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?!

What a deeply limited and unimaginative argument

I was teaching in a nicer area of a major UK city and as soon as we decided to have a child we also started planning to move out of that city and into a rural area on the outskirts of a market town. Why? Because our child was likely to be a set 1 or 2 child (using ourselves as an example - not set in stone, obviously) and I had seen incredibly poor behaviour in the outstanding school I worked in that absolutely stopped some of the kids achieving their best. I didn't want to take the risk of that happening to our child if we could avoid it.

Kind of the same as paying for private, no? Nice if you can afford it, but obviously a large percentage of people can't.

DS in now in grammar but we moved to an area with great secondary's and also looked at privates.

IMO, people get selfish when it comes to their own kids and are happy to make changes/sacrifices to ensure they get the best available.

Do I think every child deserves the best education? Absolutely, BUT it's not the World we live in, currently. Making that change isn't just about funding and teaching standards, it's largely about society and the way we all raise our kids so that they value education, respect teachers and behave in a manner befitting of a classroom.

Some people home school for this reason.

All secondary schools are a lion pit.
My daughter loves her school but she’s bright, confident and sporty. She also has a gorgeous bunch of non bitchy girls as her friendship group.
For any child that either struggles academically or is shy or lacks confidence then they are a hell hole. It’s so sad what a lot of children have to deal with just for being who they are.

I moved my child from state primary to private because of disruption in the classroom making him unhappy and hindering his learning. He was entitled to an education and a happy school life and wasn’t getting it. I was powerless to ‘fix’ the problems in the classroom so he left. I continue to be annoyed he doesn’t get the state funded education that I pay tax for and I also feel upset that private school parents are so criticised. What about the parents of the kids who are disruptive due to neglect and crap parenting?!

I remember when he first got with Carrie and we used to imagine how you would feel if your daughter brought him home and introduced him as her intended husband!

It frustrates me that there is no nuance in the conversation.

My children go to private school partly just because it's the closest to our house (we live quite rurally)

But we have friends in a whole mix of schools. There are heaps of lovely children we know who are at state school

And it's naive to think all private school children are little dears.

My brother went to a private school with a huge drugs problem, he was genuinely relieved to switch to an (admittedly quite nice) state school for sixth form

Some of my friends who went to boarding school told eyebrow raising stories of their time there. Lots of drugs and sex and drinking. Nothing like that at my day school.

It's pretty silly to think in simple stereotypes

There's loads of disruptive children with loaded parents. Unless your at a super selective private school your still going to see challenging behaviours. The village indi seeks out the gifted and talented in inner London for full bursaries. They are probably the best behaved and clever as they are choosen. Mum turning up with her Primark bag for life sitting next to the Ferrari drivers. Shock horror. Anti private people will be delighted to hear those type of kids won't be on full bursaries any more.

You get disruptive kids in all walks of life for various reasons. As education sector comes under increasing pressure, most are getting expelled, sent out to pupil referal units then fall out of education. I personally think kids out of long term education is disgusting. We need better support around this area. If your a millionaire and live in a wonderful area you will still not be immune to others life experiences.

I'll never understand the logic that if you are well off and send your children to private school you are giving them unfair privilege and propping up "the system" etc. etc., but if you are well off and send your children to state school, but live in a 7 figure house in a leafy postcode, pay for tutors, music lessons, skiing or Mauritius for half term, maybe a nice house in Devon for weekends and a deposit on their first home, well that is 100% fine, and what Keir Hardie would have wanted.

I always find the argument that children should be in state school to learn how to mix with all types of people. The disruptive, aggressive types don't persist in the workplace, they are dismissed. It's a lesson no longer taught in schools and they would be better if it were.

We sent ours to the independent sector because that was the only way they could access specialist teaching from age 8, a good choice of MFL, classical languages and three separate sciences. Those options were not available in our local Borough. DD spent a year at a holy grail school in a neigh outing Borough and we moved her due to a significant tly disruptive core of about six children who made learning a misery for staff and students alike but the Head insisted it was a problem that couldn't be dealt with. Thankfully we had enough money to remove dd from it.

The tide is certainly turning against the arrogance of a lot of privately educated kids.
DH & I now hire for our sectors, academia and media and we both actively choose not to go for those with the whiff of privilege. We've both been burnt by all confidence no action in the past.
Colleagues who hire for med school will not look favourably on the private kids if it's a balance if points.
We're all too old, too many anacdotes just like the spitting off bridges, I have some unpleasant ones from Eton and other local schools. I absolutely wouldn't want my daughter's anywhere near, my SIL, private school science teacher, so not even pastoral has had to support too many pupils through early pregnancy choices.
Beadles hammer attack! That in itself should highlight the lack of modern safeguarding and responsible pastoral support in private schools.

It’s no different to moving house for a better school or neighbourhood. It will always cost money.
Most private schools are not full of “toffs” just children with professional parents who value education. In the same way that state parents locate in order for their children to attend good schools private parents are happy to avoid relocation and pay school fees instead.
If we hadn’t sent DS to private school we would have been able to afford a larger more rural house nearer to the best state school. Instead we stayed put, closer to work and sent DS to private school. As a result we don’t have to downsize now DS has left home.
I think people forget how catchment dictates the school demographic.

I completely agree. My MIL keeps going on about saving to privately educate autistic, likely ADHD, highly academic DS1 when he’s at secondary level. I can’t see any of the local private options being vastly more suitable than the local state school really. We will probably end up having to consider private as there is no way he’ll cope in our massive local secondary (which is actually a very decent school). But whether he will cope in private is anyone’s guess. Smaller class sizes aren’t the be all and end all.

Interesting pov. Both my dc are teaching, one in academia, one at a secondary school. Neither had an difficulty getting jobs and neither are arrogant nor dysfunctional.

I find that young people even with post grad degrees can't construct grammatically correct sentences or work out formulas in excel on their own and come with a generous sprinkling of attitude.

These are vile generalisations about private school kids and don’t reflect the private school kids I know. It’s a shame you’ve brought your daughter up to share the same lazy tropes.

Beadles hammer attack! That in itself should highlight the lack of modern safeguarding and responsible pastoral support in private schools

It’s Blundells not Beadles! And that tragedy is just that - a rare tragedy. How many knives have been found in state schools? How many stabbings? I can think of a number, which I’m not mentioning by name. That hammer attack could just as easily have taken place in a state school.

Weird that you boast about your prejudice against private school pupils.

There's at least one small indie in my city that has an outstanding reputation for SEN. Really good, and well deserved. It has small classes, excellent pastoral care and works wonders with a variety of SEN. Occasionally there have been parents who have heavily downplayed their child's needs and the school has not been able to provide for them, but for the most part they do an excellent job, and the other children are highly sensitive to and respectful of their friends' diverse situations.

Equally there are indies that absolutely do not cater for any kind of SEN, but they don't account for the whole sector by any means.

Surely it’s obvious nobody would want their child mixing with such disruption

Of course but some believe that all dc in state schools are misbehaving scrotes with no desire to learn.

I was privately educated. Single sex school. Drug use and bullying was rife. I was definitely surrounded by some very bad influences. My parents would have been horrified!

If I had the money, I would send my son to private school. Not to get away from anyone, but to be involved with a richer curriculum.

The local private school has its own zoo with lemurs and other exotic animals to care for (his dream job is a zookeeper). I think they also do horseback riding and sailing. Another school local to my mum has a shooting range and golf course access. Just miles better than anything you could get from a normal school.

Their school trips are new York, skiing and African safaris! Can you imagine how cool that would be with your mates as a teenager!

It's another world though isn't it, I don't earn anywhere near that. If I won the lottery he would be signed up though!

There's not many people talking about the OPs point which was are those of us in the state sector still hoping our children don't mix with gangs, or get segregated from disruptive children so they can learn People are focused on private schools..

I dont think its a benefit of the state sector to mix with all walks of life and i dont actually feel that many state pupils do properly mix anyway

They get segregated by school choices, sets and self segregate on interests but also values. I think plenty of parents hope that the disruptive child will either get support and no longer be disruptive or get removed from the classroom or school. I also think most parents hope thier child avoids the other child that is part of county lines.

@Mlanket I don't think anybody believes that, or that you believe that anybody believes that, but it only takes one misbehaving scrote in a class of 30 to make it a crap learning experience for everyone else, and the schools are powerless to yeet them out the door. Of course there are scrotes in private schools, but the private schools can expel them. That's the difference.

I went to state school in another country, and I remember two absolutely awful girls in my class who were expelled and it was brilliant when they were gone. It also showed any other potential bullies (and their parents) that there were consequences to bad behaviour.

There's all this talk about state school being better for mixing with people from all walks of life/preparing you for adulthood, but in what workplace would colleagues and management (i.e. teachers) have to tolerate constant disruption and even physical violence from troublemakers, with no ability to remove them? Someone upthread said they reassured their unhappy son that it would "only" be for five years - who would tolerate that in adulthood?

Don't private school kids on average get more 'special needs' exam time than state?
So either they game the system or they attract a cohort of children that struggle in an academic situation