Parents from private schools

[freakazoidroid]

We are considering private school for our dd. She is already at the nursery of the school we like and is due to start in reception in sept.
What I am worried about is the community of a private school. If she went to our local primary it would be more like that.
Can anyone please say what their experiences are? Have you made good friends with other parents and socialise with them?
Also we are not loaded and do not have a massive house and lots of nice holidays. In fact holidays would not occur much if we go private.
Will this hinder my dd at school as she gets older with her friends, will they pick on her for not having the lifestyle?
Thanks!

'Nearest school which happened to be private' is rather disingenous.

However, I am not Seeker and I honestly don't know what I would do if there were grammar schools in my area - part of me thinks that if that's what the state was offering where I lived, I'd engage with it - but then I do know people who live in 11+ areas and don't, on principle, put their children in for it, so I don't know.

As I don't know anything about the SEN of SWC's son, it would be stupid to comment. My issue has never been with that particular choice, rather the surrounding opinions on private and state education more broadly which are articulated in proximity to it.

Peace as far as odds in arguments go, the person who says black isn't dark grey is still correct however many people say it is, obviously!

Actually, private schools are the nearest ones for some people. My children's schools are all in town centres, which are all densely populated.

Yes of course they are nearest, if you live nearer to them than other schools! I'm just not sure it's quite that simple as far as making the choice goes.

I'm sorry you didn't understand - one of the things my education has suggested to me is that when I don't understand a thing it doesn't tend to mean the thing is 'bullcrap'.

It means that I am not going to comment on your son, not knowing him. However, either you have an ad hominem knock-down argument for using private in that instance, in which case no comment - or you are making the same arguments as everyone else, with which I am at liberty to disagree without the specifics of your family being involved in the argument.

And yes, of course people do it because they think it is best for their child - no-one is saying otherwise. I just don't think that a system in which 7% of children are educated on different terms from the other 93 is a good thing. Lovely for the 7%, no doubt - but let's remember that it's precisely because only 7% get to do it that it offers what those parents want.

More could if they wanted to.

There are 20% of children in my LEA that are educated privately primarily because of poor state provision.

I think swc people are just more comfortable with the generalisations than the actuallity.
The former alaways permits tub thumping, the latter...not so much.

It's the same with the standard MN platitude that private school parents are ignorant of state school or fearful of it having had no experiece. Yet all the stats show that that cannot be the case.
We either went state ourselves, or our DC have been in state school, or we may have DC still in the state system, or we may work in the state system...doesn't exactly stack up to ignorance and fear. But still the generalisation gets peddled on here. I guess it's more palatable.

I always feel very sad and a little angry for parents of children with LDD who are told that they have to limit their access to the curriculum in their state schools. I have never seen a very dyslexic child in my school have to drop subjects because of their LD. Even the time it takes to get an assessment in state schools is ridiculous.

But SN are precisely that, surely - special needs. Therefore to say that one is an adherent of the state system is not to say that there are not some special needs which cannot be met within it. I'm ideologically opposed to people in cities driving 4x4s, but it doesn't mean I don't think farmers might need them, for example. However, since I'm not sure whether you do or don't want your son to be part of the debate, I'm not doing that.

I don't see how the tone was appalling, to be honest. No more so than yours to me above, I don't think.

I must make it clear, one last time, that when I made the post about pitying children at private school, I was trying to make the point that that was precisely why Merryscot's post to seeker was indeed offensive - because false and patronizing pity is just that. It was a parody of how offensive she had been, not an offensive post about children with special needs, and I thought that that was tolerably clear.

Well, without stooping to make generalisations about the arguing styles used by people of other ideological bents....

(and actually I love your ideological bent on the feminist threads, where I unfailingly think you're bang on the money, although I expect that's the last thing you'll want to hear.)

Yes, of course if there is a diagnosed condition and a place which is specifically able to work with that and has specific expertise and training which pertains to it, that is a situation in which I could understand paying to get it.

However I personally don't make the leap from that to 'my child my choice, why shouldn't I pay if I want to' and all the reasons people cite about private schools (and against state schools) when they make that choice.

SO with regard to your question, I do not imagine I'm entitled to do anything of the sort: as I've said several times, 'do what you want, but don't pretend that 'all sorts' of people can do it'. It is not a decision I would ever be able to defend making myself, because I think private education is divisive and wrong. I get why people want to do it, but I wouldn't.

"I think that MrsJAlfred's points are the clearest argument I've seen so far in favour of not shunning private schools, but actually undermining the system from within hasn't really happened so far, has it - unsurprisingly: why would you want to destroy from within a system which has probably served you rather well?"

Who said anyone wanted to destroy it? I don't want my sons to destroy their excellent school, nor would they want to. I sent them to that school because I want it to be possible for them to become MPs, dosctors, judges, leading journalists, FTSE CEOs etc. They completely understand they've received a significant advantage in going to the school they do. I hope when they're up at the top table influencing policy, they'll make sure that it isn't only the elites who are able to take up positions of power. I hope I've drilled into them a sense of responsibility. But I don't expect them to adopt my poorly arrived-at poltiical ideology and run with it, they'll have ideas of their own, meaningful to them.

And if they go to ratshit and become investment bankers at least they'll have their love of Latin and memories of singing in the Abbey to see them through their dark, lonely days.

As anyone who's read Sutton Trust reports knows, attending a grammar school confers significant advantage also. Who in their right mind would say: "On behalf of my daughter I decline that significant advantage offered, and I'll accept for her that significant disadvantage over there." At least seeker wasn't bonkers enough to do that. But if you have already accepted advantage for yourself, generously provided courtesy of the state, is it really fair to deride others for securing similar advantage? Assuming it's paid for out of honestly-earned, taxed income?

Oh, ok. I thought you were being a bit more pro-egalitarianism within an imperfect system, sorry.

Well, but that is surely being equally selective in what you consider 'diverse', surely - as though diversity can and does mean pretty much anything apart from economic diversity. And yet economic diversity is relevant, because it is, in the vast majority of cases, on precisely economic terms that private schools determine who does and doesn't come through the door.

I thought we'd already addressed the economic diversity argument? Quite a number of us have children with substantial bursaries. We would otherwise be unable to send our children to their schools. Therefore, "all sorts of people" do send their children to private schools.

At Christ's Hospital school, in Horsham, the fees are adjusted according to the parents' income and are made up by bursaries. I understand that most of the children are in receipt of bursaries of up to 100% of the fees.

When discussing choosing education I like to make the analogy of simple food shopping - when you buy a banana do you go for fairtrade because you're concerned about the conditions of the workers who grew them, organic because you're concerned about health and pesticides (but ignore the carbon footprint because they've been driven for miles), the ones grown most locally (because they have the lowest carbon footprint and you're supporting local farmers), the cheapest because you're on a budget or you go to a shop where there's no choice? There's no banana that ticks all the boxes so your choice will depend on what you prioritise most at the time you're shopping which may well be different from your neighbour's priorities. I do think it's the same with choice of school - your prioriities might not only be different from but conflict with your neighbours' but I'm not sure that there's any single moral choice. Even if you 'choose' your nearest school it's likely to be because you effectively have no choice or because you just happen to live in a leafy suburb where the school is a good one.

I think we are misplacing our energy when we attack each other for our choices instead of campaigning for improvements in the system which pit one set of belief systems over another. I don't see how grammar school is any less morally suspect than an independent school than a fiath school than a school in a catchment where only the filthy rich can afford to buy a house. Not one of us is responsible for creating this unequal and divisive system and I don't really see how individuals can be castigated for making the best choice they can in a system which encourages such choice. If you don't like it (and I don't) then it's the Govt you need to attack and not individuals.

when you buy a banana do you go for fairtrade because you're concerned about the conditions of the workers who grew them, organic because you're concerned about health and pesticides (but ignore the carbon footprint because they've been driven for miles), the ones grown most locally (because they have the lowest carbon footprint and you're supporting local farmers),
Where do you live that has locally grown bananas?
but I agree people make choices for many reasons and their choices should be respected even when they conflict with our own ...we all carry baggage in the form of personal experience and circumstances which colour our views rightly or wrongly. Mine (as a grammar school girl) based on the fact that friend's parents looked to independent school entry as a back up plan if their child wasn't selected for grammar school and from the horror stories of friends who attended public school and is thirty years out of date

Doesn't diversity mean all the ways in which we are different, but equal? So race, sex, religion, dis/ability etc? But money and wealth is something different. It is acquired, and as in the old marxist theory that issue politics are diversionary, it seems to be the case that the most important reason that the other 'isms' should be wiped out is that they impeded equal opportunity to the thing that everyone wants, because it is not 'different but equal' to be rich or poor. I think it is disingenous to refer to wealth as a facet of 'diversity'. A community can be 'economically diverse' but that's not the same as saying 'this school is diverse' on the grounds that some are rich and some are poor!

Fivecandles - schools are not just good in 'leafy' areas. I don't know what your intention is but other people on MN tend to talk as if a 'good' school' is not and never can be one which includes a critical mass of working class urban council tennants

Wealth and class matter, and especially the concentration of wealth and class on the runway to power. MrsJAlfredPrufrock is very clear that she sees her DCs school as a runway to power and influence, and that she hopes that this will be used kindly in respect of those nowhere near that runway.

It's tough - I can't see anyone with a care for freedom and free choice thinking that banning private or otherwise elite education is a good thing to do, but likewise it is hard to feel confident that in a generation or so our children can depend on the kindness of the new elite to run things in such a way that there will be a state education system that makes the differentation obsolete.

Meanwhile a few means tested scholarships and bursaries will support the very top non-wealthy children who presumably have a much more competitive entry process than the fee-payers.

Indian, my point was that very often those people who castigate parents who opt for private school have made choices which may be considered to be themselves morally suspect. I know for example a number of parents who disapprove of my choice but have lied about their (lack of) faith in order to send their own children to a faith school. Likewise, it's very easy to be sniffy about private schools if you just happen to live in the catchment area (leafy or not) of a good school. But how can individuals be criticised for exploiting the system when they are encouraged to do just that?

I agree.
I don't think faith schools should exist at all, as it happens, but since (or while) they do, I think it is fine for those with faith to use them, and repugnant to pretend to have faith and lie to get in, as it is to take a short term rented address to get into a catchment school.

TBH I'm not sure it's any less repugnant to have schools that exclude on grounds of faith than it is to have people who pretend to have a faith. I'm not sure anyone gets to have the moral high ground when the system itself stinks.