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.

I disagree with you Xenia, on your comment that poor people like to think there is a correlation between high pay and misery. Most of the working poor (any poor actually) I know are well aware that life would be much nice with more money!

supercollider, my list of "ifs" was not exhaustive, feel free to add your own "ifs"

Thanks, I will

I did think about it when I wrote the post

I'd consider it if I thought the local state schools had a serious problem with pupil violence or violent bullying that was not adequately addressed by the staff. However, I suspect that those of us for whom comprehensives are the default expectation are much less inclined to dramatise these problems than those who have an innate preference for fee-paying schools.

I'd also consider it if I had an SN child and I thought that the state provision was inadequate.

But there's a qualititative difference between my reasons and your reasons. Your reasons display your assumption that everyone thinks that fee-paying schools are better, and that we would all choose them if we could only afford it.

My point is that there are a lot of us who think that a) our children have a richer experience at comprehensives, and b) society would be adversely affected if everyone who could afford it chose fee-paying schools.

For this, you will almost certainly think me smug.

I should add that this process of switching between sectors is a two-way thing, and that violence is not restricted to state schools by any means.

My brother went to St Pauls, one of the most sought-after independents in the country. His gym master used to grab him by the neck and smash his head against the gym lockers. My brother, as you can imagine, was very pleased to switch to the state sector, where he remained unmolested by the staff.

Which school did you go to supercollider

I drifted away and moved some soil in the garden. Perfect day

Actually I don't care if you send your kids to private school BUT as supercollider says I do object to the attacks on us people who believe in the comprehensive system. I believe that it is inherently in the interests of all from the rich to the poor, the super bright to more practical if we spend part of our childhood mixing with others. Any basic understanding of history and politics will teach us that any religious, educational, income division is fundamentally dangerous. Over simplification obviously.

Also the other thing that p*es me off is the over fetishation of education as it is inherently a good thing. All that sending everyone to university achieves is the middle classes "buy" themselves into all the professions and top jobs as they are the only ones who can afford all the debt. It is not so much our generation (30+) but the one going through education now. And all the middle class angst about private school/state education feeds into that unequal system

fish & chips have arrived - have to go and eat

would never consider sending mine to state schools near here.

to say that 'everyone would do xxx if they could afford it' is a very stupid statement. As supercollider says, people have all sorts of reasons for making the decisions they do. I think you have to be really dim or really arrogant (though those often go hand in hand) to assume that everyone would pay for private education if they could afford it. I suspect (though I wouldnt state as fact) that many people would consider paying for private schools in certain situations. But that is a very different thing.
My reasons for not paying are, briefly, because I am fortunate to live in a catchment area of a comprehensive which I believe has good values and is inclusive. It is friendly and seems to turn out young people who are confident and secure in who they are and where they're going. There is a reasonable amount of sport, plus good drama and other extra curricular stuff.It does well in GCSE and A level - GCSE rate for A-C is around 70% with good level at grade A. There is a well respected private school along the road, and while I'm sure it doesnt turn it's pupils into socially inept or emotionally insecure adults, as some posts have suggested private schools do, I can't see what it does that gives good value for money. The fees are around 15k per year. The buildings are nice, they have a posh marquee up in the summer when I drive past, and the uniform looks smart. But the teaching isnt any better, from what I know (I work in education and know quite a bit about the school). Some of the teachers are no doubt inspiring, some are possibly dire and no doubt most are somewhere in the middle. Their GCSE pass rate is around 95%, which is unsurprising as it is a selective school, and most of the intake are bright middle class children. So overall the 95% is perhaps less good than the comprehensives 70% in terms of added value. And quite frankly, I don't care whether 70% or 95% pass - my own children's results are what matter to me. Yes, I could afford to pay for private, without it seriously compromising other things in life, because DH and I earn good money and have also been very fortunate with property. But I would resent paying 15k when my options are as described above. Because ultimately, I would paying not for better education, but to have my children taught only among similar children. That's why I admire Xenia's posts - she is very honest about what she is paying for.
If I were to live in an area with diabolical state schools, then I would probably think again. Though in all honesty I would perhaps be more likely to move house to an area with a good state school rather than pay for private as it would probably be better value long term. I would also consider some targeted private tuition if necessary rather than dive straight into private school, because I've known children make huge gains with some timely extra tuition at 30 quid an hour which is a big saving on 13 years of school fees. If I had a child with a particular special need which I believed the state sector could not cater for, I would consider private. If my children were rather dim or seriously lacking in confidence and needed a very sheltered environment I might consider it. If I had a child with a very specific talent in sport or music which could not be catered for in state I would consider it (I see this as similar to the special needs situation).
But to return to the original point, it is a very stupid assumption to make that everyone who can afford to pay for education would do so.

Suely what most people would like is for their local state school to be a good place for their child, and to be confident that they will be happy, make friends and reach their potential. Thankfully for many families this is the case. Sadly for some it isn't.

I'm not stupid, dim or arrogant.

I don't recall anyone saying you are Cammelia. I said it is a stupid statement. Which it is. Inaccurate too.

So long as you're completely happy with all of your statements findtheriver.

Dim and arrogant?

I think it is dim, or arrogant, or both to make the statement that 'everybody would pay for xxx if they could'. For xxx substitute school/yacht/aston martin/ whatever you like. It is an extraordinary assumption to make that 'everybody' chooses to use their money in any particular way!!

Cammelia - state all the way for me! State primary, comprehensive secondary, FE college for A levels, unfashionable 1960s university.

I had a much, much better educational experience - both pastorally and academically - at my comprehensive than my bro did at St Pauls, where his academic ability and personal confidence were systematically undermined. (And my brother was plenty bright - having taken his A levels at the same FE college that I attended, he went on to Oxford to do PPE.)

Do fee-paying schools still have the option to use corporal punishment, by the way? Because if so, I find it odd that parents who want to escape the supposed 'violence' of the state sector might be choosing to send their children to schools where they will be beaten by sadists.

Ah, no, it's been outlawed since 1998. Thankfully. Just parents who are allowed to beat children now

Well I want the schools very selective. So I think it's great that at 11 schools like Habs and NLCS have so many children from not very well off families but who are super bright are competing for places. I wouldn't want a private school where anyone could get in who paid as I want the children in very academic schools with other children like that and you only get that when you have vast competition for places. Thus the competition for the places is in a sense a major reason the schools are good as indeed every parent in the UK was able totry to obtain free when we still had grammar schools. That route went and ever since then more and more private school pupils have done better and better to such an extent that the Government want universities to fix things.

Would I not pay if there were a similar option? I think I would still pay. Even schools like Watford Grammar or the Bucks grammars that with judicious moving people around here can use IF they have a clever child, in the state sector do not do as well as most of the very good fee paying schools and I just don't think all the rest of it is as good, the grounds ... even the other parents you might end up being with.

It is certainly interesting having three children at university stage. They have friends from all kinds of schools and I suspect those from the private sector with richer well connected parents are making "better" career choices or finding it easier in terms of having career guidance at home, work experience and that kind of thing. Life is just full of unfairness anyway. It is unfair Ms Weir's children are in a rubbish school because she chose to mess around writing books which are badly paid rather than getting a proper career to fund school fees

Findtheriver - please put in some paragraphs - your long post is very difficult to read otherwise .

I firmly believe in the principle of comprehensive education, having benefited from attending a pretty good one myself. Were I to send my children to the local ones around here though, I would feel strongly that I was sacrificing their wellbeing for a political principle and I am not prepared to do that.

Or I could fight tooth and nail to get them into a good state school miles away, thereby depriving other families who cannot afford private school fees.

The choice has actually been rather easier than I thought it would be.

Findtheriver.Didn't find your post hard to read.However,not all parents pay fees for their children to achieve academic excellence...it is also about 'who you know'.

Oh Xenia, you really do let yourself down sometimes. It is quite clear from what people have said in this thread who either have kids in or know the school that AWs children are at is not rubbish, and that what she is objecting to is people who dismiss schools such as hers as rubbish just because they are state schools, or because their Ofsted reports are not glowing. It is also pretty obvious that AW could easily afford to send her children to a private school and is choosing not to. I doubt very much that their life chances are going to be ruined as a result. I suspect that financially AW is doing just fine, and who is to say that she didn't choose the career she is best suited to?

"I would perhaps be more likely to move house to an area with a good state school rather than pay for private as it would probably be better value long term."

How are you measuring that value, Findtheriver?

If I lived in an area with "excellent" state schools, would I still opt for the independent sector? Assuming I could afford it (which I couldn't at secondary level as things stand), I would still take the independent route. Maybe that's because independent schools are the only schools I have any experience of; maybe it's also precisely because they are independent (and I detest the idea of the state meddling in my children's education in any way, whether it be SATS, Citizenship or any of the other twaddle they dream up).

I generally agree with Xenia on this topic (not on much else, but definitely on this). However, I reckon Arabella Weir would find some smug reason to send her children to state schools even if she were a multi-millionaire. I think some people are just that way inclined.

Why is it 'smug' to believe in the comprehensive principle? Are you smug because you prefer independent schools?

Believing in the comprehensive principle isn't smug. Writing articles for the Guardian about why you are morally superior for holding these beliefs is smug!

it's just a shame that we can't just work together to get a great education system, opting out, like the nhs, is only available to a small minority

I find it smug to suggest that sending your child to private school cuts them off from real life.