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.

Sorry - scratch that, apparently it's white working class girls who're at the bottom of the heap.....

"The problem of white “working class” underachievement is not specific to boys; while girls generally do better than boys poor, white, British girls are the lowest performing major ethnic group.

Just 32% of poor white British children achieve five good GCSEs including English and mathematics, compared with 42% of black Caribbean children eligible for free school meals and 61% of disadvantaged Indian children."

sosorry that's very interesting.
I visit a lot of state schools and some of the London ones, in traditionally challenging areas are excellent.

One thing I've notice is that they are very open to suggestions for improvement. Not defensive and defeatist.

I've managed to build such good relations with them that we've seen record numbers of applicants from them to the most selective universities.

I accept that family back ground is a significant issue but surely good teachers/heads should be able to partly over come this. This is not an excuse for poor educational outcomes.
In my honest experience many teachers are unimaginative buck passers, they have a one size fits all approach and if this doesn't work they simply pass the blame for poor achievement onto either your child (with his SEN) or onto the parents.
In my profession and and in no other profession I'm involved with this is allowed to happen, when we fail to meet the required standards (which we frequently do) we are always asked where we went wrong, not what was wrong with the child/home life.
Bit of a rant sorry.

Hak, re the comments about the musical instrument.....you are right, that the school are prepared and able to find a bassoon teacher BECAUSE the money is there to do it. The money or fees is what ALLOWS the school to have a 'can do' attitude which allows pupils to pursue their interests.
And the Poster who talked about attitudes of schools and paying for attititudes was saying exactly that. They pay because then the school is able to show an attitude of willingness and ability to find a bassoon teacher.
Attitudes to education and money are not separate things. The two are inextricably linked in this case. Of course the money enables the school to find the bassoon teacher, whereas the state school which lacks 3 people wanting to play an instrument does not have the money to have the 'can do' attitude. That attitude towards education costs. And that is what people are prepared to pay for.
So it's not a criticism of the state school which simply lacks the resources to meet the wishes of the bassoon player, but a RECOGNITION of the difference.

If schools have tens of thousands per head more to spend, of course they can provide a different experience. The classes can be smaller, the facilities more flashy and the activities more wide ranging and extensive. If you don't value these things, then that is fine, but lots of people think they are worth the money, partly I. Terms of results, but partly in terms of whole educational experience.
The difference in what is provided, because of the money per head available, is of course what makes the situation unfair, despite the fact that some people claim that a good state school provides exactly the same.

, i

Happy - sorry, but you are paying a colossal amount of money to have more plays, concerts and speakers on tap for your child than any human being needs to turn them into a thoughtful, well rounded individual. Maybe "facilities" is the wrong word, but it's all part of the same philosophy, imo - that, apparently, there is no such concept as "too much of a good thing." I just feel personally uncomfortable with the notion that, rather than making the most out of the things that are offered to everyone (and in a society as rich as ours, what is offered to everyone ought to be enough to enable you to grow up into a thoughtful, well rounded individual), you are taking far more than is offered to anyone else and still having an awful lot left over that you never get round to. I know it's bizarre, but I think most people have their own internal idea of how much difference they are comfortable to perceive between the lives of the richest and the lives of the poorest and I feel very uncomfortable at the moment with the stark differences. Yes, there is nothing better to spend your money on, and some parents diminish their own lives considerably to offer their children what I would perceive as being a bit too much, but it all makes me feel deeply uncomfortable, so as I've said, I could never take part in it without feeling a high degree of guilt about it. It really is quite irritating to feel like that, but there you go. I have to live with it and it's annoying. That's why, despite the amazing education the most expensive schools provide, I feel uncomfortable about their existence.

Skylark - alas, it would be a colossally long journey to find a private school to send our children to that did not have fantastic facilities in comparison to the local state schools. They all have excellent sports facilities, computer suites, music provision, facilities for art, small class sizes, etc. So, I'm afraid, if I did feel compelled to jump ship into the private sector, I would be paying for my children to have what I perceive to be a bit more than is seemly.

rabbitstew - I am curious about your censorious position on experience. Many of us live in a world of plenty in which we have the luxury of many choices and we need to learn to manage that choice. Giving children many more opportunities to choose between than they can possibly manage to take up is surely excellent practice for life itself?

rabbit I think you point of view is interesting and yes I'm very conscious that my DS receives so much more than the vast majority especially of course in the developing world. But at the end of the day it's my money, I could have channelled it into a larger house (we live in an average cottage) in that drop dead gorgeous famous town up the road with matching house prices but you can only live in one room at a time and do I really want to live in a pickled in aspic tourist goldfish bowl? Friends with huge piles moan endlessly about them they can't even change a light bulb with out getting the gardener in with a 35 foot ladder or we could have expensive holidays or a second home or designer clothes or a whole host of other things but my choice was education. For me personally when I listen to him talking or texting/emailing me about what he's seen it done at school, when I hear the enthusiasm and passion in his voice or listen to him talking about things which previously haven't interest him or I watch the enormous camaraderie that exists between the boys and the unique relationships between the dons and the boys, the boys and their HMs then (again for me) it's worth every penny. If you have the money it's all about what you personally choose to spend it on.

rabbit I must admit that I do sometimes feel uncomfortable with the absurd level of advantage with which my children live. Coming from where I do, it's a low level survivor's guilt.

I recall being gob smacked at their prep school and the children in it.

But I suppose we always come back to the same thing; what would be achieved by my not using my wealth on their education? Would that really change the lives of others? On a macro level? Let's be honest, if private school were outlawed tomorrow, I'd be getting them at the place at the very best state school I could find, wouldn't I?

Also, I'll be frank, I find another type of privilege almost more shocking; the best universities. I'm constantly reminded of the sheer advantage these places bestow on a small minority. The sort of advantage that can last a life time, that opens so many doors.

Of course banning independent ed wouldn't change the lives of others significantly. If we take the top four boys school SPS Westminster Eton Winchester and the ones that people are really talking about when words like "buying privilege", the "current government" etc. are mentioned, not St Elsewhere a small non selective independent in darkest Croydon. Then we're only at maximum talking about just over 3000 pupils of those at least 10% will not be from UK so about 2700, those boarding at least 50% will come from a wide variety of areas so returning them to their local schools won't make a scrap of difference in the grand scheme of the thing. Also the vast majority of parents would not then channel their spare cash into charitable institutions that improve education they'll buy another car, holiday, fourth home etc.

"I accept that family back ground is a significant issue but surely good teachers/heads should be able to partly over come this."

Errr, no.

How?

They have a huge workload and maybe 25+ children in each class.

I was talking to ds's teacher the other day (ds is 11) who was telling me how knowledgeable and bright DS is. And I thought, yes, it's because I sit and watch the news with him and talk about it. We read newspapers together, watch documentaries on tv and talk about them. We have hundreds of books at home, and he reads encyclopaedias in bed every night. I have read fiction to him almost every night for the past 11 years. We pay about £250 a month for his music lessons. I sit with him twice a day for 20 minutes at a time to supervise his practice. I sit with him and help him with his maths and English - I am retaking my maths GCSE so I can keep up with him (I only got a C first time around), and I'm an English literature graduate.

How can a teacher even begin to make up for the fact that there are maybe half a dozen children in each class in some schools who have no books at home? Whose parents never read with them? Who have never had a chance to learn an instrument? Never had a detailed conversation about current affairs?

Teachers have to teach the classes and subjects that they are allocated, and they have to mark the work the children do. There is an expectation that children are also learning at home and if this isn't happening then there is simply no way teachers can compensate for this - they don't have the time or the resources and it's unreasonable to expect them to do this.

"Of course banning independent ed wouldn't change the lives of others significantly."

I couldn't agree less.

If those public school educated children end up controlling the futures of the rest of us, and large swathes of industry, then it's a damn shame that they haven't had any experience of the real world.

Our current government is the best example I can think of, of how a lack of knowledge of and day to day contact with ordinary people, leads to fuck-wittedness on an epic scale.

They have a huge work load so do I, I am entirely responsible for at least 150+ children at any one time with a whole variety of diffent and often very complex needs and requirements but if anything is not up to expected standard laid down by the government, my employer and my professional body it's my fault not their home background.
I'm sorry teachers shouldn't be passing the buck all the rest of us working with children who are as equally over worked and not receiving 14 + weeks holiday a year are not allowed too.

I work part time in the public sector part time in the independent sector. Money does not cushion you from dysfunctional families, I know of quite a few children whos parents for a variety of reasons have significant issues that would effect their children's educational outcomes, including those on 100% bursaries. I usually stunned by the effort many independent schools will go too to help, most see it as their duty and responsibility to make up for any issues at home and go that extra mile.

sorryforher I'm sorry to disappoint you but my DS has regular contact with "ordinary people" as much as my DS1 does in his nice state 6th form college in our wealthy white MC community.

I'm not actually sure what "ordinary people are? Maybe I've swallowed too much work propaganda despite my best effort not to become a corporate clone spieling some unintelligible jargon (state sector not independent) but we're constantly being told no one is ordinary!

I haven't said independent education should be banned, though, have I? Nor have I said that not sending my 2 children to a private school will make any difference to the local state school kids. Nor have I said that spending my money on an enormous house would be less guilt-inducing.

As for experience - I think experiences are great. I just happen to think that you can have too much of a good thing. Travelling on a shoestring is a completely different experience from travelling in luxury; learning to make the most out of limited resources is a completely different experience from having world class speakers and orchestras offered to you on a plate. You are NOT experiencing everything possible by going to an English public school, you are selecting only "the best" of what you like. Obviously, if you chose, you could "slum it" in the holidays, or course.

It's a toss up, really, isn't it, between living the life you think is "right" and accepting that society is not the way you would like it to be, but you have to live in it and accept its norms. I just sometimes wonder if a few more wealthy people felt at least a modicum of guilt, there might not be a bit more done about the growing inequalities in our society. To my mind, if I chose to jump ship and educate my children privately, I would be tacitly admitting to myself that society is not as civilised as I would like it to be, but I'm not willing to sacrifice my children to live life in the way I think it ought to be lived, so have to make the choice between them having too little, or having too much, because this society no longer has what I would view to be a "happy medium." In other words, if I choose private education, it's because I'm feeling a bit pessimistic about the way this country's going, but if it's going that way, I don't want my children to be the ones trampled on!

And by living the life you think is "right," I mean the life you think is right for YOU, not the life everyone should live. It's just that other peoples' choices affect whether or not it is possible for you to live life in the way you would like...

"but my DS has regular contact with "ordinary people"

Where does he meet these people?

Your child clearly attends a top public school and rarely has time to draw breath in between attending lectures by world class speakers, going to the opera, theatre, taking part in competitive sports at a high level maybe?

Where does he meet these 'ordinary people'? Through the hatch at the canteen at school?

Interesting post rabbit.

Of course none of us can experience everything can we? I don't suppose you experienced what I did as a child. I don't suppose many on MN did. Frankly, I can't recommend it .

Though of course, my childhood was a veritable cornucopia of plenty compared to some poor orphaned child in Liberia this morning .

As for the country (world?) as it is, I must admit to feeling less and less optimistic. I am a complete Pollyanna about so many things, but social mobility is an issue about which I am utterly realistic.

Like many people, I bought into the idea of education x3. I trully believed it. But as we can see, the changes in policy, the record amount of money spent, came to little.

In fact, the country has polarised. The middle is evaporating. So we all do what we can to help our DC. We try to get them into the best schools we can. We advantage them with travel and books and discussions. We spend as much time with them as we can. We help them with their university applications. We help pay for them to go to university. We help support them through professional exams/internships/low paid starting salaries.

None of these things are available to every child.

I sincelely doubt that if the very wealthy felt a "modicum of guilt" it would have any impact on the rest of society. You don't get to be mega wealthy without trampling in quite a few people on the way.
rabbit have I ever said you experience everything possible by going to an independent school? You often have different experiences that all, I like those different experiences. Who said we don't travel on a shoe string? Not me. My DS2 is perfectly aware that he had a lot effortlessly handed to him on a plate. But I'm also very aware that many children including those from wealthy backgrounds don't have half the things effortlessly handed to them by either their school or parents. That's fine if they're all happy with this but Im not. Secondly for my DS to learn to make the best out of our available recourses requires extensive input from me/DH as he has no access to any public transport. So for example our nearest city (very well know lots of opportunities) is over 25 miles away and we have no transport links the only way to get there is for me to drive him. I lack the time to do this on a regular basis, as I've also said before ditto his chosen sport a 60+ round trip twice a week no public transport, so not only would I have to drive him there after work it takes an hour plus in the shittiest of traffic to get there and I have to sit for 2 hours in a cold gym. To attend the club that really specialises I his sport a 120 mile round trip. You might have the time and inclination to do this week in week out but I don't so I pay. It doesn't matter how resourceful he might be within significant input from his parents these opportunities are shut off to him.
For those lucky (or not) to live in London or close to it then life is very different a resourceful child can access in their own many opportunities.

lol at the idea, so often promoted on here that children in indies have no contact with the 'real world'. (Whose definition of the 'real world' btw - doubt there are many on here who consciously decide to live in a high rise flat on a 'problem' estate if they can afford to live elsewhere. Has anyone done that, to give the grateful inhabitants of that 'real world' the benefit of your middle class superiority - using the same 'logic' you apply to everyone else's DC's education??) My DC are at one of the 4 schools mentioned and they have a life outside school with children of many schools of all types and none ( Home Ed).
They go to school ion the same way we adults go to work - who on here has chosen to associate only with work colleagues and have no life or friends outside work ?
With the internet even the poorest person can have a better education than richest just a few years ago - it all there at the click of a mouse.
And there has never been a time when it there has been more info on how to get into a 'top' university. (Although shouldn't those on here who say elitism is bad be insisting their DC got to the worst unis, so as to 'improve their standards?' - Same 'logic' as used for schooling.

sorryforher he is at home about 19 weeks a year, his brother attends a state school, his friends frequently come here, he mixes with people from different backgrounds and of all ages he's a temporary (holidays only) member of two sports clubs who have a wide cross section of members. His other chosen sport is not exactly known to be stuffed with oligarchs and millionaires either. Public transport aside we do not live in glorious splendid isolation. But we do live in a very wealthy white MC area but then if like my DS1 you attend our local state school your not exactly mixing with the underclasses. What would you like me do move to a poor area give up our jobs sell our house so that he can mix with more from deprived backgrounds how unreal is that?

I want to be the 999th poster should be driving to Waitrose in our lovely localish historic Roman town positively stuffed with old money and ageing colonels. Are we going to continue this slightly pointless debate?

Success 999th poster.