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?

lol at the OP I think parents who privately educated are over represented on here.

Not read whole thread as I am about to mark books and bake for some state educated pupils.

Litchick,I agree re HE.

Batters, I brought that up earlier. I brought it upon another thread about 2yrs ago and was told that yes, it was unfair that my(or anyones) children had a large garden to play in when others did not. I respect the honesty but life is full of inequality on some level or another.

I don't use it but I'm happy to pay for it. In fact feel its my duty to pay for it. Even happy to pay more for it to be improved. Just because I opt out does not mean I don't believe every child is entitled to a good standard of education. I believe I pay for something above and beyond that.

Message withdrawn

I most certainly would and have batters, as you well know! And I accepted a considerable bung from my Dad in order to afford it too. And it's unfair that I was able to do that when others are not, definitely.

But I do think housing is different in kind from education, even though it may seem like a good analogy since adequate provision is so important to people's well-being in both cases. However, I would argue that within our system social housing is a vital safety net for people who cannot afford private provision on the open market, whereas state education is offered universally to all children. It makes a difference when a significant proportion of people opt out of a universally offered service in a way that it does not if someone moves out of a safety net service into mainstream provision.

I'm glad you said "relative richness" earlier scummymummy

Its all pretty mariginal in the UK (compared to having an education or not having one at all eg. South Africa)

But if you bought said house with the intention of 'buying' into a good catchment is that not juat the same as private school ie using your affluence to buy an advantage?

Is 7% a significant proportion though?

This is when everyone says 'but what a 7%!' isn't it? Must admit, find that a bit odd though. Like Litchick says, we aren't all that either.

Also Scummy by using family money to ensure you had a house in the catchment for a desirable school, you are perpetuating a division which says, those with money can go to 'good' schools and those without, cannot. Be it state or private.

Which is crap, crap society, crappy capitalist mess.

I agree with Litchick and Batters- excellent posts.

I get sooooo tired of the private school bashing. I wouldn't dream of sneering at state schools or assuming that my child was getting a better education than he would get in a good state school but for me, both catchment primary AND secondary are in special measures. They both have terrible reputations and, to be honest, I am going to do the best I can for DS which at the moment is the private school DH teaches in, for which we get a discount.

I would really like those who criticise parents for choosing as I have done to explain why my decision is worse than, as others have said, moving house to a better catchment area/trying to get your child into a faith school despite not being of that faith. Surely this is also divisive in that such parents are trying to get their children a 'better education' in the way that private school parents are accused of doing.

Essentially, unless private schooling is abolished completely and the lottery system for allocating places at state schools is introduced nationwide with no exceptions, education will continue to be divisive. And state education just as much so as the private system.

Even with the lottery system it's still divisive as some schools are always going to be better than others thus giving some children an unfair advantage.

Scummy, I think you are oversimplifying. In your post, state education = fair, private education = privileged therefore unfair.

So just how fair is state education then? If you actually examine the options, they are not fair at all. There are nicer comprehensives in leafy suburbs, but it will cost parents a lot of money to get into the catchment area. That's just paying by the back door isn't it?

What about the New Labour compromise of faith schools? How fair and equal are those? They're mostly insidiously racist as well.

What about grammar school education? How fair is that? How unequal is it that in certain counties, children can get a better education by virtue of passing (perhaps well tutored for?) the 11+.

So the notion that there is anything fair at all about the state system is too simplistic. What the state system is, is free.

Life isn't fair and those with more money have more advantages for their children, but having a larger house with a nicer garden doesn't effect your childen's future chances in the same way as the schooling they receive does (other than how/if it reflects on your general wealth). In fact, shouldn't good schools for all be a way of leveling off the inequality in wealth of the parents?

I don't have any issue with those who do send their children to private schools though. I live in an area with a terrible reputation for schools and although private is financially not going to be an option for us, I can completely see why some would choose it.

Who said I'm in the catchment for a desirable school?

I moved to get a garden, not a school.

The thread title suggests that all MNers are anti-private schools which clearly isn't the case.
The fact that the vast majority of people educate their children within the state system would make it far more likely that views on a public forum would reflect this, so that may go some way to explaining.
I think people make their decisions based on all sorts of personal circumstances - how bright their children are, the area they live in etc. For instance, a larger proportion of MNers living in London in crap areas use private - which is what you'd expect.

I think I did SM, sorry. I was extending your argument, but shouldn't have made it personal.

Agree with peppa, I think. Yes, all schools should be shit hot and brilliant. Yes, they should be and that would be best.

I wish I had considered schools a little more as my kids head towards secondary age, in fact.

I do agree that academic selection and faith schools complicate the fairness of the state sector considerably, Quattrocento.

Brilliant posts from Scummymummy - I particularly like the nailing of the (disingenuous? dim?) false analogy with housing. Those false analogies are a very popular rhetorical trick with those who feel a bit queasily defensive about their choice of fee-paying schooling and feel the need to reclaim the moral high ground, but they are not often rebutted so effectively!

Zazette, I feel neither queasy nor defensive about my choice. I don't even try to pretend I live in an area with bad schools, quite the contrary. I still hold with the housing analogy in that everyone is entitled to a good standard but some are fortunate enough to be able to choose more on top of that good standard.

DH has just remarked that our garden actually gives the DCs more social advantages than the school. All the kids want to come to ours to play in the GLTC playhouse!

Orinoco I am in exactly that situation, my whole family including dp and dd herself want to go private and I want to keep her in the state sector. I gave in and went to the open day and signed the papers, however we moved so dd remained in the state sector. At the moment as we are paying mortagage and rent we could not pay for private but they all have their eyes on school.

I'm certainly not anti private education but i wouldn't use one for my children.

Reasons are:In my area they are all a car/bus ride away and i like to walk to school.
I want my children to live close to their school friends. We live on a cul de sac and every house has a child at the same school. I want my children to be able to play at home with their school friends etc etc. When they are older they will be able to call on each other etc.

I am lucky in that our local schools are very good. I am a big believer that school life is not just about the work done in class but the outside life too.

However, i have nothing against private schools at all, and if it suits the family then go for your life i say.

There's nothing to be defended though zazette, I didn't enter into a contract with the govt to send my dd to state school when she was born

Oh do you think Zazette? I'm not sure anyone really feels the need to take up the moral high ground - sometimes people sound defensive but then that works both ways.

Mostly people defend their choice I think by basically saying 'but life isn't fair is it?' to the charge that it is unfair. This can be illustrated in diet, housing, education, healthcare etc etc. It's all part of the same argument.

Some people take moral responsibility for the fact that there should be fairness in the face of such blatant and timeless unfairness. SM for instance.

I think all the energy invested in these conversations would be better spent talking about and thinking about ways to improve the state education system to be honest.