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.

well exactly.

the way I see it, there are two options, if you don't like the current curriculum or culture in state schools:

• take action to change it. campaign to your MP, to the QCA, to Jim Knight.
• opt out by paying to join the private sector

now if everyone had the option of number two, I'd say fine. but as it is, it means those who can't afford to go private (or won't because of their principles) are basically abandoned to their lot by the people who can afford it.

Society is about striking a balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of the whole of society. and opting out, for me, doesn't sit comfortably with taking full part in society.

I don't blame those who do, because we all try to do our best for our children, of course we do. but if the private sector did not exist, I can't help thinking it would be a lot better all round.

well exactly was to bundle, btw. slow typing.

Bundle "you should know better" -charming.

There is a perfectly valid point, made by Xenia, but shot down in flames because it was made by everyone's favourite "bash the rich" target, that if the 6 or 7% of children who are privately educated were simply put into the state sector, there would not be any great improvement but actually a decline in standards because you would have x thousands mmore children and the same resources. Making things worse.

The resources which are currently in the private sector would not flow into the state sector, they would disappear back into the pockets of the parents who previously paid school fees. They would then spend this money on extra curricular activities to improve and supplement their children's education and guess what inequality would still exist.

Quattracento, I agree with every word you said.

hear hear SWC.

georgimama did you read the rest of my post? it is v complimentary about the hard work that litchick says she does

If you feel state schools are superior then you should just feel pity for the poor saps who cough up £10k pa to stop their children mixing with yours.

btw, I do think a very valid point of AWs is that some parents who choose private education (NOT all, I hasten to add) do not actually consider the state sector at all out of knee jerk prejudice.

They assume that it will be rubbish without actually looking, or they look at one bad Ofsted report without seeing if their child is happy and doing well.

That I find really sad.

Bundle - I think the differences I make are small.
For example at the law centre the idea is that by having proffessional, energetic lawyers in management the service will be improved. The problem is the staff. They are underpaid, overworked and generally denotivated. I don't blame them. 'Tis a crap job.
I fear it would be the same on a PTA at school. I could bring in loads of ideas but not change the essential infrastructure. And I certainly couldn't get any more cash from central government, nor could I get rid of the SATS etc.

litchick, those differnces, however small, add up.

I'm v anti-litter. so are my kids. they're horrified if they see anyone drop stuff in the streets. I sometimes ask kids who drop litter (usually next to a bin) to pick it up - if they don't I tell them I'll do it for them. My difference doesn't mean much but passing this onto others does.

our school PTA is staffed by busy committed people, who, alone, couldn't handle all the pressure. Together they raise lots of money for stuff the school can't afford.

you know, smallwhitecat, I was expressing an opinion - 'I think it would be better all round'

no back up research needed, just an opinion in a discussion. or am I not allowed an opinion either, like Arabella Weir? I promise I haven't been on the telly...

As for responsible parenting, oh those lovely loaded words.....I never asked you to take a punt with your children's welfare on my dubious, unproven opinion. It was.....

just an opinion.

(in fact I'm not sure you could abolish private schools all by yourself, or could you? Are you Jim Knight?)

Bundle - it's not hard work. The law centre is once a month, ditto the libary. I try to do CAB once a week in term time. Needle exchage used to be one evening a week but more like every three weeks now.
I don't want to be disingenuous and make out I'm a right flippin' do gooder.
My main work is my family and writing.

When people talk about rough schools they are referring to the intake. The fact that they very often no diddly squat about the intake or the often excellent work that is undertaken by said teachers is neither here or there for them.

My DTS started reception today at our local state school that has an intake that spans the social strata plus it has many from asian and afro-caribbean background. DH is white and I'm black and he commented that he was glad to see that there was a good number of ethnic minorities. Both DH and I have PhDs, have good jobs and could afford to send the boys to private schools but choose not to.

We don't give two hoots about someones background, what job they do, how much money they have, where they live or any of that irrelevant, frivolous froth. As long as they are decent, that is all that matters.

The school our boys attend received satisfactory in the last Ofsted report but we took no notice of that. We met the teachers, we spoke to the children who showed us around their school and if our boys are as articulate, self-assured and full of understated aplomb as many of these children were, we will be delighted. If there are shortfalls at the school, then we will make up for it at home.

When I was doing my PhD, to supplement my grant, I did private tuition in A'level chemistry. Most of my pupils were from private school and so you have to ask yourself why were those parents squandering spending thousands of pounds on school fees and then spending even more money on private tuition?{hmm]

If a child is able, they will perform. Both DH and I were from working class backgrounds, attended rough schools and have ended up earning more than many of the privately educated people we know.

Natural ability and talent will always shine through. Mediocrity will always remain mediocre, no matter how much money one throws at it.

I'm not saying you're a do-gooder, just acknowledging the work that you and many others do which make a difference.

But I've been there - mainly through monthly Management Committee meetings for nursery, plus interviewing staff etc - and tbh the last thing I wanted to do on a wet Wednesday was haul myself out of the house after a day's work, feeding the kids, reading with them and putting them to bed..
Only v few of the parents at the nursery were on the committee, which made it v hard work for the few of us who took part.

what sort of writing do you do?

and what backs up your opinion swc?

so you think the existance of private schools harms the state sector?

Haven't read replies.

Quick two pennies worth:

Agreed with everything Weir said. Complete no brainer for me. The hysteria among middle classes in my area of north London about sending your child to a school with high numbers of working class / ESOL kids is sickening and what else can you call it but covert racism/snobbery coupled with ridiculous and unfounded paranoia?

The inability to understand that yes, of course a school is going to get fabulous results if all it's pupils are posh, rich white kids I find unbelievable.

See Spokette, I agree with you entirely. Absolutely entirely. You cannot turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

But you can help the children make the most of their natural abilities (whatever those are - be they sporting or academic or musical), and ensure that they get a good education that is tailored to their needs, help them to be well-mannered and well behaved and kind to others.

These objectives were best served for my own DCs by sending them to a private school. This is a family decision. We haven't hurt anyone else by making the choice to work harder to pay those fees. After all we pay taxes, so we are also paying for places at state schools that we are not taking up.

So all this prejudice Arabella Weir is spewing out in her article, about being unkind, badly adjusted, etc etc. Is that all not just envy? It sounds like it to me.

give em a scratch fio

You cannot turn a sow's ear into a silk "purse"

try telling that to the parents of N16 who now fight to get into STokey high, after years in the doldrums. think the catchment is now 500m

QC - Arabella Weir can more than afford to send her children to private school. So can I. We both choose not to. No jealousy involved on my part, and I have a strong suspicion none on her part either. I just preferred my local state school, preferred the ethos and prefer my kids to mix with all types of children, not just other privileged ones. Simple as that.