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...)

Heacte, you've every right to approach this in the way you describe, but you're wrong to assume that all parents think the same way and behave the same way as you do.

I agree policywonk. It isnt necessarily the case that all parents use the 'shout loudest get most' approach. And maybe those who do might not necessarily be doing their own kids a great favour if they're passing on the 'selfish = good' attitude.

I see what Hecate has been doing as working towards a level playing field for her kids, to allow them to access the curriculum etc at a similar starting point to kids without ASD/social communication issues. And I agree with you completely on the limited resources point Hecate - sitting back and agreeing that there are other kids more needy so you won't push for resources does nothing to help anyone in the long run.

Am I? Do you think there are parents out there who would give me their kids 1:1 hours? [hopeful]

Maybe I am wrong. I'm not inside every parent's head, it's just what I see. I do feel very much like it's all a big fight for every crumb!

I think that Hecate's posts sum up everything that is wrong with society and find them utterly depressing.

The greater good!!!! Johnso! Does any parent prioritise the greater good above their own child?

A parent should NOT do that. Every child should have a parent fighting their corner. That's what they need. God help a child whose own parent puts the 'greater need' before their needs.

Soapbox - if you had 2 children with ASD wouldn't you want to fight to get them the support they need to learn in school? I am absolutely gobsmacked and horrified at the comment towards Hecate.

Of course I would, but not at the expense of other more needy children - which unless I have misunderstood Hecate's posts is what she is saying.

I'll take what my children need and everyone else can take what is left!

So Hecate is quite happy to put her children above someone whose children has greater needs.

I don't think you are 'whittering on' or missing the point at all. I just meant that there are different degrees of what children 'need' education-wise. To fight for basic needs for your children is IMO more justifiable than say cheating on your address to get your able child into an academically better school.

That's fine Soapbox, Honestly, doesn't offend or bother me at all. You have every right to your opinion. However, I am never going to stop fighting to make sure my kids get everything they need and I am never going to sit back and accept that someone else is going to get help while my kids have to have less than they need. I fight for more resources for sn kids, I am quite active in that, as it happens (a total pain in the arse in fact!) but while the situation remains that there is NOT enough, I will never sit back and let my kids come second. Folks with kids with sn - can any of you hand on heart say you'd happily have your kids hours reduced, or their resources withdrawn because they were going instead to someone elses kids? Would you give up your SL session to someone elses child and leave your child mute? Would you agree to your child being unsupported in the classroom so that another child could have 1:1 and leave your child running round the room and unable to learn? If I am really the only one who feels hell no, I'd rather fight, then I will happily take a good long look at my attitude. More than happily - I am very willing to look at the possibility that my attitude is wrong.

Though perhaps it's just two ends of a sliding scale? I don't personally care too much if someone cheats with their address either. I don't think I think a 'good' school is the be all and end all of everything. (Ask me this again in a few years time )

but I don't see that Hecate being sparing with what she asks for with her kids will necessarily result in better services for needier kids. ALL of us with kids with SEN being aware of what our kids are legally entitled to, and complaining and lobbying appropriately is the only chance to improve things for everyone.

e.g. SALT have supposedly promised they will send someone into DS's nursery once a week to work with him (then if all goes well, once a month). Nursery head told me that there are kids there with worse language problems than DS, who don't have SALT coming into nursery. So should I not pursue the promised help then, as there are needier kids?

Hecate - we have cross posted and I pretty much agree with you! I have contributed to local and national reviews of SALT provision, and have shared advice with other parents as to what private SALT has recommended. Looking out for own kids doesn't mean that we are heartless and unhelpful towards other kids!

Exactly TC! My ds1 gets 25 hours 1:1 from lea, and ds2 get's 22. (and I'm currently fighting for the other 3!) other children don't get that much. I shout long and loud that there should be better provision for 1:1 support for kids with sn, to enable them to be fully included. ..but would I write to lea and say "please take my childrens 47 hours and give them to some needier children" ? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA er no.

And now everyone on mumsnet is going to hate me and think I'm a selfish bitch and I'm going to have to run away and join Netmums!

The problem with the current system is that you get more by shouting louder. This has the effect of entrenching inequalities, because often the children in the most dire need have parents who are inarticulate, disaffected, illiterate, cowed or otherwise unsuited to playing the system and being an advocate for their child. That's why, IMO, we all have a duty to seek a fair allocation, rather than simply seeking to maximise our own children's allocation.

Hecate is talking about SN. You can only fight for your own child's needs. If you say (as I tried to)- the SALT is on maternity leave child x, y and z need SALT - you (the LEA) should pay for it- they say 'can't talk about child x, y and z- it's confidential".

So I switched and said "ds1 has SALT in parts 2 and 3 of his statement- why aren't you acting in your legal duty and providing it?' They said "oh yes whoops- here we go have some SALT". Didn't make the blindest difference to child x, y and z.

You have to fight at 2 levels.(1) To campaign for better services for all and (2) fight to ensure you're child's needs are met.

We've just had to fight to ensure that we get a DFG (disabled facilities grant) to make our house safe for ds1. There will be people less well off than us that need DFG's as well. But I can't fight for them (I can tell them how to do it, I can't do it for them) - but in the meantime if I say 'oh no go and give that money to the needy' and ds1 falls through a window it's not much help.

I think WRT the SN stuff it comes doewn to how much of a need your child has. Ds2 (AS) desperately needed SALT to get him communicating and I wouldn't have stood back and said "Let someone else have his place".

OTOH his school runs a sensory programme which ds2 might get some benefit from but there are no spare places. His older brother (ASD) has a place and has made huge amounts of progress from it. Tbh I would give up a theoretical place for ds2 if it meant that a child with ds1's level of needs could have it instead.

WRT school in general I don't really care about league tables and OFSTED reports. I suspect there are MNers who would recoil in horror at our local school but it has been absolutely the best place for my two boys.

yurt, you're talking about ensuring that an authority acts to meet its statutory requirements - no reasonable person could argue with that. What some of us find a bit alarming about hecate's posts is the blanket assumption that all parents act in an entirely selfish manner, and think 'bugger everyone else's kids'. I know that a lot of parents do act like this, but in my opinion it's a moral failure. (Obviously, the context provided in hecate's later posts goes a long way towards explaining why she behaves as she does.)

also early help at the right time can mean kids can function without help later on in their school career - ultimately freeing up more resources for the needier children.

policywonk - I would hope that the more disenfranchised parents could access help via Surestart.

In my role of Evil Incarnate of Mumsnet, I reviewed my posts and have not seen how I managed to provoke such a crude and emotional outburst from the OP.

I will admit to saying provocative things in the interest of making people think, but none of what I ever say is meant to be taken personally. I pretty much stick to writing about my own decisions and opinions, and never expect people to agree with me. As a teacher, one of the values I have is getting my students to acknowledge other people's points of view even if they don't agree with them - it's an important part of being a scientist. I wonder if I expect too much from adults?

Anyways, as far as entitlement is concerned:

I do think that children are entitled to an education free from disruption, and I think they have the responsibility to not disrupt. In turn, parents have to nurture good values in their children so that they will not disrupt.

IME, disruption, mostly low-level, is the biggest problem facing education at the moment. In independent schools, they are not immune but tend to deal effectively with disruption. Unfortunately, many state schools do not have effective procedures, and do not have the ultimate power to expel.

These problems are endemic in schools, and IMO are due to poor parenting, right from the earliest ages. I think primary schools do a good job at keeping a lid on it, with their effective pastoral care (ie a classroom teacher who really knows the children because of their large amount of contact). It is so hard when they transfer to secondary and become an unknown with no one really looking out for them until they become known to staff for all the wrong reasons.

Disruptive behaviour is what has convicted us that private schools are the right place for our children. Yes, we have the choice that is not open to everyone, but it is still a choice that we do have and we cannot un-invent that choice - the genie is out of the lamp. We have decided to exercise this choice rather than frittering away our money on material things. It would be very wrong for us to have made alternative choices just because others don't have the same choices.

We did not get to this place by accident - we did it through education, hard work, and time (we paid our first set of school fees in 2003, having graduated in 1986). We are also fortunate to have a modest house that we are content with.

TC - Absolutely! Without early intervention ds1 would definitely need a place at a special school and all the resources that go with it. Far more expensive than being on SA+ in a mainstream school. Things could've gone either way with ds2 too.

crikey. A moral failure. Ouch. I think, however, that my first moral duty is to my own children. I won't let them go without things that are vital to their development and their life, even if that was to benefit a hundred other children. - or a million other children, tbh. If that makes me a selfish, immoral person, (and I accept that many people obviously feel it does) I shall have to plead my case to my maker come judgement day.

Yes, of course we have a duty to our own children.

It does not help society as a whole if we deliberately hold back our children so that they match those who do not have the wherewithall to achieve.

We have to do our best by our own children and, if at all possible, use our gifts to help those who are less advantaged.

Doing nothing is not an option, imo.