Don't seem to like private schooling

[Chickpea17]

So off the back of a thread I just seen why do so many people on MN seem to dislike private schooling so much? I'm not judging one way or another just curious.
I have a almost 5 year old and we can't afford private schooling so haven't given it much thought.

I went to a private all girls school and DH was state educated, DH definitely has the better career.

Two sisters at same school, none of us are academics or highly paid.

I loved school, but honestly, all it did was open doors to wealthy husbands for most of the people I went to school with.

Because the two tier education system in the U.K. is divisive and ensures that education is consistently and woefully underfunded by successive governments.

Every child deserves an excellent education, not just those whose parents can afford it.

So how about grammar schools, don't they perpetuate inequality too? How about parents who can afford to move house to be in the catchment of an outstanding state school? How about parents who pay for private tutors?
Private schools bear the brunt of criticism yet the parents who choose grammar/move house/pay private tutors are as much at fault for perpetuating inequality.
Why is there no vitriol against any of those? Oh yes because most MN'ers do those things so that's acceptable but having the audacity to send your kids to private is inexcusable!

Dd had a bursary worth 75% off.

The reason she ended up there was that when we applied for secondary schools (Oct of year 6), we were trying to sell our house and move back nearer family. We’d had the house on the market for 9 months. We didn’t want to apply to local schools because we knew, one way or another, we weren’t staying there. We couldn’t apply to schools in the new area as we didn’t live close enough. Our only options were grammar schools in the new area (no catchment then) or independent. The grammar she qualified for was a long journey from the new area so we went independent. We eventually moved in December of year 7. All the schools in new area (big city) were oversubscribed so I’m not sure where she’d have been allocated at that point, but it wouldn’t have been a great school.

I know lots of middle class people who’ve used their financial means to improve their kids’ education - most have either employed tutors outside school to supplement state school, had their kids tutored for grammar school exams, moved to an expensive house near a good school or home educated. All the kids have done well. I can’t see how any of these things are any different to choosing a private school. It’s human nature to want our kids to be happy and well educated.

@twistyizzy cross posted!

@ladykale - spot on! I'm always a bit amused at posters who are vitriolic about private schools, but freely admit to deliberately buying a house in a catchment area for an excellent state school. It's really the same thing, but somehow on MN it's viewed totally differently.

However, I do agree with posters who say that we should ALL be invested in education. If every parent held politicians and councillors to account, things would change. But, even as parents, we are only invested in education for the length of our child's attendance at school, whereas we all have a lifetime interest in the NHS, for instance.

It's known as "the politics of envy", which is why the criticism is so unpleasant. (Doesn't personally affect me, as no kids, but still baffling).

Private schools and upper middle income earners are an easy target particularly on Mumsnet.

But unless they are going to get rid of state grammars, faiths schools and catchment areas and allocate all state place by random lottery the inequality will continue.

@crazycrofter 😊 they don't want to hear 75% bursaries though, they just want to live in their inverted snobbery world where all DC at private school are the spawn of the devil, entitled brats with mutli millionaire parents because that fits into their narrative better. Imagine if they came to DDs school and saw how many parents work 9-5 in very ordinary jobs who drive Peugeot/Fords etc 😁.

@twistyizzy - I wish MN had a massive LIKE button, as I would use it for this post!

People should be allowed to spend their hard earned cash on what they want. We don’t live in China, do we?Some might buy fancy cars, some might buy a bigger house.If people choose to spend money on education ( presumably they have already paid taxes to support state schools) , good for them. Good idea, especially if there is nothing decent where they live.

Oh no you've got it all wrong! You are allowed to buy ££ cars, have exotic foreign holidays, a holiday home but God forbid you chose to spend any money giving your children a better education 🙄. Wanting the best for your children should be a capital offence with a life long sentence of hard labour.

Maybe edycate yourself before criticising something you have no experience or knowledge of. You are just making yourself look extremely prejudiced.

It's not prejudice to call out private schools as having poor economic diversity compared to state schools. Most of them select on both academic ability and income, and the whole point of selection is to exclude people, after all.

In answer to the OP's question, my problem is that the privately educated are disproportionately represented in positions of power and influence. It's unfair, and it doesn't benefit society as a whole. I would prefer these kinds of roles to be filled by the best people, not the richest.

I'm always a bit amused at posters who are vitriolic about private schools, but freely admit to deliberately buying a house in a catchment area for an excellent state school. It's really the same thing, but somehow on MN it's viewed totally differently.

(And many others making the same point.)

It's not the same, because owning a house in a certain catchment doesn't in itself make you more likely to get an influential job. Private education does. Not because you must be clever to get into a selective school, or because you get a better education, or because you do better in your exams, just because you are privately educated.

@SoTedious my comment which you have quoted is in response to some very lazy stereotyping of all private school children as entitled, schools which don't teach good values and a refusal to believe that private schools have a cross section of ethnic and economic diversity. To state "most" of the select on academic ability is incorrect, many do but equally there are many non-selective.
While I am not disagreeing with the disproportionate % of people in higher level jobs being privately educated this does not excuse lazy stereotyping and perpetating factually untrue statements about families who chose private education.

Again though please justify how grammar schools don't perpetuate inequality, these are often more selective than private schools! However grammar schools are never attacked on MN.
Sorry but whilst the pretext of your argument is sound there is so much inverse snobbery on MN around private schools from people with little or no knowledge of private schools.

I went to a great state school. My ds goes to a small independent.

Rather than making a decision based on funding, I sent my ds to taster days at three independents and four state senior schools. He was miserable at his primary school, bored and angry, so I wanted to choose a school that he liked and that suited him.

He chose the smallest of the independents, I entered him for a scholarship exam and he got in. (50% @Coffeeandbourbons ) Great but it wouldn't have been a large enough school or suited some of his more extrovert classmates, who are happy at the state senior school.

You are lucky to have the choice but choose the school to suits your child best, regardless of how it is paid for.

Again though please justify how grammar schools don't perpetuate inequality, these are often more selective than private schools! However grammar schools are never attacked on MN.

Because they don’t cost money? Are you really not grasping these simple concepts?

So your objectij is purely on the cost of private schools?
So you want to police how people spend their money? It would be ok for me to spend 75K on a new house but it isn't ok for me to spend 75K on my child's education?
Wow I think I've heard everything now. You don't even have a moral standpoint, you just don't think I should be allowed to spend MY money that i have earned, on what I want??

because it is so powerful in shaping the kids who experience it. IME it damages kids' relationship with their communities and society, and leads them to behave, in adulthood, in sociopathic ways.

For most, it's fairly mild - generally judgemental attitudes to those who don't do as well as them (as a result of baked-in privilege, which they see as their own 'merit'). But for others - see most members of our ruling class - it's deeply damaging for everyone.

Private schools need to be abolished. Kids need to be educated socially.

You mean, apart from the two hours per afternoon private coaching to get in.....!

£150 a week minimum.

And you are too simple to understand the years of private tutoring to get kids into grammar schools. I would look on the education board and you might learn a thing or two about how much money and time is spent tutoring kids to get into grammar schools.
Every comment you come out with just proves you know nothing about the private school sector (or state!).

A few points @twistyizzy

I don't believe it's wrong to say that most private schools are selective (at secondary level anyway, perhaps I should have made that clear). And that they select on both academic ability and income. Arguing (as some do) that a few bursaries => economic diversity to match state schools just makes people look silly.

I don't know much about grammar schools as we don't have them here. I'm sure they are less economically diverse than comps, but at least they don't actively exclude poor people. And while I don't agree with academic segregation at 11, again grammar school in itself does not bring the undue influence of private school.

What about the private schools who can cater for SEN children because of the resources at their disposal, when those children can't be supported in state schools because there is no money to do so? Are those schools damaging for the children who attend them?
You are using a reductionist theory and I would be interested to know how many children you know who went to private school and which private schools.

I hear the "it's not fair that some people can throw money at this and have a better education" line thrown around a lot, but it is completely illogical, because that is already the sitation with STATE schools.

How is it LESS privileged/elitist/unfair to buy an expensive house in the expensive catchment of an outstanding school than to buy a modest house in a modest area and spend a fraction of the difference on school fees?

Were I to sell my house and buy in the catchment of the oustanding school in my city, I would need to add about £800k to my house price to be sure of being close enough to get in, and even then it's a bit of a lottery. £800k MORE than my house's value.

7 years of secondary school for 2 kids is about £250k (in this city - it could be a lot less elsewhere and somewhat more in London).

So how is it MORE elitist to choose a modest house in "normal" area + school fees than it is to choose a super expensive (but still 3 bedrooms/1200 sq feet!) house in an expensive area with an outstanding state school?

Surely the high income couple who can afford the £1.4m mortage (or whatever), or have parents to give them enormous deposits, so they can live in the "leafy suburb" with the amazing school is the more privileged family? Are they not buying their way into an excellent education?

The state school system is literally set up to allow wealthy people exclusive access to the best education, and exclude poor people, coralling them into shit catchments with underfunded schools in special measures.

Private schools are a red herring in this inequality situation. It's much much worse than that, but both the govt and the Labour party are happy to pretend that private schools are the problem because they don't have a solution for the REAL problem.

OK so to answer your points:

• 25% of students on a bursary is not an insignificant number and woild most likely be proportionate to the number of kids on FSM in a state school. The majority of parents at DDs school are in ordinary 9-5 jobs, drive very ordinary cars etc. In fact there is more blatant money at the local state schools if you go off size of house etc
• Dds school is non-selective on ability
• Grammar schools do indeed bring undue influenve if you loon at the top ones in the country
• You can't compare private school against private school. The ones which dominate parliament etc are a very small number of elite private schools. The majority of private schools are local schools which serve the local community and are not high profile