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?!

You missed the word "some" out of your post

All private schools and all children who attend? What actual evidence are you basing this on?

Me too. 2 in state one in private. The massive difference here in Scotland is the private school can permanently exclude pupils, state schools can’t. This one policy has meant pupils know staff are utterly powerless to discipline them, they can do what they want and are disruptive and violent. None of this happens in my child’s private school. Ok the private school is less likely to have the traumatised, children in care; or kids who haven’t had any breakfast etc but it’s the total lack of consequences that is the issue in state.

Oh yes and my private school child has experienced none of the extensive bullying they experienced in state school. What nonsense to say bullying is worse in private! How are we supposed to know!

@Singinginthespring also in Scotland! And yes the not being able to exclude was a huge factor in us deciding not to send DC to the local secondary. I am state educated myself close to where I live now and I remember my school being very diverse with a fair amount of disruption but it was dealt with well. Kids were excluded or they got the help they needed and were sent to special schools for the support. None of that exists now and I know from local parents that fighting and disruption is rife and teachers are powerless.

@Hoppinggreen

My apologies, I thought that it was obvious that I wasn't trying to claim that every single child at a private school gets bullied. Apparently not.

No, not all of them, of course. But neither do all state school kids get bullied. My point was merely that private schools don't enjoy a particularly good reputation when it comes to bullying, I haven't met anyone who sends their kid to private school for this particular reason.

(To anticipate the pendants - no, I'm not claiming that if I haven't met them they don't exist. I'm just saying that this phenomenon isn't as widespread as the OP is implying).

@Hoppinggreen I understand that you must have a depth of experience from being on the exclusion panel for your local school and that must be a difficult role so bravo to you for taking it on. However I think your labelling my post ridiculous is incorrect not least of all from your own experience of bullying at private schools and your acknowledgement of the drugs that are a part of life in those schools as well as state ones these days. Quite obviously private schools have more funding and therefore often excellent facilities which are a benefit to those fortunate children who attend them. On the other hand as others have said money does not buy good behaviour or mental stability and there is a lot going on a private schools in this context that never reaches the Daily Mail. I personally would consider the actual school, the pupils in it, the specific year group and the staff and less whether it is state run or private before making a judgement on relative safety for my children.

As i think I said upthread my experience is very different to the claims that bullying is worse in Private schools.
My DD was bullied in Y9 and when I spoke to The Head about it it was taken very seriously and the girl concerned was gone within 24 hours, with 2 others put on a warning.
2 local friends with DC at 2 different State schools have withdrawn their DC after bullying was not dealt with.
I also know that it is much easier to expel from Private than State

I actually agree with you in many ways BUT I do take issue with the fact that you seem to label ALL Private schools the same.
I am sure there are Private schools with drugs/bullying etc issues but just as I would never say that ALL State schools are rife with knife crime I don't think you can generalise and I DO believe that expulsion is easier at Private. In fact I know it is - we keep kids at the State school I am involved with when they would be long gone at my sons Private school.

My niece's experience of bullying was that the school shrugged their shoulders and told her to keep away from the bullies.
This was at a private school.

Bullying is not a sector specific issue. It's an issue that some children in all schools face. Some schools (in both sectors) are better at dealing with it than others. Children even within the same school will have different experiences.

It's a real struggle isn't it. I work in a college and see the real impact going to certain schools from certain areas can have on young people. I'm against private school though for my own children and feel this can also breed negative behaviours in a different way. I feel the balance is state school in a good area but that's simply not achievable for all.

My own background is working class and I did very well despite my school environment and lack of motivation from my teachers and career advisors. I do want more for my own children.

It’s precisely why I have DC in private school, to give them the best possible start I can. If that gets them small classes, a broad curriculum rich with sport, drama, languages, art, trips etc, In an environment conducive to learning, surrounded by children whose parents value education and a school which can manage our disruptive children, access to all of the teachers if I have any concerns etc. quite frankly, it is money well spent.

My DS went to a "requires improvement" state and did brilliantly. He knows his own mind and has never bowed to peer pressure so I never had any issues with him being around badly behaved kids.

So you would be a fool to assume that all children at private schools are disciplined and academically motivated and children at state schools are not. Thats the first thing to say. Private school has its share of disruptive, undisciplined kids and the state sector has super bright and ambitious kids.

But, speaking from personal experience, and this may sound snobbish but so be it: I don’t particularly want my daughter to grow up around children who have no or low aspirations, no.

I don’t buy the argument that it somehow enriches people to be exposed to idle and unmotivated people who don’t have goals and who consider education to be a waste of time. There’s value in variety, but the idea that rubbing shoulders with people who have chaotic and dysfunctional lives automatically enriches you seems patronising and misguided.

However, I do think that it’s valuable to be around people who can find their own perspective on life and have the strength of character to not follow the herd. There are people like this in the private and the state sector and you don’t guarantee exposure to certain sorts of people through your choice of school.

The trick is to find a school that enables your child to find people who bring out the best in him or her. That school could be either state or private.

I think there is a difference between low aspiration, and idle/disruptive.
Low aspiration is something schools can support and develop. My oldest best friend is smart, hard working, well behaved. But due to the family environment she has been brought up in, she hasn't been exposed to concept of going to uni, getting a professional job etc, despite being more than capable, so her aspirations are low. And being exposed to her very different life has been enormously beneficial to my daughter - who has grown up in a financially stable, 2 professional parent, very supportive. It's important for her to understand that not everyone lives like we do, and that we should bring people into our lives based on their honesty, loyalty, hard work and kindness, not their background or parents income.

However, she does not need to be exposed to aggressive, disruptive, rude children who hit her and stop her from learning, there is definitely nothing life enhancing in that!