Do you feel you are *entitled* to the "best" school for your children?

[UnquietDad]

If so, why?

and just a few other questions/points.

Define "best"

and

Does this apply also to people up the road?

and

Does this apply also to people in different social classes?

i.e if you're entitled to the "best" school why isn't everyone else?

Is there a middle-class sense of "entitlement" to the "best schools" in this country?
Is the problem that we have such a variation in standards of schools across a supposedly comprehensive system?
Is it people playing the system, moving out of catchment, "getting faith" etc, and making themselves part of the problem and not part of the solution?
Or is the issue simply one of being too obsessed by the schools that do well in the league tables and/or have a nice uniform?

(It's a quiet Saturday... Walks away whistling, hands in pockets... Gas Mark 6, set to simmer. I'll be back...)

There were a couple of private schools in the town I went to school in. People tend tot choose them because they dispense religious (Catholic) instruction and have a broadly religious ethos. They only (at the time) cost about £100 a term (you only paid for the religious instruction bit, everything else was taught by secular state teachers and paid by the state). The thing about France is that
a) everyone, including the pushy middle classes, could get what they want from the state schools
b) the private schools were no better and in many cases worse, so you'd only go private if you had strong religious beliefs.

What's interesting about France is that standards have really dropped over the last 15 years, and expectations have really lowered, and the "pushy middle classes" are now voting with their feet as much as they do in the UK now. Fees are still nowhere as high as in the UK (3000 Euros a year would be a lot for a private school as they are still very much subsidised by the state), but practically everyone I know in France is now sending their child to private school. One is even home-educating hers, which would have been truly shocking in the 70s/ 80s.

Reasons cited are just the same as here: standards and discipline problems. But mostly standards. Given how very strong the state system was, including its vocational education, this is all rather sad. The problems to my mind have been caused by budget constraints and market forces being allowed into what was previously a very state controlled and paternalistic system. People no longer feel as looked after as they used to, and are getting into the habit of looking after themselves more.

I'm afraid this is happening all over Europe as far I know.

Our Spanish friends report similar problems to us in Madrid as well. They are not at all bigoted, quite liberal in fact, but report that shortly after their 15 yr old started state school, by age 8 he ended up in classes in which 75% were non-Spanish speakers; nobody was getting any proper teaching as discipline plummeted due to the fact that many of these children had never been at school, did not speak Spanish, and hardly any actual learning went on. Nobody can convince me that it is OK for a bright 8 yr old child to be sitting learning his own language from scratch instead of learning maths, science and literature. They also voted with their feet and chose to send their children to a state-private school (a bit like in France, in which the teachers are part paid by the gvt).

They, like us back when our children, never in a million years thought they would resort to private school. I felt really quite visceral about it, having been perfectly educated in state school. My husband also started off in the state system, before switching at 6 to private when it became obvious that his highly gifted older brother was never going to fit in at state school. He ended up being taught at prep school with boys 2 yrs older than himself, until he was 12 and switched to a high-achieving private school. I really did not want my children to feel in any superior, wanted to make their own way, etc... What did it for us, after my son spent three years (R, 1, 2) in a class of 35 learning nothing, although the school was lovely, was that the next school he was to go (infant/junior system in that town) did not even have morning break after the end of the first term of yr 3 and had absolutely no PE/ games apart from 1 hour a week music and movement or X-country running. Also the box-ticking worksheet filling no need to think much about what you're doing culture was coming into education at the time.

I can assure you that if our local state school were up to scratch, my children would be there and not where they are at the moment. By up to scratch I mean at the very least that it offered triple science GCSE (they only single or double), entered events like Ten Tors, Maths Olympiad, Science events etc... They do none of this, but pride themselves on being a M1cr0s0ft g@tew@y school. Goodness only what this means, apart from "we don't really do any music or art, only IT". The only department I was truly impressed with there was the maths dept. All the others gave off an impression of dusty neglect.

Oh, and in the leafy suburb I a lived and taught in, MmePlat, there were three very large comprehensives one of which people killed to get into and which was anything but comprehensive. The state schools took and still take the bulk of the town's children. I really feel that this argument about "stripping out the bright kids" leads to lowering standards is a complete red herring for several reasons:

1. there will always be poor bright kids. twas ever thus. They are still in the state system. even relative poverty is enough to keep many bright children in the state system
2. Bright kids tend, but not always, to have bright parents who will engineer the best choices for their children to do well. It is called looking after your children. They will tend to make choices that lead to their children's success. It is a very logical process. Playing the state system is a logical part of that. 3)Just because you look after your own children (which is also how it should be) does not mean that you do not care about others- just that you don't care as much about them. And why should you? You cannot expect people to care more about other people's children than their own. In fact you would expect the opposite.
3. Even assuming that the 10% in private school are also the top 10% of the ability range- "creamed off" and sent to private school (not the case obv as private schools have a wider ability intake than that), the top achieving pupils in state school would be at the 90% mark. Their academic needs would still not currently be met in state school unless they were self-motivated enough to work of their own accord (which many admittedly are ime, after a few years in a state school). Please don't anyone mention the G&T programmes unless they're going to talk about something other than 3 weeks of the summer away at a boarding academy. The Warwick thing is nice but not enough to compensate for feeling like a weirdo the rest of the academic year. I can tell you that from experience. It's a little akin to my mind to young carers programmes. Gives them a small chance every years not to feel completely different- ie a step in the right direction but not enough.
4. if fewer people in state schools accepted poor standards, the standards would have to go up. Even some schools admit that they need "pushy parents". If you are minded to send your child to state school for the common good, please bear in mind that market forces even apply to schools. If the school is full, they are generally not motivated to make any changes. Do not simply send them to the local school without keeping a close eye on what happens there. In an ideal world, schools would not be permitted by the govt to put 50% of every yr 11 group into GNVQ leisure & tourism, nor to teach only single and double science (which effectively limits choices at A level and later university choices).

Interesting posts from duchesse (really fascinated by what's happening in France).

That's why they like middle class parents at state schools because they insist on high standards. It's why paying for things works, why capitalism works. If you pay you have more of a vested interest in getting your money's worth and market forces means people leave if the school is no good. The labour government has tried introducing this in the public sector in various ways such as giving hospitals their own budgets and introducing a bit of competition but not very well and nothing like you get in the free market private sector. It will be interesting to see if paying directly over £3,100 for a university place as we do now has an impact - will those paying say I expect XYZ hours a week of teaching time for that fee.

Yes, helping your own children do well even just as to their diet or the love you give them doesn't mean you are doing other children down. Same with education. There are parents who have given up their own children to fight for a greater cause whether that was to establish communism in China or helping starving children abroad but most of us want to do what is best for our own children before we help others.

The point surely is Xenia, that if they want middle class parents to eschew the private route for education, then the standards need to be raised first. There is obviously recognition that standards aren't good enough, hence the flight to private schools by anyone who can scrape enough money together to do it.

It is interesting that some of us posting on here teach/have taught in the state sector and yet educate our own children privately. That should tell someone something about the state of British education.

Until there is more investment into the UK education system, and until that investment is sensibly and accurately targeted, then standards will not improve and those who can afford it will vote with their feet and their wallets and chose the 'best' education for their child, which for many will be in a private school.

I have only read a couple of pages but my view is that I will encourage my DTS to maximise the opportunities available to them at school. I want my DTS to go the local school so that they can walk. The school that I put as my number one choice is only satisfactory according to Ofsted but when I visited it, I thought it was fabulous. The other parents I spoke to who send their children there are delighted with it too.

As someone who went through the state system, attended a below average comp and then went on to get a degree and PhD in chemistry (as did my husband), I know that one of the most important factors in a child achieving to the best of their ability is the home environment. That is why many children of immigrant parents (such as myself)do well at schools shunned by the white middle classes because their parents value education, encourage them to work hard and take advantage of the opportunities available to them. In my limited experience, many of those parents shunning such schools are obsessed in making sure that their delicately fragrant children mix with their idea of the right social set (i.e. not too many immigrants or council estate plebs).

Thank you for those excellent, informative posts Duchesse. And for me, timely.

I have an appointment to look at a French (bilingual, private) school in a couple of weeks for dd (she has 2 more years at her current prep). I am looking at this an alternative to English Independent Senior Schools partly because I do not like English Public School prices, and they are only going one way.

Like someone said earlier, the English private schools are pricing many UK parents out of the market (partly due to the effect of the Charities Commission legislation in 2006)

So am I at the start of a trend where parents will look further afield, ie outside of the UK, whilst our private schools look to the Chinese and Russian markets for custom?

I would not have sent my ds to any of the local comps near me in Cornwall, as I didn't think that what they offered was good enough. That included the school at which I taught. He now goes to an international school where his friends are from a mixture of different cultures; Korean, Icelandic, Indian, Malawian , Estonian and Italian/Uruguayan to name but a few.

I value education (as a teacher I would obviously) and encourage him to work hard and take advantage of his opportunities. The problem is that in some state schools, especially those near my home in the UK, this was not the case for an awful lot of the students, and I would not want my ds to go along with the herd for an easier and quieter life.

It's not about the right social set fgs, it's about getting smaller class sizes, having the teachers know your child, having an extended and broader curriculum, allowing more time for the arts, drama and sport, it's about having time to explore the nuances in a play, or having ethical debates, not having to tick a box and saying yes, we've done that, now let's move on, which is what happens in the state system. It is also about avoiding the disruption of the child's learning by avoiding the constant low level disruption that is so much a part of the classroom in the state system.

By the by, having gone in to wake ds this morning, the words 'delicately fragrant' did not spring to mind. The thought of a bio hazard suit however did!

Cammelia, if I understand it right you are prepared to contemplate sending your child away to school. Can I suggest a plan B?

Thank you for that information oshgosh. One of those schools is quite near me and indeed does have a small intake from my dd's prep (a few as day pupils if they live in the catchment area - I don't - and some as boarders).

I've spoken to the Registrar of that particular school, I've spoken to some members of staff at dd's school. I am yet to visit (but it is on my list to do so).

However, my feeling is that its not what I'm looking for for dd.

Camellia- I am quite seriously considering sending mine post 16 to France to do the baccalaureate. I find A levels so dire these days that it's either France or IB at the nearby 6th form centre. I prefer the IB, as a course, to the French Bac, but going to France would boost their second language. Difficult choice...

The school I am looking at offers the baccalaureate at three levels, Duchesse. The French Baccalaureate; the FB with International Option (for native English speakers or if the child has reached proficiency in English to level of native speaker); the International Baccalaureate (some subjects in French, some in English).

Golly, really? A french school offering the IB is a rare beast! Is it easily accessible from Exeter? (Was thinking about option europeenne at a lycee in Rennes, which is a short plane hop from here.) And with boarding fees at less than a terms' day fees here, a considerable fees saving, so more to spend on return plane tickets...

To answer the original questions - I think that there is a standard of school that is 'good enough' and there are schools that go beyond that and have whistles and bells on and schools that fall well below that.

Perhaps we all have pour own idea of what 'good enough' means and perhaps that benchmark is altered in our minds depending on which schools you compare your child's school.

I do feel like my child is entitled to a 'good enough' education and one that is suited to her needs. If I wasn't able to find that at state level or pay for that, I would go as far to take her out of school and teach her at home. My child's emotional well-being comes first and academic second. Different people have different priorities.

duchesse, I will let you know more when I've been to see it, dh and I are going to look in a couple of weeks, without dd initially.

We live other end of S. Coast with access to Eurostar and Channel Tunnel.

wahey! this made the homepage...

woohoo! Fame!

Think we are getting away a litle from the original OP which was interested in the ethics of the choices parents make around schools.

It's all very well to point out the natural and Darwinian tendency to put our own children first, but it would be nice to at least acknowledge that the ethical and altruistic ideal would be for everyone's children to have access to the same benefits as one's own.

This is achievable to some extent by more middle-class parents sending their children to the local state school (cf Melissa Benn and others at Queen's Park, and indeed parents at my DDs' state school.)
It's not for everyone for lots of different reasons, but it would be nice if some people were to acknowledge the altruism behind it. Darwinism is all very well and natural, but god forbid we live in a world where it's the only currency.

Isn't Queen's Park renowned as a state school where prominent lefties send their kids?

I'm always a little dubious about the "I believe in state education, my kids are going to the local comp" attitude when this is not really tested by the school (how would the principles stand up if it was a "sink" school full of thugs and with rubbish facilities?)

Sheesh - you can't win!

Will trawl Guardian archives again to find stuff about how the parents are putting work in, and another article from yeeears ago where a mum is debating whether to send her daughter there because it's up and coming, but definitely not there yet.

PS, I said it's not an option for everyone.

Red, this is what we have been saying, but as that utopian state of affairs doesn't exist, then people choose to educate their children privately.

I don't believe that middle class parents will send their children into the state sector until and unless standards are improved. I taught in a state school for the best part of 5 years, but I would not have sent my son there. Until there is a change in culture that it is cool to achieve; that it is OK to worry about academics; that you can have off the wall interests that don't get you called a geek or a nerd; that it is uncool to disrupt lessons (I could go on, the list is endless) then he will not be going to one when we are back in the UK either.

We all pay tax, so to that extent we are providing opportunity for all through our taxes, as we don't get the education portion back. There is an inherent understanding in this thread that standards in the state system need to be raised dramatically and be consistent countrywide. I will not put my son through state school and him not achieve to the level of which he is capable to help raise standards. Raise them first by more investment and proven results and then you may see the middle classes moving from private to state.

However, the state sector is very good at some things, and if my son were SN, then I probably would put him into the state system as the SN provision there is excellent, at least it is in Cornwall, and the training and recognition of SN problems are far better resourced than in private schools.

Yes, I agree that people who go private pay towards state education through their taxes - good point - although I have seen people bemoaning that fact on this thread and many others. I think a lot would choose not to pay that money given the choice. (Not you personally necessarily.)

People are unhappy about private schools losing some of the money they previously got via their 'charity' status. I haven't yet seen a reply to the question as whether they really deserve to be funded as charities - again, if they don't then presumably people should be happy that that money is potentially going to a more deserving cause?

Most of them are not losing the tax relief from charitable status, most are fulfilling the requirements of Charities Commisssion Act 2006 by offering more bursaries.

However this represents increased fees for paying parents thereby increasing the financial burden for the majority of parents.