First post: what is wrong with considering private schools?

[dietcokeisgreat]

Dear all,

I just starting looking at mumsnet last week and joined today. Some of my work colleagues talk about it and i am thinking about options for education for my son, who is just 3 and thought i would take a look. Well, i just starting the thinking, so it is early days.
We could pay for school, or maybe not, we don't know yet. He is our first child, we are having problems getting pregnant again, so unsure if there will be more yet.

I was surprised at some really negative comments on lots of threads towards people posting for advice/ whatever about private schools. Why are they doing that? What is wrong with people thinking about different options? Or asking about a school they know that is private? Twice i read something 'well i can't pay for school' as a response. For me, its no different to whether or not people have cash for other stuff. I can't afford to live in the smarter part of town, or pay for a boarding school but that doesn't mean no one should be allowed too!

Just wondering...don't want to post something that will enrage others or be and be upset by responses ....

Thank you.

NancyJones is right - the gulf between the best state schools and the worst is getting wider; if private schools were closed then the parents would just gravitate towards the best schools - what would change?

Hakluyt your comprehensive dream doesn't work - not at least for every child. You might be upset for your high achieving ds in his secondary modern in Kent but what you don't realise is that the middle achievers in his school appear to be doing better than the middle achievers in Talkinpeace's model comprehensive school in Hampshire. In the Hampshire comp high achievers do well but only 61% of middle achievers get 5 GCSEs A - C and value added for them looks very low indeed. In your secondary modern 74% of middle achievers get 5 A to C and 77%/83% make expected progress in English and maths. You want to improve outcomes for the high achievers in your ds's school because that's your vested interest but what you want to achieve doesn't help those children in the middle and bottom sets. The best comprehensive schools can have a two tier system too.

capsium I do not know for a fact Private Schools pay better across the board Not sure either. In this one case the money was better but not the only driver for them changing jobs. The move from primary to secondary was a big part of it.

Nancy Good education does not have to be not all singing and dancing though.

Teachers that listen and get to really know the individual children in their class, use good quality assessment and evidence based approaches are what I value far more, than lots of trips etc.

I respect schools that can offer good teaching without lots of outsourcing too. Just because the teachers within the school are simply really good, and genuinely inspiring, they don't need to.

Clavinova, I often hear people who feel strongly that private schools are wrong but yet want to bring back grammar schools across the board usually because they have a bright child but are unable to afford fees. I often wonder if they ever stop to consider what happens to those kids who wouldn't make the grammar cut. Are they to be left to languish like they often did in the 50s? Why is the bright poor kid any more worthy of a decent education that the less academic poor kid? I feel if we moved back to a universal grammar system there'd be far less objection to private schools yet 1000s of kids may well still miss out. Or is that just on MN ?

I think most people understand that private schools and better state schools that you can only get into by faith or living in affluent areas are unfair.
The thing is, that most people will put their own children's education and life chances ahead of their sense of fairness for society. Most people will think that if they make a stand and send their children to the local, not so good school, it will be a drop in the ocean and not make any difference to wider society...only a negative difference to their own children. You have be VERY committed to put your political principles ahead of your childrens education, especially when you know that very few people are doing it.
So sadly, most of us do cash in on the better options available to us, which are not available to all, whilst still recognising it as unfair. We will pay,mid we can, or move house if we can, and some will attend Church just to get into the better schools. It shows where our true priorities lie.

And just out of interest, are there any people out there, who have purposely chosen not to attend a grammar/great comp or primary school, even when they could have done...but go to a very poor school?
I always wonder exactly what the schools are like of the people who object most loudly to private etc. Are their children still in 'good' or 'outstanding' schools....because then it is easier to complain,isn't it....from a position of safety. Is there anyone out there, whose children are in a school in special measures, who are doggedly keeping them there, without even looking for alternatives.....which might involve postcode, money, faith etc?

I guess I'm wondering how far ANYONE is really prepared to go with their principles.

"You want to improve outcomes for the high achievers in your ds's school because that's your vested interest but what you want to achieve doesn't help those children in the middle and bottom sets"

What's the Mumsnet expression? "Did you mean to be so rude?" That really is one of the most offensive things anyone has ever said to me.

Oh, and I think you have the wrong school.

"Are their children still in 'good' or 'outstanding' schools....because then it is easier to complain,isn't it....from a position of safety. "

Yep, probably. What with 80% of schools being good or outstanding an' all.

Capsium, what you are describing happens all over the country in nice middle income areas. Good teachers stretching the purse to help supplement their good teaching. It's a very different job when you are dealing with living in real poverty. Firstly, the whole premise if your job changes and first and foremost you are trying to make many if them feel safe. To show some that adults strong always drunk and/or violent. That it's ok to eat the breakfast you are providing as they've never known such a thing. Believe me, money makes a difference in these schools.

The best comprehensive schools can have a two tier system too

At least there can be some mobility between sets though. With Grammar and State if a child develops their 'academic prowess' later than the 11 plus there are less options with the more traditional Secondary Moderns.

Nancy But benefits and good access to services for the families involved would probably make more of a difference, IMO. A living wage would probably be a good start...

But Hakluyt, are your children in a school which Requires Improvement or is in Special Measures?
If they are/were,mould you be keeping them there,if it was the local school,min order to support your principles?
That is what I was asking......to hear from people who are in that position. And in many areas, nowhere near 80% of schools are good or outstanding. For some people all of the local schools are at a lower level than this.

Clavinova - the gulf between the best state schools and the worst is getting wider These are the types of statements that I like to investigate. Not because I disagree but more because I like to be informed. Can I just ask how you have made this conclusion?

Clavinova if private schools were closed then the parents would just gravitate towards the best schools - what would change? Putting aside that fact that this would never happen, there would never been enough "desirable" schools to cater for the demand. In light of this a number of things could happen:

More uptake of home tutoring

Moving abroad to access "desirable" educational facilities.

More schools being opened but with admissions criteria that allow the wealthy to cocoon themselves away from the mass unwashed. ]

In an ideal world we just might be lucky enough for it to impact enough of those with the power to accelerate the rate of improvement in those schools that really need it (I suspect this to be the most unlikely scenario as I don't think there is enough interest in equalizing the education system among those who have the power to do so).

I am sure there are other scenarios but these are the ones that immediately spring to mind.

"So Tansie why do you distinguish between parents looking for schools within and outside the London orbit? Is it more acceptable, in your view, for Londoner's to go private?"- because London is its own little (!) bubble; educationally, politically, economically, even culturally.

I understand that it maybe isn't possible to move into the 50m catchment of an outstanding state school.

The London Influence increasingly skews life for the rest of the UK in oh-so-many ways, thus isn't representative of most parents 'ability', should they wish to exercise it, to move, albeit to rent (as all the houses are owned by 'the haves' as BTLs...) in the catchment of a school they'd prefer to send their DC to.

For the record, I am a bit when I read about young people who've been lured to London for the bigger salaries and faster career progression; the 'culture', the buzz etc etc, who get together with other young people, get married, upsize their 2 flats to one small 2 bedroom terrace in a less-desirable area of London (Oh but it is still London !) - then have DC, then are outraged that they can't get Jemima and Otto into the very best state schools... and what they then do, of course, is move an hour's commute away from London 'for the children', and outprice 'the locals' there, but that's another story!

Tansie, are you going to answer my point on your point about advantage?
What advantage of my kids have over those of my neighbour who uses the state school other than the fact that much of the stuff mine get inside school, she pays for outside . Similar excellent results at both. She probably has more equity in her house though!

Oh and re London couples moving out and pricing out locals. You're at least a generation too late to halt that!

NancyJones What advantage of my kids have over those of my neighbour who uses the state school other than the fact that much of the stuff mine get inside school, she pays for outside . Similar excellent results at both. I appreciate you have your reasons for choosing private education but are you really saying you are paying all that money under the belief that there is no real advantage in doing so?

"Why is the bright poor kid any more worthy of a decent education that the less academic poor kid?"

Why is the kid from a well to do family allowed to gain a life and societal advantage over a kid from a poor family, even though they are of equal ability and potential, just because his parents can send him private?

I understand the point about the difference between Big Name public schools and just private school, in regards to Old School Tie, networks, internship-for-your-DD-if-you-offer-my-DS-a-traineeship etc; however, come what may, even the least private school still offers selection if only by 'parent willing to pay'. This alone guarantees a modicum of there being a standard beneath which you cannot fall. Disruption doesn't have to be managed, it can be turfed out; ditto SEN; ditto 'colourful personalities'. The state sector cannot do this.

I am also opposed to grammar schools. I went to one, and they were also a bastion of privilege, though the advantage wasn't wealth; it was less classroom disruption, no 'slower' DC to take up the teacher's time, highly educated , motivated teachers, (some of whom would be eaten alive in a badly managed, underfunded, demoralised SM).

I recall an apposite remark: The Left hate Grammar Schools because they entrench privilege; the Right love Grammar Schools because they entrench privilege... the same could be said of private schools!

I cannot see why 'the clever' cannot be taught in the same schools, if not same lessons, as the less academically able.

However, this isn't about selective education, this is about the 'leg up' the wealthy can buy their DC. Funny how that's acceptable, but a 'leg up' given to a clever DC with potential from a bog-standard state school via a lower offer made for uni, isn't...

Final point: I am being misunderstood about the term 'privilege' in the context of how I have used it. I am not talking about big houses, flash cars, skiing holidays, here. I am talking about the privilege conferred by being able to access small classes of like-minded, non SEN, non poor fellow pupils. This goes a fair way towards being able to buy the material things mentioned above. I understand the 'scrimp and save' brigade- but do they understand that for the vast majority of the populace on the average wage, there is no way they'd ever be able to find £13k pa per child to buy this privilege? To even countenance it, you are one of life's 'Haves'.

No tangible academic reasons. No social reasons.
I genuinely pay for all the extras and for their day to day experience. I'm not a parent who would choose to pay regardless. I would always weigh up what was on offer. Some private schools are shockingly bad. Poor results, rubbish facilities but appeal to parents who want exclusivity and straw hats. That's not me. For me, amazing sports facilities, superb music and art. Close to 100acres including woodland were the infants go stunning use of the whole school to bring alive history and geography projects. Once some roman guards came in and arrested the teacher. My friends locally, use the state school and spend hours after Sch at various clubs and sports and the same most weekends.

nancy-Q: "Tansie, are you going to answer my point on your point about advantage?
What advantage of my kids have over those of my neighbour who uses the state school other than the fact that much of the stuff mine get inside school, she pays for outside . Similar excellent results at both."

No, you're missing a very important point which I will make again:

"If your DS and mine are of identical intellect -say 'naturally B grade'; if we, the parents support our DSs identically- if, for all intents and purposes our DSs are identical... BUT mine goes to a 'sink' comp with classes full of chairchuckers, and manages to get B's, he's done bloody well. Yours, because you are richer than me, goes to a small, well equipped 'B-grade-and-above' selective private school with small classes who manage to wring As out of him. There's one place available at uni to do a certain course.

Who are they most likely to offer it to?"

This is the crux. It's not comparing the across-the-board results at both schools thus assuming a specific DC will get exactly the same grade at either school. There's nothing to suggest that is the case. It's also what misleads a lot of parents who read '80% A-C' and think that means their DC has an 80% chance of getting A-C.

Hakluyt - no offense intended at all - don't we all care about our own children's education? Not sure if I've got the right school now but does it help if I add (inc English and maths) to the figures?

MumTrying - re the gap widening - I googled NancyJones' Salford area and I was shocked to read that only 47% of secondary school pupils attend good or outstanding schools there. Your area: Parmiter's (outstanding) - pupils making expected progress in English and maths 91%-96% - Francis Combe (requires improvement) same postcode as Parmiter's but expected progress 30% lower.

From what I gather on here is that many comprehensive schools operate a top set group that keeps its distance from the middle/lower sets - some posters are at pains to point out that their high achieving dcs mix with like-minded pupils and only meet the rest at games and registration. Perhaps moving between sets is more fluid than the impression given?

"Hakluyt - no offense intended at all - don't we all care about our own children's education? "

Not at the expense of other children's, no "we" don't. And ^definitely the wrong school.

And offense may not have been intended- but it sure as hell was taken!

Tansie, firstly I have never pretended that it us a fair system; it is not. My point really is that the biggest gap is within the state sector. Yes, my kids have smaller classes thAn the high achieving state school but I can't see that that will bring about any particular social advantage. I don't think my bright child has any more chance of being prime minister than the bright child up the road from me. I do think both have vastly more chance than the bright kid from Salford or Wythenshaw.

No I didn't misunderstand. I am referring to the point that parents like me underestimate the difference caused by taking my children out of the state system. That's simply not true in areas such as where we live though it may be the case in very urban areas where the catchment is more mixed.

Hakluyt - you might not be intending to disadvantage the middle achievers at your ds' school but by seeking out extension activities for the high achievers and better university options for them (because you have a high achieving ds) you are not focusing on how to get a C grade student to a B grade student are you?