Private schools are a bloody great rip-off

[fillipo]

and I should know because I used to teach in one!! I'm an English teacher, taught for 8 years in 2 different independent schools and then took the plunge and got a promotion into the state sector in September. It's like a breath of fresh air! And I've moved into the 21st century! Can't understand why I took so long to take the plunge. The teaching staff are on the whole far more professional - they don't have the complacency that some of my former colleagues had. Lessons are vibrant and interesting, the pupils are well behaved and interested. And it's free!! Well paid for through taxes but you know what i mean. Now I fully expect I'll be shouted down by lots of people telling me i'm wrong, but I don't understand why anyone pays for a private education when the alternative seems just as good.

What's wrong with aspirations?

One of the biggest impact a teacher (any teacher in any sector) can have is to impart high expectations on their pupils. Being mediocre is cosy, but dishonest, imo.

As for fancy holidays, cars and houses - not here, I'm afraid. Our budget doesn't stretch - but we are very content.

You've got to laugh at a few of the replies to this thread. Some people can't help but blow their own trumpet. It is a shame they're so insecure.

• An intelligent person does not equal a better person.

• The middle class are not superior to the lower class.

• On the whole only people with money have this issue over the quality of private education, so in effect it is a put down to people who can't afford it.

I would just like to add that it is just as easy to get a postgrad place at oxbridge than it is at another uni. Oh no the secrets out!

Journey, the ethical dilemma is really only open to those who have the choice. Have we reached the stage where we can't even mention it?

Let me think! Aren't my statements ethical dilemmas?!

Yes, but pl at some time you chose to work in the NHS rather than being a banker, accountant, surgeon or whatever and at that stage you were making choices about how much money you would have which have an effect on your children's lives. Of course the one thing children need most is to be loved and respected for who they are but all parents rich and poor try to give them that. However if people can choose careers which give them an ability to give other things to their children then most choose to do that whether it's extra music lessons, nice clothes and holidays or parental time or private schools. Most mothers of all cultures now and in the past have always chosen even when food is short to put their children first. Mothers working to pay for private school fees etc are doing just the modern equivalent of that.

Private isn't always better of course but often is.

I was trying to see what was seen as objectionable. "snobbery about careers aspirations and priorities". I certainly want the children to speak well and be confident and fulfil their full potential. I think they get that confidence in spades in academic private schools. Expections are high when 99.9% of girls are getting A or A* or whatever at GCSE and a B is virtually a fail.

The snobbery about careers etc is interesting. Presumably every one has it to some extent. If my child chose a life as a monk or whatever I don't think I'd object but I'd want them to do something that worked from them as a person. However I want them to know the consequences of certain career choices so they make informed choices. I do think some careers are likely to be more fulfilling than others. Jobs with variety and intellectual challenge and an element of status are probably more fun than working on a factory production line. If my expressing that view is snobbery then so be it.

I think they're a total rip-off.

But then again, I've got odd values for a site like MN.

I work to better myself and my family. DH and I could easily afford to send our two children to private school but choose to send them to state schools. We holiday in Britain at Haven or Hoseason sites. We buy high street clothes and have one 5yo car. We do not fritter our money away on fripperies as is suggested by those who wear sackcloth and ashes as well as work two jobs to afford to privately educate their children.

I rather work part time and spend time with my children rather than working full time all the time and hardly seeing them. I can supplement the education of my children through spending time with them, talking with them, visiting museums, reading with them, playing sports like badminton or table tennis with them etc. That's why they will prosper. My immigrant parents did it for me and I prospered despite going to a comprehensive (degree & PhD) and so will my DC.

Spending time with your children is seriously underrated in this country.

I actually wish that people would stop talking about private schools and talk about INDEPENDANT schools.

That is whatI am paying for, being independant of the whims of the government of the time.

2 weeks ago I was in a lovely state primary school on a Saturday. (We hire the premises for work)

The head and her deputy was in. They had been working all week, after hours to try and complete some meaningless document some Whitehall bod had decreed they produce. Once that had finished there was more meaningless paper pushing to do.

This head is the most dedicated lady I have ever met, she looked absolutely wrecked and was clearly upset. You see, she wants to educate children, she said "this government has ruined education" I thought she would burst into tears, I honestly did. She felt that she was not able to run her school properly because of the stupid system, every term, some new initiative, till the next one.

I pay to keep my child away from this system. I would give up work and home educate if I thought it was best for her, but she thrives in school.

I'm a maverick, I freely admit it, I want independance from the system, I don't want elitism, inflated exam results or whatever.

I live in one of the top 20 (apparently) worst cities in the UK, work in the office of a plumbing company in the week and help to run a children's activity at weekends, my husband is a teacher. We are normal ordinary people, not snobs. I was afraid of being looked down on at school but have not come across this attitude at all. I used to not tell people where my children go to school for fear of being thought to be a snob, I used to vauguly say, oh a school in x town. Now I think stuff it and just say the name of the school.

that's a good post ios. it sad that you can only escape the system if you can pay for it.

It is sad, incredibly sad.

Yes, lots of reasons people choose private schools. We haven't chosen snobby schools at all. I wasn't after that. The form filling is ridiculous in the state system.

As for spending time with children I think that depends on the people. I love talking to mmy children and working full time has never prevented that. Indeed because I pay other people to do things like cleaning for me it means I get more not less time to talk to them. But I do think how children turn out is in part a question of their education. Those who get to university on average tend to do better in material terms anyway over their lives and ditto those at independent schools. So why not pay for that if you can afford it? It's no different from buying them books rather than sweets etc.

I am with ScaryScience almost entirely.

The only reason I work is to pay for my children's education.

The only difference is that although I enjoy my job, I don't think I enjoy my job quite as much as Scary does.

But I want my children to learn lots more than just academic subjects at school. And I am very aware that at home they are lucky enough to live in a privileged, middle class, comfortable bubble. So I don't want their school to be a similar bubble. Their school is a vibrant, dynamic place with a huge mix of social class and ability and quite a few very challenging children. It is the feeder school for a big housing estate, as well as for a more middle class commuter belt area. My children have learnt to be confident, self reliant people, they have learnt how to mix with a wide range of other people, they have not been sausage machined or spoon fed and they have a good understanding of the diverse culture we live in today. And dd managed excellent SATS results in year 6! If you want to spend money on private education that's your prerogative, but do it with your eyes open - children who live in a bubble have to come out of it sometime. You can't keep them away from the hoi polloi for ever!

Look, if I wanted to keep my children away from the hoi polloi forever, of course I could. It's just naive to suggest that I couldn't.

The suggestion that this was the motive behind the bottomless cashpit that is private education is nothing to do with avoiding your children. It's about educational opportunity, and a wide range of after-school activities and music and sports.

No need to be defensive about not sending your children to a private school. We should all respect one another's choices. Or in my case, lack of choice.

God bless you, IoS

and you too, 400

I'm not even remotely defensive about not sending my children to private school, if that remark was addressed to me!

And I suppose you could keep your children away from the hoi polloi for ever - straight from Cambridge into a merchant bank or the Guards, or (as in my case) straight from St Andrews into the fast track Civil Service. But if they are lucky, (again as in my case) they might discover that there's more to life.

I don't think anyone has said that, Seeker. It's a kind of 'mud sticks' statement.

Just because my DD goes to independent school doesn't mean she doesn't mix with children and people from outside of that school. Children only live in a bubble if the parents allow them to do so.

And having worked at a very good state secondary school - that idea of the bubble, etc. could very easily be applied to some state schools and esp to many grammar schools.

But let's face it - a private v independent education thread on Mn is never going to avoid prejudices and preconcieved ideas, on either side is it?

The point I was making is that absolutely no one that I know who pays money for education does so to insulate their children from the hoi polloi ...

What I find is that there is some surprising prejudice about private education, and I don't really know why this is.

There are a few incredibly posh boarding schools for the terribly naice but urretrievably dim. I suppose those must be about social exclusivity. But for the majority of the parents of children at private schools, social exclusivity is simply not the reason for paying for education. Not many people would want it.

'Children at private schools are educated beyond their true abilities and are unable to mix with the wider population as they are brought up with a completely unrealistic view of life'

'Children at state school do not achieve their potential, have to deal with continual disruption in lessons and will not be given the education they need to keep up with a top university degree program'

Why is it socially acceptable to say 1 and not the other?
I don't agree with either btw, but do get tired of continually defending my choice (state primary/ind sec) when those that extol the virtues of the state sec always finish with - 'well, you do have to be in the top 2 streams of course'

DD1 went to state primary, ind secondary. Didn't send her to state secondary because, although she is very able in humanities, she is considerably weaker in maths. Her 'excellent' graded state primary had left her nearly phobic in maths.

DD2 went to same state primary. After 4 years of bullying and academic results in bottom of the class (despite a cat score or 137) we moved her to ind primary. We now have a happy child who no longer says' I'd rather be dead'.

I pay to have a choice of which school to send my child to. I am lucky enough (and have worked extremely hard) to be able to afford it. There is no way I would have left my dd2 in that school to satisfy anyone's plitical sensibilities. In reality nowadays, very few people have the choice of where to send their child. To get this you have to pay.

have just scanned this thread but there is a private school near us where I think children ARE sent to avoid the hoi polloi. DS1 is at the local primary, which has just been graded Good by OFSTED, with Excellent for the pre-prep years (that's KS1 to the hoi polloi), but my neighbours tend to send their kids to a frightful private place, simply to avoid walking through a council estate on the way to school, in my view. I'm glad there are no snobs on this thread - plenty outside my front door.

I write as one prepared (and planning) to pay for a decent education at 7+.

A good two quotes to show the polarity of views. I am really quite sure how anyone can be educated beyond their true potential. The private schools and some good state schools bring that potential out very well. I know my daughter now mixing with state school children finds some of them don't seem to have the verbal skills to debate very well in university tutorials, don't seem to challenge a prevailing view. If anything she finds the state school ones crammed and force fed whereas her education at North London Collegiate was very broad and around the subject rather than limited to the syllabus.

We all form groups we mix in and those change throughout our lives. We mix with people we like as friends and then certain types in different activities what we do. I hope my children are being given the tools to pick whatever work they will most enjoy and that the opportunities and hobbies and skills they've learned at home and school mean they have good life chances.

FC, I want my children educated with other very clever children which is an IQ issue rather than a class issue but I certainly don't shy away from saying I think they do better in a school where most of the families are not troubled, broken homes, drugs etc which you do get more on some council estates than in some other groups of parents which is why many parents move house when they start thinking about education. So yes I think some parents do want to pay to get that lack of disruption to lessons.

Anyway in a free market if parents can pay they will pay if there are benefits. That's how markets work. What will be interesting is if they will keep paying if fees increase too much applying normal economics to this.

What will be interesting is if they CAN keep paying if fees increase too much applying normal economics to this, don't you mean?