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.

@Oaktree1233 but we're not talking root and branch changes to society. It's nuts to suggest we convert into some sort of commune based approach in a search for true equality.

My point is that there are many things we can't change about our unfair society but some things that we can. And should. Like removing the option of private education from the mix. Creating a slightly more merit based -ocracy and removing the webs of privilege that underpin the current private system.

For the exact reason that we cannot level out the playing field is why I am grateful for being able to afford private school for my daughter. I could not give the attention she needed when my son was ill. She had an awful time as an infant as he was to and for in hospital, We first funded private when we had barely little surplus income ourselves ( at the time ) but it was a priority. We could not give her attention especially as we were offered an ofsted ‘inadequate’ school when we first moved cities mid year.

Beforehand my daughter had been at a vastly superior state primary which was Catholic. It was even used by a premier league footballer to educate his child. I would have had no qualms of leaving her there but we had to move. It never occurred to me to go private.

Now my SEN son is in the Rolls Royce of state schools via his EHCP as we would be outside the catchment normally. The kids there are mostly quite poshly spoken. The teachers are attracted there because it it the zenith of schools. People live in million pound plus houses and send their kids there.

I would have been perfectly happy for my daughter to go to this state school were we in catchment - they probably would have done a better job.

But everyone is disillusioned to think that making private schools more expansive wont affect you:

1 There will be an almighty scramble for catchment areas and/ or grammar when private schools are made more expensive. The Eton types can afford to pay more it’s not the ones who will be affected.

2 As a result If you have a house in an outstanding school catchment area that will be the next line of attack… - school selection by ballot will be introduced. All those people whose entire property value is predicated on living 500 metres from an outstanding school will see property prices plunge.

3 So people all pay for tutors. …Mums net cries out foul. A new rules is introduced - pupils have to make full disclosure of private tuition time before exams and will have marks deducted.

Yes this is very true. Every single local person I know with an aggressive anti-Private Primary is a State school Primary teacher. All of them have tutored their own kids through 11+ / private Secondary selection exams and applied for (and obtained) 110% burseries. Then in Secondary they always manage to get them access to the best tutors etc. Teachers know the system, play within it, it’s the rest of us who can’t tutor our kids that need private school.

@Oaktree1233 your personal reasons for choosing private don't prove that private education is acceptable. They prove that it is not.

I am not talking about state education as it currently is. Currently it is massively underfunded and provision is patchy. I'm talking about it as it should be. If there were no private education then all of those, including the more vociferous who under the previous system would have gone private and not worried about the state options, would be clamouring the government for better provision. The government would listen because it would be their children who are affected too.

Private education is wrong because it buys a ticket at the front of the queue for life based on money alone. If all schools were able to offer an approximation of equal position then merit would come to the fore. Yes there would be tutoring etc but actually parents would need to invest time and energy into their local school communities. Such activities would benefit all students not just the children of the pointy elbowed.

FWIW I am not a teacher. I put my efforts where my mouth is when it comes to supporting all the students in my local school, not just mine.

I know we don't know each other irl @Wenfy but I am anti private primary, not a teacher, have not put DC through 11+ or private secondary entrance exams and have not applied for bursaries. Also not jealous as we could afford private but chose state. Also not ignorant about private schools as I attended one myself.

Why is it so hard to believe that some people are against private education in principle, not because of some weird competitive streak? You seem a bit paranoid that teachers are somehow gaming the system with their wily ways.

@Wenfy

You would have kittens if you knew how many state school teachers have sent their kids to our school. Every time it’s because of quality of state education.

They just acknowledge that the school system is underperforming and overloaded and they are all budgeting hugely to have their children educated privately.

There would be no need for private schools is state education was decent. It’s not.

It grates on me, just like private healthcare and dentistry do.

Jumping the queue for an operation, having better quality materials used in your mouth, helping your kid with 11+ stuff (state schools can’t do this), plus giving them access to multiple sports etc.

I put it all in the same category. It becomes all about how much money you earn - eg you chose to go into a caring profession for the good of society but hey fuck you - you don’t earn enough for a quick op/decent dental work/11+ help (or massively inflated TAGs etc to get you into the best unis in etc).

It’s the culture Thatcher created and it’s not equitable or fair in any way, it’s all about grabbing stuff for yourself & family with the wealth you earn. I find it repulsive.

@BreathesOutSlowly first, why don’t we get education where it should be before talking about eliminating vital alternatives.

second, your stance that there should only be one option available to all assumes that there is one option that will effectively serve all children.

Honestly even if the uk system achieved your mythical ‘should be’ place, it wouldn’t do as well as my SEN child’s current private provision at meeting her needs and helping achieve her potential. I also don’t think I would rub along very well with state education for my other child - not because of ‘class’ or ‘status’, but purely based on my own beliefs and values. I have found a school that more closely aligns with my values and the values I want my child to be raised with. I should have the option (within reason) of directing my child’s education.

@Labraradabrador because until we remove the alternatives those people with influence, power and money will not invest their time and energy into acquiring the provision of good education #for all.

We live in a society where there is choice of educational provision only for those who can afford it. That is morally wrong because a good education should be seen as a human right and available to all.

Buying a better chance for your child is a human response to the current situation. It is however socially divisive. If there were no alternative but to work hard to insist the authorities improve the quality of education for all then I believe that we would have a better society for all.

@Labraradabrador in no way do I assume a 'one size fits all' approach. I am just suggesting the removal of socially selective mechanisms - money, faith, ability - to allow a model that can concentrate resources on providing a fully customised educational service for students. You can have different abilities taught together within the comprehensive system for example.

"because until we remove the alternatives those people with influence, power and money will not invest their time and energy into acquiring the provision of good education #for all."

those with influences, power ect would just use private tutors to enhance their children's education. Why would they invest in a system as a whole of there is not a return on investment for their children ?

But we need to address the disparity within state schools. Excluding the very top London public schools I bet there is a smaller gap in education and experience between private schools and the most coveted state schools then there are between those state schools and more deprived areas. That will be exacerbated by the abolition of private schools.

Repulsive??

OK, so if your kid was in pain and desperately needed an operation that they would have to wait months for on the NHS would you make them wait out of principle if you could afford to go private?

Come off it....

I find the system repulsive yes. Absolutely.

Because I find the system repulsive would I deny my child eg life threatening treatment? That’s not an argument.

I can still find the system repulsive though.

@BreathesOutSlowly remind me again why the ambulance service is in such dire straits if removing all alternatives leads to better provision for all?

You are describing a commune. No thanks.

@Hawkins003 why do you think that people are selfish and only focused on their child? If communities work together they can improve the lot of all the students not just those of their own children.

@bumpetybumpbump I honestly believe that if more of the 'pointy elbow' brigade were forced by lack of alternatives to take up a comprehensive school in their locality then the schools would improve. Because they would have to. These parents wouldn't accept the alternative.

Fundamentally most less good secondary schools would do better with a combination of good leadership and sufficient financial resources. More talented people would join teaching, students wouldn't be taught in sub optimal environments and excellent SEN provision would be available to all.

I am fully aware that it will never happen. Doesn't make private schooling morally right though.

That's pretty much how I thought society would be, that's pretty much the outcome if everyone and everything is equal

But they would only use their pointy elbows in their own kids schools as the very educated and affluent pointy elbow brigade do now. If I thought that's what would happen id be all for it. But the vast vast majority of parents whether private or not use their resources to give their own kids a leg up and that would still happen.

In theory yes, but the amount of resources and the time , it would take years to improve the system, and chances are the majority of people will want the best for their children in the here and now, not in some e.g. 50+ years.
Yes I presume there are groups that do want to improve society and I can respect that, but not all humans are altruistic in nature.

But we don’t all want or need the same things?

Unfortunately they would either use their wealth to move house and push their way into the already coveted schools or avoid the system completely - I just can't see them accepting the local average state and waging a campaign to improve it.

I've used leafy state and private, if you put the bulk of both sets of parents together there's not a massive difference. The state school parents bought the big houses and do a lot of holidays and masses of extra curricular. The parents have similar careers (doctors, accountants etc). I think the outcome for my kids would be the same either way, but using the private school means all the sport and extra curricular stuff my kids do is done within the school day which means I can maintain my career. And we earn well and don't need a bigger house or flashier holidays.

I haven't bought 'influence' any more than I had by buying the house in the good catchment.

None of it's fair. But it's the wealth far more than it's the schooling

I would never have sent ds private because I think there is often a lot of pressure to perform and I'd rather save the huge amount you spend on fees for a house deposit for him. Fortunately we live near a very good state secondary and ds got mostly 9's for his GCSE's despite being pretty lazy. I've also found a lot of opportunities at universities and work experience want students who go to state school so that's been great for him.

That's not the same argument at all. Your argument is a non argument. For a start a private alternative to acute emergency care doesn't really exist in this country.

The problems of the NHS are profound. Rooted in a combination of bad management, financial issues and an ageing population with increasingly complex needs. Quite frankly we don't let people die as much as we used to.

The education system is suffering from low morale rooted in decades of underfunding and the fact that a large % of the most influential citizens in society just don't care about it.

My argument is related to the education system not the NHS. I believe if society were invested in the state education system across the board then they'd have to force improvement. I think the problems of the NHS are far more complex and this model wouldn't work so much as we only generally (but not exclusively) need to rely on it when we are elderly and our advocates are less engaged and able.

This is going to sound controversial but:

Parents who can afford private school have access to more money than those who can't. Those parents have either earned that money through ability or inherited it probably (but not always) because of the ability of their parents.

Therefore the richest in our society are likely to be more intelligent and capable than the poorest. This is then compounded when the richest people choose to pay for a superior education for their children who will be brought up by intelligent parents and could be genetically more intelligent as well.