Debunking 3 Myths Underpinning The Private V. State School Debate

[Tabya876]

I am writing this contribution because I am passionate about education and believe that some parents may struggle with some of the issues I struggled with. Although titled as this is, it is only my perspective that underpins this posting.

Declaration: I have 2 children. A 6 year old girl at a high achieving and academically selective independent school and a 3 year old son that is about to attend a nationally recognised ad high-achieving state school.

Myth Number One
All Independent Schools Are "Better" Than The Local State School

Definitely not. My daughter attended a so-called prep school in Milton Keynes for a year and a half (starting at age 2) before we moved her to the local state nursery.

Our daughter started speaking clearly at a relatively early age and had a well developed interest in words and numbers by the time we relocated to Milton Keynes and the prep school. There were several areas of disappointment with the prep school but one of the worst was that she regressed significantly during her time there. Colours, shapes, numbers, etc. that she once knew became unfamiliar, and she started babbling like a baby very quickly.

We mentioned this to the school and they advised us that she was a bit advanced of where they like them to be at that age thus, they were trying to hold her back. Hmmmmn!

When at the local state school she did not progress but at least she did not regress. She was also given many opportunities to challenge herself by demonstrating desired behaviour as well as how to do basic math and English

Observations:
The prep school had been set up by a family that owned a building company with no prior or relevant experience. Their results were average and always had been. Paying for education does not guarantee better outcomes.

Myth Number Two

Children Of The Same Family Should Follow The Same Route (State or Independent)

It depends. The choice should in the main, be about the needs of the child and how a particular school can cater to the needs of that child. This should be irrespective of status.

Given the options close to us we felt that our daughter would benefit from a single sex education. Our son is, we believe, better suited to an academically challenging but co-ed school. There are no such independent schools that we like nearby. Thus, our daughter attends an independent school, and our son attends a state school.

Myth Number Three

Only Wealthy Parents Send Their Children To Independent Schools

The profile of our children's classmates parents are very similar. Mainly middle class or wealthy. Many are like ourselves, 'normal' :). My wife is a homemaker (never worked in UK) and I am a salesman working in the pharma industry. We are certainly not rich.

We forgo many things that others deem essential, in order to give our children opportunities that we never had. Many of the parents at my daughters school are in a similar situation.

Myth Number Four

Being "ahead" in one school means that your child is super bright.

Children all develop at different rates. I have heard so many refer to their children as 'super bright', 'way ahead', 'academic', etc. What does this actually mean? relative to what? In what context?

My daughter was performing well in most subjects at her state school but is now pretty average in her current school. We never labelled her in any of those ways. All of the children on here appear to be so exceptional academically that surely, no one can be.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

I'm fairly confident of that correlation but I'm happy to be shown some factual statistics to the contrary.

It shouldn't all be about "High attainment" but about "value add".

The intake at our school is 50% FSM, but the school does very well at "adding value" to the broad spectrum.

There is another primary school in the same catchment area that doesn't do so well at adding value to a similar demographic intake.

Whilst I think about it there are a number of private schools that don't really add much value to the already academically selected intake.

I think I'm talking about the quality of the schools and the teachers, but perhaps I wrongly focussed on high attainment rather than value add.

I should have finished by saying that many of the primary schools that add best value around here often have admission policies to keep out the non-believers and wrong-believers (jews, muslims, hindus, etc) ...... it's not all about money, it's often about God. If your poor, go to church.

it's not all about money, it's often about God. If you're poor, go to church.

What "faith requirements" do is discriminate in favour of those with settled addresses and the ability and inclination to plan ahead. The act of lying to a vicar in order to affect enough religion to go most Sundays for a couple of years is a proxy for caring about education, being up and about at 10am on Sundays and having a fixed address so you know which school's associated church you need to pretend to attend.

If a school simply had a system where you had to sign up twelve months in advance on a piece of paper in the foyer, it would have the same effect. Faith schools get settled, stable, engaged parents.

If I were the OP, I would maybe wait until I had a bit more experience before sharing my opinion. The children are still very young, and this is only the beginning of their journey through the education system.

Between them, my children have completed 34 years of full-time schooling (so far) and I don't consider myself as much of an expert as the OP seems to.

I think your underlying analysis about why faith schools attract certain types of motivated parents is a good one. It works well, if you happen to be the right flavour of faith.

I think motivated parents account for a huge amount of both academic and overall achievement.

I don't think your analysis will sooth the parents that pay taxes, live right across the road from that Christian primary school but travel 1 mile to the secular school.

In London I see a multi-cultural demographic where the exclusion based on faith is, in my opinion, a much bigger issue than economic or academic selection.

Thank you for that OP - I have had the scales lifted from my eyes, because those were precisely the Myths (with all relevant capitalization) that I was in thrall to.

Now I know that any salesman for a pharma company can send his children to private school, I understand that anybody who doesn't is just spending money on things they stupidly consider essential, and which a better person wouldn't.

But what do I know - I've only had a paltry 14 years of experience of sending children to school, compared with your impressive three.

TheFirstofHerName

34 years. Phew .... genuinely in awe. I guess that means 3 kids with maybe 1 out of uni now?

TOSN

The sarcasm just spilt into my tea from that post ....

Four children about to go into Y11, Y9, Y7 and Y7. Which is why I'm not an expert yet. I'm waiting to see how the next few years go first.

I've never heard of a child regressing to the point where they stop talking articulately and forget their shapes and colours.... Plateauing or not making as fast progress, yes; actually going backwards...?

FOUR!

I really should stop typing now (with my paltry two and 10 years schooling).

One Myth of Human Interaction Busted for You

When You Tell People What They Think And Why It's Wrong, They Will Be Grateful

Definitely not. Bear in mind that they might not think that anyway, and that your sense of something being 'wrong' is not the same thing as it being 'a myth' anyway.

Observations: Categorizing your OP into little sections the better to lay out your devastating case for the defense will, rather than dumbfounding your intended readership with the majesty of your logical argument, simply irritate. You may think from three years of experience that you know all there is to know, but, equally, you may be talking out of your arse. Your concept of what 'wealthy' means may also be somewhat relative, so maybe reign it in with your assertions that Private School Parents Are All Just Going Without "Essentials".

I think rather than debunking myths, OP's time would be better spent, going through all the archives of Private v State school threads on MN. There's a lot too earn .

I think it's a pretty good example of mansplaining actually. Man comes onto predominantly female forum to tell us "the truth". Not to discuss or to engage with the responses but to educate us.

I will write a relatively brief response to some of the responses and then withdraw as I don't enjoy being rude or entertaining rudeness.

The draft of this post was crafted as I was winding down last night. I had intended to finalise the draft and then post but it seem that the post was submitted as I sought to close my laptop. Never mind. It is out there now.

AmazonsForEver
I was, I believe quite clear on the motivation driving my post, "I am writing this contribution because I am passionate about education and believe that some parents may struggle with some of the issues I struggled with". I never declared that all parents would be interested in what I had to say. That is the case with all thoughts expressed by any individual.

I revealed the prevailing context. I have child in an academically selective independent school and a child that will be attending a well regarded state school. Given that there are many areas within the UK where academically selective independent and well regarded state schools co-exist, it is very likely that there are many parents that are contemplating or have contemplated their options in similar circumstances.

You have me at a loss as I have absolutely no idea what mansplaining is.

My daughter remained in the school for a range of reasons that were unique to our circumstances. She was also very young and had many friends there and one or two kind teachers. Additionally, as long as she remained unharmed and happy, there was little need/desire rush to remove her at that age.

SanityClause
I never claimed to be providing any data. Notwithstanding that, there are many forms of data; observers of all philosophical denominations accept anecdotal evidence as such.

You have more children and thus your personal experience is broader than mine. Fair enough. should those of us with few children than you be ignored because of that Why can I not have a voice or the right and opportunity to express my views? They were intended to be helpful to those for whom it was written. If you don't find it helpful yourself that is ok, isn't it?

I never sought or attempted to lecture anyone. Regarding nothing new. I was not trying to make an original contribution to the literature that exists on this topic. I, as mentioned, wrote this post because I am passionate about education and believe that some parents may struggle with some of the issues I struggled with.

My point about the affordability of independent schooling is that the choice on whether it is affordable is often subjective. Even if one could 'control' for the context, two colleagues of the same age, on the same income, outgoings, etc. would potentially make differing decisions about what was affordable.

Regarding the '4th Myth' I had intended to structure a proposition and elaborate before mistakenly posting.

sunshinerunner
Thank you. My daughter is really loving her school and friends. She often cries when the school breaks up for a holiday.

rougedad
Thank you for your constructive contribution.

RolyPolierThanThou
Thank you for your comments. I have no idea why my being a man became relevant and indeed, an issue.

BaffledMumToday
I agree with what you posted. Thank you.

BabyGanoush
I never suggested on any level that my opinion was fact. I mentioned that this post was based on my perspective and just my thoughts.

You say that you don't agree with my points. It is not clear whether you mean all of them. When I used the term normal, I meant as in regular. Further, I suggested that 'many' of the parents, not 'all' are regular in that school fees are paid for out of their salaries or hard earned savings. That they have to work to pay for the fees and keep their lives going.

My observation is that many of the parents at the academically selective independent schools I am acquainted or familiar with, are not wealthy (by most definitions) but are hardworking individuals making life choices that make it possible to send a child to a great school that they choose to pay for. And by the way if they are wealthy, so what. It has no bearing on the particular point that I was making.

MN164
Thank you so much for your helpful and constructive comments.

GiddyOnZackHunt
I never sought to specifically tell anyone that I am a man. I mentioned that I had a wife that has not worked in the UK, in passing in an effort to provide context around our economic profile.

You say that I used firm statements rather than equivocal phrases and neither invited debate nor came back to join in a debate. I am not sure what to say about the first part of what you said but with regard to the coming back to joining the debate, it does not feel like a debate. I never even set out to have a debate. I was only sharing my thoughts on things I have either had discussions on or heard discussed in an effort to help people who have struggled with the same choices I did

Baffledmumtoday
Thank you but I never tried to suggest that 'all' independent school parents are average. I meant to say that many are normal as I see it in that they are working hard and making sacrifices to send their children to these schools. I know a couple where one works in school admin and the other is a teacher. They send their child to an independent school and make huge sacrifices to do so.

wheresthebeach
Thank you. I was not intending to be patronising at all. I really mean that. Life is ultimately about choice. That one chooses education of their child over the choices another makes does not make one a better or worse person. I like cars but drive a very small and cheap car as I would rather use the money on enriching the lives of my children. That is just my personal choice. The car I have now costs me £200 less each month than the one I had previously, that represents 1/4 of my daughter's monthly school fees. The point is that yes, I can still 'afford' to do that but others in the same circumstance may decide that they do not want to or cannot afford to send their child to an independent school which is fine. That I do it, does not mean that I am rich. I have many friends that say they cannot afford private education even though they earn far more than me and have greater disposable income.

I am somewhat confused by this statement:

The profile of our children's classmates parents are very similar. Mainly middle class or wealthy. Many are like ourselves, 'normal'.

So which is it? And which category do you fit into? Someone mc would never use the word 'pharma'. But you say you're not wealthy. So what are you? And did you actually mean that the profile of parents at your son's school is broadly similar to that at your daughter's?

Why were you ever taken in by these --nonexistent- myths?

Well that was a x-post and a half!

It still remains the fact that 93% of the UK population cannot afford private education. The profile of parents is not the norm. There are millions of hardworking individuals in this country, earning less than £20k p.a. before tax, indeed some earning less than half of that. People are not choosing where to spend their income, housing, full, food are all essentials, many people have nothing left at the end of the month.
You blithely state your friends have more disposable income than you do, but you do not know whether they support their parents financially, or siblings perhaps. Also, if the state choices are so excellent in your area, why would they spend their money on education when an excellent free education is on offer?

I say this as someone that has children in extremely sought-after selective independent schools.

Btw, staff in independent schools usually pay about 10% of fees, so not quite such a sacrifice as you're obviously making.

I am very interested to hear about why your daughter would benefit from a single-sex education from age 5 though.

AmazonsForEver
Both. I have said the parental profiles are similar. I.e. the parents at my daughter's school are similar in profile and breadth of profile to those at my son's school. I am making no inference from that.

Someone mc would never use the word pharma? I am not sure if that would matter, even if true. It is however, a very profound statement based upon what industry insight? Please see the link to pharmatimes www.pharmatimes.com/ which is subscribed to by many of the industry leaders, some of whom could be construed as being mc and use the term pharma

I never said that I was taken in by those myths? However, will you accept that these myths prevail in some quarters?

Will we accept that such myths prevail? Yes of course. There are thousands of threads on MN about this very issue. We did not need you to kindly point that out to us. You see despite being women, we already knew, so when a new poster pops up and states the blindingly obvious, it feels like we're being patronised somewhat. That's what most replies are pissed at. You should have done your research more carefully before you posted.

And myth number five - as an adult your daughter won't resent one bit the money you spent on your son's education but not hers. Oh wait.....

Ah titchy, she will probably resent how many times she's reminded of the sacrifices her father made for her education...

titchy
Why does this have to be about me being a man talking to women. That is not what I intended, so it would be nice if the spirit of what I said was discussed politely and constructively rather than things I did not actually say or imply.

Why should something you believe you have seen before from a complete stranger who has stated clearly his reason for writing, be patronising to you?

There is very little in the way of completely new, in the way you seem to imply. Newness is in my view, mainly derived from factors such as the influence of context, observer, philosophical standpoint, reader receptiveness, etc. I was intending to share my thoughts with people that maybe mulled over the same things as me. The private messages reveal that I hit the mark with several people who are totally shocked at the response I have received.

There is also nothing in the site rules that says I cannot post on anything just because I am a man or because the subject matter has been touched on in any way before. If the latter rule applied there would be little on the forum. I does appear that my being a man is a major issue here. This is driving a lot of comment about what it is thought that I meant, rather than what I actually said.

Anyway, it is clear that my continuing to respond is only stoking the fire so I will withdraw from further discussion. I am happy to speak politely via private message to those that want to do so.

Thank you to those that agreed with some of what I said as well as those that disagreed but did so kindly.

No problem you being a man at all! (A previous poster defined mansplaining by the way.) But if you post the blindingly obvious and then say you don't want debate it does come across as patronising.