arabella weir on why we must send our kids to state schools

[nowirehangers]

Arabella on why she would never send her kids to private schools
What do people think?
Fwiw I find the tone unbelievably smug. I also disagree with a lot of what's being said. I don't think all parents send thier kids to private schools so they can avoid the great unwashed, though some do. I would love my dcs to go to a state school for the reasons she mentions.
What puts me off is the fact the teaching is so often mediocre - as the Chief Inspector of Schools admitted this week. Of course there are so incredible teachers in the state system but I fear there are a lot of second-rate one too. I went to a state primary where the teaching was awful then was moved in to a private school and couldn't believe how much more stimulating the atmosphere was and how much more inspirational the teachers were. I dislike the idea of my dcs mixing only with posh kids, so I'm going to put mye experience down as an unlucky one and give the local state school the benefit of the doubt but if I feel they're being taught badly I will remove them and remortgage the house or whatever to make it work. Anyway, that's my opinion, interested in others.

DS has 17 in his class. The local primary where his friend goes, has 33. Big difference IMHO.

My Aunt has over thirty in hers and her TA has been off sick with 'stress' for nearly a year now. She says it's bedlam.

Oh don't get me wrong, I think it is indeed nice to have a smaller class. I just don't think that there is any definitive evidence that relates smaller classes with better results, at least at primary level. But it is often given as the primary advantage of private schools. My children have had less than 25 in their primary classes, with at least one, often two TAs (these are whole class support). One year ds was in a class of 34, but they had three TAs that year.

I had bigger classes at the public boarding school I went to at sixth form than the private day school I went to before that, the boys were also much much worse behaved (embarrassingly and disruptively so). That's no comment on state schools of course, but just because your parents pay out loads of cash does not guarantee that you are not going to behave badly, or be in a disrupted class.

I think that were parents have the luxury of choice (and it should not be forgotten that this is a luxury) they should vet any school for the values and ethos that they require.

nooka surely the concern re state education will only extend to the school that your children attend?

No I don't. I think that would be very parochial, and shortsighted. In any case national policy will affect the school. Now if it was a private school, yes I would absolutely agree, because it is self governing unless it is part of a chain.

Oops, what terrible grammar there! I mean no I don't think so.

ok fair enough

I can't be bothered to get embroiled in this again. Maybe when I have more energy I will come back and argue my case. I still agree wholeheartedly with Weir.

I would agree with the previous poster who made the comment that snobbery from either end of the class spectrum is awful. From all the posts it also appears that both private and state schools can have a diverse intake.

Yes, there are ghastly children with awful parents who attend private schools (cue snidey comments about tarquins, jago and the like), but the same at state schools.

The comment that people mix with their own kind at state school is very relevant: you may send your kids to a state school, but it does not follow that they will therefore mix with a diverse set of peers.

I didn't like her comment about walking home through a council estate - so what! Even if i send dd to a private school we are surrounded by council estates here and we walk through them every day. I can't imagine it will change when she is at school.

I take the point about social responsibility and if my local state schools weren't absolutely awful, i would consider sending dd there. (i live in central london, classically in an area with very good public schools and terrible state schools)

One of the pressures is the whole 'feeder' aspect of private education. IE, if your lo does not go to a certain nursery, they will not go to a good primary, then a good secondary school. The competition for private nursery school places in my area is so fierce that you have to apply for my local schools at birth. Oh and by the way- these schools are within a 15 minute WALK from our house

I think Arabella Weir makes some good points and I bet her kids will turn out just fine.

I read this article with interest, I think it makes some good points but sadly some sweeping generalisations.

My children are not at school yet, but having researched schooling in the area (we live in the North of England), I think that the debate is very much about doing the best for your child given your local/personal situation.

For example, 2 miles down the road from us there is a State Partnership Trust Family of schools, where 5 primaries and a secondary are linked, which means if your child is in the primary they will automatically get a place in the secondary. The secondary is the best in the county with 90% A* to C (incl English etc) at GCSE, therefore parents from miles and miles around fight to get their children in the 5 primaries.

The said partnership of schools therefore is seeing similar trends to a private school, ie parents abandoning their local primary as the choice of secondary later on would be so ghastly.

Are they then morally wrong? (this includes me by the way).

I think it's not wrong as I feel it's my child's right to have a decent education and where my secondary school (which I would no doubt be assigned) is getting 14% GCSEs as well as 3 resident police officers because of drug problems, then I feel I have a right to opt out of that school. If my children don't get in said primary I will go private as I see it as the second best option.

And like another poster says, no I am not arrogant enough to think my child going to my local secondary would make a blind bit of difference; I have a professional full time job and 3 kids to juggle and sadly I can't see myself as being able or having time to raise standards and spend time fundraising etc as a reality in my life!

Yes but you really want 90% A or A* which is what you get in the better schools in the private sector so that "best" is not actually that good.

I am not sure where you aer in the North of England but compare Manchester Grammar and Newcastle's Royal Grammar with those results to see what more you get by paying.

Actually, want you really want is 45/45 in the IB - worth 6 A* at A-level...

Actually what I want is for my children to achieve their potential, whether that is all A*/A grades or not, and to appreciate the joys of music, drama etc and to learn how to build positive relationships with people from all walks of life. It matters not a jot to me whether 90% or 50% of the other kids in their schools get A grades or not.

Anna: as a Finn I can tell you that their education consistently achieves what you people in this country can only dream off. Education is universally free, teachers are highly qualified they all have Masters degrees, schools have free HEALTHY lunches (none of your fish and chips rubbish), all the kids achieve a lot because even the less able are made to achieve, all parents value education regardless of class, most kids leave school with A-levels in a variety of subjects including foreign langugages, science and maths. And as for the suicide rate, what about the kids here murdering each other, is that not a statistic to be ashamed of?

Not sure I'd like to pay Finnish tax rates, though.

What we all want is for our children to achieve their potential and in the UK often that can be best achieved if women pick careers which mean they earn enough to pay school fees.

Or partners who earn enough to pay school fees for their children. Tsk tsk at the sexism Xenia .

I agree entirely smallwhitecat.

Absolutely smallwhitecat.

Not sexism to say women should pay their way rather than lie on their backs giving themselves to a husband in order to have things paid for for the. Women should earn their own money.

Why would someone rather die than send their children to lovely schools like those my chidlren went to? The only thing some people might object to is those schools are hard to get into because they have so many applicants per place and everyone is very clever. Educating a child in a school which suits it (a bright child in a bright school ) is entirely arppropriate for that child. There are also private schools for very thick children which are appropriate for them too. I wouldn't knock either type but it's the segregation in a way that I pay for, the chance for the child to be in a place where everyone is clever (if one has a child of that kind).

But why should mothers work to pay school fees Xenia? Surely fathers should also contribute to school fees?

If you feel you need to pay for your children's education, then, yes, of course it should be a joint responsibility because (hopefully) it is a joint decision.

WMany women do earn their money being mothers.

Just becaue you didn't (because you wanted different things) doesn make those who made differnt choices to you prostitures, you silly woman

Xenia, why are you so cold and calculated?
Clearly you see sex only as part of some kind of arrangement or bargaining tool yourself.

I have sex with my husband because I love him and want to do it, and I certainly do not see it as some kind of recompense for his paying for things.

I look after his children, the house and our financial admin, and he WOH....

Oh feck why am I justifying myself to you? Your posts reek of the worst kind of sexism, denying women a choice in the way in which they lead their lives. It stinks