I send my child to private school because....?

[jabed]

Well, I don?t actually, I just work in one. But it seems to be a constant source of questioning on MN and given the current news articles (I have been reading the DM and Tory graph online) about how many of our left wing leaders hypocritically claim to be egalitarian and socialist whilst buying education for their children , or have had education paid for by their own parents. I just wondered, what is it we expect from education, and why is it some of us are willing to pay for whatever that is and how they see that as worthy of their money.

There you go. :)

No, SM aren't comprehensives. They don't have the 'top 30%' of children, so how can they be comparable?
My friend's children are at a comprehensive in the W country and they are doing just as well as my ds did at GS, with a much broader curriculum.
Perhaps you just taught in a crap comprehensive.

Jabed- that is just a stupid thing to say.

I can't understand why anybody should be ashamed of a poor education. I think it better for people to know and try to understand why education has failed. Especially if that person has worked very hard to overcome barriers to learning.
The idea of pretending to be something or somebody you are not is not a good message to send to your children and certainly not providing them with a good role model in this instance.
I speak from experience, being greatly let down by the education system. However, I don't try to hide this and can communicate well with people from all walks of life.
I no longer work for an employer, but my poor education has never held me back. In the past my colleagues, clients, associates and peers all knew I had a very basic education.
My dh/ dcs are not ashamed of my past neither and I am honest with them as I too want better for my dcs than the terrible schooling I received.

Jabed, that's a silly and offensive thing to say. You're just wrong.

I think some of this is down to pure snobbery to be honest.
I think at secondary age if the child want's to learn, it will learn no matter what the school enviroment is. Not sure private primary education is really as valuable as private secondary education.
It's a myth that drinking and smoking etc doesnt go on in private schools because it does just as much as anywere else and just because the parents have money it doesnt necessarily mean the children are raised any better or are nicer children. There are some state schools and religious schools that come out with just as good exam results as the private schools you just have to chose the right one in the right area.
For the parents that work all hours god sends to afford the fees to send your children there, have you ever thought they may be happier in a state school and have you home in the evening's to help with homework and spend time with them talking about how there day has been instead of only maybe getting an hour before bedtime everyday.
You don't want to miss out on essential parts of there childhood for the sake of being able to send them to a status school becasue when they are older do you really think they will thank you anymore for it?
Fair enough if you've got the the readily available funds then go for it it is your choice but i personally wouldn't compromise family time or family life to be able to pay for it.
The one thing that would tempt me though is the extra oppurtunites, trips and extra curricular activites that you wouldn't normally get anywere else.

Jabed, I can't believe that you have the audacity to compare your "trauma" of not going to grammar school to the trauma faced by victims of 9/11. What an absolutely vile and outrageous thing to suggest.

Well by your own admission Jabed you're still very traumatised by the whole experience, so perhaps, just like the victims of 9/11 with whom your situation is apparently analogous (?) you may need to accept that your perspective on some things is rather skewed and perhaps almost phobic. Perhaps you have PTSD?

breadandbutterfly - I am not confusing things. There are plenty of people in this country who would rather deal with someone with what most of the world would consider to be a reasonably neutral accent, because English is not their first language and they have not lived here long enough to be able to understand all the regional accents. You may find it all very easy - others don't. And my parents still don't understand a word Billy Connolly says, and they are native English speakers. You are denying a truth if you claim all accents and dialects in this country are equally easy to fathom, because they are not. Watered down versions are generally OK, but not the full monty - which is why a lot of the accents you hear these days are seriously watered down as a result, anyway. Before the advent of TV and radio, regional accents were even more of a barrier than they are now (ie before the days when accents started to be watered down by contact with the outside world....). So the process you abhor has already to a certain extent occurred.

As for my db, his experience turned him off the stupid English education system so much that he moved overseas specifically to avoid it. Only in this country does it appear to be assumed that the state is incapable of providing an effective education for its youth and that the majority of the people living here need to be avoided, both in school and socially. The result of such an attitude is normally, in the end, a self-fulfilling prophecy, which makes this country weaker as a result.

And jabed, I was not being sarcastic. I was interested to know how you managed to end up in a SM when you won a place at grammar school. And I strongly disagree with you that comprehensives are the same as secondary moderns, as they patently are not.

Jabed.

You have no idea what it is like to be traumatised throughout your entire education. To dread going to school because you know the teachers will smack you, humiliate you in front of the class, to be called thick, stupid, dmb, mron, imil. For the kids to laugh, some to help and sympathise and then get in trouble themselves.
To have hard wooden board rubbers thrown at you and to know that the next day it will all start again.

reflecting on my own education made me break down in the middle of a lecture during my PGCE, where I finally composed myself and told my peers of my traumatised childhood. I then sought counselling.

Don't you dare moan about your education

There Were three things that characterised an SM in the old days (I mean 1960's).

a) the intake
b) the teachers
c) the ethos

The intake was very broad. Often GS places were thin on the ground and many pupils were sent to SM because of a lack of places not lack of ability.

Notwithstanding those like me who were GS material and were not given the education to which they were best suited (to quote the 1944 education act). There was a whole raft of pupils who what might be known as
"borderline". It was estimated that around 20% of pupils would be sent to the wrong school because the 11+ was quite inefficient (that?s before you took into account middle class tutoring).

That meant that in any cohort in SM at least 10% or more would have IQ's in the top 10& of the population ( i.e. an IQ around 120 - most GS schools accepted IQ ranges from around 115 upwards depending on places available and so they had an equal number of pupils who really were not GS material).

So the intake of an SM was as broad and around the same in distribution as many comprehensives. The top stream (or sets) would be occupied by roughly the same ability range as is seen in most comprehensives today.

What might have been missing were the top IQ's - the 2% but even then many SM had pupils like me who were in the top percentile but for whatever reason were not in GS.

The SM had the same spread of ability across the lower ranges as they do today.
There may have been fewer with SN (or identified SN). SN generally went to special schools back then

But by and large the cohort of an SM mirrored that of a comprehensive.

Most SM schools were inhabited by w/c children. This was very much a fact. Many comprehensives are similar. Some SM were m/c or m/c in them but the overwhelming culture was w/c. This brought with it all the same behavioural and work ethic issues you find today in most schools except the highly selective. The lack of work ethic, school is not cool ethos and the whole idea that classes were for messing about in is not new. Most SM suffered from it. So again many comprehensives mirror that.

The curriculum was geared to the broad ability range, often included lots of metalwork and woodwork (and cookery ) and similar "practical" classes.

The exams were geared to that too - when the pupils took them. The GCSE mirrors more closely the CSE than it does the O level. The B Tech in school was a practical skills course when I was a pupil. So not a lot different there.

Thirdly most SM school were staffed by trained teachers. Many then were not graduates (this has changed to an extent). Many were generalists . many taught subjects not their specialism?s. They were good at crowd control. Many were ?good" teachers ( a la ofsted) but they were not the kind of people that could stretch the most able. Indeed their time was taken meeting the needs of the unruly and the less able so bright kids were left to get on with it - just as in comprehensives now.

Classes were large. I was in a class of over 40 (and that was the A stream!). 30 was a luxury if we got split for any reason (usually boys and girls split for some subjects).

Most GS schools were staffed by the "best" graduates. They had smaller classes. A m/c culture and an expectation. The kind of teachers in GS schools are mostly found in private schools now.

That?s just a little snippet of how things worked.

In effect losing selective schools created a one size comprehensive (SM) fits all school

No it didn't. You're wrong. But I forgive you, you're still very traumatised.

Jabed, I can't believe that you have the audacity to compare your "trauma" of not going to grammar school to the trauma faced by victims of 9/11. What an absolutely vile and outrageous thing to suggest

I didnt. I suggested that your comment was in my experience the kind of comment most often spouted by those who would do that. In other words - you are being offensive and shallow and insensitive to others.

OSN - as above!

shallow trauma of not going to grammar school

It seems to me that the only way posters are going to understand when they have crossed the line between what is acceptable to say and what is getting personal is if they are told firectly.

So in future I will not try and deal with it - if you offend I will stick it to you straight OK? If its not, tough. MN is here for us to support each other and to debate pleasantly not play bash the jabed ( or any other poster) game.

mrz - ame applies to you. Get off my back. I am tired of being bashed here.

Jabed - hardly.

I point you to my post upthread (or possibly in another thread, I've lost track) - when you cause offence, you blame the person you have offended. It's ignorant.

I would suggest that your tiny, exclusive social circle has skewed your view somewhat. You dare to claim to be traumatised simply because you didn't get to go to a grammar school? Try opening your eyes and seeing the genuine trauma faced by children, now AND in the past. You are in the habit of making outrageous claims but this one really does show was an ignoramus you are.

if you offend I will stick it to you straight OK?

the thing is jabed you have offended others and they are sticking it to you straight but you can't take the trauma apparently

what not was

mrz, Jabed refuses to take responsibilty for causing offence. If I offend him, it is my fault. If he offends me, it is my fault for misunderstanding him.

EvilSynchronisedDivers I'm afraid I have a long history of offending jabed

You have no idea what it was like to go to an SM school every day and be beaten up on the way, beaten up in the playground and beaten up on the way home ( literally) for five years. Persistent shock syndrome was what my GP eventually diagnosed when I was 18 and went to university. It was a very new condition then. Most people have heard of it now. It took years to recover. And you think it was a walk in the park?

Jabed you still managed to get to university at 18 though? As I said earlier, my father went to SM when he was easily clever enough for grammar, but lost his dad suddenly which wrecked his chances in the 11+. He was in his 30s by the time he got to repair the damage. He doesn't hold the massive grudges that you do, though.

You can't possibly speak for all secondary moderns in the same way that you can't speak for all comprehensives, all private schools etc.
My secondary modern had the best behaviour in town- it was a fact. We stood up when a teacher entered the room, we were not allowed to eat in the street. There was no messing about in class -(except for one very weak RE teacher). The curriculum differed according to ability. We didn't do lots of practical subjects in the A stream. Those with SN were in small classes and stayed with one teacher, who knew them well, for most subjects. Those at the top did O'levels and those with lower ability did CSE. The teachers taught their specialised subject and they didn't need crowd control. Classes were small, I never had more than 24 and much lower for some in O'levels e.g French I think we had about 12 of us.
This is 'just a little snippet' of how it worked for me.
The comprehensive is much better in that you get the top range too. If there has been any messing about in my DSs classes I have phoned up and they have sorted it. It has been cool to work -DCs are not stupid and they want a good future and opportunities. I think they go wrong by treating everyone the same.
I agree that your secondary modern was typical of many,jabed, but please don't speak for all because it simply wasn't true and I am the same era as you.

O'Farrell says he spent the money he would have spent on prviate education on beer and curries. Yes mate, and it shows. Can't help thinking there were better investments you could have made.
Avoiding people like him is certainly not the reason I chose prviate education - I had more acute worries than the desire not to associate with assholes at the parents' evening. but it's an extremely beneficial side-effect.