Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

private school - is anyone going to put their hands up and admit

242 replies

HerHonesty · 18/04/2009 08:54

that one of the reasons why they are sending their children to private school is because they dont want DCs mixing with chavs/plebs?.

OP posts:
ra29needsabettername · 19/04/2009 10:04

i'm with seeker

scienceteacher · 19/04/2009 10:08

But your DD is in a grammar school bubble, seeker.

It's easy to have 'principles' when you have nice choices to make. It is harder to be oh so principled at the gritty end of the spectrum.

wombleprincess · 19/04/2009 10:08

"disruptive"=veil for social class.
seeker i agree with you.

Metella · 19/04/2009 10:11

No I don't think "disruptive" is a veil for social class - I think it genuinely means disruptive.

When dh took ds1 around a local comprehensive there were children in classes throwing furniture around. I think we can safely assume that my dh's reaction of horror had nothing to do with the social class of the children involved.

ra29needsabettername · 19/04/2009 10:11

have to say that i think much of what applies to private schools also applies to grammars

mrsruffallo · 19/04/2009 10:19

Most private school children I meet do have a problem relating to anyone who is not like tham.
It's half the problem we have with people in power- they have no idea what life is like for the majority of the population

Merrylegs · 19/04/2009 10:20

bloss - I read your post. You said -

"Now, the school happened to be near a council estate, and most of the problems were because so many children were from poor families which I presume you would classify as 'chavs/plebs'."

and then....

"I defy you to argue that the decision was motivated by class."

Um....

Ah, nothing like a good private/state debate on a Sunday morning.

sprogger · 19/04/2009 10:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Docbunches · 19/04/2009 10:37

I agree with Seeker too.

I know of lots of parents who, even when faced with nice choices, still go private for dubious reasons; eg, they believe their DCs would not be academically challenged enough at the local comp - which is complete nonsense, IMO.

ABetaDad · 19/04/2009 10:38

wombleprincess/seeker - we took DS1 and DS2 out of one private school because there was classroom disruption.

It is nothing to do with social class or wealth or not wanting to be with 'chavs'.

RustyBear · 19/04/2009 10:41

Merrylegs - you may have to wait a long time - UQD has sadly announced he is leaving MN (though we are hoping he will not be able to resist returning to the DW geeks thread to give his opinion on the whole regeneration saga at the end of the year)

Enjoy the croissant though!

Litchick · 19/04/2009 10:57

honestly, seeker, I do find your 'oh I'm sticking to my priciples' totally disingenuous when your DCs attend highly selective schools. They do not go to comprehensives.
Selective state schools, though maintained are still bastions of middle class mores. They are not representative of the country at large.

Merrylegs · 19/04/2009 10:57

Oh. Shame about UQD - he was always good for a heated debate on this subject.

To get back to it - am thinking of private for DD as am keen for her to go to an all girls school (she is youngest in a houseful of brothers) and private is only option for single sex round here.

Not sure if my decision is motivated by class though, as her brothers go to an excellent state school.

Hmm, will have to do some soul searching on that one.

croissant v. nice btw. (Also have sliced white bread on table, lest my breakfast should be accused of being too middle-class)

sarah293 · 19/04/2009 10:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

singersgirl · 19/04/2009 10:57

But Seeker, your DD is at a grammar school, which you yourself have admitted is socially much narrower than the state primary school she attended before. She is being educated in an academically selective bubble. If you really didn't want her to be educated in a bubble, you would move next to a socially and academically diverse comprehensive.

My sons are at state primary but there is no way they are going to the chair-throwing, daily-accounts-of-fights, graffiti-on-the-furniture, police-on-the-bus-stops-secondary.

Litchick · 19/04/2009 11:03

Exactly singers. I'm happy to be lectured by someone who has made a choice to attend the nearest comp with lots of SN provision, children with social problems, children with english a second language yadda yadda ...but not by those who have deliberately avoided that option, albeit that their option is free.

Litchick · 19/04/2009 11:09

And it's not enough to say that those things are present at grammar school becuase they will only be a managable handful.
SN provision will only take in those that can still meet the necessary academic environment, ditto second langauge english. And all the kids with parents that don't give a shit ( like at the school where I voluneer) well they wouldn't dream of applying so they are not represented either.
What you get are bright, enthusiastic parents with enough chutzpah and often money to get their kids in. In other words, middle class.
I'm not knocking them. The grammar school near us is pretty darn good.
But I don't think the parents can take any moral high ground.

jellybeans · 19/04/2009 11:21

Seeker i agree too.

bloss · 19/04/2009 11:23

Message withdrawn

beforesunrise · 19/04/2009 11:26

but what is so bad about admitting that yes, one of the reasons you chose a school (any school) is for the social (by social i mean socialisation, not necessarily class) aspect?

i mean, would you send your ds for example to a school where he is the only boy?

We all want to do the best for our children and to me it is quite natural to worry about who his/her friends will be- i don't think it's such an unnatural feeling. it cuts both ways of course- for some of us the idea of meeting minor celebs and wags at the PTA meetings may be simply too much to bear, for others it's the somali refugees from the local council estate....

bagsforlife · 19/04/2009 11:38

I think there are two different topics going on here. I, too, send my DCs to a highly selective grammar school but it is at least 'theoretically' open to all to apply regardless of the parents' income. OK this is abused by the middle classes and so yes, you get tutoring, yes, you get lots from the local prep schools who are 'groomed' for the test and yes, you get a smattering of very bright non-tutored children from 'ordinary' backgrounds who are, erm, naturally very bright. They also have an outreach programme to the less desirable primary schools to target those children who are bright but disadvantaged. It does also produce a 'bubble' of very bright children with whom my DCs mix. But most of the parents do admit they send their child there because they actively want all the children to be of a certain level of intelligence and so it isn't uncool to be 'bright'.

I am not particularly advocating that a 'social mix' would be necessarily good or bad but to argue that there is a proper 'social mix' in schools to which 95% of the population cannot afford to go is patently absurd, even with bursaries, scholarships etc.

There are lots and lots of different reasons why people choose to educate their children in the private sector and one of those reasons must be by default because they don't want them mixing with 'the chavs and the plebs' for all the reasons outlined by the numerous posters before me. The fact that the more disadvantaged of our society makes it difficult for 'people like us' to send our children to a local non selective state school is a sad indictment of how there is a two tier education system in this country.

The ideal obviously would be a school where everyone mixes but also where everyone receives a good and decent education.

MrsFlittersnoop · 19/04/2009 11:44

We have a lot of issues ATM with DS's non-selective comp school but mixing with "chavs" and lack of academic rigour are not on the list.

"DCs not being academically challenged enough at the local comp" ?? I quite agree, Docbunches.

DS is currently wrestling with his latest history essay -

"Why was the American War of Independence historically significant?" He has been given virtually no notes (just a list of points to cover, i.e. economic, political and social consequences etc) and is expected to research this topic from scratch. Quite a tough assignment for a 12 year old.

We've already had 2 phone calls this morning from classmates who are struggling. And they are all top set kids on level 6/7 in year 8.

Any suggestions and pointers gratefully received BTW! .

beforesunrise · 19/04/2009 11:47

mrsflittersnoop you say he's not being challenged but the assignment seems challenging enough to me

does wikipedia not offer any help?

myredcardigan · 19/04/2009 11:50

Wombleprincess, It's ridiculous to make a sweeping statement like disruption=veil for social class. Is it your opinion that wc children are disruptive? No? Well, it's not mine either.

I have already said that teaching in an inner city school in a deprived area shows me every day that the vast majority of wc kids are not disruptive. Not that I need that confirmation having grown upon a council estate myself.

Why is it so difficult to believe that parents pay for small classes or wraparound care or in our case, facilities. I think you'll find that the lack of disruption is not the usual motivation in itself but rather a welcome byproduct. Most parents using local day schools don't care about the homelife of other pupils as long as they too are intersted and enthusiastic.

I've no doubt the elitist attitude exists but like the disruptive working class children it is blown out of proportion.

Metella · 19/04/2009 11:50

I think MrsFlittersnoop is saying that comps can provide academically challenging work - for example the very tough essay her ds has been set.