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%. That and tutoring your kids to get them into a grammar school. It’s using their money to get an advantage over other families. Labour MP’s are known to send their kids to the best state or grammar schools. Hypocrisy at its finest.

So it sounds as though your son is fortunate to fall within the mainstream and doesn't have additional needs?
I struggle to think you'd be posting in this way if he did.

I’m a WC foreign academic who spent 30 years studying and later researching and teaching in England. There’s nothing at all ‘snooty’ about pointing out the centrality of class anxiety to some sectors of the UK, including immigrants. Who make ‘huge sacrifices’ precisely so that their children can get a boost up the class ladder. What on earth makes you think immigrants are immune? I could tell you a hundred stories about my former students whose parents or grandparents immigrated to the UK being firmly directed to certain fields.

I mean I left the country just a few years ago. Not in the 1930ies. People were talking about schools and catchment areas already in the nursery age stage in my area of London. (Which was not the most fancy area to note). Yes the social mobility is not bad comparatively speaking but the gap between the rich and the poor is among the worst in Europe. So people change social class at a rate not much worse than other comparable countries but rarely all the way from top to bottom and the gap is just so huge that so many people have absolutely no clue how the other half lives, as they says. This thread is proof of it. “I’m not privileged! My parents friends were middle managers and accountants! I chose private for my kid because she’s so into Latin!” Which kid on a council estate even is aware that Latin exists, for crying out loud. The state School I taught at at one point had 40 pct of parent long-term unemployed. Not a middle manager in sight tell you that much

So you are saying that the more fortunate middle class children should be exposed to the “distractions “ of the disadvantaged in order to even up the inequalities of the “rigid class system”?
Is that what you mean ? Or have I misunderstood?

I’m afraid I think there is a snootiness about your attitude ( as a “foreign academic” ) to parents who think social mobility is a good thing and want their children to perhaps have a better life than they had.

Going to private schools with the old boys network makes a bigger difference to future prospects than moving to a good state school ( not necessarily in terms of exam results). The real problem is the fees are going to private schools are being taken out of businesses and lead to taxpayer paying high salaries for top public sector staff so they can send their children private.

Yup, sounds about right. I mean ideally, we’d provide proper support to everyone so there’d be no disadvantaged kids, that way no one would be suffering and distracted. But since we don’t, the least we could do would be to mix the classes as least during childhood so privileged kids get a sense of their privilege and disadvantaged kids get access to the culture of middle/upper class and thus a chance to adapt this culture and lift themselves out of poverty by the power of the ofsted outstanding rated schools ; ) the outstanding public schools that all the middle Class kids will be flocking to, forsaking the private schools because at the end of the day, it’s ONLY about the QUALITY of the education (and Latin and sports).

There’s a huge range of life in the U.K. between what sounds like your idea of a “council estate” (not many of those left in most of the country by the way, the policies for most authorities have been mixed housing areas for a long time); and Eton. Plumbers and tradespeople earn more than many “traditionally middle class” jobs these days; and there’s a big difference, as there always has been, between income/wealth and class/traditional “cultural capital”.

Similarly, as the OP has pointed out, I know many people who are successful tradespeople with traditionally “working class” businesses, who make a lot of money and send their kids private; and many very “middle class” people who don’t and are very snooty about it, despite buying nice houses in good state catchments and taking expensive holidays. My family might seem very middle class but in reality we’re more like the genteel poor, and we couldn’t give a monkeys about social class, just want some decent education! Your assumptions are really outdated tbh.

“ couldn’t give a monkeys about social class, just want some decent education! Your assumptions are really outdated tbh.”
Agree 💯

All you are saying is nuance overall fairly accurate. But it still doesn’t change the fact that the privately educated are over represented in all high paying jobs, in politics and media and everywhere prominent you look. And it’s a bit of a myth that tradespeople earn more than university educated. Once you add up pensions and life time earnings it’s not really true, although sounds good. yes mixed housing today, but just replace the words council estate with social housing and you get my point. It’s just nitpicking

tinkering with the schooling is not going to change any of that. If people ‘gate keep’ class as you suggest they will always find a way. Money will always buy privilege.- tutoring, extra curricular activities etc AND having state schools with an exclusive expensive catchment area.

you are ultimately not talking about education but a wealth divide and there is almost very little any government will be able to do to change that in a capitalist society.

Like when quiet girls get sat next to the naughty boys in primary school.

In reality, girls ought not to be used like social support animals to “civilise” badly behaved boys. And children who want to learn aren’t just social props for improving other kids’ behaviour, either (in what inevitably also ends up in very gendered ways). Children are not tools for other people’s use.

Of course changing the school system can be PART of systemic change. Of course it cannot by itself fix a capitalist unequal society. Yes you can moderate the class inequality by having a more progressive tax system, better public education, free childcare, decent affordable housing, decent unemployment support, good public healthcare etc etc and it can all be done within the confines of a capitalist system. Look at the Nordics or (parts of) Germany. Even Canada. Not perfect anywhere far from. But what I found w the UK was that the class structure is almost a religious belief, it’s in the air your breathe and so so pervasive, it was suffocating, and I see it in this debate about schools w all it’s euphemisms for class.

@leftorrightnow And your assumptions about how poorer kids won’t have heard of Latin are really classist in themselves (and outdated).

State primaries have KS1 and 2 topics on Roman history and Greek mythology - the kids dress up for KS1 Roman Day and make shields and sponges on sticks! Learning a bit about the Classical world is a compulsory part of the state primary curriculum. Greek, Roman, Norse and Egyptian mythology are all in primary school reading scheme books and history topics. Roman numerals are a compulsory topic in KS2 maths. In my DD’s big very diverse state primary an Egyptian child joined the week the year were performing a play about Ancient Egypt. During the Olympics the school had a Greek Day about Ancient Greek sports! The Harry Potter books and film franchise are full of Latin terms. The idea that somehow kids in state primaries don’t know Latin exists is simply absolute bollocks. They just don’t get offered the opportunity to actually study it because of classist ideas that state kids should be studying “useful” subjects rather than actually being able to have education for its own sake.

It’s a travesty that intellectual aspiration in the state sector is so limited right now - we need more Latin, history, extension maths, modern foreign languages, etc., not less.

Again, outdated nonsense. Outside of the few top big name schools that famed "network" just doesn't exist. I will hold my hands up to moving my child out of a school where the people he knew held him down and threatened him with scissors, pushed him down stairs and was utterly failed by management who couldn't police 1200 kids but I didn't move him so he'd make good connections, just come home without bruises.

Right well then let's limit everyone to a nmw, no one is allowed to earn more than anyone else, have a better holiday than anyone else, pay for swimming lessons unless everyone gets them. Shall we confine everyone to a wheelchair and give people medication to mimic depression, anxiety and OCD so that we are all equally unable to function at optimum levels? I'm so sick of "privilege" being thrown around for literally anything above the most basic level of existence. I didn't say absolutely everyone can afford 17k but I said it's not out of the question if you have a household income in a range that is unremarkable for a graduate and don't live in SE. its not some untouchable, unthinkable option for all but the landed gentry. I get that it is not possible for so many and I would love not to be in chronic debt to fund it for my ds but it was needed. It had zero to do with wanting connections with wealth and everything to do with connections to kids who weren't going to terrorise him.

I have no issues with anyone who chooses to use private school for whatever reason. But I have a huge problem with people judging me for choosing not to. I have just as many reasons on my list as you have on yours.

And before you make assumptions - my daughter has SEN and was bullied at primary school and had a serious issue in her first few months in high school and we are still there. I practice what I believe and I work hard to ensure my kids have a great life alongside the challenges that come from attending a large city school with a whole host of difficulties. I wish things were easier for lots of their friends, but I still think the ‘distracting’ children have the same right to an education as anyone else.

I do however challenge the assertion that £17K is doable for the majority of people. For a huge number of people that is a ridiculously impossible amount of money.

@PurpleThistle7 where did I say I was judging anyone who uses state? I would love to have been able to for DS. And I never said the majority could afford 17k, just that it's not so completely out of reach for all but the super wealthy as some seem to believe. These threads are ALWAYS the same, with generalisations, anecdata, projection and downright ignorance in some cases.

I teach. I have taught in both sectors and had kids in both sectors. I doubt anyone seriously believes that there is some plot to "keep the poor down" and deliberately skew the system. I doubt anyone would argue against the idea that all children, regardless of backgrounds should be entitled to a great, rounded, safe education. What is lacking is a willingness to raise general taxation to pay for that, pay for more SEN intervention so "disruptions" can be minimised. Pay for interventions like sure start and homestart in homes which are failing to provide a stable family base which again, leads to disruption. Pay to fund schools and teachers properly. Tinkering around with VAT and abolishing Latin won't do that. Until that happens though, I don't blame anyone for doing whatever they need to do to help their child in whatever way that presents, but the OP is right when she says moving for a better state option is not a morally superior stance to PS.

Honest question do people actually have conversations about this in real life? Friends and family have children at all different types of school and no one actually gives a stuff.

It’s not morally superior to put your kids in state school. It’s morally superior to acknowledge your privilege if you afford private OR a home in a good catchment.

all I’m saying.

no one says there’s a ploy to keep the poor down by parents who simply want the best for their kids.

But the system IS inadvertently keeping the poor down.

All the privately educated are being asked is to at least ADMIT that.

You do realise that according to the child poverty action group it now costs £260-£290k to raise a single child to the age of 18. That is about £16k per year.

A person who chooses to have one child and send them private is far less a privileged family than one who can afford to have 3 and not send them private?

“But the system IS inadvertently keeping the poor down.
All the privately educated are being asked is to at least ADMIT that.”
This isn’t exactly what you were saying earlier.

Earlier in the thread you were arguing that middle class children should have same “distractions” and difficulties as disadvantaged children .

I think everyone would agree that that education for the poorest in our society should be improved.

I think where we disagree is the implication that it’s the responsibility of privileged parents to put their children into unsuccessful schools in order to improve the standard of the school.

I actually do think that ‘but’ am would also say that doesn’t work for everyone so not judging. Our own privilege isn’t either living in a nice catchment or private school - our privilege is raising our kids in a house with two parents who focus a lot of attention on them.

We both work full time so sometimes it’s a challenge, but we spend a lot of time, effort and money on giving our kids lots of experiences. I admit that privilege freely. A lot of my children’s friends are in council housing, with single parents in precarious work, small flats sharing bedrooms with multiple siblings, refugee housing, etc etc. They have neither a good catchment, private school, or the situations we are able to provide for our children. So my kids aren’t being neglected or failed by their lack of an amazing educational setting.

I can't see how it would benefit either individual children or society as a whole if all children are forced to be in a class where there is constant disruptive behaviour. Similarly, as I said above, why would it be a good thing if all children are restricted to learning just one modern language, and not really learning it properly either, just being taught to parrot a few phrases without understanding the grammar? Instead of being outraged that some children get the chance to learn the more demanding stuff what about being outraged that not all children get that chance?

I for one would happily pay more tax if it was guaranteed it would go into support for families with very young children, improving housing standards and making housing more affordable, and all the other things that are getting some kids off to a very poor start in life. It would be an investment if it resulted in more kids reaching their potential and getting good jobs that enable them to pay taxes later on. Also, we all pay the price further down the line when children go off the rails and disrupt schools, get involved in crime and violence, addiction issues etc etc. Prevention is better than cure.