to think it was a mistake to give a damn about education?

[AbbyLubber]

Ok, I know some will really disagree about this, but I am fed up. Really furious. I earn a solid, not great wage; so too dh. We have two children. We've scrimped and struggled and sweated to pay for them to go to independent schools, because they are both bright and because here in Oxfordshire the local state schools in our area are dreadful, really dreadful. We're almost at the end of our rope financially. My son has a scholarship, but the schools say we earn too much to qualify for a bursary, though they also admit that we don't actually earn enough to pay the fees over the long term.

WTF? AIBU to think that if we don't earn enough to pay the fees then that should BE a benchmark for help? I get that it's political, that they want to keep their charitable status, but surely this is madness? Perhaps I should add that we don't have a fine art collection we can sell, or rich parents... as per the ludicrous inquiry form the school sent around.

Isn't ANYONE else cross that soon unemployed single mums and the rich will be the only ones able to send their dcs to a good school of their choice - unless of course you pay in the other way, by buying a 675k house in the tiny Cherwell catchment area? Not that I'm against unemployed single mums and their kids - the more the merrier - but I wonder now why I worked full-time when my dcs were small to earn a decent wage.

This sort of thread always has the same ending.

Some state schools are excellent, some are dire, many are somewhere inbetween.

Some private schools are excellent, some are dire, many are somewhere inbetween.

Some people are fortunate to live in an area where they can access the good schools without having to pay.

Some people are unfortunate and don't live in areas where they can do that, and feel forced to pay for private.

Some people are even more unfortunate and don't live in areas with good schools and don't have the money for private either.

Here endeth the lesson!

My experience has been that if your child has an ability and has interest and support from home then they will achieve anywhere tbh.
Certainly ds achieved 12 gcse's and 4 A grade A2 levels at a not spectacular (understatement) state secondary where his cousin achieved 8 gcse's and 2 D grade A2 levels despite being in private school from entry at 3.
I wouldn't say that either myself or SIL was any less interested although from my perspective SIL was somewhat obsessed with the status of private school and pretty interested in cultivating a "nice" friendship group for ds She and dn though were deluded by the school into thinking that with just a little extra tuition dn would be Russell group uni material. Whereas seeing a wide range of abilities meant that ds had a more realistic idea of his abilities.
OP if your child has the ability that that you believe then he will achieve and you can enhance his chances by using the fees to provide enrichment activities out of school.

It depends upon the type of independent school, asdx2. Plenty of independent schools cater for the naice but dim market.

My DCs are at independent selective schools, where actually the reverse is true - they think they are dimmer than they actually are because it is such a fight to be at the top of a year group. But that's one aspect of what we are paying for, of course, a really bright peer group to keep them motivated and working hard. Can be discouraging though and can lead to self-esteem issues if not carefully watched.

Yes quattro obviously dn went to non selective private schools. Sorry should have made that distinction really.
I was just amazed that SIL and dn bought into what they were sold about dn's abilities when it was obvious that dn wasn't the "able and talented" pupil they were led to believe.

In response to unquietdad.

This is my ideal state school. A postcode lottery for allocation of places where there is a proper social mix, where EVERYONE sends their children to state schools. This is the only way to begin to make sure that every school has an 'equalish' start.

Small schools, small classes. A culture where it's 'cool to achieve' whether that's academically, vocationally or in extra curricular life. Excellent, home cooked school lunches which every child has to participate in. Extensive grounds with lots of space to climb and play. Opportunities for lots of sport, drama and music where excellence is persued by all. Opportunities for children to try caving, climbing, sailing - not just once but as a consistent option. Where children can learn horticulture, plumbing, Latin, pottery, film making. There should be no external exams until Year 11. My ideal state school wouldn't be tied to a National Curriculum. The staff would be highly qualified in their subject areas, a particular area of extra curricular activity and in teaching of course. These teachers would be paid well and viewed as first class professionals, not second rate citizens.

I am fed up of trying to change things from the inside. Until our excellent, local state school is all of the above we will continue to pay for private education because the private school we have chosen is better. I will also moving as a teacher to the independent sector in September.

Until everyone sends their children to state schools, it will be difficult to achieve this kind of ideal and selfishly, I'm not helping. I'm afraid, like many others I'm not prepared to give up what I perceive to be the best for my child for the good of wider society.

I agree with some of the above, not all. I'm not in favour of postcode lotteries because they will produce total chaos - children separated from their local friends, communities divided, transport hell (I mean, seriously - if you live in a small town or village, just think for a minute about how this would work in a city).

Your last sentence says it all, liongirl - things won't change until people do. It's staelmate. You are part of the problem.

UnquietDad, why did you feel the need to point out that I am am part of the problem when my acknowledgement of this was the climax of my post?

Off to enjoy the weather! This has been a really interesting exchange.

Ahem. Move to Cambridge. None of the schools are bad

liongirl, just wanted to argue against your 'small schools' point - I think it's more likely to have the option of doing horitculture/film-making etc in a bigger school.

My school was pretty giant (8 classes of 30 per year) and it meant we could choose from a huge range of subjects, sports, extra-curricular clubs etc.
It also meant I was able to find a group of friends with interests and attitudes like me, whereas in a smaller school I might have been considered a bit of a weirdo and a loner (madness, I know )

liongirl - the state is never going to be able to provide the kind of education you describe to all children in the land - it is just too expensive to do so.

GetOrfMoiLand "Am I cynical to suggest that the majority of private schools are registered as charitable trusts to gain significant tax advantages, as opposed to a genuine and heartfelt desire to educate?"

I do think that one advantage of state school is that you can gague your abilities better. I have a friend who went to private school who told me straight out "you get disillusioned in life when you realise you're cleverer than everyone else". She was refering to herself .
I think that in her class at school she probably was the cleverest, but by general standards she's just above average and has zero analytical skills (just good at maths and science, logical stuff).
Private schools are not representative of the populace, so if you are clever there it doesn't mean you are clever by general standards at all.

Although I'm sure that all kids in private schools get an educational advantage over most kids.

I did my GCSE's in 97, something like 40% of the people in my year got 5 passes, not great, BUT I would say it was a great school.

Because it was a country school everyone from a huge catchment area went there, there was an enormous range of children from all sorts of backgrounds. There were a couple of minor bullies, but nothing terrible. everyone had to learn to get along together, it's made me a far more balanced and understanding person than some of my contemporaries who left the local primary at 7 to go to private school and were surrounded by people just like them.

I think my secondary education was the ideal - no polarising between the 'good' school and the 'bad' ones. I sort of think an element of social engineering in schools to ensure a good balanced mix of pupils from different backgrounds could be of benefit to the children and society.

"I will do this because I know that millions of kids in Asia aren't afraid to tackle hard subjects and these are the children mine will be competing against for the rest of their lives."

Important point. Worrying about how a child stacks up against others in the country is becoming more and more irrelvelant. Our children will grow up in a world where international boundaries are less and less important and they will face competition from the emerging economies. Companies will have more and more choice over where they invest, and the UK will have to make a case why it deserves that investment.

From what I've seen, I think that children in some Asian countries get hot housed far too hard and there is too much focus on rote learning. That said, given income levels, literacy and numeracy rates here put the UK to shame and it's not about how much cash is in the education system. It's that these things are considered critical if you want to get on.

I dont want the UK to go back to children sitting behind a desk reciting times tables all day, but attitudes like "poor grammar doesnt matter so long as you can make yourself understood" and "it's ok to be hopeless at maths- not many people really need it for their jobs" (I have heard both those from the mouths of teachers)dont help these children who will face challenges that we never had. Proficiency in basic skills for everybody when they leave school is really important.

xstitch, as a single mother with a part time job, I'd have to be seriously self loathing to imply that all single mothers who don't work full time (or at all, which I didn't for a year or so) are thick twats)

"I dont want the UK to go back to children sitting behind a desk reciting times tables all day, but attitudes like "poor grammar doesnt matter so long as you can make yourself understood" and "it's ok to be hopeless at maths- not many people really need it for their jobs" (I have heard both those from the mouths of teachers)dont help these children who will face challenges that we never had. Proficiency in basic skills for everybody when they leave school is really important."

I agree completely. We constantly tell the DSSs that being top of the class in their French school is lovely, but not enough - the competition is worldwide these days. And we send them overseas, and will continue to do so, during the holidays so that they can go on courses, to school etc in other countries and realise this for themselves.

The reason I'm not prepared to put my children in the state school and stop being 'part of the problem' is that I know the reaction I'd receive if I complained about the curriculum.

Latin?
IGCSE?
School orchestra?

Not a chance. I'd be made to feel like a freak. And so would my children. The word 'elitist' would be used.

I haven't got the time or energy for a fight.

Oh ffs. This old chestnut.

My friends parents scrimped and saved to send four daughters to private school because they werent happy with the education they were getting and all were seriously bright (they were)

Heres how they all turned out

dd1, singlemum. Got pregnant at uni and hasnt worked since (9yrs)

dd2 single mum to 4 kids all by different men. Never worked.

dd3 married hasnt used her education

dd4 office worker.

Point being all that money spent didnt make any difference, had they gone to the Grammer school (as I did ) they may have had a more rounded view of the world and not be seen in marks and spencers looking for seaweed to go with her expensive ready meal whenshe was skint.

She was clueless, having been protected in the cosy world of private education she was clueless as to how to handle money etc.

Seriously,we used to have whip rounds at playgroup and use the money to buy things for her son !

That is anecdotal evidence, ApocalypseCheese. Many here could counter that one anecdote with others proving entirely the opposite.

And lucky you being able to go to 'grammer' school.

dd1, singlemum. Got pregnant at uni and hasnt worked since (9yrs)

dd2 single mum to 4 kids all by different men. Never worked.

dd3 married hasnt used her education

dd4 office worker.

So educating their daughters was a waste of money was it
Not if those single mums pass on their knowledge to the next generation, after all we are always being told on mumsnet that nobody becomes a single mother on purpose and tbh you'd need a degree to cope with the form filling from the various benefits department so not all wasted.

"Latin?
IGCSE?
School orchestra?

Not a chance. I'd be made to feel like a freak. And so would my children. The word 'elitist' would be used."

OK - lots of private schools don't do Latin. My dd's state school does.

Lots of state schools have school orchestras - it's just silly and ignorant to say they don't.

IGCSEs - not sure about this, but one of the local state schools offers IB.

Oi, I wasnt making a dig at the fact theyre single parents. It's the fact that they were so sheltered they are literally clueless about how the world works and have a complete lack of common sense. I have never seen anything like it.

Maybe if they hadnt been privately educated they'd have a much more rounded view of the world. NONE of them have used their education to benefit them or their children.

And fwiw, my mum was a single mum of 4 and i'm damn proud of that fact and her .

Well that is nothing to do with the school and everything to do with their parents, no school teaches common sense, unfortunately.