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.

ChantelD93 If we could afford it, we'd send our DS and any future child to a private school in a heartbeat! The schools in our area are awful and I want the best for my children. Can I just ask what you found your local private schools did best when you viewed them?

Oh, and on the subject of SEN and private schools....there are in fact only a small percentage that truly aim to cater to children with SEN - and very, very few in areas such as the SE where they find it easier to fill their places.

smokepole
I would send my kids to a local school if it was not that one
but THAT school should have been closed several years ago.

I do not believe that any child should have to put up with an SLT that accepts having no science teachers for a term or no MFL teachers for two terms.

Bear in mind that around 60 per year of the kids who would be at the local school are also at DCs school - I'm not avoiding them - they have crossed the border too.

chocolate
please explain to me how any family on less than the mean wage let alone the median wage can find school fees of around £10,000 a year unless they give up heating their house and eating

In reply, I think you might be confusing me with another poster.
I have never said anything about who can afford independent school fees,although others have.
I totally accept that most people will never be able to afford school fees regardless of the cuts they might make, because their income and expenditure ratios simply do t leave enough for fees. It is why I accept that independent schools are unfair. Some people have access to them and others don't.

"I do ask my DC about their experience and they are astonished when I ask about fights and throwing of pens/paper etc and rudeness - in their indie they have never seen anything like that. "

No - of course not.

You are paying to keep them away from 'riff raff'.

Social and educational apartheid - nice for those with the unearned privileges (your children and their private school peers) and a bit shit for everyone else.

Fortunately, even in schools with the sort of disruption you describe (my dd's school is one) there will generally be children who thrive and some who achieve outstanding results. I'm really happy that at my dd's school there are many brilliant children with strong characters and supportive parents who keep faith with their local community in relation to education.

To be fair, I think a lot of children in 'staties' would be horrified too.

Tell a lie, my dd in year 13 has seen a fight. Dd in year 9 is a bit jealous.

its even worse when you get kids from two schools having pitched battles at a bus stop resulting in blazers having the sleeves ripped off, several black eyes and broken noses, books destroyed etc etc

but both schools were well know selective private boys schools in London so it was all hushed up

'Staties'

I'm so using that!

Eton and Radley used to have very violent fights in the fairground at Henley Regatta every year in the 1920's/30's.

"Just gentlemen letting off steam"!

They did take the trouble to arrange a time in advance.

sorryforher No - of course not. You are paying to keep them away from 'riff raff'.

What's so bad about not wanting your child to be around people who could be bad influence? At the end of the day, once they enter school, they spend more time with their peers than with you.

at 'Staties'

So public school - pubes?

keeper
you are so naive to think that there are no bad influences at private schools

Talkin I'm not saying there isn't. I'm just asking what's wrong with keeping them from what' seen as 'riff raff'?

KeeperOfSouls Talkin I'm not saying there isn't. I'm just asking what's wrong with keeping them from what' seen as 'riff raff'? What does "seen as riff raff" mean exactly?

There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your children from bad influences. However, to claim that the solution to this is to place them in to a private school is somewhat laughable.

I assume you have already vetted all your DCs peers at the school. After all you don't want them mixing with people like these:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243960/George-Gray-Privately-educated-teenage-son-hero-Royal-Marine-Colonel-jailed-raping-17-year-old-girl-lavish-birthday-party.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2648254/Former-Catholic-schoolboy-squandered-private-education-life-crime-conman-dubbed-The-Rat.html

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/kunal-chaudhary-jailed-high-flying-7363453

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-convicted-of-grooming-teenage-girls-online-escapes-jail-9365567.html

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/445719/Gunman-says-prison-is-just-like-his-days-at-prestigious-boarding-school-Gordonstoun

news.stv.tv/west-central/229076-teenager-who-stabbed-schoolboy-with-screwdriver-jailed/

I still remember a well known poster referring to my ds as "dregs"........frankly, riff raff would be hugely preferable.

As I already said, Mum, I wasn't talking about private schools being free of bad influences. But to illustrate my point, let's take the private school out of the equation, and instead we could choose between two state schools.

One is in a nice well-off area, relatively problem-free zone.

The other is in a rough area, surrounded by gangland culture, etc.

Would there still be people who'd say they would go for the second one - just because their very well-behaved DCs could have such a huge influence on the other children who are poorer and so forth???

Because from the looks of it, a lot of people are blaming the educated / well-off / whatever masses for abandoning such schools and opting for non-local schools instead (whether they be private or not), and therefore worsening the situation. I do wonder whether those very same people would opt for their DCs to be the guinea pigs...

Hak What's a "greg" even?!?

Ooops - autochange - "dreg"

Gosh, still going!
Just a few points on what I've just read from previous posts. marrieddad, and Talkinpeace, we lived in a Hertfordshire town with single sex state secondaries which were not catholic. One of the reasons we moved was what I perceived as lack of choice at secondary as I absolutely did not want single sex schools.

Also, I am a state school teacher with children in the independent sector. We lived off dh's salary before I went back to work and now my salary pays 3 lots of fees.

I have taught in schools across the socio-economic spectrum. Some 'outstanding schools' are appalling, some were great but I still have opted to pay as I want above and beyond that 'great'. Every child in state education is entitled to a great education. It is grossly unfair that this is not the case for many children. But the state simply couldn't afford the sort of experiences and facilities I wanted. So as there was another option open to me, I took it. If I was solely interested in excellent teaching and high results I would have sent them to the local state school.

NancyJones marrieddad, and Talkinpeace, we lived in a Hertfordshire town with single sex state secondaries which were not catholic. Assuming you lived where you said you did (in a previous post) rather than just close by, the claim that all the schools were single sex, non faith state schools is not true:

www.hertsad.co.uk/news/appeals_over_pupil_allocations_at_st_albans_faith_school_1_3584189

Keeper...I agree, that few people want their children to be guinea pigs for their social/political ideals. Few will choose the sink school because it is the nearest local school. If there is. Better school that they can get into, they will take it.......and many of the anti- independent schools say they have done exactly that.
So everyone who has any element of choice, tends to exercise it. Some get their kids into the leaguer school, some a Church school, some a grammar school, some a fee paying school. The options available to people are NOT EQUAL even if the independent schools are taken out of the equation. Not everyone lives near a leafy school, or a grammar or whatever.
Most people posting on here had some, albeit limited choice and it sounds like few are in the truly awful schools.....because that is simply not the Mumsnet demographic ON AVERAGE (before any flMes me for saying that). Given any choice,people choose.
The people I think are in the worst position are those with no real choice, who are in the sink schools. As I said before, typically it those from less affluent areas and backgrounds, where it might not be possible to pay to travel a bit further, or where parents dont value education and just opt int the local school or find themselves there by default not choice.
But most people on here are not in that category. Instead they make the choices they have, even if there are not many options. And they leave the children in the sink schools behind,mot go off to the better options. How is that really significantly different in terms of the impact on the sink schools sinking even further, regardless of whether the place they go to instead is fee paying or not?
Whilst people are keen to criticise independent choices, they are happy to make other choices that are available to them, when for many, there really are no choices.

Chocolate, I agree with much of what you say. It's much easier to follow your principles if they coincide with what you think is right for your child. I live in the catchment of a good comprehensive, which is exactly what I want for my children. I accept I'm fortunate. And no, I'm unlikely to choose to move my children to failing schools. My honest answer to what I'd have done if our local school had been failing is that I don't know. I like to think I'd have chosen to send my kids there anyway and worked with them to make up for any deficiencies, and with the school to help where possible, but I may have explored other options.

My issue in these discussions isn't with people making what they think are the right decisions for their children, which of course we all try to do. What I find harder to accept is people who refuse to accept that those decisions have any wider ramifications for the rest of society, and people who extrapolate from their own situation to damn state education en masse. I worry that the false suggestion that all state schools are poor serves only to exacerbate the social divide, encouraging people who can afford to use private education to do so without really giving state schools a chance.

Chocolate- how do you define a "sink school"?

AmberTheCat

I agree that parents most often do what's best for their child. I have met a number of parents who were very vocal at the school gates or dinner table about their dislike of private schools on the open days for those schools making their excuses.

The wider implications of selective intake schools is worthy of research and debate, but that needs to include grammar schools, faith schools and other forms of selection (postcode lottery etc). Private schools get all the headlines as social "offenders".

My theory, for what it's worth (not very much), is that banning all forms of selection would change outcomes very little for social mobility as wealth and its benefits are inherited. A child's politics, prejudices and beliefs are also inherited and nurtured by parents. The billionaire/millionaire/wealthy parent's child will still get "unfair" advantages in life. The snobby, right wing parents child will still find it easier to be disconnected from wider society. There are elite classes in every country I can think of (Cuba, China, Korea, France, Germany, USA, Brazil) all with varied education systems.

The challenge should be to make the 93% of state education as good as the best. Chopping off 7% because it is "perceived" as better is not a solution.

I'm not saying it is, MarriedDad. I don't think banning private schools is possible, and it's probably not desirable either.

I do think that encouraging people to think about the consequences of their actions, and calling people out when they imply that all state schools are inferior, is both possible and desirable.