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.

DofE is a total irrelevance and I am not sure why anyone would raise that in the context of secondary or tertiary education.

Music is a whole different thing. One of the problems in state primary and secondary education is that music has been relegated. It is a ridiculous situation that children cannot be educated in music in the state system. For my DC for whom music means an incredible amount (DS piano and voice, DD piano and violin) their lives would have been much much worse without music. It does give you UCAS points but I don't think these much count in the overall context. Do we as a society only want music to be the province of privately educated kids? Is that what we want?

I think music, dance, drama and art are massively important and they are being strangled in the race for grades. All the countries I have listed which have better education than ours value a range of skills and do not over examine like we do.

Pupils who show the life skills that I have mentioned may not be showing academic skills but they are showing they can manage life. University and work can be challenging if you have never had to look after yourself and others as well.

The question is do we simply want a list of grades or well rounded pupils? Other countries value more skills and their education systems are better for it.

"I think music, dance, drama and art "

I see what you mean, BUT do consider that for some people having to spend time on those subjects to the detriment of academic subjects can hold them back. That was definitely the case for me. I then worked on the continent with colleagues who all had a good grounding in academic subjects and their schools often didn't do music and drama at all.

There does seem to be a strange sort of "money blindness" that goes on when talking about private schools. Of course they have more music and sport-because parents pay for them. They are included in the fees. It is exactly the same as a child going to state school and their parents paying for music lessons at 4.00 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It is crap that many children can't have lessons because parents can't afford them, but it does not make private schools better, it just means they are richer.

BertrandRussell - surely having the money to pay for teachers and facilities that other schools don’t have is an essential part of “better”?

I pay for my DC to study piano/drawing/film making/languages above and beyond the national curriculum. They are therefore better educated than DC without those opportunities.

"I pay for my DC to study piano/drawing/film making/languages above and beyond the national curriculum. They are therefore better educated than DC without those opportunities."

Bit of a sweeping statement. I had piano lessons for years. I was terrible and should have quite while I was ahead. It never made me 'better educated' any more than going to football on a Saturday would have done. It can be good to have a wide range of activities, but that's it.

Obviously if you really crap at the activities you pursue (whether at school or without) you won’t be educated at all.

My comprehensive school began a group to do Duke of Edinburgh awards when I was in Year 10. There was a part-time youth worker and he led the expedition, with a couple of teachers volunteering too. It was a great experience. However, the other elements of the programme weren’t really supported, so I had to arrange the community service, skills aspect and make sure that I met all the criteria. I chased up people to get my book signed and eventually sent it off to get my award.

All the extra work I did to get my award meant that I was the only person in the group (8 - 10) to get it.

Then I was invited to the local presentation ceremony. I went on my own, with my mum. Only to discover that there were literally busloads of pupils there from local boarding schools. I was the only state school pupil there!

I then, with a bit of inside information, realised that the girls at an exclusive local boarding school were simply ‘processed’ through DoE elements: Term 1 community service, Term 2 skills, Term 3 expedition and so on....everyone just did it.

My Bronze award had required a lot more from me, but would anyone know that? No.

Private schools and state schools get a bright to the same destination, but the experience along the way will have been quite different.

I agree, MaybeDoctor. My nephew/niece’s school processes pupils through DofE and large parts of it count towards their IB as well. It keeps them very busy and self-satisfied!

My son's school has a purpose built music school within the school grounds. There are 4 class music teaching rooms, 22 practice rooms used for individual lessons and private practice, and a 215-seat auditorium. So an awful lot more than just paying for violin lessons once a week.

And his school wasn't a specialist music school (there is one specialist music school in Scotland, also private)

"Obviously if you really crap at the activities you pursue (whether at school or without) you won’t be educated at all."

Well, I think you can still get something out of them if you enjoy them, maybe more in developing character than in being 'better educated' though.
The thing is if you're doing these as extra activities, it's quite different to putting pressure on state schools to have more of these subjects because what happens is that other subjects get pushed out of the way. I did music GCSE, something I think should never have been allowed to happen.

"It keeps them very busy and self-satisfied!"

You know self-satisfied isn't a good thing, yes?

Bertrand Private schools are better than state schools ! Accept that not having to pander to a destructive element enhances the experience for everybody else . Grammar schools can offer 50-60% of the same opportunities of private schools regarding music or DOE schemes etc.

"Bertrand Private schools are better than state schools ! "

Bit of a sweeping statement. They're definitely not a better way to mix with children of all backgrounds are they?

When I first went to uni I was bemused by fellow students frequently asking which school I'd been to.

I realised as certain cliques formed that it was a shorthand way of finding out who they wanted to be friendly with.

Private (actually more public) school pupils seeking private pupils. I think their poshdar was confused by me as I my extended family is aristocratic, but I was sent to a very ordinary school.

One ex Etonian son of a cabinet minister was horrified to find out I'd been to a comp. He actually said "I didn't know people like you were state schools." He was a nice guy but definitely lived in a bubble, which wasn't his fault.

It was definite prejudice.

My dcs are all at state comp, do music and are high achieving, I saw no reason to sent them private.

What I don’t get (and haven’t RTFT so sorry if this has already been covered) is if you’re against private schools on principle but concerned about your own child in a local school with poor Ofsted/results etc. Instead of investing your time and money into a private school, why not invest that into improving the local state school? Join the PTA or become a Governor. Give the thousands of pounds of money you’d spend on private education as a donation for lunchtime or after school music lessons. Fund a class day trip to a museum.

Surely if you’re genuinely interested in equality you wouldn’t mind elevating other children as well as your own.

Also, slightly off tangent I know, but do you really truly believe that Ofsted reports and GCSE results demonstrate how well a school is doing? GCSE results are better because they cream off the best performing students and/or those whose parents will arrange extra tuition if their DC are struggling. Ofsted is very much based on policies, paperwork and a tiny amount of classroom observation. Not necessarily the best indicator for a teacher who goes above and beyond.

For example, when looking at nurseries for DD, we initially visited one that was Ofsted “outstanding”. It had CCTV, reams of policies and protocols, organic cookies etc. The children all looked miserable.

Then we visited one that was “inadequate” because they didn’t have a written policy for child abduction - although the staff could all verbally say what they would do. The children were happy, having loads of fun, lots of outside space for them to explore, lots of cuddles.

We went with our gut, sent DD to the “inadequate” nursery and have never regretted it. The staff are incredibly caring, they might not fill in reams of paperwork but they make an effort to really understand and nurture every child. Something to bear in mind.

Ive. Are you related to the Marquis of Longleat ! I remember reading about how he sent his kids to the local comp .

I haven't read the most recent pages of messages but in case anyone is interested about which way I've decided to go following my OP.... we've decided on the state option.

*Letstalk
*
No, not related to Marquis L, we weren't even particularly rich, lived in a semi etc and even the people with titles in the family are the sort who haven't changed their bathroom or wellies since the war .

My dh is def not posh and is amused that he is now in Debretts.

I think a lot of people don’t have the time or the energy to change an entire school on their own!

It was definite prejudice.

Ivegot our neighbours' dc were persecuted at heir state school for being posh until they begged to be taken away.
It works both ways

Instead of investing your time and money into a private school, why not invest that into improving the local state school? Join the PTA or become a Governor. Give the thousands of pounds of money you’d spend on private education as a donation for lunchtime or after school music lessons. Fund a class day trip to a museum.

Honestly, people may engage in a lot of PC bullshit about wanting nice music lessons etc., but the real reason most people pay for private schools is because they think or hope it will give their children better exam results. There is little that PTAs can do about things like behavior issues in classrooms, poor teachers or dodgy curricula. And even if you could, it takes years and years to turn a failing school around.

Sorry if the facts are boring you but the Scandinavian and Finnish education systems are some of the best in the world.

No.

Finland was top in PISA for a few years shortly after 2000 (but has declined quite a lot since then). In the other big international assessment (TIMSS), it has always been a middling scorer, about the same as the UK and US.

As for the Scandinavian countries, Norway and Sweden both have poor educational outcomes-actually, pretty shockingly poor considering how much they spend on their education and how low their poverty levels are (countries like Sweden and Norway, which have low levels of child deprivation, ought to be able to get half-decent results without even tryingthe fact that they get below average results suggest there are some real problems going on). Denmark is unexceptional. No idea about Iceland.

Kokeshi123 it depends if you are looking at raw stats or 'education systems' I was talking about 'education systems' and not PISA.

Raw stats give you countries like Singapore and other similar countries. I have taught children from these countries and while they are very able at maths, are able to follow instructions excellently they are very weak in terms of team work, creative thinking and explanations and analytical work.

If you think education is simply results then the countries I quoted are top to average. If you are looking at wholistic education systems then they are the best in the world.

Depends how much you value happiness, student satisfaction and developing wider life skills. Oh also don't forget about educating everyone and not just the brightest.

Moussemoose which metric are you using for 'education systems'?