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.

kitty I'm sure it makes you feel better to think of all those terrible Osborne like people, that went to private schools too. But the reality is that there probably isn't a single private school with a child who has an asbo (or a parent come to that).

the type of problems the kids have at private school do overlap with state of course(e.g. bullys, thieves, druggies etc) but there is a tier that has been stripped out by virtue of the entrance exam and the power of the private school headmaster. And its that tier the private school brigade are paying to lose (amongst all the other obvious benefits).

And fair play to that as a goal don't you think!!

Oh yah! Wouldn't want to mix with any of those ruffians!

FWIW I learnt a hell of a lot at my primary-school-on-a-council-estate, not least compassion for some of my friends who had difficult home circumstances (and jealousy of those who had younger, trendier mums than me ). Children are children.

Am actually a bit saddened by your post, lil. I hope it was a piss-take designed to make posters like me rise to the bait..?

lil - I don't need to made to 'feel better' thanks. After attending 'rough' state schools of the type you describe I managed to get a place at Cambridge University. I'm not saying that to be an annoying twunt - yes 7 of the people in my year at my 'dreadful' state school ended up in prison - however, many of us did very well thankyou. So when it comes to Asbos or criminal charges against the likes of Osbourne's brother, what is the essential difference? You get good and bad wherever you go and affluence/class is absolutely no indicator of either. The idea that you've stripped out a 'tier' in private education is self delusion I'm afraid. But I'm sure it makes you 'feel better' about wasting your money. As you say Adair, compassion for others and understanding of all people from all backgrounds should not be underestimated.

I went to school with some pretty notorious criminals, some are in prison.

But also among my peer group was a future speech writer for Gordon Brown, TV producer, chidren's book author, consultant paediatrician, journalist and a myriad of other professions and trades which make yhe world go round. This was at a bog standard London comp.

I really do not understand the horror that somebpeope have of their child mixing with ordinary peope, good and bad. I wouldn't want my children to attend a very bad or vioent school. But most comps are fine, even with a few asbos thrown in

has anyone yet mentioned the rampant drug and alcohol abuse in most private schools?

I guess just buying from dealers means you are not part of the cycle. Let the state school kids do the dealing and the time.

I don't think people send their child to a private school to prevent them from starting a life of crime Kitty, the same as any parents wouldn't send their child to a state school for the same reason. The reasons are complex, there's normally not just one and it's a difficult choice to make for most parents, it's a huge committment.

rollmops and bloss - the whole point of this thread is that there are many many many parents who also value their child's education above all else and whose child is anxious/bored/whatever at school, but there is still no way on earth that they could afford private school fees. So it's frankly a bit galling to have you give those reasons.

Its such a simple and straightforward point, isn't it emkana?, so easy to grasp. And yet ... there are a lot of posters here who just don't get it. Am at a loss.

Indeed Bibbity. It is. And frankly I find it really irritating when I offer up my own circumstances as an example of pre and apres enough money to do private, and asked if I were a better parent, or cared more about his education now my ds was at private...and no one cared to answer...

Absolutely BelleDeChoc - I was merely responding to the implication of a previous post by Lil about how a 'tier' of undesirables is removed within private education (as opposed to state). I just don't buy it - life is not that simple.

I think they get it bibbity but in their world then things are different. Most families have a good school that they can access though, it would be wrong to say this about the country as a whole though. Most parents do what they think is best and do what they can for their child, whether it's moving house, joining a church or going private. Why be hostile towards those parents who send their child to a private school? We are not the ones attending a church we have no affiliation to so they can sign a bit of paper to say we attend? We are not the ones arranging a baptism to gain access to a faith school, we are not the ones buying a house in a certain catchment area. These parents do gloat, they have beaten the schools system. It is unfair, 'let he who cast the first stone be free of sin' and all that though.

Life never is simple Kitty

But surely Emkana's point is that there is a vast difference between being unhappy at the state provision available for your child and being financially able to choose an alternative, and saying that state education is unthinkable, and therefore private schooling is a necessity that any caring parent should choose. And if only they scrimped a bit, would be able to afford.

No, read it again Madame, Emkana's saying that the private school system is closed off to a great many people as it's blardy expensive. It doesn't matter what they do, they can't access it. Families on low incomes can't access them for example, so therefore school fees can never be classed as a necessity as they are not neccesary for everyone, the vast majority have to put up and shut up.

yes, perhaps I was extrapolating a bit from subsequent posts...

There's alot of posts!! Maybe we should all be investing our time into trying to do something to make every school a good one rather then bitch about parents who send their child to a private school.

Anyone want to share some chocolate??

To be honest, I don't think there was a whole heap of being horrid to private school parents, but there were plenty of objections to the idea of it being a necessity...and argy bargy at that notion...

I think you're right BelleDeChocFluffy - there are many many ways in which things are unfair and there is nothing intrinsically immoral about chosing to pay for private education as opposed to paying a bigger mortgage/ contriving church attendance etc etc But I think where people (myself included) get upset is when there is an implication that state education is somehow beyond consideration and contemptible....ok that attitude is not necessarily widespread but where it crops up (as it has occasionally on this thread) it is hurtful. Also it doesn't meet with the reality of what many of us have experienced as pupils or parents. Live and let live I say. I reckon 99.99% of parents are striving to do the best by their DCs by whatever means possible whatever their financial circumstances.

Lindt chocolate with cherry liquid inside. YUM!!

I can't see people being horrid to a parent who forces their child to go to a hole though because their morals don't agree with sending them somewhere else. No child should have to endure years of a crap education, I did, it was hell. It's about time every school raised it's standards and results. Every time the topic of private schools come up there's always people on here ready to pounce. I've been here for three years now and it's always the same, like wise that people think it's OK to take the piss out of gifted children and parents who think their child is gifted, they forget that their piss take thread about Tarquin who can read the encyclopedia at 2 years or whatever is actually a thread taking the piss out of real children who more then likely have so much crap at school that their lives are barely tollerable.

I put ds in a state school last year kitty, it was the worse term and a half of his life and he needed counselling when he left. Not only was he very bored (small in the scheme of things) but some of the children tried to humiliate him by trying to pull down his underpants in the playground, he had his head rammed into a filling cabinet, a ball repeatidly thrown into his face, books pulled off him and thrown over a high hedge, verbal abuse on a daily basis, he was almost pushed down the stairs, I could go on. I've found him a lovely school with a zero tolerance to bullying where they have a reading group and all kinds of things he'd love. We went to see it and could see that boys were able to sit outside and read without any harassment. I could put him in another state school and have to move him again and again and again and again, he won't defend himself against children like this, he's small, he can't run, he falls over alot, he's asthmatic. I'm doing the best for him, likewise are you. I don't think that there will be a school as dire as the one ds has been to, I'd be lying if the private one he's been to was a bed of roses as it was far from it.
Every school is a lottery, it shouldn't be. There should be high standards across the board, high levels of respect and discipline. I would place him back in a state school if I could find the right one for him.

The crux for me is that a decent education is necessary for everybody's children. Yet we live in a system which only privileges a few. There are some great state schools, but paying seems to guarantee results and entrench privilege. And yet some of the parents who avail themselves of their advantages talk of decent education as a necessity, while still managing to insult other parents who don't "choose" this route as being just a bit crap with their money, rather than recognising that a choice that not everybody has is inherently unfair; and that there are also people who choose actively to support the state system and better it, who aren't doing that out of a careless disregard for their own children, but from a belief that having principles is not something you want to teach your children to 'grow out of'. That is also part of what some people see as educating the next generation. Not "I'm alright Jack, pull the ladder up".

Indeed Belle, I am in much the same boat as you. And luckily got the chance to make a change for ds (though his issues were undiagnosed and unsupported SN, despite being on Action + since nursery). But that chance was utterly dependent on making choice between a home or a school. I chose to sell for other reasons, but once I had that cash, I knew how I had to spend it, but then I was lucky to have a flat to sell in the first place.

etc etc....

The fees I pay for ds's school are full whack. I don't just pay to educate him though. I pay towards educating someone else's child, my fees go into the giant pot and out of this the school give bursaries to boys who wouldn't be able to go to the school otherwise. The school put on events for the community, they share the sports fields with state schools, the boys carry out voluntary work within the community. There's no "I'm alright Jack" here. I know it's small in the grand scale of things though.

If I don't send my children to private school, and I use the money that I saved to give them a deposit on a house, is that unfair to people who don't have the spare money for either? Or is it education in paricular?

It is difficult. It's all difficult when you come to terms with the fact that socialism doesn't work.

I don't for a minute think all private school parents think that, Belle, and I certainly don't include you or many others on this thread in that assessment. But there is a whiff of that from some, even here, for sure. And worse than that, they don't even own that, but continue to imply that parents who can't afford it, or opt not to go that route, are just not "hard-working" enough, or are daft old lefties who haven't grown up.