To think you can’t take the moral high ground on private schools if….

[Loudcloud]

….. you moved to a particular area for good schools, and paid a premium on the property price to do so?

Surely both are using your finances to get your kid a better education?

100%

please tell my colleagues this!!!

I agree, but then I don’t think it’s a moral issue anyway. Yes the education system is broken, if you’re in the financial position to give your kids a leg up any parent would do so, whether that’s private, moving to a better area, getting tutors, or supporting your local state school.

OR if you say "I could have sent mine Private but didn't on moral grounds" or similar but you have access to a decent State alternative and/or DC with no SEN.
I am sure a lot of us would have preferred not to spank £150k on something that should have been provided via our taxes

Moral high ground or schooling children as you best? And say someone does it then what?

There are also pleanty of kids whose SEN neeeds are not being met
Whose parents dont have a hope in hell of senting them private

Everyone does the best within their means to improve their children's lot. I'm in a grammar school area and every single parent I know who doesn't believe in the system put their own child in for the test. My daughter failed the test so I pay £60pm in train fares to get her away from the local comps. So yes, YANBU at all.

My kids go to the local comp, I guess I'm allowed to take the moral high ground.

I agree but does that mean parents who CAN afford to send their child Private shouldn't
Private Education should only exist for specialist provision - music, dance,SEN etc but while too many (not all) State schools are not fit for purpose then I will not be throwing my DC under that bus due to "principles"

Many parents will do what they can for their children.

Whether that’s where they live, what schools they apply for, time spent with them, whatever it is.

We all do what we can, with what is possible, which includes family finances and/or provisions available.

Why the need to even consider moral high ground? There are amazing and dreadful people in all walks of life.

Thanks all - the moral high ground is maybe the wrong wording, but I certainly know people who say they would never send their kids private because they don’t agree with private education - but are oblivious to the leg-up their own kids have had due to their parents’ financial muscle.

I should add I moved to an area primarily for the good schools (it’s a nice area too) and have no issue with private education.

Totally agree. And I would add that you can't take the moral high ground even if you accidentally find yourself in the catchment of a lovely state school.

I sent both mine private - primarily due to eldest's SEN (autism) - our local comp doesn't even offer the A Levels one of mine chose anyway. Nobody in the local comp got anywhere near the GCSEs my DCs got (9x9 each). Both on academic scholarships with substantial money off. We don't live in a million pound house and we drive a Skoda that's a few years old.

And we are treated as though we are monstrous devils. When in fact we are hard working and prioritised education above everything. Even employers ask what kind of school you went to, although thankfully they do usually have an option to tick if you received financial assistance - which both mine did.

This open hatred for privately educated people is nonsensical. My DD has experienced it directly to her face - from a bitchy girl who is rich, nice clothes, multiple holidays a year, nice car, nice house - but attends the best state school in the county due to her parent buying there.

And sometimes you can even live in the catchment for a good State Secondary and then due to huge amounts of house building find yourselves pushed into the catchment for a State Secondary where even some teachers who work there suggest you look for an alternative.

Worse IME are the people who are disdainful of people their own generation who went to private school but then send their own DC to private school because "I've worked hard to be able to afford it". Why is that argument ok for them but not for other people's parents?

TBF, We could afford to move to an area with good schools, but there was no way we could afford to send our kids privately, even on well above average income. 7 years of private education where we live for even one child is significantly more than the premium on a house in a good catchment area. Nb, don't have anything against parents educating privately, but I don't think it's necessarily a comparable expense to living in decent catchment.

Then there are those who pretend to be religous to get into a school...

It’s extraordinary the number of vehemently anti-PS people just happen to live well within the catchment of an excellent state secondary.

Ditto those who change their tune when they realise they haven’t done so and exactly how crap the local state option is for their child.

I’ve seen both of these, the first more than the last though.

It was cheaper for us to pay for Private than move unless we wanted to downsize and live in a less desirable area.

The "private education is immoral" crowd never seem to tell people not to take their kids to the library, or museums, or read to them, get them to school on time, tutor then if needed, avoid failing schools etc etc.
It's impossible to entirely remove advantages when raising children

so what are you trying to say? that those parents who luckily can now shouldn't do it?

I think this is nonsensical whataboutery that comes up here all the time because, respectfully, you Brits have a real anxiety about ‘good schools’. I’m not British, and in the countries I’ve lived in since having DS (who was born in England), he’s always just been sent to the closest school, and we chose where to live based on public transport as I don’t drive. All schools have been perfectly adequate.

There is a huge HUGE oversimplification to this, especially on MN.

Premium house prices exist for a whole variety of reasons – not just their proximity to a good state school. Transport links, amenities, green spaces, housing stock, access to healthcare, job opportunities, safety, independent businesses, rivers etc ... it is not simple a good state school.

Moreover, the school often improves or is good due to the above factors too.

In addition to this, most oversubscribed and outstanding schools in the UK do not have enough of the right kind of housing stock in their guaranteed catchment areas to facilities this type of movement anyway.

Money buys choice at the end if the day.

My question to anyone who claims they would never send their children to Private school (despite being able to afford it, moot point if they cant) is would they send them if their local school was failing, had gang problems, crimbling buildings, staff retention problems etc, plus not getting private tutoring. I bet their answer would be different then.

I’ve never thought about moral high ground when it comes DS schooling. We all do what we think best for our children, what an odd line of thinking.

As I said above, we’ve sent DS to wherever was closest, wherever we’ve lived, and didn’t select where we lived for proximity to ‘good schools’. Most schools are much of a muchness. I think private education is indefensible. We have money, but would never do it. There are certainly better schools than the secondary he’s currently at, but he decided proximity won out over a ‘better’ school further away.

I am glad "adequate" is good enough for your DC, I aim higher.