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?

I put lots and lots of effort into raising my children. I just don't believe that prioritising fee paying schooling is the right thing to do. I send my children to the local school and it is 'fine'. It's not amazing. They have to learn how to adjust around large classes, behavioural issues, terrible facilities, etc. But that means it's actually more work for me to fill in the gaps myself - I cannot rely on the school's to give my children the opportunities their friends in private school have.

Generalising like this is really unhelpful as at the end of the day, it's a child's home environment that is far more important than where they spend 6 hours a day at school - a child in a safe, caring home with plenty of food and love is going to have a better life than one without regardless of where they are learning for a few hours a day. There are good and bad parents in every single school, fee paying or not.

💯

I have what I would term as champagne socialist friends who are teachers.

Absolutely against public/independent schools but quietly took their inherited wealth to an affluent area in the countryside where the state schools don't see the horrors in terms of behaviour that they experienced during their teacher-training.

And it’s attitudes like this which make me run a mile from private schools! You shouldn’t be proud that your DC’s school has no children on FSM, you should be embarrassed.

I work in a school with over 40% of children on FSM- not one of them is “difficult to educate”.

We could afford private education but chose state as we felt it better to save money for a future house deposit. So, we were thinking what's the best use of the money, not prioritising our own interests over children's education

The existence of private schools is a cancer on the state sector. They deprive state schools of the best qualified teachers in shortage subjects

@Sabire9 Many talented teachers choose to stay in state schools as they disagree with private school on principle

I know someone who paid £2m to be in the catchment of small state primary and secondary school because it was quite a strict 'village' catchment. She was very anti-private school during this time, called it a waste of time, and then the catchment for both schools was suddenly (and without warning) expanded to a new build estate and she immediately moved her kids to local private schools without even waiting to see the impact on the school.

There’s too much hype around imagined private school privilege. They have teachers who have done the same training, teaching the same curriculum as the state sector, especially in exam years when they are prepare children for the same GCSEs etc. The children might have a slightly smaller class, but many desirable privates schools have classes of up to 24, verses 32 in the state sector. I’ve taught GCSE classes of 26 and A level classes under 20 in the state sector and I get more ongoing professional development than I would in a private school and a better pension. Private school kids are denied access to almost all university taster courses. For most children, private education is a massive disadvantage in the current climate, unless they are exceptional at a particular sport or instrument and the school has facilities that help support it.

100% agree

i bought a house that gives me access to an amazing state school. Then for good measure, we used a private school summer program for most of our holiday coverage when dd was young. Crazy expensive, but absolutely fantastic.

Some people feel confident that the values and work ethic they've instilled are good enough for their child to perform in any adequate school.

What you gain on the swings you may lose on the roundabout. There are many people who send their kids to carefully researched schools and it ends up not being fine at all.

In some cases what people mean when they say 'fine' is 'my kids are lovely and did well, but I'm not going to shout about it'.

Parents need to just be secure in their own choices and not worry about how other families make choices. It takes a whole lifetime to measure success anyway.

Where I live the private schools are a totally different world - they have grounds and cafes and computer labs. They have brand new science labs with 3D printers and mandarin lessons. They have a place to sit at lunchtime and school trips to museums and Paris. So while of course the quality of the teachers are not in question (my children have had brilliant teachers all the way through), the environment and access to food and extra enrichment mean it's a whole different thing over there.

Why? Is this because

1. the school is excellent - in which case you wouldn’t need private
2. because the school is crap but you can’t afford better - in which case you never had a choice so it was never a moral choice or
3. Because the school is not as good as private schools which you can afford but refuse to send your child to - thus making your child suffer on purpose - how is this moral?

My Dc's Private school couldn't be more different from the State school about 1/2 a mile further down the road, its not just a "bit better"
And if anyone is wondering how I know I am a Governor and every time I have to deal with an exclusion or similar I thank my lucky stars we were able to afford Private
I have met some lovely, motivated kids there too and I really feel for them and what they have to deal with on a daily basis and there are some awesome teachers there too - The Deputy head has the patience of a Saint, BUT the nonsense they have to wade through before they can even teach is mind blowing.

Or the school is ok and will provide an adequate education, not amazing but just ok. Not all children in state schools are suffering - what a warped, narrow view of the world!

There's a definite correlation between FSM and challenging behaviour in schools.

Which has been studied. Of course it doesn't mean causation but a complex correlation.

@Creepybookworm

Hallo. Nice to meet you. I am one of the counting the pennies and I can find you 17 more in my DD’s class.

To answer (3) - because sending my children to state school aligns with my morals and what is important to me. I have options and I choose to support the local school because that's what I believe is the right thing to do. You can disagree, but you cannot say that I don't have any morals, that's just inflammatory. I'm not 'refusing' to send my children - they aren't even asking as they are happy at school.

My children also aren't 'suffering' - they are perfectly safe and reasonably happy and learning lots. They have friends and activities and wonderful teachers, a quick walk to school and plenty of time for clubs and hobbies as they don't have a commute. It's a strange attitude that anyone with a choice should automatically choose to send their kids to private school - plenty don't for many reasons.

I get that. Many also have beautiful listed buildings and herbaceous borders. The immense school fees are partly necessary to cover maintenance of these. But none of these change educational outcomes. Plenty of state schools organise eye-wateringly expensive holidays abroad. Many also had a huge amount spent on their physical environments in the Blair years. Some more recently. Food, I agree, is often less than desirable, despite Jamie Oliver’s efforts.

I’ve taught in both state and private, then returned to state. On average, the kids who thrive are the same in both - not the richest or the poorest, but the ones with a stable home life. That doesn’t have to be two married parents living together. It does mean parents who take an interest in their children and don’t throw the furniture at them or parents who aren’t too busy jet setting to care that their child is in detention again. Parents who cook supper, ask about the child’s school day, take a brief look at a child’s homework... That sort of basic thing that most of us do without thinking. I’ve seen neglect in both the state and private sector. I’ve known children from overseas who full board and are sent on every school holiday and summer camp available, only seeing their parents twice a year.

Yeah I sure some are. But they all say that. They all say they work sooooo hard. They just prioritise education (unlike almost everyone else). Also private schools are actually really diverse (if you ignore the lack of poor people). Also the local state wouldn't suit their particular child (but they are ok for everyone else).

Also that by sending their children private they are actually doing everyone else a favor.

Absolutely - think I said similar earlier in the thread. There are good and bad parents at every income level and at every school and a child's home life will always be more important than their life for the few hours they are at school. For what I prioritise, the state school system is working really well and my kids are thriving. If I was relying on the school to wholly educate and feed them - there would be concerns, but we do lots of that at home.

What is interesting is that as our school is in a specific catchment, children actually are prioritised for university places as part of the widening participation initiatives at Scottish universities. A very judgmental mother who lectured me about private school was horrified to learn that my child would actually have a better chance for selective university places than hers - all else being equal. This was in no way a part of our decision making but it is interesting that some of the benefits 'some' parents are looking for might actually backfire on them.

I have a disabled child in a special school but ,im very aware that many many kids sre not getting their needs met in mainstream
Whose parents are unable to pay for private of course most parents want the best for their kids but at least acknowledge your privilage in being able to have the choice of going private

Would be an additional £200k for us to buy the same size and spec house in a good catchment area for a secondary school. Five years of private senior school is costing us approx £125k. I appreciate there are a lot of variables but for some people it is cheaper to choose private education.

People can make whatever decisions they like. I have spent my life working in education and thinking about education. It is natural that I would carefully consider where to send my children. I have had comments made to me by friends who have sent their children to the default local school as if it is a morally superior choice. When they do that I do judge them a bit. However, on the whole I think most parents do the best they can with what is available.

Libraries are free. Many museums are free. Reading to a child is free (if you got the book from the library). Getting them to school on time is free.
Hence these advantages are open to everyone.
Private schools are very, very expensive. You are paying for whatever advantages you are getting, and hardly anyone (as a proportion of the population) can afford that.

I didn’t have to go private. I do acknowledge my privilege. I said as much on a different thread earlier today. Lumping parents who move (or go private) to provide an education for their disabled child in with parents who choose to do this to get a better education for their child and give them a leg up, is false equivalence. They shouldn’t be expected to let their child fall through the cracks just because so many others do. I am constantly campaigning to our local authority to improve access to education for all disabled children, because I know too many are not able to do so.