"Mumsnet hate private schools"

[Swedington]

I read this in the newspaper recently. (I think maybe it was a quote of Justine's.)

I know there are some posters who are to Mumsnet what Bob Crow is to the London Underground (hope you saw him on HIGNFY), but I don't think there is a huge anti private school thing going on here is there?

oldwomanwholivedinshoe aint making me want to rush back to state school with my teenage sons. Though I can see it might be better for teachers.

Oldwoman your post is incredibly dismissive of private education. Not all private schools fail to invest in their teachers' professional development and not all fail to support SEN pupils.

Ds is at private school and it has a very good SEN provision and has been good in highlighting issues and offering support as needed.

I don't get how people can be pro grammar and anti private. Why should being clever be a passport to a good education, it's just a genetic trait like anything else.

So those who think private is unfair, how is state grammar any fairer on those who do not get to use it?

State grammars seem to assume some sort of moral good on mn - especially if no tutoring, evil itself -but are fiercely selective too and have repercussions in their wider communities.

yes MLD - moderate learning difficulties.
ESAP - basically funding which can be accessed for these type of children.
Pricate education can NEVER complete with state for teacher development - and teacher development is at the core of teaching and learning. The private schools inmy area have never even heard about the stuff we are developing within our setting.
There are crap private and crap state schools but the only basic difference is class size - no it doesn't run deeper!
I am amazed at conversations I have with private school headteachers - they really bhave no idea about what is going on in eduacation.
And I disagree that SEN is catered for as well in private as it is in main stream. Main stream hve massive access to rich resources and funding - private do not - simple as that.

I suppose some people might say that the problems in state schools tend not to be in the top sets. So if you lose a few kids from the top set they are just replaced with other similar kids.

But when middle and lower ability children from supportive interested families are removed from those sets it can add to what is already a very difficult environment.

I teach in a school which loses some children to a grammar and we do not have a secondary modern failing feel about us.

I can see that some people who have children in bottom sets in some state schools would say that indepenent is their only option.

I would not allow my dd to be educated in the independent sector and would not particularly like her to go to a grammar but I would maybe give in as I would not be paying for tutors she would get their soley on merit.

I once paid for a tutor for a term. As DS1 was offered an academic sixth form scholarship worth 20% off the enormous fees conditional upon getting 6a* and 6a grades at GCSE and French was less than certain. I still call it "our" French GCSE.

Oldwoman I'm interested in the vast level of funding that state schools apparently get for SEN. Your comments are completely contrary to others experience here.

Ds (5) is curently being assessed for SN/SEN. I posted a comment saying that we had to go down the NHS route rather than seeing an EP because our LEA had said that an EP would not be involved in a private school (I didn't pursue that as my GP recommended an alternative route to achieve the same thing).

The comments I got back from posters was it was better to have the money to go privately and see an EP as you could be waiting over a year to see a LEA-funded EP. How is that 'massive access to rich resources'.

No one I know has to fight for support at ds's private school - something I know friends in the state system have to fight for on a daily basis.

'why should being clever be a passport to a better education'. Fair enough, that's a good statement.

I suppose what I think is that being clever isn't necessarily to do with having money (although it can go hand in hand) because there is always the likelihood of being clever AND poor. I can be pro grammar and anti private because it shouldn't (although is, because of tutoring, at the moment) be to do with money.

Morosky - My son was in the top set of his state school when I decided to move him. He spent two years there are barely lifed a pen. He had a lovely time and made some lovely friends but it was so poor and slow and full of Baker days and staff absences for training this and training that. And targets and SATs and staff assessments. It all felt so meaningless.

Exactly like Oldwomanwholived's acronyms in fact.

When I say tutoring - evil, I mean that is the perception on mn. I don't think so at all.

It's the whole brains =good, money=bad. When it could be great schools offered to redheads only or um religion. Private is at least upfront about it's offering, selective state schools are no fairer- if it's fairness people are after.

SelectiveMemory, Yes, I agree. A good education whould be a way out and should be offered to all able students. We have gone backwards and I think that's a great shame.

That is awful swedington, I did say tend as I know it does not always happen. I taught in a very tough school and our top sets were very difficult. But I don't think it was representative of state schools as a whole.

I think if you walked into one of my top set lessons now you would see very little difference between my lessons and those in a grammar or independent.

Bakers or INSET days come out of teacher holidays not pupil learning time. I thought most independent schools have longer holidays.

I use targets and assessments but I don't think it detracts from the quality of my lessons or the depth of education they get. But that is my opinion and you are of course enetitled to disagree.

Marsha - I find myself agreeing with you too.
I had never really thought about the accident of genetics. I'd only really thought about the need to satisfy an enquiring and able mind; and the waste if it was not satisfied. But perhaps the not so bright kids need a break even more.

Dunno. Mumsnet is v good sometimes at challenging thinking. I tend to avoid these oconversations in real life as I wouldn't want to question anyone else's choices.

I only joined Mumsnet last week (or earlier this week, can't remember) so I can't judge really. But the first forum I went to was 'Education' and I was amazed by the amount of pro private school posts that I saw. First impressions for me are that Mumsnet is pro private school and has a higher % of private school parents compared to the rest of the population.

Yes, I agree that top sets in good comps and obvs grammar schools are equal to top private schools, but what about all the GCSEs in media studies etc and other soft subjects and diplomas which are marketed as being equivalent to proper GCSES and which patently AREN'T in the real world of university entrance?

It is so wrong to fool parents and children that they are the same. that's what drives me mad and it's making clever children lose out in the long run.

Morosky - I think I probably panicked. Perhaps unnecessarily. Anyway, DS1 is in his final year now and doing fine. Although he thinks private schools are full of patsies he is v grateful. I think. And yes, indy schools have hugely long holidays. But we know when they are. There is no interruption to the school calendar. When the state schools are closed due to snow, sons' school is open, business as usual.

WillowFae - Welcome to Mumsnet. I hope you enjoy it.

Thanks Swedington.

Selectivememory, you are right about the diplomas. If a diploma is worth 5 GCSEs then schools can say that a student got 5 and add that to their GCSE results in the league tables. Therefore the % of students getting 5 GCSEs or more may include some who only got diplomas. It is misleading.

Having taught in state schools and then moved to a private one, I don't feel I could bear to go back. Several parents have pointed out to me over the past few years that the reason they pay for their daughters to go to the school is not the facilities (which are excellent) or even the teaching (also mostly excellent)but the kind of pupils with whom they will be mixing - bright, well-mannered and keen to work. I went private because I'd had enough of various things - the National Curriculum, aggressively ill-mannered children, parents who took no responsibility for their children's behaviour....
Oldwoman's comments IME bear no relation to reality. How good a school is has very little to do with the amount of training its staff have - most training courses I have attended have been a complete waste of time, led by jargon-spouting fools. Good private schools mostly do better because they attract good teachers (and keep them) and good pupils. And also because they can ignore many of the hoops that state school teachers and pupils are excpected to jump through, and instead concentrate on actually teaching.
I absolutely agree that all children have a right to a good education, but as long as governments fail to do the right things to improve state schools, then I can fully sympathise with parents and teachers wanting to go private.

I think panicking over your child's future s very understandable.

I totally agree over A grades in soft subjects.

Goldberry I teach state classes full of pupils who are polite, well mannered and keen to work. I have spent an hour going through voluntary extra homeworks that students have completed as they want to raise their levels of achievement and deepen their knowledge in a subject they enjoy. I also teach in a state school packed with outstanding teachers who it an absolute pleasure and honour to work with.

On the other hand the thought of a very clever child being held back, or undermined etc makes me tense and hyperventilate-y too. That would be a great shame.

So feeling rather contrary about it.

Bursaries only usually apply to the very poorest, don't they?... fivecandles is having her usual "utopia" pops at me when I make it clear at every opportunity that I am presenting anything but. Oh, well.

Nothing I have heard about a "voucher system" makes me especially enamoured of it. It just seems like something which would put further pressure on popular schools and draw people ever more way from unpopular ones until they have to close.

I seems to me that many posters view education and school places as a limited resource which must be distributed fairly by the government. I think this perspective demonstrates a lack of imagination.

An appealing aspect of a voucher programme, as well as the academy system, is that it could allow for the possibility of opening new schools where there is an interest and need. Therefore, if you don't like your local choices, get together a group of like-minded parents and create what you want for your dc.

I agree that true choice in education shouldn't, ideally, depend on parent's means. As long as a good education is seen as a limited resource, none of these issues of fairness are ever going to go away.

And government education policy will never be able to adequately mitigate against parents who can't be bothered to care about their children's education in any way, and while that is tragic, it is reality.

"And government education policy will never be able to adequately mitigate against parents who can't be bothered to care about their children's education in any way, and while that is tragic, it is reality."

I think that is a vital point. When we talk about "fairness" or "equality of opportunity" in education, we need to remember that education starts at home and that the foundations of all learning happen in the earliest years, not in the classroom. And children's early years are far less equal than their classroom experiences will ever be.

And there is a constant pressure for governments to use 'state education' as a tool to address this parental inequality issue.