Private schools are not a choice

[daddiesrule]

Having read a few threads about private schools recently, I found an article on the DM which wound me up massively. It stated that sending your DC to private school was a choice; am I the only idiot who thinks this isn't true?

It's only a choice for those who can afford it - if your salary is not large enough to cover it, it is definitely not a choice. Why should children who have parents in low paid jobs not have the same access to education as those with parents who earn significantly more?

Secondly, the whole reason state schools are so poorly funded is because of private schools. If all MPs and political donors were forced to use the state sector, I reckon funding for education would increase over night.

It seems unreasonable to justify having a poorly funded education system because some affluent parents have to option to pay to avoid it. This is the opposite of social mobility.

jones

Thank you I'm limited to call centre/ entry level work and I see a lot of what you describe. This is my community, and they are the salt of the earth, but it's how they describe themselves and how I've described myself. I certainly don't think I'm beneath anyone else because I didn't get a good education, and a career I wanted to keep.
I'm educated but much later on in life, so glad my dd has the opportunities to follow her dream. It annoys me that programmes aren't offered for STEM subjects as these are important.

”What influence does the habits of these Public School parasites and imbeciles have outside of Chelsea Monaco or come to think of it the remaining 99.99% of the worlds global population?”
jonesmachine you are unintentionally I’m assuming making yourself look very ignorant about global economics and the power and influence the 0.1% have globally you should care about these people they are the ones around the globe influencing political decisions whether it be how much we pay in taxes which then influences how a government spend on education the buying of and selling of weapons what wars we fight and for how king which will influence how much money we spend on education, oil and whether on not we go to war over it which will influence how much we spend on weapons and war etc etc, current policies on long global warming and much more and of course most importantly they massive impact on the global economy as clearly demonstrated in the film The Big Short. To quote the immortal phrase “It’s the economy stupid”. So we underestimate these “parasites” at our peril.
The OP in his original post said that he felt these people were influencing political decisions about education in the UK because they don’t sent their children to state schools.

What is wrong with working in a call centre? Why is that to be sneered at? No honest work should be held in contempt. Besides which call centre work is bloody difficult in lots of ways.

The thing that annoys people about this ‘choice’ idea is the suggestion that if they had made different choices, their children could have had a different or better education, so implicitly within this is some kind of criticism of their so-called choices.

For some people, private education might be an option and therefore a choice. Some people could choose to live in a smaller house or take less holidays or replace their car less frequently and for them, their choices could make fees a possibility or option. These are people who are already well off in the wider scheme of things and for whom fees are a marginal decision. Implied in the idea that they have a choice is the suggestion that to choose state school and have a bigger house or holidays or pensions or whatever instead of paying fees, is somehow to value education less than those who ‘sacrifice’ for fees. This annoys people. Often it’s an entirely rational and sensible choice. People forget that lots have good state options which deliver as good as or better outcomes than lots of independent schools. Children from state schools often do fantastically well in education and their working lives at all stages. To not choose to pay fees if you could is not to sell your child short.

Often those who do pay feel the need to justify it to other parents and this grates in terms of reasoning. People say ‘we chose to make sacrifices to pay for educatipn’ (Heard criticism ‘you didn’t make sacrifices for your child’) or they say ‘what is there better than education to spend your money on’ (heard criticism ‘you spent your money on less worthwhile stuff) or they say ‘we chose X school because it was right for little Jonny’ (heard criticism ‘little Jonny is special and needs/deserves the best but inferior alternative suits/is good enough for your child’)

But for most, some adjustments to housing or holidays etc still won’t generate an extra spare £14k+ per year. So there is no option and therefore no choice.

Education is such an emotive subject. Regardless of whether people can afford to have a private option or not, people don’t like the idea some kids have access to more options than theirs. They want their child to have all opportunities and knowing someone else is having something yours don’t, especially if it’s never going to be an option is upsetting. It’s especially upsetting to those who really value education and perhaps is the issue which makes financial differences feel most unfair. Most can accept differences in income and wealth and not be too bothered that others have bigger houses or better holidays without being too worried, but their kids are their pride and joy and they fiercely want the best for their education and so feel differences in opportunity really strongly.

If you pay fees, say as little as poss about the school and your reasons as poss. Try to not make comparisons, and if you have to say something just give a general sense of something you’re pleased about which isn’t comparative. Don’t say you made a choice or imply everyone has a choice and be aware that even if your family work hard and even if you have made sacrifices, you are very fortunate and don’t deserve your good fortune more than others - there will be lots who work harder, who make or could make more sacrifices and still never have an option of independent school. There is no need to apologise for your good fortune but there is a need to acknowledge it, rather than saying or implying your outcomes are down to choice, as if everyone had the same options but simply chose differently or perhaps less wisely.

There should always be alternatives, imo.

Romany apparently there’s a UN ruling which says alternative schooling to government run schools must be allowed. However I have no idea how to find and link this ruling and also I don’t know whether the UN could enforce it.
I’ve heard Finland has banned private schooling so I’m. It sure if they allow any alternatives.

Wonderful summary Wombat.

It annoys me that programmes aren't offered for STEM subjects as these are important.

Do you mean funding for some children to go to private schools to study STEM subjects? Is so, why?
Several of my son's friends are at top universities studying STEM subjects after achieving excellent A levels at their state comprehensive school, how would them going to private school (funded by the government) have made a difference?

Yes, I do mean funding.
because just as schools can't cope with gifted musicians and dancers, many in fact most can't cope with gifted mathematicians or scientists.
It wouldn't have to be a private school but definitely funding.
Perhaps more links and activities with Universities, I know some areas already do this, it's not widespread enough though.

"I meant if they can afford private they are likely to afford a governess rather than go state."

Governess?

Reader , I laughed at this post

Private school is only a choice for a small amount of the population. But a small amount of tuition is probably in the reach of most parents. It might be an option to consider for maths and English gcse or the subject the kid would like to do at uni. Though understandably it can be hard to judge quality.

Private schools are not the reason for poorly performing state schools. If politicians had to send their kids to state school they would pick an area with outstanding state schools or pay for tuition for their child. If anything, it would push out poorer pupils from the outstanding state schools which are better than many private schools.

Schools only play a part in education. Family environment/resources (including time and parental teaching skill and emphasis on education) probably have a bigger role. Parents who can read to their kids when young probably benefit them a lot. But hard for the people who find reading difficult or who work multiple jobs/night shifts. There is some choice in work but poorer people have less choice.

Clearly, if you work 40 hours in a NMW job, then even the most modest fee-paying school is unlikely to be an option (unless you have grandparents who can pay) because your wage/salary is going to be spent on essentials: a roof over your heads, food and utilities.

The middle-ground is where those are covered, with a few thousand left over, which could be spent on stuff, or holidays, or moving to an area with great state schools. It's a choice, and not universally available.

But the global elite are still going to want something like a public school education. If it's prohibited because such schools are closed down, they will find it in the US, Australia or elsewhere. Or employ governesses and tutors.

I too didn't see what was funny about rich people using a governess.
If the public schools were to close I'm sure those that want a traditional English education would pay for a governess.
it's already costing them around 42k per annum.
If I had that money and no private schools, it's what I would do.

I suppose you could ban home education too (doesn’t Germany have a ban on home education?), but then the mega rich could still send children to foreign boarding schools if they were determined to avoid state education.

Romany yes I think that is what happen. Families living nearby would get together and share governesses and tutors.
I believe in the 1970s when there was a genuine threat to private education from the left wing government, some public schools bought land abroad with a view to setting up shop there should they be abolished in UK.
Whether they still own this land I don’t know.

dapple

That's very interesting, I had no idea.
Tbh, it's something I never bothered about as I thought it would be the last thing we'd be looking at.

If they banned H.ed as well that would be terrible.
I'm so glad this is all speculation and hope that nothing drastic happens in education before dd leaves in 2022.

I’m not sure the global elite of teenagers would want them educated by governess,and traditionally governesses educated younger children. The global elite are buying into the whole package when they opt to send their DC’s to the countries top public schools, the name the cache the facilities the extra curricular stuff the house system boarding itself even the uniform and lots more. I am aware that super tutors are used by some global elite parents but usually only short term often coaching for entrance exams/scholarships into top public schooled etc.

HG

Hello my love, was talking about you on another thread the other day (all good)

In our imaginary world where private schools are no more, perhaps even H.ed as well. Which countries would parents look towards mainly? Would it be America?

The North America obviously but increasingly I suspect south east Asia maybe S'pore or maybe even parts of Europe ?Switzerland, maybe more preferable for UK parents especially those who like attend social function thing (wince). But then on the other many UK parents who already stumping up £40k in school are increasingly looking at N. America for universities.
I don't believe in banning things just because some don't like them.
Luckily my DS's are at university but if DS2' school had to move abroad I guess we would have sent him to where ever it moved too. .

The US has good private schools, think Andover, Philips, Choate, Groton to name just a few and the American elite automatically enroll their sons in those schools. By and large, I think posh Americans choose English public schools (second tier public schools) when the child isn't sufficiently academically high flying enough to get in. Geelong in Australia is not that different.

If you have generations of family wealth, a solid income, and social status to maintain, then paying fees for an overseas public school to maintain the family cachet, deliver (hopefully) manners, accent and sport/social skills that won't displease at the country club, the intellectual shortcomings of school and child become irrelevant. The global elite is global.

DS completed sixth-form at a very ordinary private school where students were one third athletes on demanding training regimes, one third Chinese learning maths/physics in English, and one-third home grown DC of the local professionals. The local kids were the ones who did sports and music and drama as well as the study. They made the school look decent/interesting/rounded, not the athletes or the overseas students. But the UK parents are being priced out, which makes specialists and expat students ever more valuable to the school. Not sure there is a good solution to this conundrum.

But the UK parents are being priced out, which makes specialists and expat students ever more valuable to the school

If there are no UK children at the school as they are all priced out then it won’t really be a British school but more of an international school.

If private schools in America or anywhere else abroad opened satellite schools in the UK (as many UK private schools have done overseas) I don’t think there would be any demand to close or ban these. For some reason it’s the traditional British public schools which are objected too.
I’ve never heard demands that the French Lycees or American schools in London should be abolished.

If I may say so, there are a few sizeable chips on UK shoulders. The original question posed by the OP was:

Why should children who have parents in low paid jobs not have the same access to education as those with parents who earn significantly more?

The answer is the same as in S&B. If you can afford the beautiful fabric, expert cutting, detailed finishing techniques and are a size 8 and tall, then you too can look like this, but you can't get it in m&s or a supermarket on NMW. You buy fish fingers on a fish finger budget in education as in fashion.

“For some reason it’s the it’s the traditional public schools which are objected too.”
Because a tiny number are associated with an equal tiny number of the financial global elite, or those who are in positions of significant political influence (often financial global elite as well) or are MPs themselves. Their wealth often at the expense of others and their disproportional influence makes people angry and they assume that every child from these schools is the same but if they sat and thought about for 5 mins they’d realise that they’re not.
Harold Shipman went to a grammar school in Nottingham no one says all boys from this school are serial killers but if a couple of unscrupulous or totally ridiculous MPs (Yes Boris I mean you) emerge from certain school then people clamber to have it banned! The reality is that the vast majority emerge from thre big name public schools and go onto to lead normal lives.

dapple, there will be UK/local students at all of these schools, because they suit family dynamics. i was saying that the privately educated MC children are the DC who make those schools appeal to foreign students' parents, generally. They are the handful of students who do the DoE style challenges like, locally, Ten Tors and Devizes-Westminster. None of the overseas students show any interest whatsoever, any more than in drama. A tiny handful play instruments.

Xing what does S&B mean?

Style and beauty!