Why is private education so taboo now?

[DoMyBest]

When I was younger I was privately educated as were most of my friends. Now we all have children and almost all of them have decided to send their children to state schools. Whilst for most of them it was a question of money, for others it really wasn't: they believe that every child should have the same educational opportunities and if parents like them start giving their kids exclusive treatment then the system won't work. Some of these parents chose local 'outstanding' state schools, but one couple with enough money to buy every private school in town admirably chose their worst local state school and work hard to improve it.

I listen to these stories with interest, sometimes admiration but mostly respect for their choices & views.

So it's with some alarm, now we have chosen a private school for our son, do discover the hatred this decision engenders. Private education has, it would seem, become taboo.

So here's my question: is it morally right for people to get angry with parents who privately educate their children?

Sorry, the Tories seem to think so in all areas of public life - public money for private funds.

I think that, especially in the UK, private education is - in many cases - a mean to preserve the status quo.

The state having a role in food policy is not the same as the state controlling what we eat. There is no national curriculum of prescribed meals, year by year.

I'm not sure what you think that's got to do with anything, Bonsoir? The state has control over education policy but even with the national curriculum has never prescribed exactly how and exactly what teachers should teach. But then I guess you wouldn't know that, not even living in the UK?...

Since my DD attends a school that follows the English NC I think I have a perfectly adequate grasp of the relative freedoms, rabbitstew. You are very obtuse if you think that the NC is not highly prescriptive but that people are not free to feed their DC almost anything.

You are very obtuse, Bonsoir, if you think that is what I am saying.

Explain to me where you have not said that...

Explain to me where I HAVE said it.

I can point out where YOU said it, if you would like? Your penultimate post, unless we cross post.

You seem to be getting cross because of the silly things you have written on this thread . Chill...

I went to a private school and I've noticed that now my peers have kids of school age none of them are going to private (with one exception whose fees are paid by grandparents).

I'll find it interesting to see what my DC do with their children. My father went to boarding school, I went to a state school, my DC are/will be privately educated... Will my DC continue the pattern and send theirs to state schools?

Nice try, Bonsoir. I see little miss cross-chops who calls people obtuse and then thinks they are cross if they mimic this can't find where I ever said the government tells people exactly what they can and can't eat, so has decided to pretend I'm the one who is cross.

I'd be in so much trouble here if I ever used the phrase ....

"little miss cross-chops" .....

Rabbitstew

Crosser and crosser

You would, MarriedDad. Cunning manoeuvre to put it in quotation marks.

I'm sorry to hear you're getting crosser and crosser, Bonsoir. Have you tried yoga?

If the state does indeed have a meaningful role in what we eat, then how can you explain the co-existence of vegans and paleos? Of people a baby being weaned on Greggs, and a child who has not had a chicken nugget by the age of seven? People who shop at Whole Foods, people who shop at Iceland?

The state sets a very modest baseline, and everything else is up to you.

I think a lot of it comes down to the quality of the state school (after the cost too). Our state village school was shut and the pupils now fall into the catchment of a different primary school with a modern building, modern facilities, more classes etc and it really does look like a good school and I'm sure most of the children there are really lovely but also within this schools catchment is a 'problem' area. I am not for one minute blaming the children but some of the parents :O even I am shocked by some of the things I have witnessed and I only drop my friends children off there when her husband needs the car (which is once in a blue moon)

parents fighting (actual fisticuffs/ swearing etc) in the playground whilst dropping off/ picking up children.
the language used to each other and to their children is atrocious and not just swearing, a lot of it is sexualised too.
children boasting in class about things they've seen such as drug taking or police raids.

I really don't want to send DS there when the time comes and have even contemplated either moving house or switching to permanent night shift to pay for private schooling because I don't think primary school age children should be exposed to this - and I mean theirs or mine

It isn't taboo here in SW London. and having re-trained as a secondary teacher I am turning cartwheels that my DC are not attending the local state schools I have been training in.

Saski - apart from Bonsoir, I don't believe anyone said the government DID have a meaningful role in what we eat, did they? I said it gets involved in food policy at the moment, not food micro-management, and it does, at national, European and International level, and a lot of taxpayers' money is spent on this. It does get involved, as closely as it thinks it can possibly get away with, in order to protect public health (and this is only really so that it can increase its chances of having people healthy enough to be able to work and thus pay tax...) - our chocolate bars do not generally contain dangerous levels of toxic pesticides, for example, and if not eaten to excess will not do us any harm whatsoever. Along with considering increasing tax on anything with sugar in, precisely with the hope of controlling what we eat, government is even considering fluoridating our water supply, which I think would be considerably harder to avoid even than state education.

Where education has a special place, of course, is that it is seen as a way of gaining some control over the way we think and behave, and thus increasing control over all the things others seem to be claiming the government doesn't get involved in... like what we eat, whether we exercise, how hard we work, whether we pay tax, whether we are good citizens of the Big Society, etc, etc. Trying to crush the teaching unions could be seen as just another way of ensuring the state can get more control over our schools and our lives, so that we can all be kept running around in our little hamster wheels, unable to get off, but too blinkered to see or understand what we are really doing, anyway.

Basically, the state is very interested in having control over all areas of our lives and if it can't do it through schools, it will still find other ways.

Interestingly, the more the government claims it is very hands-off and small-stateish, and pro-private enterprise, the more I feel exploited and controlled by said government - they even want to mine all our private medical data for information and profit.

We have never, really, been so controlled as we are, now. And it's not just the state wanting to control us, but multinational corporations. It's all a big battle to control us, so that we can be mined for profit.
Big Brother is watching you... even if you are at Eton.

So rabbit your antidote to all this state control is to ban any education that isn't directly state controlled?

rabbitstew I tend to agree with (my interpretation of) a few parts of your post but I can't tie them together. I think it's true that the state benefits from compliant, non-questioning citizens and a "traditional" education may nurture these qualities.

But isn't that an argument against state control of education?

rabbitstew rolls her eyes at the ceiling. Does anyone fancy looking back over all the posts in this thread and fancy telling me if I have ever said that I want to ban any education that isn't directly state controlled? I've said that I believe that most people who want this don't just want this, they are also more likely to view the way our society is structured in general as wrong, given that the education system is a reflection of our society. I haven't said that I therefore think private schools should all be banned. Frankly, that would be a pointless thing to do in this society at this point in time - a society in which I live and choose to live, albeit I agree with those who think we are all becoming increasingly egocentric tossers, after a brief period of guilt and hoping to do better after the 2nd world war. Using a private school doesn't automatically make you more egocentric than anyone else, it just means you've analysed your situation and decided that was the best thing to do. There are plenty of other ways to be egocentric and don't we all, as a society, use them to aplomb? We don't even want to be bothered by any associated guilt any more, because "we're all worth it." (vomit)

The teaching unions ( and I belong to one) are made up of their members and therefore there to protect their members, not to promote educational innovation - indeed they resist it.