In thinking it is simply unfair that the standard of education that your children received is based on your financial status.

[lucyellensmum]

Yeah yeah, this old chestnut, but i feel i have to vent.

Yesterday i had the opportunity to get some "teaching practise" in a private primary shcool. It was like a different world. Small school, small class sizes. Wonderfully behaved, active, bright and happy children. It was really lovely, certainly made me think i might want to persue a career in teaching.

BUT the one thing i couldnt get past is the fact that these children were receiving this education because their parents are in a financial position to provide this. I have never posted on these threads before because it stinks of sour grapes that i can't afford this for my child. Even my friend who teaches there cannot afford to send her children . Its not that at all, their parents clearly work very hard for what they have and i don't begrudge that for one second. I think its great.

However, why should it be that if your parents are poor, or just average, or even just above average financially that you have to take your chances in an overstretched, underfunded state system. Its fundamentally wrong imo. Even in the state system it is biased towards wealthier families because if there is a good school in that area, the property prices rocket. Leaving average families with the "rest" of the schools.

Yes, people work hard for their living and should be able to reap the rewards of their hard work. But CHILDREN don't have any choice as to what family they are born into. Surely a child of a Junkie parent who has no interest in her/his child and sponges off the state etc (to take an extreme) has the same right to a decent education as that of a child who's parents are lawyers and MDs of major businesses.

I'm actually quite lucky, our local primaries are all pretty good schools. The secondaries are OK too. And YES i would totally abandon my principles and send my child to private school if i could afford it. The school i am describing has a 100% GCSE grade C or above pass rate, compared to the 70% of my DDs old school, compared to the 50% at the local state secondary unselective school.

The schooling system in this country is blatantly unfair, however i wouldnt want to be the person charged with putting it right as i dont have the answers.

Starlight - yes. On the other hand, I think many government initiatives have been a good thing. And the ones that I really think would help - much smaller class sizes - are much too expensive and radical to implement. And maybe I'm wrong anyway.

ah right. I admit I've not read the thread. There is some truth in the building maketh the school.

Some of the problems I think with the state schools are that they don't aspire to be better and hence don't have aspirations for their pupils. I say this as both a parent and a LEA appointed school govenor.

We live in an area which has a grammer school system. We are also in the catchment area for one of the top state schools in the country. I enquired at both the school my kids go to and the one I am a govenor at if they put their best pupils forward for the entry exam for the grammer schools and they both said no. These are schools with an above average set of results at both KS1 and KS2.

I went on a visit to the local private school and asked the same question and was told that pupils are not tutored in the school for the exams but are encouraged to enter them if they are able.

How are parents and kids expected to make anything of them selves if the schools don't aspire to change the system and enable pupils to get the best out of the state syatem then I can see the attraction of the private sector

Only read the OP so far. Agree that education should be of an acceptable standard for all children regardless of income. In fact, of course in an egalitarian society all children of all people would be offered the same advantages. This is the theory that used to govern the French approach to education -that every child would be dispensed the same product. Achievement would ultimately not be the same for everybody, but chances would.

The trouble is that levelling achievement in a society based on growth is that you remove the motivation for most people to work. And education has become a product like any other, handed out by operatives, and purchased by end consumers with more or less spending power.

If you went to the butcher's and a pound of sausages cost £150 if you were rich but £0.01 if you are really poor, and you worked really hard to be the rich person, you would be justified in feeling a tad pissed off that all your hard work still gets you the same product as the guy who does no work, but costs you a lot more. That's not fair either.

What would be fair is if education could be clawed back from the capitalist economy it has been steered into, and rightly governed by an ideology of equality of opportunity that would lead to all children starting off on a more equal footing than they do now.

There is some truth in the building maketh the school. We're having a new school.
It won't make the parents of my students better off, better role models or suddenly aware of the possibilities with an education.
We work our bollocks off in school to inspire and prepare students for the possibilities of success. Sadly we can't help them all. Those with a good moral ethos, and some without, will succeed with the right staff behind them - needed more than ever in the type of school I work in. The difference is usually parental support - not the building.
The problem we encounter are those kids who cannot deal with school, and those who won't. There are no special schools left for those who need extra care so we (the system) fail them. It costs so much money to exclude permanantly so we are left to 'deal' with them.
Wealthy kids are disruptive and excluded too you know - it might be done in other ways, not officially, but 'moved on' anyway.

whoah, valued. I wasn't clear. I think there is a definitely a perception that a lovely well-0resourced building makes a school a good one. It is not an opinion I would agree with.

I don't think I'd pay for my DD to go to private school even if I had plenty of money to afford it. I think she'll do just as well at the local schools. I know lots of people who went to private school & they didn't end up achieving much better than me or other friends who didn't. I'm not sure that later on the behaviour outside of school is any better - re. drugs & drinking.

It's not that I'm against them as such, more indifference really, but they don't appeal to me. Although I can understand that in certain areas they may be preferential.

Actually Pointydog from a purely pschological point of view, a nice building that children, teachers and parents are proud of is much more likely to motivate respectful behaviour.

A peagreen cold looking shabby miserable environment to learn in, isn't going to inspire anyone, and gives the feeling that the people inside are truly not cared about.

BUT, - obviously bad teaching in a beautiful building is not going to do a lot for standards!

Blondilocks I agree! Would you rather your child experimented with heroine or cocaine?

There are many factors that make a good school. Many. I just think it's too simplistic to say that paying for it is the major factor.

(why is my name being emboldened on this thread? I feel a little vulnerable now)

LOL Pointydog - sorry - tis Starlight here. I always do that so that people can find themselves and 'hopefully' answer/respond!

I should have mentioned that I've temporarily name-changed!

Sorry!

Only read the op i'm afraid...

LEM bear in mind that private schools are usually a bit like hothouses, the children are given the best conditions and the pressure is on to perform.

For those who are suited to the conditions, the results are excellent.

For those who do not thrive in a highly competitive environment, or who have e.g. problems at home, there is little pastoral care. Exam results/sporting achievements are everything.

So when children "fail" in this environment, there is no safety net, and they go much farther off the rails IME.

So private schools not always as fab as they seem at first glance.

Message withdrawn

Yes it is unfair and yes we should invest a lot more in schools and teachers because we are failing a lot of children in many areas of the country. I speak as a parent whose DCs have been to excellent state and independent schools and who is in the position of being able to buy into the good catchment areas. Others can't. It isn't fair.

chukkypig - some private schools are like that; certainly not all, and probably not even most. Infact I have none private schools with far better pastoral systems than state, and some state with rubbish pastoral systems. Maybe tyour statements are more true in some of the more fiercely competitive schools down sounth, but that is certainly not my experiennces.

Just as I hate to read the untruths laid down about state schools, I also dislike it when I see the mass generalisations about private schools too.

Again - there are good and bad schools in the state system; there are good and bad schools in the private system.

so are we buying into good catchement areas (ie good people who live there) or good schools (ie good teaching and learning)?

We always bought into good catchment areas having gone round all the schools in the area and found the best for us - i.e. ones that would provide a good education for a highly academic DS and also for a very average DS who loved sport. We did the same for independent schools as well. I admit to some snobbery - we like our children to be with other children whose parents value education - but we aren't interested in whether they live in posh houses or drive posh cars.

Paying fees doesn't automatically guarantee success. I went to an academically-selective independent school and while it is true many people did very well, some went seriously off the rails. And my A-level history teacher was a complete nutter - 3 out of 4 of us studying her course actually managed to fail, which was quite an achievement given the school and the raw material.

Of the people I know as adults, I don't think you could pick out the one who went to Roedean from the one who went to bog standard comp, Rochdale.

Hula I know, I just wanted to give the other side of the story, that private schools, although they have excellent results and lovely grounds etc are not always that brilliant for all students.

Just as not all children who go to poorly performing state schools will perform badly themselves.

I just wanted to make my point quickly but I will try to be more balanced in future!

Oh Fio, you have it bad tonigth dont you

I agree with chukkypig - there is another side to the coin.

Private nurseries are often focused on getting their children into a good pre-prep, pre-preps want to get their children into a good prep, preps want their children to go to a good private secondary/public school, which then leads on to a good university and then what, a job in the city in the right firm? Its a very narrow existence.

I think they are a little like private hospitals - they achieve certain aims, but they leave a lot out.