Paying to keep your child away from certain types of other children… I don’t understand?

[Reasonthis]

I’ve seen so many threads recently bashing people who use private school as a way to remove their child from an environment with other children who may be challenging, disruptive etc.

I am completely against private education for a whole host of reasons… but surely if you send your child to a state school, even then you hope they don’t mix with the ‘wrong’ types? Ie those who are disruptive, rude, aggressive etc? Surely you also want your child as far away as possible from that?

I am absolutely amazed that there is suggestion that kids should be around that environment as it’s ’real life’ and shouldn’t be segregated for example by private education . Are people actually saying they are ok with their children sharing a classroom with kids that really aren’t interested in learning and have no values instilled in them by their parents? I will forever use the state system but if I knew my children were mixing with other children who didn’t give a shit and were disruptive, I would do all I could to keep them away from it. Isn’t that just sensible?!

Yes, I highlighted carers as that seemed particularly unlikely, but agree nurses etc also unlikely to be able to afford private school fees (as @BreatheAndFocus was suggesting)

Agreed.

But it also perpetuates stereotypes to imply it's the only the children of dustmen and cleaners who go to state schools

My son is at state school and his friends parents are lawyers, doctors, IT consultants, scientists, academics, civil servants...

Absolutely. I agree. My children go to state school, and their dad's a university professor. We know children at their school whose parents are lawyers, consultants, doctors, and architects. It's a real mix of backgrounds and that's what I like. Their school represents society.
I grew up near Paul MCartney and his kids went to the local state school!!

This was in response to @WindsurfingDreams

However, certain people are making comments about not wanting their child to mix with certain types of children, that they avoid these people in their own lives. There is most definitely a superiority complex at play here. "My child is better than the riff raff that go to state schools".

Did you miss the “My child is better than the posh wankers who go to private school” posts?

My children go to state school, and their dad's a university professor. We know children at their school whose parents are lawyers, consultants, doctors, and architects. It's a real mix of backgrounds

A real mix of backgrounds?

This reminds me of a doctor friend who (jokingly) said they didn’t mind what their child became when he grew up; he could be an oncologist, surgeon, dermatologist, paediatrician… they didn’t care.

I was simply agreeing with the previous poster about the myth that only working class kids go to state schools. We both gave examples of middle class children we knew. As I said, there are children from all backgrounds at the school. This is what I like about the school.

Salary for an experienced nhs nurse outside London is around 52k per year (band 7), or 61k if in a clinical specialist role (band 8a). In London these are 60k and 68k. Put together with a partner earning a similar salary, school fees for 1 child would be affordable, 2 would be a challenge though

If they marry doctors maybe?

I bet its a good State school though, otherwise most of those people would send their kids Private

Genuinely wonder what planet people are on if they think this salaries would put even one kid through the average private school, after you factor in income tax, mortgages, bills, food etc

Weirdly All the doctors in our circle use state schools… because they themselves when o state schools and apparently it is possible to become a doctor, engineer, accountant etc while having gone to a comp. Who knew?!

These posts were in response to the perception that it is just the children of manual workers who go to state schools.

@Superworm24 I feel the same. I too grew up in a rough area and went to rough schools, until one day I couldn't take anymore and simply refused to go. I didn't learn any beneficial social lessons from being sworn at, name called, threatened, witnessing violence and sitting in lessons that were chaos due to disruptive behaviour. All that happened was that I was miserable and my grades slipped.

Somehow managed to get into a grammar school halfway through secondary and thrived there. If I'd stayed at the rough school it's unlikely that I'd have the life I have now.
The only thing those years in rough places taught me was what kinds of people I want to avoid.
As an adult, I'm very careful about where I live and work, what sorts of people I let into my life, where my child goes to school and who she mixes with. I bought a house in a nice village specifically for the school. I'm not against private schools and would find a way to send my child to one if she wasn't thriving in the local state one.

I think most people who virtue signal about exposing kids to "real life" and "wide variety of backgrounds" have not actually experienced a truly rough school or area. They buy their way into a nice area with good state schools that have a large number of nice kids and only a small percentage of disruptive ones. Then pat themselves on the back for choosing state and not private, when actually a house in a good catchment area is just another way of paying for a better education.
These people are not sending their kids to the rough state schools or choosing to live on sink estates in the name of "meeting people from different backgrounds".

UK = a mediocre country fast descending into the low percentile, increasingly poor and progressively worse. Due to a rise of ‘crabs in a bucket’ mentality, disguised as virtuous ‘oh but we care about equality’.

Yeah right. Care about equality as long as everyone is equally poor, or equally low achieving.

Unfotunately this mentality is like an infectious disease, it spreads to people around you. And those that can get out and get away, do so, leaving a cycle of perpetual resentment and low achievement.

The point about state schools isn't that they don't have any middle class children in them. 94% of the population go to state schools - obviously this includes a lot of middle class kids, especially when we include comps in lovely leafy middle class suburbs!

The point is that there are fewer/no really disruptive kids - the top scores might be similar but there is a long tail which includes the kind of kids who bring knives to school and convince your kid to join criminal gangs. The point is to send your kids to a school which has the ability to cut off kids in that long tail without years of pain and nothing being done.

I've never done drugs and don't agree with supporting the drug trade but in terms of fucking up your life chances specifically, the kind of drug use at private school is unlikely to lead to a life of crime and a criminal record, for reasons we could go into at length but which nevertheless potentially factor into some people's risk assessments.

100% agree. Wanting to remove your child from a rough state school where they are being exposed to all sorts at a young age is a good, natural thing surely. It’s not ‘life enhancing’ to be told to f-off constantly.

Absolutely. If a child was being hit and sworn at and exposed to sexual assault at home, they would (quite rightly) be removed by social care.

But things things happen at school and its somehow 'real life' and a 'broad experience' and 'builds tolerance'.

In the dim and distant past I was a teacher and I think those who say kids should mix with the disruptive kids have probably never been in an inner city classroom.

Some of the behaviour is truly shocking. Violence, drugs constant talking, shouting, refusing to listen or do any work. It's why I stopped, I couldn't bear it.

Then when parents phone the police about an assault the police dismiss your complaint because it happened in school…

I sit on the Exclusion Panel for our local Comp, people have no idea what goes on - and we actually DON'T expell most of them

I think people wish more were.

I think the push for keeping everything ‘inclusive’ is a real problem. Many schools for children with SEN or Pupil Referral Units in the past were little more than babysitting. But good SEN schools and PRU can be life saving for the children who attend them - properly addressing their needs in a way mainstream schools simply cannot. And it is not just about funding in mainstream either - the environment is just wrong.

The only reason my DS goes to an independent school is the fact they can meet his needs (he is ?ND and extremely anxious). I am on the same pay as the average nurse.

Priorities include small class sizes and pastoral support. I just want him to get through his school life with some level of self esteem and a sense of belonging.

He meets children from all backgrounds in all other aspects of his life.

I don't think you understand how private schools operate, what they cost, or what nurses earn.

With a bursary, a great private school in Guildford can cost around £1,000 a month. Christ's Hospital is free for families like mine who are struggling financially but have a resourceful mum who managed to secure a place for us.

Are some of you not English? I mean, are you from Europe? Private schools in England were mostly established to help the poor, so they all have a historical connection to that.

The arrogance and ignorance surrounding this topic are mind-blowing.

To be honest, lets cut the crap , creating successful networks for your child to access for social development is critical. It can be the key factor that makes or breaks the adult you are trying to raise.

It's so strange; do people not move around different social classes by choice? England is fascinating—why be so angrily insecure why direct it at children?

If you live england your lifestyle is among the top 3% of humans on EARTH. when you say mediocre whats the comparison? Norway?