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.

I always thought it was economics.

Surely if there are only so many good teachers to go round, and public schools can offer them a heap more money for the same job, the public schools will siphon off the best teachers while the state schools get the rest. (theoretically speaking - some teachers obv would not put money first)

It's a parallel to the NHS. The more people go for private health, the more the government expects them to, and private healthcare creeps into the system as a common alternative eg when the waiting list for specific op is too long.

It's very convenient for the government...it's a slippery slope.

ingrid i think that undervalues the teachers in state schools - there are a lot of very committed and very good teachers in schools who are banging their heads off a wall trying to make a difference.

and obviously volunteers like wordfactory

tbh i think it's down to culture and expectations.

I know, I know, I know...I wasn't trying to say that. I was trying to put across how it was explained to me, once - but as I said many, many teachers do not subscribe to the more money thing.

They want to make a difference.

There is also the panic element with MC parents and private education. The sneaking feeling that no matter how little X and Y are doing in the local comprehensive, they might be doing better at the private school. And once parent makes the move, the panic grows.

And there are parents like mine who wouldn't consider state education if they were paid to I don't beleive that type of parent has died out since the 60s.

Private schools? They're just special needs schools for rich people.

There are a few of us who send our DCs to private schools for not necessarily the obvious reasons and still give up our time to support the local state schools in a variety of ways. It's not necessarily black and white there are a lot of shades of grey.

Realistically as well, how much difference does a committed parent make to the state school? Yes, you may be a governor (talking about secondary), but that is about all there is parent wise to do.

All the parents can really do is ensure that their kids do the homework and observe the rules; there is no other 'influence' they can have. Private schools do well because the parents are buying an education and can hold the school to account if they aren't satisfied as in a way they are directly employing the teachers. There isn't that direct connection in the state system, and I've taught in both sectors.

MrsK you're not entirely wrong there. we ended up going the indy route because we were not in any specific catchment and received the dread "no room at the inn" letter from LEA.
but our indy back-up has been just what the dcs needed, the eldest in particular has lots of extra-curriculum activities to keep his brain ticking over (gets bored easily) and i will keep them there as long as i can.

but scary aren't there other factors like:

• privates can be more strict in enforcing discipline
• culture in privates that the teachers deserve respect
• culture in privates that the children need to work because their parents say so!

...culture and expectations

Principles are lovely. I'd never put them before children. You could have two children with very different personalities and needs. Some children need small pupil to teacher ratios, some thrive in schools that are selective by ability, some children have talents in arts or sports and would do best in a school with a specific emphasis on that.

I wouldn't rule out any school, state or private. I'd look at them all and think about which one provided the best fit.

A few points:

1. I'm with floreat on the fact that using an independent school increases the pool of state resources for those who need them.

1. If I couldn't afford fees and ds had to go to the local state primary (which isn't actually bad- has good OFSTED etc.)I would be putting even more energy into making sure that he gets a good education. I would be teaching him Latin and French, we would be learning chronological history, we would be going to art galleries and the theatre, we would be talking about politics. Even if I were also to volunteer at the school, become a Governor etc etc, my child and all the other children of educated parents would still, unavoidably, have an advantage over children from educationally impoversished backgrounds.

1. Really excellent state education can do a lot to level the playing field by replicating for children from deprived backgrounds the educational ethos from which more privileged children benefit. This should be achieved through taxation and excellent teaching and support rather than a vague hope that Boden mummies at the gate will raise the tone.

1. Levelling up through excellent state provision is a good thing. I do not see the virtue of levelling down by taking my child out of the excellent education which he has and putting him in a poorer school. Neither he nor I are such beacons of inspiration that any other child's education would be improved.

1. My responsibility is primarily to my own child. I fulfil my social responsibilities by paying tax and volunteering for a mentoring scheme

Pointissima, you make very good points, particularly the key message re levelling up rather than levelling down.
I would be happy to pay even more tax if it there was a way to throw money at state education and make it better.
And it always seems to me to be a breathtakingly arrogant assumption that an influx of the tiny minority of indie parents to the state system would be more effective the the 93% of parents using it - are that 93% too thick/lazy/useless to be unable to do what that gilded 7% could ?
I am not an expert, but I think T Blair - arguably the most powerful and influential person on the ountry at one time - and his pushy not very self-effacing wife chose to send their DC to state schools. But not the nearest, oh, no, because Islington schools have 'special problems'. So maybe they had an effect on the already fabulous schools theri DC attended, but what did it do for the standards of all state schools? You can bet your life if that 7% were made to go to state schools, they would NOT be the failing inner city ones...

On a micro, indvidual school level, if the 20 or so children a year who leave my sons' London primary after Y6 to go to a variety of more or less selective private schools all went to the secondary school round the corner, there would suddenly be a very able cohort - comparatively. And, yes, an able, largely well-behaved cohort with motivated and supported parents. So you've got a double whammy in the school - more people involved and better results because of the intake. And if this happens every year, you're keeping your staff longer because the kids are happy and eager to learn and then you're finding recruitment easier because everyone wants to work at your school.

Because let's not forget the thing that is most commonly glossed over in these discussions - in many cases the difference between a school perceived to be good and a school perceived to be less good is intake. Which is a virtuous circle.

"using an independent school increases the pool of state resources for those who need them."

I don't think it works out like that. Because the money varies with the number of pupils. If there was a mass exodus from state to private, the govt. would cut education spending. The reallocated monies might not target the neediest in society at all, might convert into tax breaks for the rich, even.

Parents at DC's private school seem a lot less involved than those at DCs' state school (yes I have DC in both). Almost like they paid their money & that's commitment enough.

I'd also be interested to see exactly what improvement we would hope to see by placing children who would be otherwise independently educated in their local school.

Sure, if my own kids went to the school where I volunteer then there would be a slight improvement in the league tables as my kids would do well in the exams.
However this would only serve to make the school look better. It wouldn't actually be any better would it?

The children there would have the same teachers, the same building, and more importantly the same parents. They'd still be poor. They'd still eat crap food. They'd still stay up until all hours playing Call of Duty.

There'd just be these two posh kids rambling around the place. I'm not convinced that would make a significant difference to their lives.

I think saying that the mere presense of middle class children has a positive effect is a bit bloody patronising to be honest.

During the 1990's my parents sent me to the local comprehensive where we lived in Wales. They were the kind of liberal parents who assumed that everything would be alright and were quite opposed to public school because of similar reasons to those outlined by some on the views posted below. In fact my mother admitted that she maybe even slightly resented people who sent their children to public school.

During year 1 I was sexually assualted by a boy in my class. I kept quiet about this for about nine months because I was so afraid to tell anyone. During the autum term of the second year, one lunch time I witnessed a stabbing (riot police were called to the school to break up a fight between rival gangs including former students who had come onto school property from the neighbouring council estate who had been dealing drugs).

I was so scared to go to school that I faked illnesses and did anything I could to stay away. Eventually I found the courage to tell my mum everything, my parents told the school what had happened. I had a meeting with them and the head of year, who said " The same boy had grabbed another girl in my year but that she wasn't bothered and hit him back", the head of year said that I needed to learn to stand up for myself.

Eventually, after much home schooling (I had about 2 years worth of education to catch up on) I won a scholarship to a top 100 all girls private school. My parents to this day are regretful and eternally sorry for what I had to suffer at the local failing comprehensive school. In their own words "we had no idea how bad it was".
If they had known they would have sent me to public school in the beginning.

Also they said that after I had joined the public school their perceptions of private school education had done a complete u-turn.

By the way, everything that I have written above is entirely true. If you want to see newspaper reports about recent and violence that still occurs from time to time at that comprehensive school go to google and type in: King Henry VIII school Abergavenny

Please be aware that the very last thing some state schools with serious problems want, is highly committed parents seeking to challenge the ?this is as good as it gets? culture that they?ve settled into.

Should've known when at new yr7 parents meeting were told PTA's resigned and chair resigning tonight, so could some of us newbie?s step up to the plate, oh, and governor?s needed too please.
We yr7's asked about yr 8 to 13 parents. No interest claimed school sadly. Shocked, we did.
Several committed active (mainly middle class) parents, used to working hard, negotiating and achieving things for junior and senior schools.

What an eye opener! Intake my backside! Yes some of the intake don?t help, but quite simply the school was quite happy to be as bad as it was whilst blaming intake and parents, and we had to fight every step of the way over everything.

PTA?s for fund raising, they said. We did, and asked about PTA accounts. No accounts! PTA ?members must trust school?. Missing money everywhere. School just pocketed and 'absorbed' money with PTA actively discouraged from counting it, accounting for it, and not allowed to run events, just man them, handing over cash on the hour uncounted.

We fought a (in the end devious) battle to change that, but it was symptomatic.
Working together? No chance.
The last thing they wanted was any change that meant doing, or accepting responsibility, or accountability for anything. The message we received was parents where dangerous and unwanted!

No we couldn?t raise funds to allow each child to have a text book, that would highlight the fact this was an issue, no we couldn?t expect to use money we raised to fix broken windows, graffiti, toilet door locks, they needed to stay broken, no we couldn?t do anything to allow disabled parents access to the school even if it cost nothing. None of it was our ?role?: to support the very status quo we wanted to improve.

That huge body of disillusioned, angry, dejected intakes parents who rarely showed up, weren?t disinterested, they where disillusioned, beaten and knew what we didn?t.

PTA was for show, to tick boxes, to disseminate bad news to parent body, fund raise, and so school could say ?parents had been consulted? on anything school did/nt do. The school had no intention of improving things that would jeopardise their constant excuses and ?this is as good as it gets? attitudes, but expected us to help mask it.

They didn?t want improvement, and the children remain victims of ?lower your expectations until they colide with the easiest path? while they talk about how it?s all that can be expected of such kids and parents.

I?ve voted with my feet, so have several other committed parents, and it isn?t for the want of trying to improve our school. We left it better than we found it, but not by much and at huge costs for such low gains, and it wasn't the intake that was the problem, unless you mean they/we didn't know how to beat 'schooling to the lowest common denominator'.

This is a sad story indeed.

For others who read it I would comment that actually the way to bring pressure on the school was through the Governing Body not the PTA.

The elected parent Governors have legal rights which they could exercise. But of course with a hostile head this is not easy. You might well have found that what you had to do was canvass the other Governors for support for a move to remove the Head.

Its is the ultimate sanction; and only Governors can do this.

I would definitely have sent my daughter to private school if i had had the money my daughter went to some awful schools why work hard and earn a good wage if you cant improve your childs life

I have this discussion in my local area all the time, as the local sink secondary school has had a new head for the last 3 years, who is desperate for kids from our school to go.

Some have ventured there, it's too early to tell, but I am watching with interest. To be honest, there is so much wrong with the school that I can't see how a small bunch of middle class kids can really make the difference.

But maybe I'm wrong.

I certainly would not take a gamble myself, unless I see some drastic improvements...

It's a popular excuse for failing, and a very lame one at that.