Slave to the fees

[Uhu]

On Monday, I bumped into a male colleague who wanted to know how the babies were doing. I asked him how his seven year old son was getting on and then he off-loaded on me the perils of private school fees and how much it was costing him and his wife. He said if I could get them into a good state school to do so because finding the fees every year was such a hassle.

In the first place, I had not contemplated sending my twin DSs to private school so I think his point was nugatory. Nevertheless, I did wonder why he bothered and he said it was because he did not think much of the state schools in his area. Fair enough but I'm sure that there are some good state primary schools if he bothered to look. Ultimately, I did not feel sorry for him.

Yesterday, I saw another male colleague and he started telling me about problems he was having with a bullying boss and that he would like to leave the organisation. However, he is well paid, over 50 years old and does not feel he would find a job that would pay him what he earns now. He has a daughter (age 13) at private school and he said that was the main reason that stopped him from leaving. He needs to the pay the fees and at the moment feels trapped. I actually felt sorry for him because he is a humble guy and reading between the lines, he and his wife had to wait a long time before their daughter was conceived so obviously, they want to give her the best of everything. He also said that his wife wished that she had spent more time with their daughter when she was younger instead of working full time. Despite the private education, it is not a happy household and I sense there is resentment on the daughter's part. I felt sorry for him because he is a decent and humble guy.

It made me think that most parents do want the best for their children but there are some things that money cannot buy. Like spending time with them when they need it. Is it worth sending your children to private school if you have to struggle to find the fees? Children are not stupid and I'm sure they pick up on the anxiety so how does that make them feel? I firmly believe that if a child has ability and supportive parents, it will succeed at any type of school. Is being a slave to the fees ultimately worth it and what is the emotional cost to the family?

GIven the option between a school costing upwards of £5000 a year and a school costing nothing, it is probably safe to assume that the vast majority of people would take the free option, other things being equal.

I'm sure there are still a few mad snobs around who choose to pay school fees for the cachet, but they must be in a fairly small minority, and cannot be representative of most parents who choose private schools.

I have two children currently in primary education, one of whom has been in many ways badly-served by her inner-city state primary, and has spent long periods of time expressing her boredom, resentment and frustration at the whole process. In other ways it has done her good: she is confident, relaxed and less 'boffiny' or precious than she might have been at a more hot-housey sort of school. We could have made a very good case for saying that the school was not suitable for our 'little darling' I've got an Ed Psych's report that says just that but we've stuck with it, and overall it was probably the right decision. But who knows?

The frightening thing about making educational decisions is that you never get to find out what would have happened if you'd made a different decision. And by the time you realise you've made the wrong choice, it's too late -- and it's your child who's paying.

Anybody with experience of putting their children through schools in 2004 and who still feels that (a) it's simple and (b) that ideological considerations should be the prime basis for making educational decisions has either been very lucky, or hasn't been studying their child's needs closely enough.

I suppose when it comes to it aswell, the school ds is going to is about as good as I'd like a school anyway - the averge grades you read in the Ofsted report for the key stages are all A or A* so it obviously does well academically, plus I do feel that ds1 at least (too early to say for ds2 and ds3) is really very bright so I don't feel it necessary to pay for his education at this stage.

The school also has fantastic sport, music etc facilities which are just as important to me as the grades since how do I know yet if the 3 ds's will be 'academically inclined'? I just want them to be happy and well rounded and actually, if they don't pass the 11+, the reason I'd be consider paying for independent secondary school would be more about the people they'd be mixing with rather than his grades (although needless to say I want them to do as well as possible). That probably makes me sound like a right snob, but hey, there you go!

I've just read that back and it sounds awful. Oh well, I know what I mean and I must get on with some work now.

FWIW most of the girls I know who went to BOARDING SCHOOL have eating disorders, huge self confidence issues and live their life with a false smile in front of them.

None of the girls I know who went to mixed state schools do, they are all comfortable with themselves and well adjusted....

how weird is that.

Only based on a small sample of around 20.

I know you are not all talking about boarding, but I think keds need a parent in the evenings to keep them level headed (assume parent is reasonably level headed of course)

On the other hand I have a child in the school I work in who is self harming, more than one, in fact. Such small numbers don't prove anything.

Honeyflower! "All you hand wringing liberals"???

Sounds like soneone's very bitter indeed!

I'm sure your child would much prefer to be put in a failing sink estate school over a decent private one, in order to gratify your "principles". Hope it makes you feel really good about yourself!

I think Honeyflower is making a valid point though. The more the educated middle classes opt out of the state system, the more it's given over to those parents who aren't as motivated, supportive and aspirational and who therefore won't support schools.

Having said that, I wouldn't for one moment blame anyone opting out of a system where throwing chairs around is considered fairly minor (in the workplace, you'd get the sack if you did that), and I'd have no hesitation in opting out of the state education system if I thought it would be in my child's interests.

I've got that choice - I'm articulate and educated, and although I've got no money so would never be able to go private, I'm perfectly capable of home educating my children and would do so if I felt it was necessary. Mumsnet threads like this have made me think really seriously about that option, but I realise how privileged and lucky I am that that choice is open to me.

Ohh, I'd be careful. The school I work in is an OK school, better than avarage and oversubscribed. We have an almost 100% 'working class' intake. The vast majority of these parents are very supportive and want the best for their kids. It isn't jsut the middle classes that are, as I'm sure you know

The probelm is when you have very dysfunctional families. And these are not like the working class parents of most of my students, or my own parents for that matter.

And these motivated working class parents are keen to send their kids to the school I work at , and not another a mile or so away which is the pits.

But I'm always horrified by your description of your pupils, especially your year 9!

And I always think, if the good ones are like that, what on earth are the bad ones like?

Sorry, know I sound like a complete Margot from the Good Life, but perhaps I've led a very sheltered life (in New Cross, the home of Millwall!)

And yes, of course I'm not saying working class parents aren't supportive - my mum and dad were incredibly supportive of school, to the extent that we knew if we were in trouble at school, we'd better not let them know about it because if they did, we'd be in trouble at home as well!

No, my nice kids are just that, nice. I teach alost 90 kids in Y10 and it is, and i mean this, an honour to work with them. they are the sort of kids you would be proud to have. They are nice, and funny, pleasent, polite and many of them are very bright. The bright thing isn't a detrmaning factor btw, it is just jam on top for a teacher.

I also teach similar kids in Y9, and then I have the class from hell. And then even in that class there are 4 smashing little girls who I think are great. It is just a pity that their education is being wrecked by the others on the class. And in my more rathional moments I realise that the 'little buggers' are mixed up kids who need help that they are not getting.

The trouble is that once you get a critical number of kids like this in a class, the rest often get pulled in.

What these kids need is a separate unit, psychiatric help in some cases and nurturing....I'm trying to set up a nurture group. Some of these kids are so damaged by the time they get to secondary they are unteachable. It is very sad and very frustration. And If my kids were in the class with them I would go off my head!

That is rational (amosgst other typos!)

What in your experience, is the "critical number" of disruptive kids needed in a class, to make it unworkable (out of say, a class of 30)?

one.

No, I would say more than one. We have had great sucess placing disruptive children in 'top sets'. We even re-integrated one who had been explelled from their special collage placement for bad behaviour. If they don't have an appreciative audience and people to join in they fall in with the positive peer pressure.

There will always be the odd exception when one is one too many but most will tailor their behavior to the class they are in

Actually you are right. We do the same hmb. I was thinking of classes where the disruptive child is there because of ability. I find that an usually disruptive child is very quiet in a top set as there is noone to feed off.

Bovary - did you not feel that was a bit OTT if it was just a case of getting over excited in a game of tag? To ring the parents?? An intentional attack is one thing but a bit overexhuberant in a game is another isn't it? Quite right of them to raise it with him but does it call for ringing the parents do you think?

Sorry - you can ignore me, I know it's a bit off-tack.

Don't want to start a row or anything - if you think it was suitable action that's fine. If they'd called me about that I'd have thought it a bit OTT but would have taken it graciously of course!

I agree with you gdg. It's not zero tolerance just trying to cover their arses.

What matters is that there is early interventions and that the kids get the message that some types of behaviour are not accepted. When there are very disruptive kids around a little horse play isn't always possible as they can't handle that. It will escalate as they don't have the skills to control themselves and the situation. The more that the school and parents play by the same rules the better the school and the happier and safer the kids.

Totally agree hmb - just that I thought ringing the parents was a bit OTT. I accept that if the child got a bit over excited, the game is calmed down and the child spoken to about his actions but I just thought ringing both parents was a bit much. Kids get overexcited all the time and if a teacher rang me everytime a something similar happened at nursery/school it would really get my back up!!

Just thought it might be enough that parents know and accept how situations are handled in school and let them get on with it, unless something more serious such as bullying or intentional attack.

Anyway, sorry, I'm taking the thread off at a tangent.

How things have changed.

When my brother went to Dulwich College, he was bullied unmercifully, so viciously and so unremittingly that he had a nervous breakdown and suffered depression for the next ten years of his life. (He had previously been an extrovert, confident, witty, combative boy.) He started to play truant and getting terrible marks, when previously he had always been academically successful (you had to be to get an Assisted Place there). The school did absolutely sweet FA about it and more or less told my parents that he should toughen up and see the funny side.

After almost 2 years of seeing him utterly miserable and scared that he'd commit suicide, my Mum went to our local comprehensive school and begged the head to let him go back there. You can imagine how delighted they were to poach him from a posh school like Dulwich!

Now it seems, arse-covering is all the rage. But I think I?d prefer that attitude to the sheer negligence with which my DB was treated. He almost died because of it.

Where my two go, in the senior site, if they miss two consectutive homeworks, without a reason,they and their parents have a chat with the head. It doesn't happen very often!

The thing is (and this is now miles off topic) kids will push the rules. It doesn't matter how strikt or how lenient the kids will always try their luck. It is all part of growing up. So you may as well set the rules as strikt as possible. Bterr that they think themselves 'bad' for undoing a top button than by carrying a knife. And the more routine and order you give them the more secure they are. They wouldn't admit it, but most teenagers want the security to know that you will step in and stop them. And you will help them to get organised about their homework by putting them on a mentor sheet. That way they can do the work and save face with their mates 'I have to do the H/W because that old cow will give me hell if I don't'

Strict! Sheesh!