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.

Hakluyt I am not convinced that CCF pushes recruitment for the armed forces, if anything -by giving a dose of the tedious in the armed forces (drill, uniform, knowing lots of useless facts about different ranks and badges) - it would put a lot of kids off who might have meandered into it by not finding any other employment. However, as said above, it does have positives particularly opportunities to sail and fly. The advantage of having it within school is that it makes the logistics of partaking much easier than having to join an outside club.
All that aside why do you approve of recruiting for the police but not the armed forces? Both do worthwhile jobs.

DD went to CCF for a year (having been quite interested in joining the military) and hated it. I wasn't the slightest bit surprised - she loathes what she sees as pointless make-work, perfect uniforms and marching in squares while being yelled at is not her thing at all. Now she's not likely to make the mistake when it's more life-altering to get it wrong.

DS has no interest in joining (it's entirely optional at his school) and is doing DoE with the Scouts.

Haven't read the entire thread…

...but people should just do what's best for their child.

Why on Earth anyone would listen to and act upon other people's "high horse" remarks about not sending DCs to private school, I don't know. You do what's best for YOUR child. That's difficult enough as it is. No one should have the right to make private school parents accountable for the "inequality" that exists in this world.

News flash: Whether private schools exist or not, we aren't born equal. People who think otherwise are in complete denial. Look around you. Some people are richer than others, some are more intelligent, some are more sporty, some are more attractive... A lucky few have all those attributes.

If it weren't private school or even sheer wealth, it would be other things that would give people an advantage over others. Like natural intelligence maybe. Or in some weird, dystopian society (that isn't too far off), good looks.

There are loads of people who make millions based solely on looks. Why is no one complaining about that? Is it not "unfair" that some people are born more attractive than others?

"If it weren't private school or even sheer wealth, it would be other things that would give people an advantage over others. Like natural intelligence maybe."

Well, that would be a vast improvement on what we've got now!

I don't think many of us need a news flash to inform us that we're not all born equal, thanks. I find that such a defeatist attitude though - well, the world is unfair, so why bother trying to make it any fairer?

And yes, a world run by people with natural intelligence, rather than inherited privilege, sounds like a step in the right direction to me!

KeeperOfSouls There are loads of people who make millions based solely on looks. Can you give a single example of where a child has been allocated a school place based purely on their looks?

The system is unfair.

I understand that many people would like to see it changed, but whilst that is not happening, are not prepared to sacrifice their children's life chances in order to make a point, which will be lost in the system and not make any tangible positive difference to society, but will make a negative difference to them.

It is the dilemma......supporting our principles, when we are but one person amongst millions, versus accepting the wrong system and doing the best we can out of it.

Yes, if everyone makes that small step....etc etc. However, our job as parents is to look after our own children as well as society. And I can absolutely see, given the dilemma, that people choose to put their own children above the small difference they may make to society.

Some people have the money so they can pay for private education, others have the cash to move into a good catchment area, others have faith, others have clever children and live in grammar school areas. Others have none of these things. It isn't fair. And in an ideal world, these options would not be available and all schools for all children would be good, so we would be happy to send our children to any if them. But until then.......it is perfectly understandable that people do the best that they can, in the system in which we live. And for some that will mean private education.

Can you give a single example of where a child has been allocated a school place based purely on their looks?

Possibly one of mine!
It must happen all the time if interviews/assessments are part of the admissions process - not just in private schools - plenty of comprehensive schools have dance, drama, music and sport aptitude tests now; both the dc I know who passed 'aptitude' tests for state schools are slim and attractive. Do sixth forms interview?

I have read the whole thread, in fact have been following it since the beginning.I think it is perfectly reasonable to send DCs to private schools. As far as I am concerned a parent's first responsibility is to do whatever is best for THEIR child....not to do whatever is best for everybody else's DCs. I consider it best for my DCs to go to private schools.
I work hard, I earn the money, I spend it on schools. That is my choice.
As far as my DCs are concerned there are many advantages: smaller classes, less disruption from DCs who do not want to learn, no bullying ( not at their school, before you all shout!), much better facilities for music ( orchestras, choirs...and it is considered ok to be musical), art, regular high quality drama productions etc. etc.
And yes, children that are academic, who are well mannered and well behaved....what is so wrong with that?
As for in equality based on natural intelligence ...are you saying that people with learning difficulties are less equal....REALLY!
Some people on here claim to be against private/selective education, and I'm sure some are. But there are some who are fed up because their PFB didn't get a place .....so it is not fair. Whoever said life is fair?
As a parent I do whatever is best for MY child.

You make it sound as though opting for a state school when you can afford private is condemning your children to a life of dross and poverty.

It's not like that is it?

You're not sacrificing their life chances - children with highly supportive parents achieve well in both sectors.

The children to whom private school might actually have a life changing effect in - children of average ability who have fuck all support at home and no drive of their own to achieve their potential - they'll never be faced with making that choice anyway, will they?

"Children with supportive parents achieve well in both sectors"
Yes they do but for the millionth time those in the state sector don't get the same opportunities to experience other things. Education is not just about exam results/which Uni you go onto well it isn't in my book anyway but as Ive said before we all want expect different things. Those of us who want a very broad stimulating education and the means and desire to pay, will to get what they want.
I fully appreciate if you don't have any decent schools in your area in either sector then regular trips to galleries, the opera, lectures etc may not be very high up on yet list of school must haves.

I agree it is the child of average intelligence who lack drive and have unsupportive parents who would also benefit from independent ed. But plenty on here will argue that state ed serves them equally as well. In fact it's a pretty sad state of affairs if state ed doesn't serve then equally as well because as only 7% of children are educated in the independent sector there must be lots of average children without drive and support parents out there in state schools so you'd think the state would be pretty good at it by now!

You're not sacrificing their life chances - children with highly supportive parents achieve well in both sectors.

I'm sure that this is true in general but it's not true in all cases. I suspect the people with high principles have not had to deal with a miserable child and/or failing school that they could have avoided by going private.

E.g. DD was horribly bullied in her (leafy ) state school. The school was in special measures with 4s on all counts and didn't seem to have the energy or resources to deal with it (though they recognised it was happening - they came out several times a week to tell me that she had been stabbed with pencils/hit with trainers etc in the classroom but they couldn't seem to stop it). As a bright but quiet child she was left to do work with a small group but her books were mainly notes to her neighbours and pictures of flowers, they were rarely marked and when they were mistakes - even incorrect sums - were often ticked. She completely lost confidence, at 6 she started wetting the bed after 4 years of being dry, she talked about killing herself and would sob before and after school.

After waiting far too long for the school to deal with it we found a place at a wonderful nurturing private school last year (we looked at state too but the one we felt safest with was full). I had to go full time and abandon hopes of a 3rd DC to pay for it but it has absolutely transformed her in every way. She couldn't get over how kind people were and in a whole year we've never had any upset (yes the odd - I'm playing with X today but never nastiness). When I asked her whether it was different in the classroom she told me that in the old school she just had sheets on a table, the teacher never spoke to her group and it was noisy - now she has 14 in a calm class with a teacher and TA so she is getting much more attention and a firm foundation from school.

I would have been someone before all of this to say how important community was and how important it was to go to the local school, but for MY child in MY situation with MY choice of available schools I would have been sacrificing her life chances to keep her there - especially her mental health then and in the future. I'm sure there is also bullying in private schools and people might make the move the other way for the same reasons. But in our specific situation going private was not an attempt to buy privilege or get wonderful facilities (though they do have better facilities) - in our situation we had to go private to get a place where she felt safe and was learning.

I disagree to a point happy. The sentiment I have seen expressed is that it is unfortunate that the top public schools, as it is really only these schools which people refer to as instilling privilege not bog-standard local private school, offer scholarships and bursaries to those state school candidates who would do well in the state sector and not to those who are struggling. I have often been puzzled by this because those handful of school which offer such a "leg up" are peculiar environments where learning is fast paced and are not suited to any child, privileged or not, who is not at a certain level to begin with. To dump a child with average intelligence with unsupportive parents into Westminster/St Paul's/Eton/Winchester or similar would be cruel. The rest of what you say, I agree with.

Just any child, not any child!

Tess

That sounds like a horrible situation, and I'm so sorry your dd had to go through it.

I agree that it's easier to act on your principles if you're happy that what you're doing is right both for your child and for society in general. When those two things come into conflict, clearly it's much more difficult, and if you feel your child is being actively damaged by the environment they're in then I'm sure every parent would want to try to change that.

What I find most challenging in these discussions isn't people doing what they can to make their children happy, and give them a good start in life, but people who don't seem to care about what effect their choices have on other people, or who try to minimise those effects by saying that their individual child attending or not attending a particular school won't make any difference to anyone else. It may not make a difference on an individual level (although I'm sure that sometimes it does), but how can it not make a difference on a macro level?

Hayjlut and AmbertheCat And yes, a world run by people with natural intelligence, rather than inherited privilege, sounds like a step in the right direction to me!

We once had the grammar school system which a long time ago elevated those from poorer backgrounds.

UNFORTUNATELY, there were some people who similarly shouted "Unfair!!!", leading to most of them being closed. The end result is the system we have now. Is THIS any fairer???

"Yes they do but for the millionth time those in the state sector don't get the same opportunities to experience other things."

I think what you mean is 'people with poor parents don't get the opportunities to experience other things'.

Children in the state sector who have well off parents get the chance to travel - go on ski trips, take expensive school field trips (my nephew went to Iceland with a field trip last year, and the music scholars at the comprehensive I'm applying to for my ds are going to Brazil this year - fully funded school trip).

My dd's school does masses of interesting trips and activities. They have dozens of school bands.

Would also point out that one way of 'broadening out' a child's life experience in a truly meaningful way, which will increase their understanding of their place in the world, and the lives that other people live, is to give them a chance to mix and work with children from backgrounds that they are unlikely likely to encounter in their day to day life otherwise: those children from ORDINARY families. The ones who don't attend scouts, play in a youth orchestra, play sport at a high level etc.

And before someone comes on insisting that their children's private school takes in loads of 'disadvantaged' children - I don't simply mean 'clever, talented and hard working children who come from households where the family income is below 30K a year but where they're the lucky recipient of support from education focused parents' who make up 99% of bursary and scholarship recipients, I mean ORDINARY children. You know, the sort of people that children from private schools will spend their lives working with, and sometimes for.

happygardening - I know you didn't mean it, but you earlier post implied that a child can only get a broad education through school. Some parents would view trips to galleries, opera, lectures, etc, as something they would quite like to share with their children, rather than leave it all to the school.

"We once had the grammar school system which a long time ago elevated those from poorer backgrounds."

But primarily provided a way of educating large numbers of middle class children separately from their peers.

And luckily we're starting to move on from the idea that there is a reliable way of sorting children into sheep and goats - as far as spotting potential goes - at the age of 11.

"We once had the grammar school system which a long time ago elevated those from poorer backgrounds"

I was going to say that the only accurate bit of that sentence is the first 7 words. But then I remembered that we still have 150 grammar schools, so the first 7 words aren't accurate either!

3kidsandme With "equal" I don't talk about how society views people, but just that... equal. Like a mathematical equation. Of course, some people will always have an advantage over others. Unless that is not the case, there is no equality. Basically, both sides of the equation would have to balance. People with no learning difficulties will find it easier to study than those that have them. The latter would have to work harder to achieve the same things in life. So in this sense, the equation would not balance out.

I think the child with the broadest education is the one who attends a fully inclusive school, who is also lucky enough to have access through parents and their school to a wider curriculum.

This is certainly true of many children I know in the state sector.

Thanks Amber - Our situation was quite extreme but I imagine there are quite a lot of parents who make these kind of choices for similar concerns but don't broadcast that. E.g. If I met you in the local park and you asked me why we didn't go to the local school I wouldn't tell you all of that, I wouldn't want to gossip about the children in her old class (I would be entirely unsurprised to find that the prime bully had particular needs that weren't being met) or to badmouth the teachers there, so I would probably say something vague that sounded very much like the 'my child was just too sensitive and special for that school' that is so often criticised on here.

We once had the grammar school system which a long time ago elevated those from poorer backgrounds.

Except it didn't, apart from in a few exceptional cases. It largely entrenched class privilege.