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?

TheOriginalSteamingNit

If you mean it's been said a lot already on this thread, then mea culpa. If you mean it's been said elsewhere across the whole forum, that assumes I have read the whole of the rest of the forum along with everyone else on this thread - sorry but I'm not omniscient (or maybe I am ....)

I'm just sore for not getting a pat on the back.

Martirana I frequently read on MN comments about how their particular state school offers as much as any independent school, there were comments stating exactly this on a very recent thread.
We need to live and let live as I've said before I hope those who feel so "angry" about private schools regularly channel the same amount of energy into improving their state schools and others in their areas because it is only by improving what the state school offer will schools catering for the worried middle classes will consider state ed. But I suspect your not directing your anger at these families and schools I suspect your directing at the small group of elite Eton et al and it's alumni. These schools are here for good because these parents will always choose them regardless of how good the state sector is.

"Martirana I frequently read on MN comments about how their particular state school offers as much as any independent school, there were comments stating exactly this on a very recent thread."

Really? I can't imagine anyone saying anything so dim- the funding disparity makes the statement ludicrous.

Happy - no amount of energy being channeled into state schools will reduce average class sizes those of private schools. Neither will the involvement of middle-class parents in the running of state schools diminish the energy-sapping drag on teachers and students of having to work with a disproportionate number of hard to educate children.

Schools are communities, and like all communities they're affected by ghettoisation.

I'm always intrigued by people who claim that private schools have 'better standards', as if state school staff don't give two hoots about their pupils and don't bother to push them. It's such rubbish.

I think it has more to do with those private schools being academically selective and filled with children whose parents are willing/able to pay for education. That does make them fairly middle class, privileged places. That doesn't have anything to do with how well the children are taught: they are already at a distinct advantage because they are bright and well supported at home.

I've taught in three private and five state schools. One private school was one of the 'elite' public schools that costs well over £30k per year. The standard of teaching was no better there than at three of the state schools (the other two were admittedly dire because they were on special measures). The main reason that the state schools did less well were that they weren't academically selective, class sizes were bigger, behaviour was poorer and a number of parents didn't take much interest in their child's progress. It was nothing to do with how well teachers taught.

I am of the opinion that if your local state school is lovely, then you are mad to pay for private education. However, if your local state school is poor and behaviour is bad, then it is no crime to pay for a school where children want to learn and do well.

I think the problem comes from blanket statements about all Behaviour in state schools being poor and all private schools employing better teachers. Quite a few private schools have teachers who aren't even qualified. A first from Cambridge really does not make you a good teacher, or even a qualified one, even if it impresses some parents.

Costing over 30k per year does not make a school elite or guarantee quality. There are a fair number of boarding schools costing that much that certainly do not have particularly good quality teachers or management

Wordfactory Off at a tangent are you connected to the Oxbridge widening access prog? Friend's DD went to a state 6th formers talk recently and was nearly put off. The feedback was Cambridge representatives were a no show and Oxford representatives didn't want questions and left early for train.

Well said RedRoom!

I think your analysis is worthy of further .... err .... analysis (me fail basic composition test)

"The main reason that the state schools did less well were that they weren't academically selective, class sizes were bigger, behaviour was poorer and a number of parents didn't take much interest in their child's progress. It was nothing to do with how well teachers taught."

Academically selective

• Would state schools be better if there was more explicit selection and streaming? In other words, make teachers jobs more focused on sets of students with similar abilities and needs. Does the "comprehensive" model hinder teachers? This would mean having schools for low attainers, middle attainers and high attainers? Maybe that's not workable, but perhaps there is something better than comprehensive?

Class sizes

• Is there anything we can do to make state school class sizes smaller or more manageable for teachers? Is this simply a need for more teachers i.e more funding?

Poor behaviour and lack of parental input

• How do state school improve behaviour and parental support? This seems an "uncrackable nut" to me as it all starts at home. What if parents with children that have poor attendance, behaviour etc were "offered", at their option, a state boarding school option? Could that help? Obviously, not talking about wrenching families apart, only where there are willing participants. Boarding will reduce living costs for the family materially too which might help reduce stress etc. Some parents might find that attractive, especially if benefits were protected.

summerends I know that a school costing £30k or more a year doesn't automatically make it elite. I mentioned the cost because the teaching at that expensive school wasn't 'better' than the free comprehensives that I worked at before. That, to me, is not good value for money.

I used the word 'elite' because it is one of the most renowned group of English public schools (Eton/Harrow/Westminster etc). Would rather not say which one I worked at in case it outs me at some point.

My point was merely to say that sending a child to an expensive private school is not something that any parent should feel makes them, or their child, superior to those at local comprehensives where 'standards are lower'. To return to the OPs point, the topic of private schools can be taboo because sometimes the implication is that, if you pay, you care. If you don't pay, you value education less. That is plain wrong. Quite often you are paying for no more than to have your child surrounded by other bright children from reasonably affluent backgrounds.

marrieddad I guess the main model of selection is the grammar school system. I went to one myself and it gave me opportunities that I wouldn't otherwise have had. However, I totally agree that it can be demoralising when children fail the 11+ and their brighter friends go off to other schools. I'm not keen on putting a lid on children at such a young age, and I know that research shows that some children can feel labelled as 'not bright'. Then you can have cases of self-fulfilling prophecy: I already know I'm not the brightest, so why try to be academic? Grammar schools are wonderful for those that pass, but do nothing for those that don't.

So, let's say we don't divide children at all- let's have mixed ability classes in comprehensives. Well, I've taught mixed ability classes and, good grief, that is challenging. Trying to stretch to the top and give extra support to the weakest (in a class of 30 in one hour) is really not easy. I'm not sure that method meets the needs of children either.

That only leaves us with setting and streaming. I am totally against streaming which places children in the top, middle or bottom set for everything, because very few pupils have the exact same affinity for very different disciplines such as Maths and English. Setting does work, or it does for me, especially if it is mobile and pupils can move up and down within the academic year. The problem is for those in the bottom set, who may feel disaffected by this. I always tell them that it is better to be supported than to be in a class where they struggle. For me, a good comprehensive with setting would be my first choice.

One thing that would make a massive, massive difference to the quality of educational provision in this country is smaller classes. I am utterly, utterly convinced that this is the case. It's not going to happen because there is no money! I think that, after behaviour, class sizes make the biggest positive difference.

I like the boarding idea. There are fines for parents who don't care if their children truant school constantly, but there isn't much schools can do about home aspects that don't directly affect the registers, unless there is abuse. For example, when a child regularly turns up having had five hours sleep and no breakfast but doesn't care/ their parents tell them they don't need to go to detention / their parents don't ever bother turning up to parents' evening. All of these things make it incredibly hard for teachers to convey the importance of education, because the children aren't intrinsically motivated and their parents don't help matters.

That was a long post. Sorry OP: not quite on topic, but still interesting to explore.

I think it is the change in how society thinks that has led to many disliking private education.
Those that can't have something now a days have to shout about how unfair it is. Whereas years ago it was just accepted that you couldn't have it, what is the point of jealousy was the general thought.
Now we live in an entitled society and everybody wants the same as the Jones's.

"Would state schools be better if there was more explicit selection and streaming? In other words, make teachers jobs more focused on sets of students with similar abilities and needs. Does the "comprehensive" model hinder teachers? This would mean having schools for low attainers, middle attainers and high attainers? Maybe that's not workable, but perhaps there is something better than comprehensive?"

This is something I've always believed to be true - in fact I'd suggest most people think it's obvious.

However, the research doesn't bear out the value of streaming and setting, particularly for low ability pupils. This article asks why parents support it so enthusiastically, the answer to which is two-fold: that parents aren't aware of the evidence from educational research; that the education system in the UK is competitive and schools which stream and set are more able to attract middle-class pupils.

here

"Those that can't have something now a days have to shout about how unfair it is. Whereas years ago it was just accepted that you couldn't have it, what is the point of jealousy was the general thought.
Now we live in an entitled society and everybody wants the same as the Jones's."

The children of the rich have done nothing to earn or deserve the specially privileged education they have access to.

MiniMum - good try, but I think you're harking back to the pre-World War 1 days... Since then society has gone from people largely accepting their inherited place in society, to wanting society to be more equal, back to people largely accepting huge disparities in fortune but without any universally accepted rules of fairness, equity, moral conduct, etc. This is not the sole fault of those who are jealous - a smidgeon of the blame for this has to be laid at the door of the badly behaved rich and powerful.

I went to a private school and nearly everyone I went to school with has sent their children to state schools.

OTOH quite a few of the people I knew who went to state schools have sent their children to private school. Perhaps because for some people it's something to aspire to.

Minifingers - if the rich and privileged refused to spend any of their money on their own children, because their kids had done nothing to deserve it, they would be considered very odd parents by most people, I think.

The children of the rich don't need to do anything to earn their right to a private education though.
The rich have always gone to private schools, the super rich with not much intelligence Tim but dim, went to Eton or Harrow and became MP's.rabbitstew how old do you think I am I was talking about during my life time.
I will be sending my dc to a particular private school if that is what she wants, not just any to gain a better education or anything.

rabbit - of course people will always want to protect and advance their own children, even at a wider cost to society in general. That's human nature.

The question is whether as a society we ought to facilitate this or see it as a desirable and acceptable state of affairs.

"I will be sending my dc to a particular private school if that is what she wants, not just any to gain a better education or anything."

"Now we live in an entitled society and everybody wants the same as the Jones's"

I think the word 'entitled' will be more applicable to your dc than mine. I wouldn't say to mine: 'if you fancy something that costs 15K a year you can have it darling, just say the word, even if I think it won't benefit you and is just something you fancy.'

Minifingers

The fees are 30k actually, and she can go if she wants to, she has shown an interest and its her decision.
How is that entitled? Of course it would benefit her, that's why I said a particular school.

""Now we live in an entitled society and everybody wants the same as the Jones's"

Can I ask why you think your child is any more entitled to whatever she will get from her 30k a year school than any other child?

And please can we stop this "you're only jealous" meme? It's silly, insulting and does not contribute to the debate.

MiniMum - your lifetime has clearly been considerably longer than mine or my father's, which puts you in an era from well before WW2 (my father was born pre-WW2...). Either that, or you were very well cosseted in your youth. Did you attend a certain private school?

Or... are you trying to keep up with the Jones's?

rabbitstew

I was brought up in a community and society that really wasn't bothered that some people went to state and some private.
I never met a child who went to private school until I was about 15, although I knew they existed.
Working class were just that. I remember the old sketch of the classes, I look down on him etc. It still makes me laugh.
No, I went to the sink comp and left school with nothing, no private education near us , not that my parents could have afforded it.
Maybe its a working class thing, I don't know tbh.

Ah. So now you know it exists, your dd wants what the Jones's have. She's got a bit of a sense of entitlement, hasn't she, that dd of yours? Now that she knows that private schools exist and all that?