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.

Hey, don't get cross with Xenia. The only possible conclusion you can draw from her opinions on sex within marriage/a couple relationship is that her own sex life must be a total disaster

I know, Anna, I am more annoyed with myself for bothering to post.

What sex life anyhow? Since she can pay her own school fees she doesn't need one, does she?

LOL

oooh why the bitchiness?
Xenia's posts are always a bit different, she has a unique perspective and says what she thinks. She doesnt claim to be perfect, she doesnt claim that everyone else should want to be like her, she simply says what she thinks. I think she's great
To return to the OP.... I think the article has some good points in it, though there are some generalisations too.
My own view is that all children are unique, what suits one won't necessarily suit another anyway, so it's impossible to say that any one style of education is 'best'. So long as all your children have equality of opportunity - that's the important issue, not the particular type of school they are in.
And as I said before, I couldnt give a flying fart about whether 50% or 90% of other pupils in the school achieve the magic GCSE grades - what I care about is that my own children achieve the best they can. I think education is about far more than passing exams anyway. Probably the most important thing as far as I am concerned is that my children develop the capacity to make good life choices, ie enter into positive and happy relationships etc. I know plenty of people who have a string of good results and earn good money but have unhappy/broken relationships and a messy domestic situation. I would prefer my children to achieve well academically and have choices open to them, but also to have learned the REALLY important skills of good relationships

I try not to talk about my sex life on line but I would certainly be happier in a close loving relationship with good sex, as would most people.

On the point about not caring about other children - that is a major point for me. Most children follow the herd. Some are happy to be different - much cleverer or much less than others but most tend particularly as teenagers to do what most other do. They follow peer pressure at age 13 - 17 not parents although you hope your own good grounding to them will win out. So put them into a school where 100% of children go to good universities, most get As at A level and 25% go to Oxbridge picking the example of my chidlrne's private schools and they are more likely than not to follow that course (fi indeed one wants them to follow that course). Put them in a school where a good proportion of the class leave at 17 (our new school leaving age) and a lot go to rather rubbish ex polytechnics and they're likely to be like that too.

The same argument applies to schools with drugs issues of course too in all sectors. Some schools are worse than others. Lose your influence over them and throw them into a boarding environment with a load of very rich kids whose parents smoke and take cocaine or have anorexia and they're likely to emulate that.

No bitchiness, I agree Xenia has a unique perspective and I do enjoy reading her posts, although I disagree vehemently with the majority of it.

But honestly, I do have a right to reply you know, especially to vicious and insulting posts which infer that being a SAHM is akin to prostitution.

'women should pay their way rather than lie on their backs giving themselves to a husband in order to have things paid for'

And I'm being bitchy?

Harumph

What I really, really object to on these kind of threads is the assumption that a tiny minority of private school parents would make such a difference to state school provision.

What totally patronising claptrap.

If you tease apart that statement, what you really get is an assumption that working class and middle class parents who use state schools are not

• sufficiently interested in
• articulate enough
• able to to effect change to state school provision without the 'heavy hitters' that currently use private schools. So what you are really saying is that the private school parents are not only more interested in securing the best schooling but are better able to effect change that state school parents. And I just do not subscribe to that notion at all!

Absolutely agree Soapy.Tis a rubbish assumption.

Xenia - yes, of course teenagers are influenced by their peer group, just as they are influenced by a variety of factors, parents, home situation, siblings, the media... I just feel it's sad that as a logical conclusion to that, some parents might feel pressurised into paying, not so much for an education (because I don't agree that the teaching is so superior in private schools as to merit 20k a year - I know - I've witnessed it) but rather to keep their child apart from the education system that 93% of their peer group are using! I'm just not convinced that it's the best preparation for real life.

these threads must make parents with children still at primary worry so much about state secondaries.

my ds(14) loves his, it's fab, parents all get involved, he has friends locally, they all walk together to school. he got fab sat results.

I agree southeast. Of course parents want to understand the issues, and make informed decisions, but some of the scaremongering really isnt helpful. I think parents who have only been through the private system themselves can be very fearful of the state system - fear of the unknown I guess - which is in itself an argument against private, because I can't see that being so anxious about the system that 93% of young people experience can be a positive thing! Hardly good preparation for real life!

My main personal issue with private is that I would resent paying the money for what I don't believe is a good return.The teaching is often not better or more inspiring etc in private. Parents use it as an insurance policy, because they aren't confident, as Xenia describes, that their children will be able to achieve their potential without being segregated from a large section of the population. I know most state schools set by ability from fairly early on, which given the curriculum I think is the right way to go, so a bright child will be with other bright children. But obviously within a state school, there is the flexibility for children to move up or down sets, so in that sense it isnt divisive.

But it works great - the friends they make, values they imbibe, rounded education they obtain free from the constraints of national curriculum benefits them so much in the best (not the worst) private schools.

I also want them to have an internal patina or memory patterning of beautiful fields, lakes, buildings and a great physical environment too which I accept is not a priority issue and that some of the inner city private schools don't even have but the calmness and beauty of some of our private schools is just so wonderful and that I can work hard and buy to pay for my children to experience that has been brilliant.

Yes, in a sense I pay to give them clever peers. But even in the schools Habs, North London etc you do get an ability range of course. Mine have never been top of any class by any means. You get the girls with 11 A* at A level and then the ones with As and Bs. It's a spread but at least it's not with a massive cohort of children who won't even get C at GCSE.

I think you are polarising too much Xenia! All the state schools I know set by ability. My ds is in classes where eg most of the pupils got Level 8 in Maths SAT (highest level you can get) and are expected to get A*/A at GCSE. Why is the fact that there are other classes of kids who will get Cs or Ds a problem? Because they might bump into eachother in the dining hall? Or, shock horror, speak to one another??!!
I can see you may have a point in situations where all the local state schools are DIRE and there are excellent private day schools on the doorstep (which may well be the case with you Xenia, as you are London based) but it really ISN'T the pattern across the country. Generally speaking, the private schools are probably not so academic, and the state schools are far higher achieving, so there isnt that huge gulf that you describe. And therein lies the problem I think. Many parents can end up lacking confidence in their children and feeling pressurised to throw hard earned money at something which they probably don't need to. Or even worse, take out loans etc to cover the cost of school fees - I know parents who put themselves through the most ridiculously stressful situations. I just think once you are on that rollercoaster of thinking 'I'm paying therefore it MUST be worth it, it's very difficult to step off.

A frank exhange of opinion is not bitchynes.

Quite soapbox, as if the 7% of schoolchildren's parents who use private education could somehow change the state system more than the 93% who are in it

...and the concept of blame that is inferred with this......

And the constant allusions to being a ft mother with prostitution are quite an astonishing (and explicit) attempt at the derogation of rivals that it always smacks of chronic insecurity to me.

Well said MT. Someone who so consistently lashes out with extrordinarily insulting bullshit ought to expect a bit of bitchiness in return.

Soapbox: "What you really get is an assumption that working class and middle class parents who use state schools are not ... able to effect change to state school provision without the 'heavy hitters' that currently use private schools. So what you are really saying is that the private school parents are not only more interested in securing the best schooling but are better able to effect change that state school parents."

I agree with what you said and would even go further. As a busy working parent with a child in private school, one of the reasons I send my child to private school is precisely so I do NOT have to get involved in any lobbying for better facilities, teaching, resources etc. If the private school does not deliver, I just vote with my feet to another one.

In other words, I pay for private so I don't have to get involved. I will not suddenly better super PTA-mother just because my child is in a state school (which I did consider).

Most parents of children in state schools are busy working parents. I certainly wouldnt have the time or inclination to be a PTA supermum, and frankly, I don't think this is a very important aspect anyway. Being involved and interested in your children's learning is far more relevant

Corporate bodies are flattered an astonishing amount by business. It gives them a feeling of being immensely important, not just in that bubble, but out of it. It takes a very strong character to keep a sense of perspective.

I wondered how long Xenia would wait before leading the thread in the direction of SAHM bashing.

I liked the article, it was thoughtful and acknowledged some of the fears people have. I didn't find it smug. However, I think AW's children are only primary school ages and it is different when they go to secondary school. For a start, we have this marvellous system where we totally cut off any regular engagement with the school and other parents, so we completely lose track of who the friends of our children are, where they come from, who their parents are etc. And we know that peer group pressure is far more important that parental pressure for teenagers, so it makes us uneasy that we don't quite know who the peer group is going to be. We also know that they are less likely to tell us about bullying etc. at their age and that more serious problems like drugs, eating disorders, sex etc. will raise their ugly heads. So because we're more fearful, we're more likely to opt for what we think might be damage limitation if we have that choice (and I do so wish that newspapers wouldn't always talk about it as if it's a choice open to everyone - only a tiny minority of people can afford private education). I wonder if she'll be quite so determined on state education if the local secondary school is a sink school? Because it isn't the academic stuff that matters (bright kids will do well anywhwere) it's the ethos of the school and whether your children will be happy there. And that obviously is not dependent on whether you pay or not, but if she lived where I do, where the only local secondary school for boys is the second worst in the whole country, she might be questioning whether that ethos would suit her children.

oh and those of you who say that grammars are the answer, you obviously don't expect your little darlings to be part of the 77% of children who don't pass the 11+ and therefore don't get into grammars. Clearly, grammar isn't the answer for the majority.

I agree, LittleBella.

There have been some insightful posts on both sides of this debate, and it is a shame it descended into the whole 'is being a sahm the same as being a prostitute' hoo hah that Xenia is so fond of.

I can't think what SAHMs have to do with the discussion!

And also on choice which LB was talking about, no one chooses to go to the schools with 8 pupils applying per place in the private sector (or state sector). There's a huge lot of luck in it and most children aren't bright enough to get in so it's not really a choice thing unless the child is so clever it could get in anywhere or the private school is so dire there is no competitoin for places in which case you'd be better steering clear of it.

(As for comments about me, I have never objected - free speech if very important)

I do respect your forthright opinions, Xenia, and agree it is true that you never object to what others write about you or your views.

Think another poster stepped in to defend you, although I can't imagine you have ever needed anyone to fight your corner