To think people have the wrong idea about the reason parents use private schools?

[ewloan]

I have found this from threads and in real life, whenever private school comes up there’s this attitude that it’s about ‘buying results’ or ‘if your child is academic they will do well anywhere.’

Do people not realise that most people who send their kids to private school actually don’t need to be thinking about exam results as the main factor? These are people who often own businesses and have huge family wealth so their child’s exam results are not the be all and end all. The main reason people use private schools is for the entirely different experience for the child, for them to enjoy school and learning in small classes with lots of amenities and focus on their development. Why do people seem to think the main reason is to ‘buy an exam result’?

Anyone suggesting private schools cut costs should go and chat to bursars and headteachers of state schools. They're experts at it.

@Lovetotravel123 "To those who think that private schools should just cut their costs a bit, I would suggest that they try running a school first"

State schools are expected to do it....

It's to open doors, buy status, and make sure they give off the right class signals. It's the ladder to the old boys' network.

So what are you personally buying by opting for private school?

Nope. How about you go back and read some of the comments about the many many reasons that are NOT that as to why people do.

Simple. Better behaviour and bullying controlled. They are the two things that were totally and utterly out of control in the ‘excellent’ state secondary school my child attended before. In my experience the difference between the state and private in these two areas is night and day.

And other things follow this. Results are better as teachers can teach. Pupils are more confident and happier as there is a respect between pupils.

Some massive generalisations about schools

I see loads of threads where private school parents say that, essentially, they don't want their children mixing with lower class oiks

Please do link to a thread where that has been said. I've seen plenty say their kids have been subject to violent bullying. I've seen people say they want their kids at a school where it's ok to be clever and trying hard, rather than being kicked about and mocked because of it. I've seen people say they want their kids in schools where people have ambition and drive to succeed. Ive not seen anyone talk about class or oiks. It's not the same thing. And anyone who says they are perfectly happy to send their kids to a school with that kind of environment is either lying or part of the problem.

@BibbleandSqwauk "I've seen people say they want their kids at a school where it's ok to be clever and trying hard, rather than being kicked about and mocked because of it. I've seen people say they want their kids in schools where people have ambition and drive to succeed"

Have you heard of the expression "dog whistle"?

We paid for one of those famous boys boarding schools with top exam results and an “old boys network” but that is not why we paid. I have no doubt my DS would have got the same exam results in our leafy outstanding local comp and I personally have no interest in old boys networks. We paid because of the breadth and depth of the curriculum, the school provided a highly intellectual education separate exam results (although some of the best in the UK) although I suspect it doesn’t now was what underpinned everything they did.

Broader + more in depth curriculum, they don't follow national curriculum. Smaller class sizes with calm learning environment where it is cool to do well. Respectful and positive relationships between teachers and pupils.
All the extra curricular stuff not available at our local state school plus a 5pm finish so DD gets home 5.45 and isn't on her own for hours until we get home at 6/6.30
Sport 4 times per week

Ah so the same type of education that we got in state grammar.

Can you explain what you mean in this context? Why is it wrong to not want my kids in classrooms with kids who don't value education and bully them? I don't care if they're rich, poor, whatever. I've no doubt those things go on in both private and public but in my particular case, the state schools near me were the issue and the private one the solution I'm not alone.
@Belgazou maybe that poster does not live near a state grammar. It's fairly well accepted now that access to grammar schools is also closely tied to wealth, tutoring, aspiration etc. All the things that probably care parents are being decried for.

I’ve worked in top UK grammer schools so I am very aware of the difference between an outstanding grammar school and a 45k PA internationally renowned boys boarding school. If you think they are offering the same type of education a broad and intellectual education without an obsessive focus on exam results you are delusional.
I also gave friends who had DCs at both they would also say you are delusional.
unless you’ve actually had children in these type of independent schools then you have no idea what they are getting. I’m not commenting on whether it is right or wrong that a tiny group of children receive this type of education I’m just stating a fact that it is in a different universe to anything that state can ever offer.

Except most counties aren't grammar counties so access to these choice is either a comprehensive or private

A lot of people I know who went to private schools went because, as a previous poster mentions, they failed to pass the required exam to get into the local good grammar school. You can’t really blame them. I think it’s understandable if a child isn’t academically gifted but the parent can afford additional help for them, why wouldn’t they?

DH and I have been to two of the top boarding schools in the country. I wouldn't let my children anywhere near them but each to their own. I suspect you didn't have that different universe type of education yourself and are somewhat in awe of it. We are not. Two of my DC are now at Oxbridge with exhibitions. I doubt that some sub-standard education would underpin that.

@Belgazou but she didn't say anything about other schools being sub-standard. She said it was a world away and from what I know of Eton she's right - top hats, a totally different langauge, access to horses etc. She hasn't said its BETTER, just different.

One thing I have really noticed on these threads is how those of us who are pro-private have words put in our mouths. I have said I want my kids in an environment where people value education and aren't violent bullies. That's been translated into me saying I don't want them mixing with plebs, chavs, the povvos, the lower classes. I said the school my kids were at had violent bullies, that they were targeted for trying hard and doing homework. I've been told I'm implying all state schools are like this. I absolutely am not. If I say I'm getting into debt to opt my kids out of that I get the the response that ALL kids deserve that - I haven't said they don't. In fact I have said quite the opposite - but I maintain that this VAT policy will not serve that end and will only have the effect of actually decreasing the number of children having their needs met, if ones like mine have to leave their current provision.

The worst is the one that maintains private parents want the state sector to remain underfunded to lower the competition for our darling little Sebastians and Henriettas - not a single private parent I know has said anything remotely like that. If there is a tiny elite at Eton etc that think that, they are an anomaly and not remotely representative of anyone I know in the more "normal" private sector. This thread asked why people send their kids private and its been so interesting to read the answers from people who DON'T but claim to know why we do and those of us who DO who have said why and then get told we are actually saying something else. This debate, in whatever form, will never change unless the hugely warped idea of what private education looks like is given up and certain realities acknowledged - most notably that there are a wide variety of types, in both state and private and not one statement is true of all.

Please try and open your eyes a little.

By saying 'I send my children to private school because I want them to mix with others who value education' you are in effect saying that children in state school don't.

By saying' I send my children to private school because I don't want them to mix with violent bullies' you are in effect saying that children in state school are violent bullies.

You may not mean it but that's how it's coming across.

Do you honestly think anyone thinks 'oooh I'll chose this school because the children don't value education and has a bullying problem?'

Most people don't have that choice.

But the fact is people value education differently. And even among state schools, there are some that people feel place too much of an emphasis on academics to the exclusion of other things and same for private. There are private schools in West London known to be for the 'dim but rich'. Terrible phrase but there you are. Parents who 'value' education avoid these schools. Private schools are thought of in tiers - based on academics and many avoid the top tier because they are perceived as hot houses for example. It is OK not to 'value' education if that is what it means. Same for state schools (eg super-selective grammars)

Fact is some people value education (or see it as the only way to success) more than others and location, ability to pay are 2 factors that influence that. People buy their homes with school in mind before even getting pregnant. Some rent close to schools that have the values they seek. Private schools are not the only way people exert choice.

Is it inappropriate to say I will buy in this locality because the parents there value education?
Not all schools have a predominant parent population that place a great emphasis on academics - that is just a fact

I like threads like this. The cope is just so refreshingly desperate.

I suspect I am not alone in being one of many people who simply don't care what reasons people have to privately educate their child, just as I don't care why any chooses to buy a new car or holiday. You can spend you money how you wish.

But...

Independent education is luxury, just like other luxuries. It should be taxed as such. That's it. If I'm paying 20% tax for goddamn toilet roll then you should be private education. Good news is that caviar and helicopter rides are still VAT exempt.

These arguments about why independent education is so marvellous are hiding the fact that you just don't want to be paying VAT on discretionary spending when many others simply don't have that choice on the goods and services they buy.

Pay your tax or send your kids to state school.

@BibbleandSqwauk ". I have said I want my kids in an environment where people value education and aren't violent bullies. That's been translated into me saying I don't want them mixing with plebs, chavs, the povvos, the lower classes."

To be honest, when coupled with the fact that you feel you need to send your children private to achieve that, it doesn't take a lot of translation....

In the specific state school I sent my kids too, that was their experience. That does not translate to all state schools and pupils are like that and I have not said that. Again, people interpreting and translating and adding meaning that is not there. I have taught in both sectors, I know there are good and bad in both. If I could get a bank to lend me enough to buy in the catchment of a great state school I would do that, but I can't. I absolutely know that there are brilliant state schools and kids out there but can we stop pretending that there isn't a large section of the population who don't value education (and by that I don't mean only wanting top grades I mean a basic understanding of why it's useful to have some qualifications and to be able to hear the teacher in a classroom) and who see school as the enemy, a source of bullying victims. I moved my kids away from that in THEIR school. In my particular circumstances the small, shabby, non selective private they go to was the best option. Saying that I am demonising all state schools or kids is just misrepresentation.

If 10% of state school kids are disinterested, disruptive, bullies or just simply not engaged with their schooling then that has a huge impact on the other 90%.

Paying to avoid that 10% makes absolute sense. It is also not a reflection on the other 90%.

Can there not be a discussion regarding private schools that only parents who's kids attend them are allowed on? There's no point in discussing some very valid points on any of these chats as there are so many disgruntled parents who don't have the funds to be able to send their kids to private schools and thus feel jealous and bitter against those of us who can.
Thoughts?