Can you be a leftie and use private schools? Are people prejudiced against the privately educated?

[SpoonsAndForks]

I've always been into equality of opportunity and on that basis, think that it's wrong that our country allows private schools.

But then my son's state primary went into special measures and I pulled him out and put him into private school. Now he's being offered a really great scholarship to stay on and I'm considering going private all the way. So I'd rather private schools didn't exist but now they do, yes I'd like my child to benefit from them.

I came across this book yesterday - www.amazon.co.uk/Posh-Boys-English-Schools-Britain/dp/1786073838/?tag=mumsnetforum-21 - the intro to the book sets out the 'public schoolboy' as the most horrible creature, misogynistic, egotistical, generally a posh hawhawhaw uncaring horror (usually a nasty MP). Yet the intro also sets out some interesting statistics about those in top jobs always being from private school (which makes me want to give my child that opportunity). But makes me sick at the thought of educating my child into a guffawing posh MP.

I'm keen to explore:

• whether you can sit politically to the left and square it with yourself if you use a private school
• whether children who go to private schools will experience judgement and prejudice against them
• whether children who go to private schools are all at risk of turning into posh uncaring brash misogynistic MP types.

The local comp is completely stuffed full of white people. The ethnic minority background of our local comp is 99% working class white.

Then you boast about your love of diversity in your private school. But you don't like diversity per se. Be honest, you like diverse people who also happen to be middle class . You wouldn't touch a "diverse" school in inner London with 50 barge poles, or heaven forfend an extremely diverse one in Peterborough full of Eastern Europeans. Or a school in Bradford. Diversity, indeed. Big pants full of big crap.

My local "white working class" school has excellent facilities and, actually, very small classes (as the school is not popular!).

"Be honest, you like diverse people who also happen to be middle class"

The local comp is completely stuffed full of white people. The ethnic minority background of our local comp is 99% working class white.

The posting is correct and is able to use 'irony. This ' because by using the term 'white,' it is not declared racist to suggest a cultural problem exists in a school dominated by a single culture ! In this case 99% white kids, many of which have no interest in acquiring 'Culture Capital' (that dreamed up word) through education.

In our case, DS was 1 of 3 black kids at the local school. So we didn’t have the luxury of discriminating by class.

Wanting better education for all is not a crime, it does not make you a hypocrite, it makes you an idealist.

True. But not wanting to send your child to the local high school because the pupils (and their parents) there are predominantly not PLU isn't idealism, it's snobbery. Telling others not to use selective education available, when you did just that isn't idealism, it's hypocrisy. It's easy to be an idealist if you expect others to do what's necessary to deliver the ideal while personally choosing to perpetuate the system.

I would call myself a socialist. But we don't live in a socialist society. So it is not always possible to act in line with your ideals because of the nature of society.

If I lived in, for example, one of the Scandinavian countries I would be able to be a better socialist. Or would the norms of the society simply suit me better?

I know how I would like education to work and be funded - that doesn't happen in the U.K. but I can work and campaign for that to change. While I am doing that the decisions I make are influenced by the society I live in not the society I want.

SNORT !!!!!!

The absolute oldest argument for hypocrisy in the book. "Society isn't quite right yet, so until it is I'll just have to do what's right for meeeee and myyyyy children."

You know damn well that society would never - could never - meet the ideals, which is extremely handy for the justifications of people like the pp.

So it is not always possible to act in line with your ideals because of the nature of society. That's not true at all, it's just an excuse. Don't you think most people want the best for their children. Guess what? It is possible to get that in the state system.

Classic example of "all people are equal but some are more equal than others" approach to life.

I'd actually wonder at a person who could afford to send their child to a good, private school but deliberately sent that a child to a bad state school so as to avoid being called a hypocrite.

They're your principles, not your children's.

I'd quite happily be a hypocrite if it meant my son got a good education.

Two of our children went to the local comp for a while. It was incredibly diverse on paper, but the reality was that ethnic (which were also socioeconomic) groups huddled together and barely communicated.

IrmaFayLear did you actually read the post you quoted from?

She didn't say that diversity for its own sake was what she sought: rather, she wanted a peer group who her children would fit in with, identify with, and where the school culture matches her values.

Yeah, I wanted my kids to mix with people like them. Educated, multicultural and working hard.

Sounds fair enough to me.

That refers to your post at 7:43 by the way.

We moved them to a private school that was less socioeconomically diverse and in which our DC were very obviously part of a religious minority. They made friends with anyone and everyone and the school fostered inclusion brilliantly.

IrmaFayLear I live in a selective area my children both went to the nearest state school and I did not engage with the selection process. I stuck by my values 100%. However, I realise that is easy for me to say because the schools are excellent.

You say You know damn well that society would never - could never - meet the ideals - well I gave an example of places where it is easier to stick to you principles ie the Scandinavian countries.

I got what I wanted from the state system and support it fully. I am am not prepared to jump on the hypocrisy bandwagon. It is very, very easy to criticise people on the left in the U.K. the conservative and capitalist nature of our society make it difficult.

If I was in the USA I would have private health care because of the nature of their system something I would not countenance in the U.K. my values would stay the same but the nature of the society would shift. If I lived in one of the Scandinavian countries I would happily pay the higher rates of tax.

But as I said earlier, isn't that a grammar school? If you want to separate those who are clever from those who are not? So what "socialists" are saying is that a free grammar school system is not ok, but paying to avoid thickos is fine. Incidentally many grammar schools are extremely multicultural. The school I attended 30 years ago is now probably 2/3 non-white.

I call foul on the plea for "multiculturalism" in a school, as that multiculturalism is only ok when it's the right kind of multiculturalism.

Inward eye roll when people have said to me, "Oh, St Hubert's is very diverse," when what they mean is that they can rub shoulders with a few approved Indian cardiologists etc.

The grammar schools near me may be 'ethnically' diverse but they are socially stifling.

The non grammar schools also reflect the catchment but at least there is some attempt at social diversity.

I actually don't care where people send their dcs to school. I don't care if they pay, coach for the 11+ or go to the nearest comp.

But just be honest! Don't be a hypocrite and say there was no choice. Or if all schools were equal then you'd send them to the state school (but there would always be thick pupils with unfavourable backgrounds there, so that wouldn't work). Or if they were multicultural (but they are!) or that if class sizes were small enough (plenty are!) or... or... or.

Just say, "I have enough money to advantage my dcs. Unfortunately I am a hypocrite in that regard but I have absolutely no excuse other than that that is what I want to spend my money on." The End.

I don't agree with private health care I believe it should be a social system of some form like in the U.K. or most European systems.

I live in the U.K. so that is fine. If I lived in the USA I would have to buy into a private system would I then I have to say "I have enough money to advantage my dcs. Unfortunately I am a hypocrite in that regard but I have absolutely no excuse other than that that is what I want to spend my money on"

I would still not support the system but the system is so different and unfair to what I want I would have to compromise. Would that make me a hypocrite or the system untenable?

I sent my child to a private primary school because he had ADHD and his state school (class of 30) had begun to see his energy as a negative.

He was in a class of 12 with a sport rich curriculum; it suited him perfectly.

He transitioned into a state high school (lots more sport than the state primary) without issue.

I gave my child what he needed to not perceive himself as ‘naughty’ (a word used by his teacher) because of his energy, and I make no apology.

Shockers describes a system that is failing her son. In a fair system, properly funded she would not be faced with this issue.

I suppose a question might be - would you be prepared to pay sufficient tax to properly fund the system? If you would rather pay tax to fund a fair system but live a system that isn't fair are you still a hypocrite?

Campaigning and working to change things for the better is brilliant. Telling others that they should do as you say, not as you do is hypocrisy.

You could give a billion pounds to every school, and still there would be pupils who were not academic, challenging, from poor backgrounds... or just pupils who were absolutely inoffensive in every way but just a bit blah. Or let's say in some future Utopia no one is poor: well, there would still be pupils with not very nice accents or who didn't really appreciate poetry or Triple Science.

I think private school "socialists" are fairly safe in their argument that they will use a state school when they meet their ideals, because those ideals can never, ever happen.

I’d pay more tax.

The state system doesn’t just discriminate against the differently able, it shoehorns all children into a ‘one size fits all’ arrangement, which isn’t fair on anyone.

I work in a PRU and I see how different strategies benefit individual children, but there just isn’t the funding for staff to facilitate that in mainstream. Often these children are sent on to private behavioural schools at an astronomic cost, whilst the state schools which couldn’t manage them get their funding cut further.

The lack of government forward thinking astounds me.

I can work and campaign for that to change.
Mousse how are you working and campaigning to abolish private education?