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.

And the comments was probably true. If I had a nice loving husband etc I would probably be happier. I don't think it would change my views on the principle that if women (or men) can afford to pay fees and the private school is better then you're doing the best thing for your child if you pay, however. Sometimes political differences are an issue with men. And indeed in relationships where couples have very different views on how the children are educated massive rows can ensure so it's best to discuss that sort of thing before you agree to marry.

I could afford to send my DCs to private school but dont - cant see the benefit at all tbh! I would much prefer to spend our money on trips out/abroad as this to me is an education in itself. I couldnt care less if people want to spend their money on private education -thats their choice....

I have always been happy with state education. Both DP and I were state educated and it hasn't done us any harm!

Having an interest in your childs education and encouraging them every step of the way counts for a lot, but tbh when DD1 started school I was only interested in her having fun and making friends! That to me is one of the most important aspects of school - social skills.

I have never for one minute considered sending my children to private school...and when I hear of the amount of money involved I am quite glad!

People's opinions can change you know... My dh and I went to state primary and private secondary, and it is at secondary level that I think it is worth considering private (if you can) because there is generally a lot more choice at primary, so it's rarely sink school or nothing.

So for us we would have had to come to an opinion sixteen years before we would be making a decision. Plenty of time to form new and possibly opposing opinions... Also educational choice should be based primarily on your child's needs.

Also the whole it wouldn't make a difference debate, it's not usually based on the 7% at national level, but on much higher proportions in very limited geographic areas (often, but not always inner city), where concerned parents do their utmost to avoid sink schools, whether by getting religion, jumping borough, moving house or going private. You then get a school where many parents don't care that much about education, or feel there is nothing they can do. I don't think this is a fault of the parents that have avoided that school (I'd do the same) but it is n important factor in why schools go downhill and struggle to recover. Parental involvement is more than PTA, it's ensuring your children do their homework, turn up on time, do what they are told, and not, when your cild gets into trouble turning up at school and threatening the teachers..

I have always wondered though, by sending your kids to private school - what is your ultimate goal? that they end up very clever and having brilliant prfessional careers?? this can happen to people who attend state school....

I know a lot of people who went to private school and some of them ended up in good jobs, but when you looked a little deeper it wasn't because of 'what they knew' but because of 'who they knew'

I suspect that people send their kids to private school to 'network'

by sending your kids to private school - what is your ultimate goal?

The same as most people for me - for DD to have a happy, fullfilling childhood and time at school, to reach her potential whatever that may be, and to become a confident, happy and successful (in whatever field she chooses) as an adult.

We choose private schools for other reasons - not to be in the right "social network" or to knwo the right people.

K999 - I agree that where both parents are state educated and have successful, happy lives, then you're more likely to have the confidence that your own children will achieve in the state system. I think many state schools have improved dramatically over the last 30/40 years anyway - I know the comprehensive my dc attends is far better than the one I went to in terms of exam results, but having said that, I did very well in A levels, went to University, did degree and higher degree etc as have many other MNers from state schools. I think a huge advantage of state (generally speaking) is that you are more likely to end up confident that you have achieved on your own merits, rather than being hothoused in some rarified environment with a narrow sector of society.

Hulababy - that is why I send my child to state schools - becuase I am confident that she will achieve all that (without me spening a small fortune)

And I still suspect that some send their kids to private school because it is a 'status' symbol......

I agree - that is all achievable at any school. But I was asked for ultimate goal - that it is. For me, that wouldn;t change regardless of school choice.

My reasons for choosing private over state however? Completely different reasons, and status is not up there at all. TBH, the majority of people I know of using private also don;t ave status as they reason either. Maybe some of the posher London school sit is different hough.

i think the majority of parents in this country have no choice but to send their children to the local state school.

independent schools must sound tempting to those that can afford it, but how far are you going to fund your children, personally i'm saving up now so my son can go to university and not leave without any debts.

sea - we are aiming to do same if we can, although who knows what the university situation may be by then.

Is she talking primary or secondary?

I can't get the article for some reason.

There are loads of parents in my Guardianista area of London who use state primaries but (very quietly) remove their children to private secondaries.

Status is surely what the nouveau riche seek to buy when they go private but not most people paying fees.

What is my aim? Like Hulab says. I want them to enjoy their childhood, fulfil their potential. I am not sure really that networking is something most parents do buy. I have said above buying a suitable peer group who all tend to work hard and where the parents all have the same high expectations is worth paying for. But having said that my second daughter has had a week in Israel and a week in France this summer at homes owned by school friends' relatives and I suppose it's less likely there would be such free available luxury if she'd gone to the local comp in terms of properties abroad other parents might have.

Not exactly free luxury though is it Xenia - comes at a price, around 20k per year! You could have a lot more than two weeks away for that price!

Not read whole thread but loved the article, TOTALLY agree with it, my thoughts are very simelar to the authors. I see my DC as privaledged to go to the local state school, not disadvantaged. I think it is great that there is a real mix of kids from all backgrounds and diversity is a good thing. A friend of DD who was going to a private school said to DD that she was going because 'it is better' than the state school that most the other kids were going on to. I told DD that some people may think that and need that (the supposed advantages of private schools) to do well but that she (and others) could do well anywhere including state schools and that would she want to go to a selective school and a school with no kids with disabilities or from poor backgrounds etc, she did not.

The majority of state secondary schools set for English, Maths and Science, but teach in mixed ability groups (i.e. tutor groups) for ALL the other subjects, including GCSE and A level; so setting according to ability doesn't happen across the board by any means. This is one of the problems with state education.

The platitude that 'a bright child will do well anywhere' is untrue in many cases. The bright child doesn't want to be teased by peers about being a 'geek' or a 'nerd' or a 'swot' for actually paying attention in class, or doing their homework on time. Bright children come in for a hell of a lot of stick, both in and out of the classroom, and many choose not to succeed or to fulfill their potential because then they won't be 'different' from others. I've seen it time and time again both with my own lad and with those I've taught.

I think that one of the problems with state education is that the expectations of what students can achieve both academically and personally are set too low. I got into trouble with a colleague for advising my students to aim as high as they could. My take is that you can aim as high as you like, but you may have to adjust your sights downwards. The take of my colleague was that I was raising unrealistic expectations in my students and should realise that many of them would never achieve anything much.

I also think - and I may get flamed for this - that teachers should not go into teaching until they have done at least five years outside the education system and had some life experience. The colleague who didn't like my attitude had gone from school to uni and then back to school as a teacher. She really had no idea about how the world works outside the confines of education and had a very narrow world view. I think this should go for all teachers in both state and private sectors.

I haven't even made up my mind. I just wish people could live and let live, ^especially the people who do, but who then launch broadsides at people who don't because of finiacian reasons. Nothing so bad as a bad winner. Learn some grace please and stop showing your petticoats.

"I also think that teachers should not go into teaching until they have done at least five years outside the education system and had some life experience."

I totally agree with you ST. In fact, not just working outside the education system but working in a non-Government/charity job.

scaryteacher, I think I disagree with nearly everything you said above!

I don't know any secondary schools which only set for maths, science and English. The norm is to set for the majority of subjects.

For example, our comprehensive has sets for all academic subjects right from Year 7. My youngest has just started Year 7 and by Christmas will be set for 3 subjects, with several more being set by Easter of Year 7.

All the schools my friends' children go to, both here and in other towns, seem to have a similar approach although some don't set until Year 8.

Schools' expectations of children seem to be very high, and not just for the high-fliers. And some, possibly most, of the best teachers I have known, both in primary and secondary, have come into teaching straight from university!

Our school didn't set for English until GCSE!

And I went to a very small private school with no setting with some very very thick girls in it, most did not go to university etc so it's impossible to generalise. I did feel isolated at school. I got the best A levels in the school and yet I'm not that bright. I think my brother's school (RGS Newcastle, private) was more appropriate and I deliberately wanted my children at bigger schools with more clever children in them.

scareyt is right about standards. My ex husband taught in both sectors and said he was a policeman in the state school and in his own school not many went to university. Were he in a different school as a brilliant organist he would have tried for an organ scholarship at Oxbridge which he would have got.

I just find the overall expectations of parents in private schools which are very academic higher for obvious reasons and it's an nicer environment for children to be in (and the holidays are longer.. .mine are still on holiday today which is nice for them and me too actually)

I don't know what part of the UK you live in Ecowarrior, but in my neck of the UK, setting is not the norm for the majority of subjects - mixed ability teaching is.

I have not been overly impressed by the teachers I have known who have come straight from university. The ones who have impressed me are those who have come into teaching later. They are the ones who can see alternative ways of doing things and who try to make those happen.

As for expectations, I suppose it depends where you are, but not all schools have high expectations of their students at all; not do they all have the same amount of money to spend on them, as again, the spend per child alters dependent upon where you are in the UK. Once that is standardised, perhaps things might begin to improve.

Mine are set for everything from Year 8 onwards so I don't think it can be that unusual (unless Ecowarrior's DC and mine go to the same school of course!)

What I wanted most out of the private sector was to not take part in the SATS, league tables debacle. I do not want my children to be strangled by the NI. I do not want them to spend year six doing past papers.
To my mind this is the antithesis of education.

You're lucky Word girl - I was teaching mixed ability sets from Year 7 to GCSE in my subject, and mixed ability from Year 7-9 in the other subjects I taught - and I think that Humanities count as academic!

It depends where you are in the UK.

scaryteacher - I couldn't agree more with you when you say that everyone who wants to be a teacher ought to spend at least five years out working in the real world before returning to the school environment.

Here in France generations of clueless lefty teachers are rigging the curriculum with their loony views - it has got so bad that the government has had to intervene to get publishers to rewrite economics text books and enforce the texts upon teachers who were refusing to teach from texts that explained capitalism in proper terms. Grrrrrrrrrrr.