Why on earth would you go state if you could afford private?

[Schmedz]

This thread is for Maisie and happygardening . I like dares!

seeker other people on MN have previously said that your heart is clearly in the right place. Nevertheless, you really are astonishingly patronising to poorer people who may well be cleverer than you. That's not intended snippily, but it is a fact: sorry.

teacher I think one needs to treat Gothic with the contempt it deserves. Mercifully, not too many colleges are Gothic.

dd is at a secondary school which owns a riding stables, a country house in France, it has a planetarium, swimming pool, climbing wall, a gym & the grounds are reminiscent of a 5 star hotel...

so to paraphrase the question OP, why on earth would we pay for a private education when an outstanding school is being provided by the state??

Because most people aren't as lucky as you...

What's that, she should pay because most people arent as lucky? I assume that's not what you meant, but that was her answer, and the question was, ultimately, personal.

I was horrified when I saw the boarding accommodation at one well known public school. Utterly spartan, compared to what could be offered at an ordinary middle income home. And indifferent academically, despite protestations of excellence. I'm mystified as to why UK based parents would send their kids to these schools, other than convenience.

What's that, she should pay because most people arent as lucky? I assume that's not what you meant, but that was her answer, and the question was, ultimately, personal.

Huh? What on Earth is going on with this thread?? I added the wink! People are getting a bit aggressive here.

I just wanted to point out that most people are not as lucky as her. If I lived in the U.S., and in the catchment area of the high school I briefly attended, I would not go for the local private school - which actually wasn't as nice as the high school I attended.

Of course, if you have a state school around you with the best facilities, best teachers, etc. that it would essentially be a "free private school", it would be a no-brainer as to where DC should go. But such schools are few and far between...

^^ The above translates to: If we lived near a school that was one of the better ones represented by the State Boarding School Association, it would be unlikely we'd go private...

For my own curiosity's sake. If I sent DC to board at one of those... would I be seen as sending my kid to a state school? You do pay fees for them to board which is the equivalent of private day school fees...

So parents actually pay the same amount, and yet, one would not be "hated on" for going with the latter option - which is not the same as sending DC to a local school...

So it's patronising to acknowledge that there might be non academic reasons why a chld from a poor/disadvantaged background might find it more difficult to go through th application process to an Oxford College than a child from a privileged background, and to want to level the playing field a bit?

Yeah, right.

Obviously that in itself isn't patronising. An awful lot of the rest is though, but not just from you.

What exactly needs to be done to level that playing field seeker, which isn't already being done? If you look at many of the comments on MN, the attitude is exactly that which deters.

"I think one needs to treat Gothic with the contempt it deserves"
yellow I'm a bit by that comment either you've got you've got you tongue firmly wedged in your cheek or you're a philistine! No one can go to the likes of the glorious Lincoln cathedral and "treat Gothic with the contempt that it deserves".

"I was horrified when I saw the boarding accommodation at one well known public school."
Many years ago on a open day at Winchester and a tour of one of the houses am alpha mother insisted on looking at the bathrooms/showers/loos. The housemaster was frankly stunned "madam no one decides wether nor not to send their son to Winchester becasue of the bathrooms!"

"I'm mystified as to why UK based parents would send their kids to these schools, other than convenience."
You obviously have no understanding of what boarding education is all about. Im not sure what "convenience factors" you're talking about but I don't know anyone who does it for that reason.

I went to a really interesting meeting last week with the widening access bods and one issue that keeps raising its head is that if you were to do the things that might make a significant difference, these things in turn might dilute some of the things that are what the university is all about.

happy my MIL certainly sent her three off for convenience, but she's not especially maternal. Not all boarding school mothers are going to be like you.

word that's not to say that a lot of initiatives aren't in place and bearing fruit. Lots of comments on MN give the impression that nothing is being done and that the universities couldn't care less, which is manifestly untrue. Presumably it's because those saying these things here don't understand the access initiatives; I'm sure it's not because they're wilfully ignoring the opportunity to find out so that can continue wringing their hands. Patronising attitudes towards 'poor' people does much more harm than good.

yellow there is stuff being done and good stuff too.

And yes, its bearing fruit to an extent. Certainly if you look at the increase in students from state schools, things have been positive.

But there is a camp at my university that feels there is still a massive paucity of studebnts from disadvantaged backgrounds. Studenst whose parents are either the working poor or not working.

The thing is, getting these students to go to university at all is hard, let alone Oxbridge.

And also, if you could get lots of students to come from those types of backgrounds, what would that mean for the university? Would it have to change significantly?

The idea held by many a well meaning middle class person that the disadvantaged just can't wait to be reimagined in a middle class image, if only they had the opportunity is naive at best.

"The idea held by many a well meaning middle class person that the disadvantaged just can't wait to be reimagined in a middle class image, if only they had the opportunity is naive at best."

Naïve and fantastically patronising. And of course there is a huge economic and political agenda there - just as there is for getting all mothers into paid work. Wouldn't all be just hunky-dory for our politicians and their world-dominating career ambitions if we would all be industrious, taxation-generating, line-toeing citizens maximising our income/expenditure potential at the expense of all else?

"The idea held by many a well meaning middle class person that the disadvantaged just can't wait to be reimagined in a middle class image, if only they had the opportunity is naive at best."

Absolutely.

But the mind set that "it's no point giving poor people baths- they'll only keep coal in them" is worse! It should be about proper choice. I realize that a lot is being donee- and there are people's on this thread who are part off that process. But there is still a long way to go. And it is easy for politicians in particular to point at the beginnings and say "there you are, problem solved". Particularly politicians who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

And yellow the Gothic comment? As someone who's hopelessly in love with Lincoln Cathedral and full of awe and admiration for the Mediaeval craftsmen I'm far more upset about that comment than the parents only send their DC to boarding schools for its convenience!!

"Not all boarding school mothers are going to be like you."
No your right and there are plenty of non maternal mothers in the state sector as well. But over the years I have met countless parents the over whelming majority are exceedingly caring and concerned. Nannies etc probably cost about the same as one child's fees in central London and don't require 21 weeks holiday a year! It enables people to reinforce a tedious stereotype to imagine that all parents at boarding schools are unmaternal that accommodation is spartan and in some cases it is and that boarding schools are groaning under the weight of braying hooray Henrey's with an IQ of 100 still managing to get places at top RG universities. If I so much as hinted that state schools were full of inarticulate clods with X factor/Jeramy Kyle show obsessed parents who spent their evening eating Macdonalds smoking and swilling cheap larger I would justifiably flamed for it.

" If I so much as hinted that state schools were full of inarticulate clods with X factor/Jeramy Kyle show obsessed parents who spent their evening eating Macdonalds smoking and swilling cheap larger I would justifiably flamed for it."

Not on mumsnet you wouldn't! Watch out, or I'll trot out my list of similar if milder comments that have gone practically unremarked.

The problem is that there are parents like that at state schools, and there are braying Hooray Henrys at private schools- the problem comes when either side tried to characterise everyone like that.

seeker absolutely but people love stereotypes. I work and have worked with children and families from every conceivable background 1000's of them many are achingly poor and living in the most depressing circumstances others live in 30 bedroomed piles. Very rarely do I come across parents who genuinely don't care about their children what ever their background. Not all do things the way I do and of course many do thing wrong for a whole variety of reasons but actually not caring is very rare.

happy I'm sorry about Lincoln Cathedral. I've no doubt it's very fine in it's way.

Oh dear, my DC used to watch Jeremy from time to time, and the X Factor. All three girls older girls smoke (two since starting at Oxford, one was ahead of the game). They and DS1 are all very keen on lager (the decent end of the market lager though, I grant you that. Quality might go downhill as the evening progresses I suppose). So on that list the only thing they most emphatically would never do is eat a Mac. And of course they're articulate, as a child of someone on MN (sometimes far too articulate for my liking). So yes, not a bad stereotype :)

Just my observations for what they are worth.

Some state schools have failed children, others haven't.
My son in a state primary has flourished thanks to a caring and supportive environment (he is autistic).

I do some voluntary work as a Parent Supporter with a local education charity and I am staggered (but not overly surprised) at the number of people out there with poor literacy and maths skills......some absolutely cannot work as they wouldn't cope. Our charity tries to address these issues.

All these people are the product if the State school system but it also has to be said that many of them are also survivors of neglected childhoods where education wasn't valued and they were not helped to succeed. If a child goes to school tired (from a late night), hungry (because nobody made them breakfast) and stressed (because Mum has fallen out with her new partner and there are lots of rows) then being able to learn is less likely. You also have to factor in that too much time spent gaming or in front of the TV without proper family discussion time leaves young and older children less able to socialise.

Generally all these things can be found in the state school system and schools have to work very hard to overcome them.....sometimes it won't ever be enough. This obviously takes time away from teaching etc so does impact on the school.

Also happy, just so that we don't get derailed onto a discussion about the extraordinary work of mediaeval craftsmen, the Gothic I personally find OTT is the Victorian stuff. Keble etc.

Jake I represented children in the are system for many yers and I simply cannot see how school can even begin to address the problems those DC face.

yellow I'm sure you noticed but I said mediaeval.
seeker have you ever been to Lincoln Cathedral?