools in their city, at no additional cost to them.

Whilst their children are receiving a good education (and clogging up an already overburdened system), other children whose parents don’t have the money to invest in a £1,000,000 plus home, are not so fortunate.

I do hope the VAT raises enough funds to make a difference to state schooling, although I have my own views on that. I don’t understand, though, why the kind of parents I have made reference to are not invoiced the equivalent amount of what it costs the system to educate their child per year. Surely, they realise how privileged their children are to be able to attend such good state schools, and would only be too happy to pay up to help the schools that they would never send their own children to.

I’m good with wealthier people paying more. All of them though, not just some.

What I do find repugnant though, are people much wealthier than me who, rather than pay school fees, invest their money into £1,000,000 plus properties to ensure their children attend the best state schools in their city, at no additional cost to them.

Why is this repugnant? Maybe they don't like the private schools in their area. Not everyone - no matter how much money they have - necessarily wants to send their child to a private school. It seems more like a sound investment - good education and a property at the end of it. Are you indulging in the politics of envy and spite?
Also - as so many people seem to forget this:
Every taxpayer pays for the state education system, just as they pay for a while host of services whether they use them or not.

Viviennemary · 28/06/2024 12:36

twodowntwotogo · 28/06/2024 12:29

What I do find repugnant though, are people much wealthier than me who, rather than pay school fees, invest their money into £1,000,000 plus properties to ensure their children attend the best state schools in their city, at no additional cost to them.

Why is this repugnant? Maybe they don't like the private schools in their area. Not everyone - no matter how much money they have - necessarily wants to send their child to a private school. It seems more like a sound investment - good education and a property at the end of it. Are you indulging in the politics of envy and spite?
Also - as so many people seem to forget this:
Every taxpayer pays for the state education system, just as they pay for a while host of services whether they use them or not.

I didnt have a million pounds to spend but I moved to an area with a good school. Why wouldn't you if it's an option.

Shambles123 · 28/06/2024 12:39

Viviennemary · 28/06/2024 12:36

I didnt have a million pounds to spend but I moved to an area with a good school. Why wouldn't you if it's an option.

Yes, a good one and lots of private school parents will now look to do this. This creates less opportunities for kids whose parents can't afford the houses to go to the good schools and means that the policy will cost the state money.

Newbutoldfather · 28/06/2024 12:57

@Shambles123 ,

‘Yes, a good one and lots of private school parents will now look to do this. This creates less opportunities for kids whose parents can't afford the houses to go to the good schools and means that the policy will cost the state money.’

I wonder how many if you actually try to quantify it?

There is going to be a high correlation between those leaving and those who are struggling to afford fees. I wonder how many of them have £50k-£100k to pay the stamp duty and other moving costs (a genuinely unfair tax) on an expensive property. So, if 15% leave and 20% of those move (both high estimates in my opinion), that would mean 3% of private school parents moving, or around 10,000-15,000 moves across all of the uk (plenty will be siblings), and that will take place over several years, as moving takes times.

I doubt it will have a significant effect on the state sector.

And will it cost the state money. They will get stamp duty instead of VAT, so more money upfront, and all the VAT on building/decorating and buying new things that comes with moving house.

Most with £50-100k spare would prefer to keep their children in private schools and see how it actually pans out.

Shambles123 · 28/06/2024 13:08

At 10% moving to state the policy is a cost to the state so your eg already includes a large hit to the education (or, I suppose, health or police or whatever) budget.

I do feel motivated by this policy to move my 3 dc to state and claim the £21k from the system that I could rightly claim 'back' from my net contributions.

This is a policy that is creating bad vibes. It's a bad one. Also a gateway one.

Newbutoldfather · 28/06/2024 13:24

@Shambles123 ,

‘At 10% moving to state the policy is a cost to the state so your eg already includes a large hit to the education (or, I suppose, health or police or whatever) budget’

This totally depends on people’s marginal propensity to spend what they have saved on fees on vattable goods. That is how economists model it.

‘I do feel motivated by this policy to move my 3 dc to state and claim the £21k from the system that I could rightly claim 'back' from my net contributions.’

That is really weird phraseology from a mother considering her children’s education. You would change your children’s school to what you clearly consider to be a worse one to ‘claim 'back' from my net contributions.’’. I just don’t really believe you, sorry.

It would be worth revisiting the 50% top rate of tax threads and seeing how many left the country vs how many threatened to do so -I would far fewer than 10%.

charitynamechange · 28/06/2024 13:24

Oh that house price-good state school correlation thing is a bit bogus. Despite having sent our children the local comprehensive we have a lot of friends who sent private. They are scattered around the country between London, Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset, Norwich, Surrey, Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. And you know what? They ALL have lovely expensive houses in areas full of similar. Honestly reading MN you'd think private school families were all living on the edge of sink estates and comprehensive families were ensconced in luxury abodes.
I do not object to my friends' choices as long as they own them and don't bleat.

Private schools have had lots of warning and can, like other businesses, make savings rather than passing on the full 20 per cent on to parents. It's what businesses with customers do.

US2gether · 28/06/2024 13:30

Shambles123 · 28/06/2024 13:08

At 10% moving to state the policy is a cost to the state so your eg already includes a large hit to the education (or, I suppose, health or police or whatever) budget.

I do feel motivated by this policy to move my 3 dc to state and claim the £21k from the system that I could rightly claim 'back' from my net contributions.

This is a policy that is creating bad vibes. It's a bad one. Also a gateway one.

Sign them up. I'm sure they will be very welcome. Private schools often cherry pick then rave about their results so if they are academic even better. Will help raise the averages too. If every parent were to use state I'm sure they would be pushing for more investment in schools nationwide.

Shambles123 · 28/06/2024 13:32

That is really weird phraseology from a mother considering her children’s education. You would change your children’s school to what you clearly consider to be a worse one to ‘claim 'back' from my net contributions.’’. I just don’t really believe you, sorry.

A mother would never do that. The martyr mother who would never apply any kind of hard logic for her children so filled she is with nothing but rainbows and love and unicorns. Fuck off with your patriarchal bullshit @Newbutoldfather . Im not asking for you to believe anything just consider another opinion. I have got used to seeing the whole world opine on my finances and what I may or may not spend my money on recently. Yawn to you all. It's still a shit policy whatever VATable goods I'm buying.

Shambles123 · 28/06/2024 13:35

US2gether · 28/06/2024 13:30

Sign them up. I'm sure they will be very welcome. Private schools often cherry pick then rave about their results so if they are academic even better. Will help raise the averages too. If every parent were to use state I'm sure they would be pushing for more investment in schools nationwide.

I am planning to. I will make sure I make use of all the services I pay tax on. The rest of the saved income can go to pension.

Vivi0 · 28/06/2024 13:38

twodowntwotogo · 28/06/2024 12:29

What I do find repugnant though, are people much wealthier than me who, rather than pay school fees, invest their money into £1,000,000 plus properties to ensure their children attend the best state schools in their city, at no additional cost to them.

Why is this repugnant? Maybe they don't like the private schools in their area. Not everyone - no matter how much money they have - necessarily wants to send their child to a private school. It seems more like a sound investment - good education and a property at the end of it. Are you indulging in the politics of envy and spite?
Also - as so many people seem to forget this:
Every taxpayer pays for the state education system, just as they pay for a while host of services whether they use them or not.

What I am envious of exactly? I already live in the catchement of a good performing school, but I’ve already given my reasons on this thread for why I chose private.

Also, why would I overburden the state school system when I don’t need to? That’s a space for someone’s else child to attend an excellent performing school, although that space isn’t taken by a child who would really benefit from it, it’s taken by the child of someone in the same financial position as me, who is quite happy to take a state school place for free to the detriment of another child.

That’s why I find it repungent.

I live in Scotland, so I also get free prescriptions and free childcare hours when my children attended nursery. It’s terrrible, really. I can well afford to pay for prescriptions and nursery fees. There is no opt out mechanism, but it really did and does make me feel very uncomfortable. That money could be spent elsewhere - in the NHS or to help single mothers with childcare to get back into work earlier and more easily. Even when I buy Calpol etc for my children, the pharmacy staff are always trying to get me to take it for free under the minor ailment scheme. And no, I didn’t take a baby box either.

As I said, I’m good with wealthier people paying more. Unfortunately, many wealthy people are more than happy to take, take, take.

Every taxpayer pays for the state education system, just as they pay for a while host of services whether they use them or not.

I know this. I already pay to use state education, but don’t. That’s my choice. But if wealthy parents care so much about the state system that they chose that for their children over private, then surely they would be happy to pay extra for the privilege of having their children educated at the outstanding state schools they attend, if it means raising extra funds to help improve the state school system overall. Because it needs more funds than simply charging VAT on private fees alone.

Or maybe they don’t actually care about the state system as a whole, they only care about their child attending an outstanding school and bad luck to all those other children who don’t. That’s what I lean towards, anyway.

twodowntwotogo · 28/06/2024 14:35

Vivi0 · 28/06/2024 13:38

What I am envious of exactly? I already live in the catchement of a good performing school, but I’ve already given my reasons on this thread for why I chose private.

Also, why would I overburden the state school system when I don’t need to? That’s a space for someone’s else child to attend an excellent performing school, although that space isn’t taken by a child who would really benefit from it, it’s taken by the child of someone in the same financial position as me, who is quite happy to take a state school place for free to the detriment of another child.

That’s why I find it repungent.

I live in Scotland, so I also get free prescriptions and free childcare hours when my children attended nursery. It’s terrrible, really. I can well afford to pay for prescriptions and nursery fees. There is no opt out mechanism, but it really did and does make me feel very uncomfortable. That money could be spent elsewhere - in the NHS or to help single mothers with childcare to get back into work earlier and more easily. Even when I buy Calpol etc for my children, the pharmacy staff are always trying to get me to take it for free under the minor ailment scheme. And no, I didn’t take a baby box either.

As I said, I’m good with wealthier people paying more. Unfortunately, many wealthy people are more than happy to take, take, take.

Every taxpayer pays for the state education system, just as they pay for a while host of services whether they use them or not.

I know this. I already pay to use state education, but don’t. That’s my choice. But if wealthy parents care so much about the state system that they chose that for their children over private, then surely they would be happy to pay extra for the privilege of having their children educated at the outstanding state schools they attend, if it means raising extra funds to help improve the state school system overall. Because it needs more funds than simply charging VAT on private fees alone.

Or maybe they don’t actually care about the state system as a whole, they only care about their child attending an outstanding school and bad luck to all those other children who don’t. That’s what I lean towards, anyway.

You make a lot of assumptions - how do you know that wealthier state school parents don't help the school their children are in? And why do you believe that wealthier people don't have values that align with a belief in state education?

quite happy to take a state school place for free to the detriment of another child
This is a bit of a leap! Why wouldn't they be happy for their child to be state educated?

Many many people (of varying incomes) think it's better for children to be educated with a wide range of people and see the intrinsic value of state education over private. Paul McCartney sent his children to state schools. Was that 'repugnant' of him? Just because he was wealthy should he have sent them to private schools?

twodowntwotogo · 28/06/2024 14:38

charitynamechange · 28/06/2024 13:24

Oh that house price-good state school correlation thing is a bit bogus. Despite having sent our children the local comprehensive we have a lot of friends who sent private. They are scattered around the country between London, Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset, Norwich, Surrey, Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire. And you know what? They ALL have lovely expensive houses in areas full of similar. Honestly reading MN you'd think private school families were all living on the edge of sink estates and comprehensive families were ensconced in luxury abodes.
I do not object to my friends' choices as long as they own them and don't bleat.

Private schools have had lots of warning and can, like other businesses, make savings rather than passing on the full 20 per cent on to parents. It's what businesses with customers do.

Absolutely this. If private schools are so great and don't want to inconvenience families, why don't they absorb some of the increase? I'd so much rather the values of a state school that is actually committed to serving its community and being equitable rather than the bogus 'charitable' business model.

coupdetonnerre · 28/06/2024 14:39

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Inthemosquitogarden · 28/06/2024 14:45

To echo many others, you’re way out with Hugo and Charlotte. They haven’t been able to afford private school fees for years in London and/or failed to get in at 7+ as their parents James and Sarah failed to appreciate the tutoring arms race and that they need to be 2 years ahead in maths and English to have a fighting chance to get in at year 3.

Instead it was Aamar, Ruchi, Ming Xuan and Mohammed who scooped the pool at prizegiving last night; all only children whose parents chip in with all four grandparents to scrape together the fees.

do update your stereotypes!

Vivi0 · 28/06/2024 14:46

twodowntwotogo · 28/06/2024 14:35

You make a lot of assumptions - how do you know that wealthier state school parents don't help the school their children are in? And why do you believe that wealthier people don't have values that align with a belief in state education?

quite happy to take a state school place for free to the detriment of another child
This is a bit of a leap! Why wouldn't they be happy for their child to be state educated?

Many many people (of varying incomes) think it's better for children to be educated with a wide range of people and see the intrinsic value of state education over private. Paul McCartney sent his children to state schools. Was that 'repugnant' of him? Just because he was wealthy should he have sent them to private schools?

You make a lot of assumptions - how do you know that wealthier state school parents don't help the school their children are in?

Well of course they help the schools their children are in. But it’s the low performing schools that actually are in need of the help, not the outstanding state schools that their children attend.

This is a bit of a leap! Why wouldn't they be happy for their child to be state educated?

Of course they are happy for their child to be state educated because their child is attending an outstanding state school, which can most of the time, only be done if you have the funds to pay for a £1,000,0000 plus home. If their child, for some reason, had no option but to attend a lower performing state school, in an impoverished area, watch how quickly that same parent would no longer be happy for their child to be state educated.

Many many people (of varying incomes) think it's better for children to be educated with a wide range of people and see the intrinsic value of state education over private. Paul McCartney sent his children to state schools. Was that 'repugnant' of him? Just because he was wealthy should he have sent them to private schools?

I’ll believe that as soon as wealthy people who you claim “see the intrinsic value of state education” send their children to schools in places like Easterhouse in Glasgow. But I won’t hold my breath.

The inequality between state schools is staggering. The wealthy parents who send their children to state schools do so because they don’t need to use a private education. That, is privilege.

Calliopespa · 28/06/2024 14:51

Captainmycaptains · 28/06/2024 10:42

Given that the worst that is going to happen is a child attends a school similar to the one 93% of children use in the U.K. it really is laughable the fuss that is being made over this.

Many of those who object are doing so on the basis of the futility of the policy as a money raiser, rather than the fact of the children changing schools. I think the point about how they will have to lose their privilege was brought in by you saying how pleased you will be about that ramification ( though at the same time you think it’s bluster that it will even happen 🤷🏻‍♀️).

Vivi0 · 28/06/2024 14:52

@twodowntwotogo

You make a lot of assumptions

Quite funny of you to mention that since this thread. and similar threads, are filled with assumptions about private school parents and their children.

twodowntwotogo · 28/06/2024 15:00

Vivi0 · 28/06/2024 14:46

You make a lot of assumptions - how do you know that wealthier state school parents don't help the school their children are in?

Well of course they help the schools their children are in. But it’s the low performing schools that actually are in need of the help, not the outstanding state schools that their children attend.

This is a bit of a leap! Why wouldn't they be happy for their child to be state educated?

Of course they are happy for their child to be state educated because their child is attending an outstanding state school, which can most of the time, only be done if you have the funds to pay for a £1,000,0000 plus home. If their child, for some reason, had no option but to attend a lower performing state school, in an impoverished area, watch how quickly that same parent would no longer be happy for their child to be state educated.

Many many people (of varying incomes) think it's better for children to be educated with a wide range of people and see the intrinsic value of state education over private. Paul McCartney sent his children to state schools. Was that 'repugnant' of him? Just because he was wealthy should he have sent them to private schools?

I’ll believe that as soon as wealthy people who you claim “see the intrinsic value of state education” send their children to schools in places like Easterhouse in Glasgow. But I won’t hold my breath.

The inequality between state schools is staggering. The wealthy parents who send their children to state schools do so because they don’t need to use a private education. That, is privilege.

And are these wealthy state school parents in the room with us now?

Your comments are so riven with bitterness, wild assumptions and leaps of logic, I'll leave you to it. There's nothing wrong with using state schools, no matter what your income is, just as there's nothing wrong with using private schools if that's what you want to spend your money on. What is wrong is calling people reprehensible for their choice, or whinging that you are uniquely hard working to be able to afford private schools because you are uniquely invested in your children's future. Maybe the wealthier state school parents have just made more sensible investment choices, whereby their children get educated for free and they have a valuable property as well. Oh well, good for them.

Barbadossunset · 28/06/2024 15:00

I really hope you don’t project your narrow-minded views onto your students!

I agree. However if op has some children from private schools arrive in his/her class, I’m sure he/she will make his/her views on private schooling abundantly clear.

twodowntwotogo · 28/06/2024 15:01

Vivi0 · 28/06/2024 14:52

@twodowntwotogo

You make a lot of assumptions

Quite funny of you to mention that since this thread. and similar threads, are filled with assumptions about private school parents and their children.

I have made no assumptions whatsoever.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.