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?

There is a lot to be said for the results of stable homes, which does not have to mean 2 parents of the opposite sex married to eachother BUT when I sit on PX Panels the kids rarely have even 1 parent who is interested in them.
Its not down to class it tends to be generations of depravation and poverty and bad choices (largely because they have no idea there are better ones)
There are more DC with Stable family backgrounds at Private school, thats a fact. It does not mean ALL PS kids have that and NO SS kids do but its certainly skewed that way.
My Dc are lucky enough to have it and so probably would have been ok at the frankly dire State school that they would have gone to but if we have the money to de risk it why wouldn't we?

My parents have friends who are very scathing of my folks having educated us privately, but they used their extensive industry knowledge, contacts, and some of their wealth to set up one of their children in an independent business, and now one of their family is on long-term medical treatment that's not available on the NHS (too expensive) which is being funded by their private medical insurance. I have no criticism of any of that, but it makes their moral superiority about private schooling a bit silly. Everyone should do what they think is best for their own family.

of course it’s a bad thing that deprived kids are having sub standard education on top of being deprived while affluent kids have top tier education.

no it’s not a problem that a Chinese or Arabic or whatever community are close knit and celebrate Eid or Chinese new year.

teaching kids that Muslims celebrate Eid and Chinese celebrate Chinese new year while most Christians celebrate Christmas is a good thing.

culture and class is not the same.

teaching kids that some are rich and some are poor and that’s just the way it is is most certainly a bad thing. Unless what you mean is teaching poor kids that some have more than them and then giving them an education and resources that enable them to improve their lot. And teaching affluent kids how lucky they are and instilling humility and a desire to help those less fortunate. That would be fine, yes! But in my experience that’s not exactly the moral lessons being passed on in private education. Rather it’s about being proud of being middle class (see all the reactions on here if I worked by way up and no reason to “admit” privilege) and striving to amass even more wealth and become even more successful. I’ll never forget the private college I went to following state school for primary and secondary. I felt so “less than”
all the time because my parents were teachers and we lived in an average medium sized home. No holidays to the Caribbean or designer handbags. Those kids used to call ordinary people “plebs”. No joke. They used to mock especially working class people - the way they spoke, dressed and the things they liked. It made me feel so ashamed and sad.

Of course they should. But that should come along with an enlightened conversation about how private education and the destruction of public education is perpetuating class society.

send your kids to private school or buy in a good catchment all you like. Just teach them gratitude and humility and do what you can to invest in and support the wider community.

@leftorrightnow That's not my experience at all. My own goes to my school, lots of the teachers have their kids there. They do not get called plebs or looked down or are left out of anything.

It IS the way the world is that some are richer than others. The lessons you want taught ARE taught in schools. What gets taught at home we have no control over and kids are with their parents far more than they are with their teachers so if the message they get from home is that a school and rules and playing the game is for mugs then that's what they'll take on. There is only so much a state can do to counter those attitudes.

Again, you seem to be suggesting that I think poor people don't deserve a good education. Of course they do. But it is a fact that state provision is woefully underfunded and needs a huge overhaul from the top down. Tinkering around the edges and fining people for holidays solves nothing but looks good. It's a distraction from the real issues of billions of under investment and social deprivation. People moving house or opting out is really irrelevant. And it may be that those anti education anti social views and behaviours are from a "lower" class of society but it's correlation not causation and people move away from it because of the behaviour, not the class.

No holidays to the Caribbean or designer handbags. Those kids used to call ordinary people “plebs”. No joke. They used to mock especially working class people - the way they spoke, dressed and the things they liked. It made me feel so ashamed and sad.

Thats horrible, I am sorry that happened to you. However, I was a scholarship kid at a Private school and I had nothing like that at all and my DC's current school is also not like the one you describe
Some private schools are snobby and some kids/parents will have the attitudes you describe but fortunately its not all of them.

That is so bizarre as at my private school everyone’s parents were teachers and middle managers. All of us lived in suburban semis! I went camping in France every year for my holiday and when my best friend went to Disneyland in the US we all thought that was incredible as no one did that in the 1990s! there were also quite a few children on the assisted places scheme and no one cared. I don’t relate at all with the idea anyone was being mocked.

even now, yes we live in a nice area but the houses are terraced or semis. Most of my friends parents are again, middle mangers, doctors, lawyers etc. certainly I know of no one super rich- don’t get me wrong, certainly very well off to afford the fees but the idea that all private school children are swanking around with designer handbags and holidaying on private beaches is ridiculous! not my experience of the attitude of the people I went to school with and certainly not the attitude of the parents and children I have met at my children’s school.

So private school kids get a better education and getting a better education leads to better uni / job opportunities. Is this a reason why private schools are bad? Why doesn’t the state system improve? Why is that such a pie-in-the-sky suggestion? Why can’t state schools remove aggressive, disruptive children that ruin the educations of those who want to learn? Why can’t we fund state schools adequately to ensure state school kids have happy, engaged, qualified teachers for every subject? It seems like the thinking is that private schools should reduce the educational experiences they provide so that state school pupils can keep up. Let’s raise the basic rate of tax instead to make the state system better.

Agree. The advice I’d give anyone choosing between schools is go for the most middle class school possible. It may sound harsh but there is a higher incidence of classroom disruption in an area where children come from a deprived background. I know that there are a lot of haughty private school hater parents who want their child to ‘mix with a wide range of people’ but I can bet those sort of people have not really met children traumatised by growing up in deprivation.

Yes, they would not be quite so egalitarian if their DC risked getting stabbed on a daily basis.

This thread is getting really insulting now. My children 'mix with a wide range of people' which includes the violence, disruption and other challenges everyone keeps mentioning. There are knives and vaping and bullying and all sorts of things happening. I am not excited about the opportunity for my children to experience violence or witness it... but I still maintain that the good sides to choosing this life far outweigh the bad. There's a chance my children might have something terrible happen and there's also a chance that they will become resilient, hard-working people who respect and know people from all sorts of backgrounds and who are firmly rooted in community service and dedicated to helping to improve education for all children - not just the children who already have lots of advantage (which isn't just financial as many have mentioned). For me that gamble is worth it and I stand by that decision. I am not alone in this as I have many, many friends who send their children to school with mine who have other options and are choosing not to take them. I don't have to live where I do and I don't have to choose the local school but I see just as many positives as negatives in this choice.

@Hoppinggreen

"Yes, they would not be quite so egalitarian if their DC risked getting stabbed on a daily basis."

Drama much. The children who actually are most likely to be on the receiving end of peer to peer violence are the kind of kids ruthlessly excluded by the private education system. Not middle class kids at state schools. And the vast majority of peer to peer violence has nothing to do with schools.

Private school confers massive privilege on an already ridiculously privileged group. And that's the way privately educating parents want to keep it. While also claiming 'it's not really unfair to children'. The entitlement is exhausting.

. I am not excited about the opportunity for my children to experience violence or witness it... but I still maintain that the good sides to choosing this life far outweigh the bad.

Genuinely what are the good sides to choosing this, apart from saving a load of money?
I imagine what your answer would be very insulting to Private School kids.
Not all Private School kids are wrapped in cotton wool, mine know that there is violence out there and have witnessed it and other criminal behaviour, they know how to keep themselves safe but NO CHILD should witness that at school and have it impact their learning.
Putting up with violence/disruption in a school and managing to achieve well despite it is great but why would any parent actually choose that for their child?

Of course Private school is unfair, I have never claimed its not
Most things that give an advantage are unfair and most parents would choose to give their child an advantage if they could.
For me its like giving my DC a car - any car will get them from A to B and with lessons and involved parents they will get there faster and safely BUT if I can buy them a nicer car that gets them there much more quickly, takes them further and had added safety features why the hell would I not do that?

@PurpleThistle7

Good post. My children went to a London comprehensive. My daughter left school at 18 and was working in a men's remand prison by 19. At 25 she now works with category 1 ex offenders, including murderers and people guilty of terrible offences towards children. I'm so proud that she's trying to reduce reoffending in our communities through her work, particularly as she herself was the victim of serious offences as a child and as a young adult. Her educational background has given her insight into the reality of people's lives who are at the bottom of the social heap, and an ability to connect sincerely with people from all backgrounds. She's compassionate and so brave. I myself went to a private school. I sound confident and articulate but I don't have half the social nous or the courage my daughter has.

Your daughter sounds amazing, you must be so proud
I am not sure you could say she could only have done those things because she went to a State school though.

I really don't know what else to say besides my too many posts on this. I do not prioritise the same things you do and that is fine. I accept that people have different things they value and I am glad we are both in a position to make choices in our lives - many millions do not have the privilege of choice. I am very happy with the life I provide for my children and I hope that they fulfill my hopes for them in the future. I hope your children are happy at their school too.

Thank you, I wish you the same

I find you insulting. Why would my children (one private, one state grammar), not “become resilient, hard-working people who respect and know people from all sorts of backgrounds”, just because they don’t go to the local comp?

As a working class, free school meals comprehensive educated person myself, the people that I have encountered with the greatest prejudice are not privately educated. They are the people that I went to school with. They are the ones that judge people for their accent, their race, where they went to school, what jobs they do, even what part of the country they come from. My brother and his friends turned their back on my DH as soon as I left the room because he is a southerner. My brother is a state school teacher (a head of year in fact). I’m bloody glad he isn’t teaching my kids.

No one is saying the system isn’t unfair. Yes it is but ultimately parents have a right to decide how they want to educate their children. Remember the cost of private education is the same as raising a child from 0-18 so some people choose to have another child and some people choose to spend those funds of private school and not have another child. 100% the choice of the parent.

the issue is there is no solution unless you go down some country’s routes of very very strict controls of what parents can provide for their children.

until then-

1. regardless of the system, most parents will put their own children first above all others it is human nature. So tutoring, extra curriculars etc. and circling back to the OP, buying a house in a nice area and making that state school a ‘nice’ school. Parents will always find a way to give their own child the edge over others. To get into university you have to ‘beat’ others to get the place. No getting around that. Unless you mark yourselves to the most underprivileged of children, how can everyone be truly equal?

2. private schools provide things that no state system ever would such as sports. No amount of middle class lobbying would convince a government to give an extra £3k per pupil only to go on sports teachers and sports fields. So ultimately the argument comes down to well if state school children can’t have it then no one should. A race to the bottom. Without private schools we would have zero people who do rowing for instance and rugby would all but die out. Heck, I know someone who has just moved from state to private in year 10 because the state school stopped playing netball at that age. Basically high level sport is considered ‘privileged ’. There is no way around that. Should all children have that opportunity- 100% but who should pay for it? I have no solution that would make it equal for everyone.

I think there is alot to think about in this thread. I also think it’s hard to feel deeply the inequality unless you have experienced it. I grew up in a middle class area with poorer parents but back then houses were affordable, we lived in good catchment but I had no parental support as my parents were always working. I did ok because the behaviour of other students was not as disruptive as schools have to deal with now. The school was by far better than the school my own children attended as those who struggled had private tutors, high needs SEN were not in mainstream etc so the teachers had the time to teach.

Because for various reasons I plummeted down the social ladder and am now dirt poor I’m experiencing state education for my children from a completely different perspective. Before I was poor I’d have said the state school was fine- because it was. Even I’m not the best area the school was fine. However now I’m in one of the worst areas in my county. My road stinks of drugs, the police are about frequently. You hear shouting and swearing. Litter everywhere. Many people not working due to disability or other reasons. The attitude of the local kids my children make friends with us vastly different, as are the rules and expectations of their parents. And I’m not judging because life is hard. But life here feels COMPLETELY different. I have a high needs SEN child not being provided an education which keeps me unable to work and financially poor, but I’m not time poor like the working parents in my street who all work loooong hours in low paid hard labour jobs.

my non SEN child in the “good” but in reality shit school due to pupils behaviour. Was doing ok but this took a lot of input from me. I have time because I can’t work as no choice but to care for my son. And as others have said library museums etc have restricted opening hours and need to drive etc that I could not have accessed had i worked full time or not had a car. I also had a good education myself so was able to supplement her education myself without shelling out for tutors. When she got “working towards” in her SATS and the school told me they won’t be providing extra support as she’s one of their high achieving children I pulled her out and now home educate. Again an option only available to me because I cannot work due to caring for my disabled child. If I worked it would be tough shit that school is the only option because despite there being good schools a little further away they are all full and two years on waiting lists she never got a place.

To engage in this debate most of us will have above average reading and writing abilities compared to nationally. Google it. The average reading age for adults in the uk is 9-11 years. So it’s not fair to say state education with good parental support is fair as most parents actually cannot support in real terms. And not all children have parents who would support were they able anyway. So while I would never judge someone for doing the best for their child I do think we have to acknowledge if private schools were not an option those with the money and time would push for better state education which would help those children who’s parents are unable to push because just feeding and housing their kids takes all they have. I would love to fight for better education, particularly SEND, but I cannot. I can send angry emails and sign petitions but don’t have the funds for anything else and as I have my disabled child constantly I cannot attend meetings or marches or volunteer etc. I do not have the power to make any change, I had power when I had money and school places for my children and access to childcare/babysitters but now I need change I can do nothing about it but rant on mumsnet

Thank you . This is a really important perspective. I’m very sorry. SEND provision is completely inadequate and too many state schools are under performing ( for the reasons discussed) .

I don’t feel that parents who choose to opt out of state education should be judged as it’s not an individual parent’s responsibility to improve state education. However I do feel that a lot more should be done to bring all state schools up to the standard of the best state schools.

This sounds awful and I’m sorry that things are so tough for you, balancing both caring and education for your DC.

I would say though that I really think it’s a fantasy to say that parents with time and opportunity can do anything to significantly change a school. I appreciate that it seems like that would be possible, but in reality parents have very little impact on the cultures of a school no matter how sharp their elbows. I was a governor of my DD’s primary school the whole time she was there, and it wasn’t even possible for the governors to do much to change the school culture, because so much of that is formed by intransigent things like the funding available, the SLT competence and style, the local authority/MAT dictating from above, the material buildings and fabric of the school, the availability of teachers and TAs. In some areas even if you have a TA-provision EHCP the school can’t recruit any TAs. Governors have a really limited purchase on the school culture if a controlling Head/SLT is determined to keep them out. Some areas are dominated by social problems that suck up the school’s funding and the SLT’s time to an extent that nothing else gets much of a look-in.

For the most part, helpful and committed parents are still just not going to impact on a school enough to make any real difference. Even less so in a secondary school — these are set up to have much less input from governors or PTA than primary, and your DC’s experience is much more dictated by the overall quality of teachers the school can recruit (and even governors will have very little ability to intervene in this as it is very determined by locality, funding and school culture).

In practice, the idea that parents can drive or affect the school culture in any significant way is more wishful thinking than anything else. Parents don’t create the school culture — the school culture attracts certain kinds of parents (and often the most middle class and financially successful parents are actually the ones who have the least involvement in the school - they choose a school precisely so they can sit back and not get involved. This is something the “middle class parents will drive up standards” argument never quite understands: the more well off the parents, the less time they generally have to contribute to the school — that’s often why they choose grammars or private to start with. Their kids going back into state isn’t going to mean they are suddenly in school lobbying for better teaching. The very opposite - they’ll just top up and tutor outside school time instead.)

I understand that this isn’t the reality people want to hear - it sounds like an ideal way to increase state standards is to say other parents are going to do it in some mystical way that doesn’t really cost any money but harnesses some magic class powers.

BUT, in reality what does it for a school is: a proper vision and leadership at all of the DfE/LEA/MAT levels, cold hard cash, good teaching, better facilities, a shit hot senior leadership team, decent classroom teachers and proper SEN provision and social support, and that’s expensive and lucky as well if a school has all those things in place. It requires a proper vision and strategy for education across the country, proper central funding, a local authority which knows what it’s doing, and a leadership team and teachers in a group of schools and the individual school who can put it all into action. That simply isn’t all going to happen just because Arabella and Sebastian who used to go to a prep and have middle-class parents have suddenly fetched up at the school.

@Burntt
This is one of the best posts I've seen so far on PS threads.

The irony of it is that you're using all your available resources, no matter how limited, to isolate your DC from disruptive environment and give them the best education you can. You are not trying to improve the environment for anyone else. Your reasoning is that your resources (time, emotional etc etc) are limited. This is exactly what other parents who care do - they use resources available to them to make better life for their own children.
Of course there are few exceptions, but overall people are doing all they can to isolate their own kids from disruptive environment and give them the best education they can, be it school catchment, tutoring, cultural capital, help with homework or paying for private schools. The only difference is available resources.

And I do believe that "quality" of school very much depends on its catchment - it's only so much SLT and teachers can do if most of families simply don't care about education. No MC/strong elbowed parent with some options will send their DC to such school and try to improve it.

It's a bit of a pointless post because most people are opposed to private school and most people don't live in the catchment of an outstanding state secondary or have school age kids so whether there are a small proportion of people that move to an area for the school that could afford private is pretty much irrelevant. I think this is a point a lot of people forget, we're a society of people of all ages, backgrounds, incomes so it's not just people in expensive houses on one side and people who can afford private on the other.