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?

I would say the head at my children's schools was useless and the staff fantastic, until the staff started leaving because the head hadn't moved on, yet.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, mrz, by not working for the individual, not the school. Do you mean you would work in a school with a useless headteacher? Or that you wouldn't, because by so doing, you would have to work for the headteacher??

The staff the school my children attended didn't leave as they were happy working there (the head stayed until he retired). I volunteered there when my daughter was a baby and did some supply before going back to full time work.

As you can see I have worked for a "useless" head and the only thing that stopped me taking a full time position was I didn't want to teach my own children.

Why do you never answer questions directly, mrz?
Btw, in what way was he useless? Do you mean, he benignly left his excellent staff to get on with their jobs? Or did he often not turn up to work? Or offend the parents? Or abuse the children? Or fail to attend to the safety of children in the school? Or embezzle school funds? Or run up huge debts?

He benignly left his staff to do their and his job

I thought I had answered rabbitstew ... but the head would not be by first, second or third consideration when applying for a position in a school.

You obviously haven't ever met the ex-head of our school, then.

There are lots of things that influence teachers when applying for jobs

and I'd point out that it's much easier to teach in the "best" areas where parents are supportive and many employ tutors

Well, of course it is, mrz.

so are the people working there automatically the "best" teachers?

Yes, they are the "best" teachers. I use inverted commas there for a reason - the "best" teachers for the "best" areas.

In what way are they the "best" in inverted commas?

In the way that if you want to teach in a middle class, "outstanding" faith school in Hampshire, you will know your audience and how to please them. If you wanted to teach in an inner city school, you wouldn't be the best teacher for Hampshire, would you?

As for inner city Liverpool primary schools that teach two years behind faith schools in Hampshire - clearly they either haven't done a good job of attracting the "best" teachers (and I would, due to my experience, put a fair bit of the blame at the HT's door, but obviously you wouldn't, mrz), or people used to Hampshire don't understand that they set unrealistically high academic standards.

"In the way that if you want to teach in a middle class, "outstanding" faith school in Hampshire, you will know your audience and how to please them. If you wanted to teach in an inner city school, you wouldn't be the best teacher for Hampshire, would you?"

So nothing to do with being the best teacher just one who wants to teach in a certain type of school.

No, everything to do with being the best teacher for that type of school.

So the same teacher can't be the best teacher in Hampshire and an inner city school?

Not all teachers can be perfect in all environments, mrz. That doesn't mean they are bad teachers everywhere they go. To pretend that you can only be a good teacher if you can hack teaching in a badly run school in a "deprived" area is just tripe. And to pretend that some people who enjoy teaching and are good at teaching in "difficult" schools wouldn't find teaching in an outstanding Hampshire school difficult is also tripe - you are fulfilling a different role if the parents and tutors have already done half of what is, technically, your job, already, because you have to keep adding some kind of value. Maybe it would surprise you to know, mrz, given your comments, that you can actually get good teachers in schools with supportive parents: the parents aren't always doing all the work.

I didn't say you don't get good teachers in schools with supportive parents rabbitstew only that it makes the job much easier.

and I do think a good teacher can be a good teacher anywhere not just in a single "type" of school

In no other profession would context (company) be irrelevant to performance - teaching is no exception.

Well we all work for the same company (DfE) Bonsoir and are judged by the same criteria regardless of the location in which we work.

The DfE is not a company.

No but it oversees all teachers in state schools regardless of whether they are in Abbotswood or York and all teachers are judged by the same criteria.