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?

The world would be just great if we all behaved like wild animals

lottieandmia - what is the biggest difference between humans and wild animals? Is it the ability to be introspective? It seems to me that the inability to see others' points of view as anything other than denial or jealousy is revealing of a rather limited personal range. A bit unfair to tar others with such a limited brush.

Although I don't think you are the one doing that with your comment about wild animals. You just provoked an interesting line of thought.

Behaved like wild animals? With no thought for how our actions impact on other people? Being motivated entirely by self interest?

Ooh, when did emotions get rank ordered? I love those shows ... Must have missed that one!

At number seventeen, it was ennui; join us after the break to hear the rest, including melancholia, indifference and despair.

Actually naked self interest isn't the only motivating factor in human evolution...there is also altruism; the desire to help the group as a whole, because together we are stronger.

Burt believe what you like - the idea that 'survival of the fittest' (ie gene selection) correlates with selfish, individualistic behaviour holds hands with the idea that men are natural hunter-gatherers and women genetically predisposed to do all the washing

Most parents I know put their child first. They don't lock it in a room whilst they go out to help the poor. The ones putting their child first are not wrong or selfish. In fact they are putting the child before themselves which is very unselfish. Now we could say (and we are at the Easter weekend probably thinking about these things) if you have a large cake (or capacity to read to children or love or whatever) you should share it between your own children and your neighbours. Some of us do voluntary work anyway. However most people have a tiny cake and it is more than they can do to do everything right by their own children never mind giving it away to others.

That does not mean we kick others about us. Of course not or they will kick back and also doing good to others makes most people feel good. However I don't think picking a bad school for your child, teaching it to say Haitch and you was to make it similar to some other children who perhaps do not speak well enough to get good jobs, or feeding it junk food or neglecting it is really an unselfish act benefiting the wider community which is the issue we are talking about here.

I don't think it is the issue we are talking about, here, MariaJenny.

Still, I suppose the minor private schools are a bit common and state schools fairly unspeakable.

"However I don't think picking a bad school for your child, teaching it to say Haitch and you was to make it similar to some other children who perhaps do not speak well enough to get good jobs, or feeding it junk food or neglecting it is really an unselfish act benefiting the wider community which is the issue we are talking about here."

I don't actually think that is what we are talking about here, is it? . Or if it is, I have been having an entirely different conversation.........

MariaJenny's post is an exaggeration but the theme on this thread is that private=bad decision and state=good decision. Our choice is:

1. Send DC to the bottom 10% (Scotland) catchment high school where because of the "economic demographics" (direct quote from the Council) the curriculum has been stripped down so that various uni options are closed to pupils.

1. Move to a nice but much more expensive middle class catchment with a top 10 high school offering a good range of curriculum options and after school activities.

1. Go private to any private school DC are able to get into.

The anti-private school posters on the thread seem to suggest that we should go with the first option regardless of how dire the local school is.

No, Taz, that isn't the theme. It couldn't possibly be the theme when some people think one thing and others think another.

Ok, it's the theme for the anti-private school posters. It would be interesting to know what posters like Martorana would do in our position though. If money were not an issue, would they still send their DC to one of the bottom performing state schools where the curriculum was severely curtailed?

Can I join in and make some sweeping generalisations too please

Taz1212, I think it boils into two camps:

1. People who believe choosing state is better for society as a whole, even if they secretly realise it might lead to the best outcomes for their child.

2. People who believe in choosing the best for their child, regardless of politics and social welfare - sometimes that will be state, sometimes private.

I haven't yet heard a convincing argument to demonstrate choosing state is "always" best for child and society, so I'm in camp 2.

oops

1. People who believe choosing state is better for society as a whole, even if they secretly realise it might not lead to the best outcomes for their child.

MarriedDad Yes, but then to make a sweeping generalisation sub-category, are followers of #1 choosing the best state school available

"It would be interesting to know what posters like Martorana would do in our position though. If money were not an issue, would they still send their DC to one of the bottom performing state schools where the curriculum was severely curtailed?"

I don't know what I would do. I know what I hope I would do- and I know what I did in my own circumstances- but I can't possibly know what I would do in very different ones.

I have never said that private education is not sometime best for an individual child. My point is that private education per se is bad for society in general. That's why anecdotes and personal stories don't really help in this debate.

I think, MarriedDad, there is also a third camp: those who genuinely believe that state would never be good enough for their child.

MariaJenny is yet another poster who is making some familiar points on this thread. It is odd.

And yes, I think Rabbit's third category is definitely a real one.

Not taboo where I live. In fact a fair number of parents are using indies for preparing their DCs for the 11 plus. Two or three years investment at primary in the hope of 7 or so years of free state secondary at excellent schools.

For those parents who do not gain access to schools via the 11 plus route, the indies provide a good safe option in case they don't get any local school at all.

"Not taboo where I live. In fact a fair number of parents are using indies for preparing their DCs for the 11 plus. Two or three years investment at primary in the hope of 7 or so years of free state secondary at excellent schools."

Now that really is immoral!

I can think of even much more "immoral" things that parents do to secure a good education for their kids. Morality doesn’t have a place here, I’ve since found out. Those who peddle it are the biggest hypocrites . . . Diane Abbott, anyone?

So am I to send my dd to a 'piss poor' state school, because it is not community spirited of me to chose to send her to a decent independent, which we could afford.

Therefore sacrificing my DD's education and well being?

I would be interested to know what you would do Mantorana.

But Martorana we all believe are children are those "individuals" who will benefit from private education.
I have seriously looked at state ed three times over the years (primary and secondary) and on every occasion I have been informally advised that my DS's needs (very high IQ) would be met better in the super selective private sector or a super selective grammar if I happen to live near enough to one which I don't. These people aren't making assumptions about how much money I have, they've suggested getting a scholarship and/or a bursary if I don't have sufficient funds.
When you hear things like this you do do the right thing for our individual child.

"I can think of even much more "immoral" things that parents do to secure a good education for their kids."

So can I. But I wasn't asked to comment on any others.