Do you think it's immoral to put your children through private primary school to ensure they get a place at a state grammar?

[purplepumpkin]

Just wondered - I overheard two women discussing this today and it was pretty obvious that they could afford to send their children private at secondary level, as they would do so if they failed. But their children would be taking up grammar school places that therefore would not be available for state school pupils that could not afford to go private.

So is that immoral or just the way things are nowadays i.e. everyone for themselves?

I think that one of the confusing things is that some schools used to be grammar schools, but still retain the name 'grammar', even though they are now private or comprehensive schools.

The reason for my comment earlier was because some parents can find it hard to adjust to the realities of state school even if it's a very good grammar.

A parent at his first secondary school parents' eve (child had been at a so-so prep school) badgered a colleague to rank order his child to see how they compared to the others, which is something the colleague was not prepared to do. When told dc was working at just within B grade, the father was dismissive, "He needs to be A grade; B grade is plumber. What are you going to do to make him A grade?" !!!!

"that's why 1000 kids from all over the place apply for 126 places, and the top scorers get the places"... and if you live next door but aren't one of the 126 you have to find a secondary school in a neighbouring borough.

Perhaps it is every man for himself, but its a bit of a messed up situation in the first place.

Of course anyone is entitled to send their child to a state school. But there is an element of unfair competition in educating privately at primary in order to be first in the queue for grammars. There's also unfair competition in tutoring, of course. And in being able to afford a house near good schools (at least in the South East, don't know if this applies everywhere).

Anyway, it makes dh's niece's achievement even more impressive, bless her. Dh's sister and BIL are very badly off indeed and live in an area with poor state primaries. Niece went to a school where only a handful get into the local grammars. But she not only passed the 11+ but passed it twice - she lives on the border of two counties and took the exam for both. One of only four kids in her year to pass.

Oddly enough, the grammar she chose to attend is almost all Asian kids (it's single sex) from out of borough. She is doing jolly well and her mum is working loads of overtime to pay for school trips.

I can't see how it's morally different from paying for a tutor or even intensively tutoring your child yourself if you have the qualifications. But then I don't have to deal with this, living in a grammar-free county.

I suppose I thought it was immoral in the same way that I wouldn't take a seat on a bus from an old lady - her need is greater than mine, so if I can stand, I should. Do you see what I mean?

I think some here are being a bit disingenuous. The reason that privately prepping a DC for a state grammar school place could be considered immoral is obviously because a less able but intensively, one on one tutored DC could well get a place over and above a brighter DC from a financially and academically poor background who had had no prior training whatsoever in the 11+ and technique. It's as simple as that.

The 'private health' thing is a white elephant. There is no limit in supply of that commodity whereas grammar school places are extremely limited! As for catchments- well, the nearest grammar to here is 36 miles away. THAT'S considered 'reasonable travelling distance' by the school!

And note I said 'privately prepping' a DC which encompasses private schools and tutors.

The problem is that if 1000 people are applying for 126 places, you can bet your bottom dollar that far more than 126 of the applicants will have been privately coached (I have no idea how many Tiffins pupils went to prep schools). I think the prep school thing is a bit of a red herring though - unless they spend hours and hours practicing tests. I think its the coaching that makes the difference.

I think its the schools that are disingenuous. If they cared about whether the applicants went to private schools they could interview applicants and take references from schools and try to target those with potential rather than those who had the best coaching/most advantaged background (indeed I think some private secondaries do this - it might just be so that they can maintain charitable status by offering the requisite number of bursaries, but thats not relevant to this thread). But as far as I know they don't.

I might be being rather Kingstoncentric about this, but I don't know what goes on in other areas.

Mmm, teslagirl, but I bet you almost anything that a lot of the state school pupils aiming for grammar school places will have been given one on one tuition (whether from paid tutors or parents). In fact, I suspect it's more likely that a state school pupil will be getting intensive one on one paid tuition than a private school pupil. Singling out the private school pupil as the immoral one (which the OP does) seems iffy (as you acknowledge).

As MadamePlatypus says, it would be perfectly possible for the schools to put in place an admissions system that looked for potential. So long as they don't do that I don't think it's immoral for parents to take advantage of the advantages they have.

Is it immoral for parents with a houseful of books, or who get a daily broadsheet newspaper, or who take their children to museums, or who discuss issues with their children, to apply for a grammar school place for their child (given that all this Generic Nice Middle-Class Parent stuff may lead their child to get a place over and above a brighter DC from a different background)?

I think private schools are immoral, full stop, but that's just me.

Anyone can take their child to a museum, I manage it and I am Well Poor.

Not anyone can send their child to a private school.

I don't think sending your child to private schools is immoral - that's the nature o0f motherhood, to want what you believe to be the best. I think private schools being allowed at all is immoral.

Private schools aren't immoral.

Bad schools are immoral.

is the amount of tutoring and competition for good school places not indicative of a deep rooted disatisfaction with many other schools provision/outcomes

dont actually think parents a re in the wrong to want the best, but it isnt a level playing field.

not all parents can afford/want tutors

too few good places.considerable competition

this is a biggie dont know the definitive answer

maybe...
increased Investment in schools
smaller class sizes
Extra finance for struggling schools

What's the definition of "afford"? We managed to afford a year at prep school for DD2 (worth every penny but now at state comp) by remortgaging......... DD1 went from state primary to grammar without coaching/extra tuition - wouldn't have done it cos I would have felt guilty if she'd struggled once she was there and other she would probably have done well at local comp as she's very motivated.