to think many parents who send their children to the lower quality independent schools are so pretentious it is cringeworthy?

[Barrelofloves]

Is it due to insecurity? Because I have found the seriously loaded/titled folk are not like that at all.

What a load of old toffee. And Le Queen I actually find your 'categories' the biggest load of nonsense of the lot. The middle one is pretty offensive in its snottiness. And no, I don't fall into any of them. I was state educated and so will dd be. But I'm glad your little world is so neat. Shame it bears no resemblance to real life...

What a snotty, snobby discussion. MN talks bollocks again.

"A piece of paper does not give an indication of a good quality teacher."

Wriggle, it certainly doesn't. My 25 year old cousin is a Canadian national teaching science here in a UK secondary. Having been a supply teacher in one particular school she was offered a permanent contract but has declined the offer. She is shocked and horrified at the behaviour of some of the children and at the lack of professionalism and skills of some of her fellow (UK educated) teachers. Her opinion is that despite their qualifications some of those she has taught alongside just shouldn't be there.

Maybe we have something to learn from the Canadians.

I think LeQueen's 1,2,3 post is spot on. Usually 2 reveal themselves by making a point about paying for education and having certain expectations. That thought doesn't occur to 1 and isn't made by 3 as they understand the valu of what they are paying for (something 2 would never fathom).

AS long as we can escape the mullets, there could be something in that.

value

The independent school system is very small, you could probably work out which one it is by word of mouth alone.

Parents' social circles and social standing are often defined by their dc's school, so not even allegations including sexual impropriety and drunken teaching staff mattered which I found unbelievable.

But the fact is these schools are actually in the business of being an exclusive club so it means it was all hush hushed/ glossed over anyway.

All I will say, OFSTED were informed.

Oh btw many of the teachers there do not have a degree or any teaching qualification.

It is a prep school and my friend's son was told he had learning difficulties and forced to pay extra only to find out later when she withdrew him and sent him to a quality prep school he had simply been badly taught.

I don't think "Going to our local comprehensive never did me no harm" (as per your eg Lequeen) is sneering or ridiculing private education.

You can't possibly be offended by that?

(and no 'chip' here privately educated too, ds too, before that ol chestnut is wheeled out)

I think I know where the OP is coming from. A relative of mine sent her children to a private school, the school was housed in a lovely old mansion complete with acres of land. Of course once I discovered they were going there I had to have a nose at their GCSE results (as you do) and less than 50% of pupils were obtaining good GCSE results! My relative wasn't even aware of this and had not considered the local state schools as she was set on a private education for her children and fell in love with the straw boaters.

It all went well for a couple of years, lots of summer balls, dads bonding at the golf course whilst the mums got to know each other at the beauty spa. Eventually it came to an end as they didn't have the funds to pay the school fees. The children are both doing well in the state sector.

By all means choose a private school if it is for the right reasons and you can afford the fees. Choosing a private school because you like the posh uniform and think it raises your social status is pretty naff.

How about Group 5 to add to the existing 4? (this thread is starting to remind me of a sociology degree)

In Group 5:
*parents one or both of whom were privately educated themselves who both hated their private schools and so there is No Chance Whatever they are gonna put DC through the same thing. So DC goes to the school down the road and mummy joins the board of governors. Mummy and Daddy spend the money saved on school fees on some other nice middle class accoutrements (boat, horse riding lessons, fill in your own preference).

I am the spiritual leader of this group

Unfortunately however ten years down the line LJ has turned out a bit like Saffy on AbFab - and his constant refrain is not 'can I have an ice cream' but 'can I go to boarding school'.

I don't know anyone that chooses a prep school because they think it raises their status.

There is a mix of parents at ds' prep school, but no one in such admiration of the parents who are the top of the social pile to choose the school so as to be near them. It's a myth surely. People just go with what is best for their child.

Right do excuse me I have an Annabel Karmel butternut squash risotto to whip up

MarshaBrady. Parents like these may be in the minority but they do exist. When my cousins children were in the private sector she would bring them into the town centre after school (30 miles away) and take them into shops where old school friends worked so they could see that she had made a success of her life. Those were her words not mine. The schools name was even mentioned on her friends reunited profile.

I grew up in a working class area and my parents were friends with a number of publicans they were all doing well and sent their children to private schools. It really was like the Harry Enfield sketch "We are considerably richer than yooou".

Oh no! I suppose the English class system is so entrenched in people's minds that that sort of stuff could happen.

(actually when I say a mixed bag, they probably are all mc rather than wc, just slightly different angles)

????? Is there really a chunk of the population that chooses to send their children to school not to get the best education, but will send them to mediocre schools just for their personal social cache? I don't know anybody like this (not saying they don't exist, just would be shocked that they do).

Most of the people who would fit LeQueen's category 2 in my acquaintance are pushing their children to go to the top schools as they know that it was their education which allowed them to move up the socio-economic ladder. They know that it is much better on a resume (career wise and socially) to have Westminster/St Pauls/Eton/Harrow... than No Name School For Dullards.

And, LeQueen

1. Forces children, the majority of their fees paid for by the boarding school allowance, but who get teased because they don't have their uniform replaced as frequently as the others and have never holidayed outside Europe. And who (as they get to 6th form) get annoyed by the teachers' continual assumptions that their parents are loaded and so they know nothing about real life.

I know exactly what and who barrel is talking about.She may have been a little gauche in how she said it in the first post but she is spot on!

So to summarise:

Old Money = Good, New Money = Bad.

Shit, what if you are both!?!?

It's a complicated issue as to why children are sent to crap independent schools for example, smaller class sizes, friendly atmosphere, the misguided notion that they are doing the best for their child, also probably it is the school where the child will fit in best. Not everything is about the academics.

You're right AliGrylls. My friend reports that she was about ten and playing on the farm where she was brought up, whilst her dad a well-to-do gentleman farmer chatted to a male visitor about the local school he was planning to send her to.
"It's not too hot on the results side," he said to his chum. "But they do turn out such awfully nice gels."

Most private schools wouldn't dream of employing teachers without very good qualifications and experience

Not true at all I'm afraid. From my PGCE course someone was employed straight from the course to a very famous prep school before he had even qualified. It did help that he was a man and men are at a premium in primary.

Another friend is an experienced teacher and went from a state primary (poor area, lots of English as secod lang and special needs children) to exactly the kind of school the OP describes. She is extremely well qualified but the requiements of the two schools don't have much in common. She says she has never had it so easy. Her planning consists of telling the children to open the next page in the text book and she is not required to have any additional resources. The school does SATs (which further narrows the breadth of what is taught - one reason why I would want my child out of the state system) which I can only assume is to prove results to parents (who are not aware how easy it is to train children for SATs results especially when the do not have to comply with the rest of the national curriculum as state schools do) and justify their fees. I would be livid if this was the standard of teaching I was paying for. Even my friend finds it frustrating!

I think that parents must just believe that private must be better and not all are pretentious.

My old neighbours would never have dreamt of sending their children to state, they would have lost face - it was a matter of pride they could afford it. Their son wasn't clever and went to an independent who does well with Harry Enfield type Tims. Their dd was considerably brighter but they selected her school on the basis it was closest to her brother's. He went on to do HNDs in computing and she pharmacy at a decent uni.