to find it incredibly irritating when in certain circles school fees are talked about as if they are a necessity, not a choice?

[emkana]

Like Emma Thomson currently on the Women programme on BBC 4, or very often in the "Style" section of the Sunday Times.

There is a worrying "understanding gap" on these threads sometimes where people equate the alleged shoddiness of their local state school (and hence "need" to escape it) with their actual financial ability to do so.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that these are not one and the same - or that people without the money to go private will have the same reservations about some state schools' resources, but muddle through because they have to.

The argument is phrased in terms which suggest that having the money to go private somehow makes the scales fall from your eyes, and that those without it remain deluded.

And don't "yes, dear" me, Quattro. If you'd be so kind. Love.

I will be paying for a friends little boy to go private if need be due to the dire choices available in his area.
I don't think there's an understanding gap rather a bloody great big education gap in some areas where a decent well brought up child with an ounce of intelligence doesn't stand a chance.

look, You scrimp and save...from salaries that allow you to educate your children privately. Fine.

Now, I have had my ds in both state and private. Before I sold my flat, I could not afford private school, however I scrimped and saved. After I sold it I could, and took that opportunity to move my ds to a school where his needs were met.

Am I a better parent simply because I could afford it suddenly?

I don't think so. I acted out of self-interest, for my son. But on a bigger scale, I would prefer that he went to his local school, and all children to go to their local schools and get a decent education there.

Its an aspiration for society that benefits everybody.

Duchesse, I know, I didn't mean that to seem quite like the personal insult it appeared to be, just an obsevation that I'm aware that discussing the adjustments you have to make to send kids to priavte school (and we are in the same boat as you, can do it at a push) doesn't go down that well with those that even with adjustmenst couldn't do it.

As the sarcastic cries of 'oly 10 days in Italy??' demonstrate. People who can't afford it al all, aren't interested in the fact that if if wasn't for the pesky school fees we could have gone to Disney, it is bound to rankle with some however true it may be.

'Nice problem to have I guess.

Actually UQD, our neighbours who on a global scale would probably come out as poor (no CH as too expensive for them, can't afford uniform or shoes for their child, very little money for food or rent) really wish that they could send their DS to a school other than the local comp. So it doesn't depend on income for everyone.

Exactly UQD.

The subtext of "I scrimped and saved" is that if you only tried a bit harder you could too.

This is simply not the case. And it does not make the parents of children in states schools fools, who if only they tried that little bit harder would escape the perceived hell of state education.

But whether you educate your children privately or not, bad education is bad for society. Good education is good for society, for all our children.

So it is perfectly possible to privately educate as a pragmatic personal choice, without claiming moral superiority about it, and also lobbying for decent education for all.

looby..., your comment :"I understand why some people are suggesting that it is a selfish choice (ie putting your own child's needs above the rest of society's..."
IS the most idiotic I have come across in a long while.
There's something deeply wrong with parents who don't put the needs of their child above the rest of the society.

I haven't said that I wouldn't put the needs of my children first have I! I haven't said anything about myself and my children at all actually. If you are unable to comprehend the argument, that's a shame.

Smiley puts it v well- perhaps you can understand from this....
'
I see the unfairness, and understand the arguemnt against it, but do it anyway as I want to do the best for my child and am lucky enough to have a choice.'

'Only quite extraordinary parents would put the needs of society above that of their child ime.'

I totally agree with this!
It is dangerous for self interest to take over entirely though and greed, selfishness, complete lack of care for one's fellow human beings.

Duchesse, is your point that poor people want good education for their children as well as people who can afford to go private?

Its not exactly unusual, the fact that you feel the need to use your neighbours as a example shows me that your default attitude is that the rest just don't give a stuff.

Not true.

Some of that (MadameD) makes sense, but I always have that nagging feeling of "how much do people genuinely care about stuff that doesn't affect their own children?"

It's possible to be "concerned" about developments in state education in an abstract way (unless you work in it, of course, which is somewhat different)... but it will never be the same as having your own children affected. It becomes a "problem" like famine in Africa, or child abuse. Something we can all be concerned about, but which doesn't hit home until it's personal.

(Of course, I'm now falling into the classic debating trap of rephrasing my argument in the other side's terms - there is a lot to be celebrated, not feared and/or denigrated, about our state schools.)

That Mark Steel quote a long way up the thread says it all for me.

indeed UQD.

I think it also depends on where you live. In london, even if you privately educate, there is no way you are immune to the effects of good/bad/indifferent state education.

On a different note, I am very aware of how polarised state and private has become. When I was at school there was very little social snobbery about your school. I had plenty of friends in private schools, public schools and normal state schools like mine. But I don't think my nephew, who has been totally privately educated, has ever met anyone who goes to a state school, let alone have them as friends, which I find very worrying.

I'll come clean. If I could afford it, i'd be sending ds private. he is miserable as sin in his bog standard, but perfectly acceptable comp.
but we couldn't afford a house int he catchment area for the alternative state school. It would actually be cheaper to send ds to the nearby private school at £12,000 a year, than to take out a mortgage in the catchment area of the desirable shiny school on the ''much favoured south side of tine''.
Ultimately though, we ain't got £1000 a month spare; regardless of how much we cut back. We already don't have Sky, don't eat out, have an ancient car, don't go on holidays etc etc
And we havemore than one child so it would in a few years, be £24,000 a year fees. Not to mention activities and uniforms. The bursaries are only for exceptionally gifted applicants.

because I think for him and his school friends, the children who go to state schools are as distant and unfathomable a tribe as any in Africa.

And discussing this once with him, (he is 16) he genuinely thought that all parents would choose private because it was 'better" and to not do so would be failing your children. he couldn't get his head around the concept that I could not afford it, because in his mind people who can't afford private school are very very poor and probably live in a council flat on benefits.

My ds goes to a good state school. Our catchment area's school is bad (everything "well below national average"... no thanks, I'm not sending my son there!), so I was lucky to get a place for him there. BUT, if I was rich, I would send my children to the best schools possible (even if it meant going private) and, despite this being unfair to the less well-off children, you can't blame parents for wanting the best education for their children.

Oh, I think not just in London. A decent state education system benefits us all and a poor one affects us all. We will all be surrounded, after all, by people who have been through the system and who will have an effect on your life - colleagues, employees, children's friends, friends' children, your plumber or your accountant or your au pair or your financial adviser... The list is endless.

Your doctor, your lawyer even...

I think if you are making an assumption that people don't send their children to state for the greater good of society then you are wrong.

We know several families who have chosen to send their children to their local failing school then got themselves onto the board of governors and helped the school move forward. They haven't always been successful but then again, I'm not always sure these schools deserved their failing rating.

I think a lot of this is to do with how the parents perceive education.

For us, getting the best education (in terms of results/opportunities) wasn't a priority. We wanted a community atmosphere and happy children. Our local state school ticked those boxes and since our children have been going there, it has done v well (it wasn't always brilliant).

UQD. I don't think you can be a lawyer or a doctor if you went to state school. {wink]

UQD, a long way up the thread, but your earlier comment:

You never hear people saying, "Well, my child is a bit thick, and quite insensitive, and actually loves the rough-and-tumble of big, boisterous groups, and enjoys being in large, shouty classrooms - and in fact really likes being regularly, pointlessly tested. So that's why we 'chose' the state system..."

gave me the best laugh I've had for ages.

Here here foxinsocks - I have the same attitude as you - and I think giving out those sort of messages to one's offspring (about he importance of community involvement, social equality, aspiration available to all etc etc) are valuable educational lessons in themselves...what does the 'I'm alright Jack, I 'escaped' teach DC in terms of their long term attitudes to life and others?

Smileys, maybe in some cases - and I certainly never say never because of that. But I really can't see me changing our principles because they are IMPORTANT to us, both dh and I are secondary teachers and have both taught in challenging secondaries here in inner London.

We have first-hand experience of seeing kids (from various backgrounds) turn out fine. Kids from backgrounds where parents are positive about education (unsurprisingly) succeed. Kids with difficult home-lives find it harder - some succeed,some get into trouble. Yes, there were fights and drugs and gangs and bullies, but they learn quickly how to avoid them - and anyway, that is the case for any area.

I guess it is self-interest though, as I believe a state education is the best thing for my children as well as wanting to support society too.

My principles have always been 'nearest, smallest school then do whatever you can to improve etc'. Am about to test it as dd is due to start next Jan - have applied to nearest, smallest which has intake mostly from council estate and ok results - she should get in as was undersubscribed (compared to others in area). She seems happy enough at nursery there.

foxinsocks - missed your post but agree with you and kittycat (relieved there are some of us who share this view!)

Adair - the worry is though, you as teachers know how to make the system work for you for parents without the insider knowledge or the time and inclination to ensure their child gets the best out of a state school do not stand a chance.
My friends son lives in an area with 3 grammar schools and yet his state primary do not DO the 11+. It's on a council estate, 4 miles up the road the state primaries have a 110% pass rate, go figure.

Doh 100% pass rate obviously