New Statesman article on schools

[UnquietDad]

very interesting

Shows how the perception of state schools is skewed in the media, sometimes deliberately, by journalists and writers anxious to reinforce their own "choice".

(Who are all these writers who send their children private? None I know can afford it...)

Interesting. But the nomenclature is typically middle class...'[that parents are in reference to state schools]... satisfied with the service they receive...'

Isn't it about education and not parental perception where parents are the 'customers?'

A lot of it is scaremongering. I know lots of great schools in the state system.
I think that sometimes they have to justify what they are paying for, because if they looked into it carefully they could get better for free!
I am surprised about the amount of people who join threads and are complaining about some aspect of their DC's private education-I think 'well, why on earth are they paying for it!' If I was paying for it I would make sure that I was getting what I wanted.

Article written by Fiona Millar, partner of A.Campbell.

'Nuff said.

I think that you have a point UQD.

But the claims for state education seem overstated to me when it comes to successful Oxbridge applicants from the state sector. A sizeable proportion of these come from state grammar schools as opposed to average comprehensives.

It may be that parents who wish a DC to go to Oxbridge are the ones that start early and pay for education-if they went down the state route with the same ambitions then they might still get there. My DS's comprehensive sends some DCs to Oxbridge most years, admittedly only one or two but it is regular. I didn't want to go myself and my DSs haven't wanted to go-it isn't for everyone. If they had gone to Eton they still wouldn't have wanted to go. They have been able to have their first choices, and they would still have been first choices where ever they were educated.

Fiona Millar is really starting to cheese me off.

I went to state school, as did DP. I sent DS1 to a state primary and will be sending DS2 to state primary (albeit a different one to DS1.

Whilst I'm sure that many people have had wonderful experiences in the state system, for me state education has fallen short for many many reasons.

Nothing that Fiona Millar says, despite her 'influence' on the subject can change that opinion. It's based on fact, fact, fact, not on reading tossy ping-pong political articles written by Millar et al.

Will Self, Rachel Johnson, Christina Lamb are three writers that spring to mind without thinking too hard. Haven't read the article as Fiona Millar's mantra is well known and boring and fine if you have unlimited time to devote to improving your dcs state school - not an option to most full time working parents unfortunately.

Have just skimmed read and see that it includes the writers I immediately thought of so no originality there. Co-authored by Tony Benn's daughter. No obvious socialist agenda too then!

Message withdrawn

Sigh.
I really get that Fiona is trying to bang the drum for state education and hurrah! for that. And I think she's right, to an extent but ... .
I do think she sometimes writes articles that somehow silence the very real negative experiences of children and parents, closes the door on potentially helpful criticism and makes a space where only Pollyanna-ish positions on state education are acceptable within a "leftie" position.
Everything she states to back up her argument in that article could be taken to argue quite a different position.

And I think my biggest disappointment is with her use of "most parents are satisfied". Oh really? Are they really? What does "satisfied" mean? Would they, secretly, like more? And even if the majority are satisfied, what does that mean for the minority who may not be? Do they matter?

I have friends who are "satisfied" with, as in, still sending their dc to, schools where their dc are assaulted in class, are unable to leave the library at lunchtimes, are unable to use the toilets during the school day and don't, ever, get lunch (can't fight to top of lunch queue).

And then others who are "very satisfied" but part of the "very satisfied" involves tutoring their dc heavily all the way through secondary school and doing masses of out of school sports and music.

But, having said that, most of the parents I know are, indeed, satisfied in a quite simple sense; in that the school is meeting all expectations, requirements ... .

"that all children, regardless of family background or parental income, have the right to a free, excellent education"

What about regardless of religion or lack of it then?

They've conveniently omitted to mention the fact our education system is biased towards those with a religious affiliation and against the rest of us.

Fair point, well made by Ms Millar, IMO.

Amused at people slating the "agenda". As if it were possible to write an article on this subject without one. Part of the point of it is to counteract the "agenda" of those who have written about state schools from a less informed perspective.

i do find it weird reading 'my private school choice hell' articles, because somehow at the end of them i find myself thinking as IF i had the choice to send ds to a private school. which I SO don't. and also as if he were unhappy at his school, which he is SO not. i don't think this article is brilliant but it at least helps me not to do that.

it rather reminds me of a phase of tax-squeal articles a few years ago by top-name journos who inadvertently revealed during them that they considered £20K pa to be utter unimaginable penury, rather than the aspirational figure it was and remains to the majority.

People who have sent their children to private school have obviously exercised their "choice". They have chosen for their children to be there. Everyone they meet on a daily basis at the school has chosen for their children to be there. (One assumes. If not, then why the hell are they there?)

With this in mind, they often forget that not everyone in the state system has actually chosen the school their children are in. This leads to entertaining misunderstandings over the use of the word "choice".

Absolutely agree with UQD re the 'choice' issue. I am obviously delighted with my DCs state school as I have the 'choice' of a highly selective grammar school but am acutely aware that most people do not have(and some people do not want) this 'choice'. But I do think it would be fairer not to have any 'choice' really (but that is another subject which has been 'discussed' ad nauseum on here).

Alastair Campbell was on the Jeremy Vine show (presented by Matthew Bannister though) last week discussing this article. Got the usual, stroppy, missing the point, cross callers as usual and only one articulate woman agreeing with the basic premise of the article.

Was quite funny as Matthew Bannister pointed out at the start that the editor of the Torygraph sends his kids to a state school but the editor of the Guardian sends theirs to a private school. Was met by a discernable snarl from AC for him bringing that up.

I do agree though that most journalists prob do write these articles to justify their 'choice' to send their kids to private schools. I doubt many of them would if they had the 'choice' of a decent state school.

I am simply not buying the 'it's a conspiarcy by the newspapers,' argument that Fiona M peddles. She imagines that the Times et al has far more power than it does. Who care what Wil Self ect think?
What matters to real people in real schools is more to the point and she can tell me til the cows come home that 80% are satisfied.
I just don't think a lot of state schools are good enough. The one I volunteer in is in a dreadful mess. Those kids have no choice and no decent provision. Not good enough.

Well she's not really saying it's a conspiracy by the newspapers, more that it's a subtle undermining of the state system by people whose opinions are read by millions.

There have been endless discussions on here re state v private and here, too, there can be an element of 'your child is going to be a dreadful failure if you don't send them to a private school' from certain posters. I think that article is an attempt to redress the balance a bit, but it won't because most people don't read the New Statesman and prefer to read the Times/Guardian/Telegraph/Mail etc where these articles abound.

I agree with her in principle but, as always, its just not that simple. But she, as a seasoned state school campaigner and all round intelligent woman (as is Melissa Benn) must surely have realised that too before writing the article.

The article's not saying state schools are universally brilliant Litchick. I think it's arguing that they're pretty good mostly and still improving, but the press doesn't always reflect this. Fair point I'd say. Interestingly
AC was the guest editor of that particular Edition, so hired his own wife to write an article. Not saying FM's not good - actually I admire her a lot - but still it's a bit nepotistic now isn't it..?

Cherryblossom

I would be one of those 'very satisfide state school parents'. My youngest 3 are at state comprehensives. It is our local catchment school, and because this is a rural area we didn't really have a choice.

I've never paid for private tuition at secondary level. I did pay for extra english teaching at primary age, but only because two of my DC were having problems with spelling etc. Local primaries now teach french, but they didn't when my sons were there so I also paid for that.
The 'incidents' you mention in the lunch queue & toilets is bullying..... bullying never occurs in private schools! Teachers have to deal with this. On the rare occasions my DC have had problems it as been delt with.

I have never heard of a child being assulted in class at my DC school. There are some difficult/badly behaved pupils there. It is a large, non-selective, state school. The 'state' bit does mean it can't pick and choose its pupils. Pupils are in ability 'sets' for nearly every lesson. The only lessons where my sons have had any disruption is PE & music (mixed ability classes).

I do pay for extra music lessons, but only because two of my sons play 3 instruments. The private school parents I know also pay for out of school lessons. They've even asked me for advice on instrument repairs and where to find the best teachers.
Mine also have private tennis and cricket coaching at weekends, and in the school holidays. I would say 50% of pupils are from private schools. From the conversations I've had with them about schooling they have their own 'problems'.....certainly not a case of 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'.

Me happy with State too. Tbh, that Lamb woman's reasons for moving her kid to a private school are exactly the reasons why I wouldn't send my child to one..

I don't see that AC commissioning his partner (who does write about education quite a lot) to write that article is any worse than a regular columnist on a paper using their column to extoll the virtues of their private school v the local state school.....

Ah but two wrongs and all that..

yes, I do think the front page should have had a tagline (or whatever they call them) saying 'Editor's partner completely agrees with him on state education, see page 32' which would have been more honest.

I think it would be FASCINATING if editors had to disclose all their connections with the journalists they commission in each article. There'd be such a tangled mass for each one it would have to be done with some sort of hotel-guide-style colour coding - 'Red circle = was in my antenatal group; yellow square = blood relative; green circle = relative by marriage, partnership or cohabitation; solid blue triangle = was at school with; outline blue triangle = was at school with their partner; outline blue circle = was at university with a blood relative of theirs; solid pink heart = current shagtastic affair; outline pink heart = past affair gone sour but still employing them as it's cheaper than paying maintenance; black square = think they are v good writer'.

To be fair, amidst the riot of symbols for each article, the black square would come up quite a lot.

Yep, am not dissing FM or her qualifications to write for them, but it is an interesting in a supposedly egalitarian publication.. tbh, am surprised they let him be guest editor at all. He's hardly left enough is he?!

apparently there has been a huge spat and the main editor has left the New Stat as a protest at AC editing it, in order to work for - er, the maily dale. [storm in a teacup emoticon] [probable outline blue circle situation]