I really don't understand this

[Guildenstern]

I know I am opening up a can of worms here, but this is a genuine question.

I've followed some of the recent private vs state threads and I don't want to do all that again. But I honestly don't understand how sending your kids to a private school disadvantages other children.

I totally understand how it's unfair that private school education is only available to a tiny minority. Excellent education should be available to all.

I can see that the very existence of private schools affects state schools' chances of doing well in league tables. But that doesn't make a difference to the education of the children, surely?

If I send my kids to a private school, will other children suffer? And why?

Could someone please spell this out for me. I know that even typing this question makes me sound like an idiot, but I'll accept that if I can get some useful information.

The density of kids with social and behaviour problems in their background goes up among those left "behind". This makes it a more challenging environment to learn and teach in.

Ok. I do see that. So each school needs a mix of easier-background and harder-background kids, and by removing my own kids I upset that mix?

I would add that as a parent who cares enough about education to contemplate spending a fortune on your own children, you are potentially depriving the state schools in your area of a valued parent. I would never contemplate sending my DCs to a private school, but even if I wanted to, I could only afford it by going back to work fulltime. Instead it is my intention to continue parttime while the kids are young, but to put some time into becoming a parent governor, volunteering to do reading etc. When concerned parents opt out of the state system, they diminish the remaining community and I do believe that eventually the quality of education will get worse.

So it is better to send your kids to the nearest school and work on improving it, rather than wash your hands of the whole system and opt out? I can see that.

This is very helpful, thank you.

Filmbuff

I am sorry to say that your view on parents who send children to private schools is very blinkered.

I doubt that there are any parents who would rather send their children to a poor perfoming school on the basis and hope that things will get better. That it wishful thinking. People are known to go out of their way to do what is best for their children including moving house, going to church, working two jobs etc

There are many reasons why people send kids to private schools and of course it is fuelled by their ability to pay the fees.

Guys, please, could we just keep this to information-for-the-ignorant-OP?

There are other threads for the whole private-state debate. Thanks.

It is not bad for state schools. The education budget is larger because parents who have paid their taxes do not use it on sending their child to a state school.

It is ridiculous to assume that having a mix of behaviours brings behaviour up. All it does is drag behaviour down and leave children who were motivated, demotivated.

OP, this argument is from bitter parents who either try to justify why they would rather go on 10 ski holidays a year rather than pay for private school, or those who can't afford it and try and blame other parents for their kids failing schools.

she's quite right. If you notice, at Val D'Isere and stuff, it's only state school kids who are there. Ten times a year.

of course OP - I couldn't resist.

The existence of private schools should not cause any upset in the state sector at all. There are many good state schools and there are many bad private schools.

Sometimes I feel that people are easy to judge private schools when they have never set foot in one, albeit just to view! Same can be said about private school parents who talk about state schools in a bad way.

If the schools in your area are not great, it's most likely better for you to send your children to a private school, but it might be better for everyone else if you sent them to the local school and were on the PTA and helped out and generally made that school better.

The ethical considerations around private schools are important to me.

I'm clear on why private schools could be better for my own children. But there was a thread recently that said something like 'Everyone who chooses private schools knows they're doing down all the children who can't afford them. They know that when they make the choice.' And I realised that I didn't know it at all, had no idea.

This thread is helping though.

FWIW My own children aren't even at school yet, and and we have no idea at the moment which school they'll be going to.

I have mixed feelings on the subject. I feel that some children from private schools who achieve all As at A level have achieved their maximum potential whereas some state school pupils who score a mixture of As and Bs still have more to give and achieve and might outperform their privately educated peers given the opportunity. If that is the case then it is unfair and disadvantages those children when it comes to offers from university. It is however up to the state to make their schools better, people only want to their children the best possible start in life.

Rollinginthedeep- I'm sorry but your response to me does not address the OPs question. As Trillian says, there is probably little doubt that if you can afford it, sending your own kids to private school might be better for them and you in many ways (smaller class sizes, more resources etc etc) However there can be no doubt that if you do so, you will most likely not then choose to be involved in helping to improve your local state school, and as a result the quality of education for other people's children will decline. For the record, I have been in many schools, both private and state in a professional capacity.

As far as I can understand it, one of the arguments seems to be:

There are only so many committed parents out there. If one committed parent moves to private, then the state schools suffer because there are fewer committed parents left to help support the state school system.

When my child went to state school I had no interest in helping to make the school better. That's not my job, in the private or state sector and who am I to think I know how to or am so important that I can make any school better. I can't bear those sycophantic parents, in both sectors!

"If you notice, at Val D'Isere and stuff, it's only state school kids who are there. Ten times a year"

LOL! I wouldn't know as I can't afford it. I take it you don't send your DC to private school then

I'm just putting forward what I think is the theory behind people saying "sending your kids to a private school disadvantages other children."

I don't personally have much experience of being involved with schools so I don't know if I believe it to be true or not.

Thanks Trillian - the theory is what I want. :)

I have recently pulled my son out of our local comprehensive after he spent all of year 7 and one term of year 8 there.
I'm a Dr and a product of English state education so never in a 100 years thought my son would have a different experience, but his time at the local school was awful. I think this school's experience might help explain how middle class families or families who really care about education removing their kids from a state school can have a negative effect.
We live in a relatively affluent inner suburb in London, surrounded by high levels of deprivation. Over the years, more and more of the middle class families in our neighbourhood pulled their children out of my son's former school and sent them privately. In order to survive, the school extended its catchment area wider and wider until nearly half the children attending the school came from these deprived local neighbourhoods, prompting the dwindling number of middle class parents to pull their children out in increasing numbers.
About 7 years ago the school narrowly avoided being placed in special measures when a new head was parachuted in -- he has made some changes but they simply weren't enough for my son to feel safe in the school and learn anything.

I had a long conversation with the head before I pulled my son out, I suppose to say that I felt bad about abandoning the local school but didn't feel my child would become educated.

Turning the argument on its head.

DCs are in independent schools
their cousins are in state - one is the same age as eldest dc; the other a few years older

their cousins have never really been that interested in school. come holiday time, my dcs turn up, reading cool books, speaking smattering of french, great at times tables etc.

the other two look at them going

so, the one same age as my eldest has decided actually he does want to read and has started churning through books for fun. his mum is blardy delighted.

the older one has decided she is hacked at being out-done in times tables by someone 5 years younger than her and has decided she might change her mind and take up another relative on their offer of maths coaching.

we don't live near them to make going to the same school an option, but just to make the point - the positive impact of engaged parents can be felt outwith the school environment, too.

Hi - have you come across Fiona Miller's writing on the subject - she may not be the most popular of people but I think she has a lot to say on this area.
I have to say I do think a good mix of children of backgrounds etc can only be good thing in terms of life experience

Thanks, will look up Fiona Miller.

I have to go now but thanks to everyone who posted. I am starting to feel better informed having read all your posts.

boldredrosie

The phenomenon you describe has been called the "Fulham Paradox"

In Fulham the state schools struggle with very high levels of deprived background pupils despite the fact that some of the richest people in the country live there cos they all send their children to private schools!

In turn this is a process whereby rising property prices in some parts of London are driving out all but the wealthy who can afford to buy and those either in social housing or housing benefit. In such areas if you are a new arrival you have to be either rich or poor to live there.

This problem will continue to get worse over the next few years basically due to:-

1. A continued influx of super rich into areas like Kensington and Chelsea - the low pound helps, and political instability in the middle east encourages bolt hole purchase, although Gaddafi's son has an eight bedroom house in Hampstead - just in case....

1. This in turn displaces bankers with five million to spend, but who can no longer get a house for that in Kensington so they look at other places such as S. Islington where prices of properties above one million but below five are rising rapidly.

(For some years now I have not been able to afford at current prices the house I live in. I live in N. Islington)

So the problem you refer to is a symptom of the rapidly increasing in equality in our society.

Weeeeelllll

My experience of private schools are that the parents are very committed.
And if all those committed parents spent their energy at their local state school then it owuld improve.

I think this argument has problems.

1.A lot of our local schools are outstanding. I'd bet my bottom dollar the independent parents would get their kids in those schools.

2.I actually volunteer in a local failing school and to date my impact has been small to zero.
I don't know how my wee ones would make much of a difference.

I accept absolutely however, that the system is not fair and the private school kids have advantage...but that's another thread, I think.

but nlondondad that doesn't explain why parents started pulling their Dcs out in the first place?
i see what you mean about importing inequality (much as we're importing inflation) but if the culture at the school was delivering happy successful pupils then the parents wouldn't be taking their children out.
it's not only middle and upper class children who want (or need) to learn.