What is the best way to have a dig at a private school parent?

[UrbanDad]

"No am I being unreasonable?" here. I am totally reasonable to have a go at an otherwise liberal mate who eschews a perfectly good state secondary school to send his DD to a private school miles away. He makes all kinds of rubbish excuses about how his DD needs nurturing, the local secondary is composed entirely of the Bash Street Kids and it doesn't have enough sporting or cultural activities. It's all a load of Horlicks and he knows it - it's just about allowing his DD (and him TBH) to mix with the "right kind of people". I cannot afford private school and even if I could or my DKs could get a scholarship I wouldn't send them there - I just think social apartheid for children is wrong and it's poison for social mobility.

He says "everyone wants the best for their kids". I agree, but my point is this - even for purely selfish reasons - I also want the best for everyone's kids (after a couple of generations I suspect I will be blood-related to quite a few of them as well) rather than to purchase a privileged status for my own. That will be poison chalice for my DKs as well - what? After all I spent on you, you can't even get a decent job? - and it inculcates them with a terrible ethos of "every man for himself" and "beggar my neighbour".

Does anyone have any other suggestions how I can humiliate, lampoon and pour scorn upon him for being a sell-out, please?

OP what a horrible and vile attitude. How he wants to spend his money is none of your business nor his reasoning.

you should focus your anger and jealousy at improving the state system.

UrbanDad - there is a world of difference. I have nothing against private education - the state after all cannot offer everything to everyone. I am against private schooling - the social apartheid based on wealth which seeks to maintain a class divide, enforces one group in positions of wealth and power at the expense of the other, segregates children unnecessarily and hinders them from socialising with one another.

Okay, so in your world all the kids go to school together, but the kids whose parents care and can pay trot off to music lessons, theatre trips and private tutors in the evenings and at weekends, while the ones whose parents either can't pay or don't care sit in front of the telly? Won't that still entrench the wealthy right where they are? I take your point about socialising, but quite a lot of socialisation does still go on - the bus, the train, clubs, with family members educated in the 'other' sector. Besides, quite a few children go through a mix of state and private education: a private school near us regularly loses a large tranche of its potential sixth form to the state sixth form college.

You know, in my ideal world the state would provide a really good education, with small class sizes and lots of opportunities for everyone. But it doesn't, even with 7% of the kids taken out of the equation. I did read some research somewhere that having a private sector actually forces the state sector to up its game. Found it:
www.theguardian.com/education/2010/sep/15/private-schools-boost-exam-results

Exactly what I asked elporto, can you give examples of this real world found in all State schools.

Emotions - well, state schools educate 93% of kids which means all social classes, races, ethnicities, religions etc are represented there. I think it would be true to say that this is more representative of 'real' society than a system where the intake is 7% of the population and the kids who are there are there on the basis of extreme wealth and high social class.

I don't agree with private or faith schools, or academies or free schools, but I would never lambast someone for being a 'sell out'.

The vast majority of parents do whatever they can within their abilities for their children.

Not doing the best for them because of political beliefs would be particularly stupid, IMO.

Not that private school = the best. But your friend has decided that this school best meets the needs of his kids.

Don't lambast him. Instead, check your own smuggery.

disclaimer - only skimmed thread.

OP I feel similar to you and especially annoyed when it is champagne socialists doing it, who somehow feel able to make an exception for their own kids.

If I had to put forward why I wasn't keen on private school, my answer would be that I don't really want my kids knowing they have been creamed off, and getting the message that they are some kind of top tier, because I would worry it would make them into snobs and leave them uninformed about what life is like for most people.

However I wouldn't scorn or judge, partly because it's just not nice, but also that could be me one day. What if my child was so deeply unhappy/bullied/failing at their state school, and there was no other alternative, and I had the cash.... you know what, I might do it, even though I deeply disagree with it, even if it was just temporary, to save my child from misery. And then I would have to look bloody stupid.

Also, while I think the fact that private schools even exist is kind of depressing, every parent who takes their DC out of the state system leaves more resources for the rest of us. So say thanks, his noble decision to "have the best for his child", while not necessarily that great for them (depending on your values) will help to keep your DC in textbooks.

I had to comment on the post mentioning allocating on a lottery system.

I think that children should go to the nearest school. It's sad if you can't afford a house near the school that you prefer. However it is crazy to allocate school places on a lottery system. The idea that people who live close to a school should drive past it to attend another is madness.

Great schools with great result are often due to the affluent / intelligent parents. That just how it is.

Op your being mean and green.

OP instead of sneering at parents and especially at their children who go to private school, why don't you start a campaign to abolish such schools.

I hope you aren't encouraging your children to take on your views, because they are downright offensive.

elporto State schools reflect the area they are in, the make up of a state school in rural Cornwall will be markedly different from one in Tower Hamlets. The pupils in Cornwall will only see people of the same background as them, likewise for Tower Hamlets. Both sets of pupils will have no idea of the life of the other and yet, according to you, they will leave school with an intricate understanding of each other purely because they were educated in the State system and not privately.

You asked if there was a mix of pupils in private schools, in my experience, yes, and in many cases a far more diverse mix than some State schools which have a very narrow section of society to draw from.

Someone else asked me to quantify my 'real world' statement - please explain and I will do so again

Child in private school has a sibling with a severe and complex life long disability. Child in private school helps to provide care for disabled sibling on a daily basis. Child in private school has an extended family which includes people who are long term unemployed ( some never worked), some working for minimum wage, some working in very well paid jobs. I'm not really sure how being in private school means he is not part of the real world; he probably knows more about the real world than a good amount of the 93% in state schools because he hasn't been sheltered from disability, poverty, different cultures or academia or any other relevant factor.
Can you please explain why you think he isn't part of the real world based solely on his place of education.

I think it would be true to say that this is more representative of 'real' society than a system where the intake is 7% of the population and the kids who are there are there on the basis of extreme wealth and high social class.

To add to my post above: we have neither extreme wealth or high social class but we do have a very generous bursary from the school.

It is cheaper for me to send my child to a private school than move house to be within the catchment area of an ok state school which my child then may or may not be allocated a place in.
I am truly pissed off that my local state secondary is so rubbish and I have to spend all most of my available cash on school fees.

However most parents are genuinely trying to do the best for their kids and many liberals will choose private over state when they look at the hard reality of what the local state option is.

Ideally such people should then campaign to improve the local state offering - but of course, such change would not benefit their own child as it takes about 5 years to really turn a school round - and that's the child's key educative years....so change rarely happens....

humiliate your mate?

The tone of your post is one of utter jealousy.
It is his choice to educate his child in a private school. I suggest you change the subject if it comes up again, he does not need to ask for your permission.

OP, on the other hand, in about 20 years or so, when both your children are excelling in their professional/sporting/musical activities of choice, you can then remind him that you didn't have to pay for the privilege.

Missunreasonable it is a common misconception that private schools are stuffed full of the very wealthy or children of aristocrats, but those against private education won't let facts get in the way of their prejudice.

Wow. No wonder your "mate" is looking to meet new people, if you are representative of parents at the local state school.

What business is it of yours how your "mate" spends his money? If the local state school is perfectly good, the addition of his child isn't going to make any difference anyway.

Give the green eyed monster the boot and focus on your own kids.

My dd attends private school. If you made a smart comment to me designed to belittle our decision I would be (a) totally unbothered since I am secure in our decision (b) a bit askance at your brass neck (half admiring) (c) dismiss you as being chippy and wannabe and secretly wishing you could do the same

urbandad I think you should have a look at a current thread on snobbery and classes in the UK.

Whilst I can understand why it could grate if your friend is always going on about being a liberal person and then acts differently, I. Would also argue that the more you have children from'less privileged background' in private schools, the more you devaluate the effect of being 'privileged' to go to a private school.
I also think you are taking things very personally if you think that by putting his DD at a private school that means he is saying he doesn't want her to mix with your own dcs. Where I live, we have a private school but somehow it's also ok for them to mix with other children fit sorts etc (eg tennis, swimming or cricket).

But the way the dve that problem isn't inverse snobbery or sneering at themselves for 'bettering themselves' or 'doing something over their status'

I just do not buy any of the justifications for being nasty to someone over their choice of school.

To me, it just sounds like 'it is OK for me to bully so-and-so, because he does X, Y or Z' - and dressing it up as banter doesn't make it OK either.

Banter is only banter and fun, if both parties find it funny/amusing. But it sounds to me as if UrbanDad wants to have fun that makes his friend feel bad for his choice of school for his dd - so only one party will be 'having fun', 'having a bit of banter' - the intention is that the other person feels got at and unhappy.

Bottom line for me is that friends support eachother - they don't come on internet forums asking for ways to make their friend unhappy.

urbandad

Some private schools offer up to 100% bursary for parents who can't afford fees. Would you turn down a place at a school like this if your child was advised to apply and it was the best fit for them.

Also, for those who think that people saying they want "The best" for their children are somehow demeaning others, surely this is what everybody wants. Not the best per se because somebody says a certain school is "the best" but because it is the best for them.

Just agree with him. His child probably does really need nurturing. It's pure luck that your children are both intelligent and resilient enough to cope in a normal environment.

Spite - such a lovely thing. So much better for all concerned than kindness.

Timetoask, MillieH30 - I am honestly not remotely jealous. It's a poor decision on his part - for so many reasons - and if his friends cannot tell him that (and teasing is our common currency) then who can?

morethanpotatoprints - I would neither apply for a bursary nor accept one for the following reasons:

1. it's not in my child's best interests: the best education is more than "will get the best academic results" - it's also about learning to participate in wider society rather than withdraw from it into an exclusive ivory tower - what kind of lesson does that teach them? The bursary will probably not continue if my child's academic performance drops off anyway and it certainly won't guarantee that my other DCs will get in or get their fees paid. What if the child develops special needs? Private schools have no obligation to meet them. If my DC does less well at GCSE, he/she won't be able to stay on for sixth form.

1. I am strongly against bursaries/scholarships in any event: they are an example of the further damage private schools do the state system by trying to drain them of talent not only from rich, but also from poorer families. Why would I want to engage in that? It's odd that private schools justify their charitable status by reference to bursaries when it is entirely driven by self-interest to push up their scores - scholars have have much higher ability than the baseline for fee-paying students. If they are truly charities, then they should admit on the basis of need alone (like "normal" charities do).

emotionsecho - sorry, you are wrong, but that's probably a perception thing - someone who earns 100k and hangs out with people who earn 250k doesn't tend to think of him/herself as rich. Private schools are full of children from rich parents. Last year, the average annual salary before tax was 27,000. The most expensive independent school places are in London, of course - and they cost an average of around 14,000 per year. That's more than half of the national average wage before tax and per child. In the north of England, independent schools have lower fees and cost just under 10,000 (but salaries are also lower). So if you have average wages and two children, do you: (a) eat and have a roof over your head, or (b) send them to private school?

OP I agree with every word of your last post.

But what's the point op?

If your friend has made up his mind, then you're just seeking to rehearse your views. What do intend to achieve, other than enjoying the sound of your own voice?

I would not/have not poured scorn on any friends who use private schools. If they tried to pretend to some left-wing principles after that though I feel it might be brought up.