why do mumsnetters think it is not ok to send your dc to a private school?

[stitch]

i am amazed by some of the ideas on here.
why do mnetters think it is so wrong?

Fio, it's because nobody wants to talk about house prices at the moment.

"imo if there were no private schools then the standard of education in the public sector would have to be raised dramatically in order to keep the upper middle classes happy. Then all the brightest kids who can't afford to go to private school would enjoy the standard of education they deserve and dumbing down would stop. We'd have a much more literate population as a result."

I'm not sure I agree that it would all follow on so simply.

How would the standard of education be raised dramatically? Where would the money come from?

And why would dumbing-down stop? (IMO, dumbing-down is a result of the current educational orthodoxy which says that "everyone should be a winner" and celebrates mediocrity.)

And how would we get this more literate population? In view of the differences in home background, educational levels of the parents, value placed on education and so on.

A number of studies have shown that family background has more influence on children's attainmnent levels than the type of school attended. In other words, I think the children who currently attend private schools would continue to outshine their peers (on the whole), alongside other "priviledged" state-educated children. JMO.

this thread seems awfully familiar :S

Well I think it is because it is seen as a divisive act, and [killing for MN] it is perceived as arrogant, superior and the assumption is that if you go private your SOLE reason for doing so is that you don't want to send your child to school with THEIR child.

This gets peoples backs up, rightly so, even though the thinking is crude.

There are huge wide-sweeping assumptions made on all sides - sometimes fuelled by personal experience but usually fuelled by insecurity and touchiness about one's life and ones children.

It would be difficult for the majority to endorse what a minority do. Because it isn't open to the majority, and therefore has to be seen as a badthing because that makes it bearable.

Then add into the mix people who object on moral grounds, people who love their schools and genuinely think the private going ones are fools, people who are outraged at the injustice that those with money have a better or easier life.

Then you get to question whether their life IS actually better, because poster A knows a child who goes private and was horribly bullied because they had the wrong trainers, and poster A knows that child would not have been bullied at her child's very inclusive state school. Poster B doesn't think the child would have been bullied at her private school either, in fact Poster B has never heard of such a thing, and wonders what this private school must be like because she's never heard of such a thing in all her born days. Poster C says that actually they are seriously mean at her child's state secondary school about clothes, she says it is part of the message they give off, and she knows parents with nothing who save up money for their children to have the right trainers. Poster D thinks they must be right idiots then and she would NEVER do that. Oh and she does send hers private too which causes Poster A to remark that she probably has never had to save up for trainers then, has she? And Poster D has to admit that actually no, she hasn't ever had to but wouldn't buy smart ones anyway because they only get ruined and her ds doesn't care and still wears ones from Clarks. Then Poster E says she thought this was supposed to be a thread about education, not trainers.

Good post, hundredtimes!

The money would come from the treasury. apparently we have £750 billion to bail out bankers so i shouldn't think it would be a problem.

Dumbing down would stop because the parents who place value on high-brow academic success tend to be those who have power, status and sway in society. If they no longer had the option to send their children to a school where such things were also prized then they would make damn sure that it was available in state schools. i shouldn't think the government would ever hear the end of it.

Grammar schools of the 50's and 60's were proof that you can take a bright child from an impoverished background where education isn't particularly prized and give them the kind of education which really gives them a head start in life (the current few labour governments have some shining examples of how well this worked). I agree that the 'everyone's a winner' approach is a fallacy.

It's a more interesting debate than the old bottle versus breast chestnut or to MMR or not to MMR anyway.

lol Fio.

I'd have a good row about breast chestnuts given half a chance.

It's my perception that the vast majority of MNers who expressed a preference believe that it's perfectly OK to send your kids to private school.

oooh i have a diferent perception - it just shows what we read doesn't it!

Excellent post ahundred!

totalmisfit I'm afraid the argument you put forward is a popluar one repeated many a times but is complete bolloxs..

Who was our labour prime minister in power for the last 10 years?

That's right, Ole Tony sent his children to state schools and standards have not been raised huh? If the prime minister can't swing it what hope for mere bankers and footballers wives?hmm

I too am shocked by the level of heatedness that this subject brings out and the attacks of private schools often range from the sublime to the ridiculous -
-they are all hot houses and the children are pressured

• they are actually for thick but rich kids
• they have drugs problems
• the children have no street sense
• the children are all arogant
• the children have no confidence and become socially inept
• the parents are far too pushy
• the parents don't care and want the school to deal with them
• they give their pupils an advantage which is unfair
• there is no advantage whatsoever and my money is wasted.

I can't honestly keep up.

And for those convinced that me and my DCs would raise standards in state schools I wonder if a. have you met us? We aint all that. And b. do you level the same accusations at home educators?

I agree with all of Litchicks points

Excellent post, Litchick!!!

I do think that it is wrong to send children to private schools, even though I can see why people do so in certain circumstances. If my child was desperately unhappy at school and a private school seemed like the only solution, I would beg borrow or steal to get him in, I?m sure. However, I think if I did this I would be doing something with moral consequences, albeit under mitigating circumstances.

This is because I consider the principle of equal access for all to education services to be of absolutely fundamental importance- in my opinion it is just WRONG that family finances, canniness or connections should dictate the quality of a child's education. Essentially I think that our two tier education system is indicative of a deeply divided, unequal and unjust society and that therefore people who choose the private sector are condoning and perpetuating such divisions, inequalities and injustice, whatever their reasons for choosing to do so.

I can quite understand the urge to go private when state systems seem not to be good enough- many posts on mumsnet describe this feeling very eloquently. We all want the best for our children and if the state schools to which they have access seem fundamentally unsuitable for some reason, I can imagine that the temptation to pay your way out of the situation if you can must be well nigh overwhelming.

Nevertheless, I think we should not gloss over the fact that in so doing people are complicit in maintaining a divisive, unfair and unequal system. I think that if abolishing private schools and ensuring that all state schools can deliver an excellent education to whoever walks through the door is unrealistic then the least we can do is take responsibility as individuals for our choices and admit that these have implications for social justice. Every time a child enters the door of a private education establishment its parents are perpetuating inequality because they have rejected the state options as inadequate and were able to do so only because of their relative richness. Of course, when our babies? happiness is threatened, those of us who are affluent enough will often say ?Fuck social justice and fuck equality. My baby?s well being is more important.? Understandable? Yes, absolutely. Politically/morally neutral? No, absolutely not.

Why thank you my dears .
Bet no one answers the HE point. I bring it up every time and tis side stepped.

Do they? Mumsnetters I mean? Think it's not ok? Well, can I cast my MN vote for 'don't give a stuff where other people's children are educated.'

Good post scummy.

lots of good posts on here. took me ages to read through.
isnt paying for a private school similar to for example, buying a pair of shoes. ie, those who can afford the better quality footwear for their child, will do so, but those who can not, will get what they can afford?
but that is too simplisstic an analogy.

what aboutthe national curriculum. wasnt that set up to ensure that all children recieved a broad and balanced education? now if some parents want their children to recieve more than that, then surely it is their right to do so, if they can pay for it? because this is a consumerist, capitalistic society after all.