This will get you all going - State v private again!

[DecorHate]

You need to scroll down to around the middle of

this

Bit of an odd article and I wonder if he has been misquoted but the jist of it is the Head of a private school (and leader of a private schools organisation) is criticising well-off parents for not sending their children to private schools!

Sour grapes in the current economic climate perhaps? I can't believe that there are that many £3M houses where he teaches (I know the area well...) Plenty of people there may own a house which is worth 0.5-0.75M but in most cases that means nothing to them as they bought their houses when they were significantly cheaper - possibly couldn't afford to buy them now!

Or is he so out of touch that he doesn't realise that private school fees are out of reach of most families, even those of above average incomes in the area his school is in, particularly if you have more than one child.

And why not send your child to a perfectly good state school if that is what you want? Lots of people prefer them for their ethos....

"Which makes ME wonder who's read the article"

OK, I managed to miss the source of the quotes switching, it's a fair cop...

UnquietDad, can you explain why exactly this is an error?

Mr Grant is saying that people who spend money on cars and such like are not judged, but people who spend money on education are judged. And he is quite right, IME.

Are you saying, UQD, that it's okay to judge one lot of people who have disposable income, and not another lot?

I go into this all the time on these threads. It's not an error in that what he is saying does happen (the "judging", if you want to call it that) but the error is in the perception of education as being on a par with these items.

He's so right.

If you have used your wealth to parachute into a fabulous state school, by buying a house in catchment, you have no business whatsoever taking the moral high ground against parents who pay for private education.

I'd go further.

If you use your wealth to pay for tutors to get into a selective state school, you have no right whatsoever to take the moral high ground.

Further still.

If you use your wealth to ( as is often advised on MN) bridge the gap of a mediocre education by buying extra curricular activities,extra lessons or 'enriching' things, then you do not hvae the moral high ground either.

So who does get to be in the "moral high ground"? Those who accept a mediocre education for their children and don't try to improve their chances?

Can you only be counted as moral if you can't afford to do anything, or if you don't do anything even if you could afford to?

What litchick said.

And then some. All other things being equal, and assuming the availability of good independant schools, I think that parents who can easily afford to have their children eduacted privately should feel ashamed for taking up places in excellent state schools - places which would otherwise go to people who don't have a choice.

Ditto with regard to private versus NHS treatment.

But I appareciate that most people think my moral radar is a bit warped.

I'd have to say I think that is pretty warped - people who have paid their taxes are entitled to the NHS and state education, whether or not they can afford to opt out of them.

Theres a paradox.

The two things most vitally important to us are education and healthcare. So, we quite rightly have state education free to all and universal free-at-the-point-of-use healthcare.

But, the taxpayer does not have bottomless pockets so what is provided by the state is inevitably going to fall short of the absolute best.

Can it possibly be right to say to someone fortunate enough to have excess disposable income that its OK to spend it on consumer goods etc but not on these areas, because not everyone else can?

I am not actually anti private schools and if I had loads more money I'm sure I would consider a private secondary for my ds's but only because our nearest state one is so oversubscribed we probably will get one further away and not as good.... But probably not this man's school as he seems a bit if a pillock...

I just happen to think he is wasting time with his argument - the people he is referring to are a tiny minority. I know the town his school is based in very well and I struggle to think of any roads with houses in the 3m bracket. In fact the houses in the catchment areas for the most sought-after state schools are generally bog-standard semis...

LitChick and Squiffy: well said.

UQD: sorry, I don't have time to pore over old threads. But thanks for the clarification.

That article is SO out of touch!
Private schools arent posh, because ethnic minority children attend them?

As for that comment about the rich parents and the state schools, it reminds me of the Hilaire Belloc poem:

Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.

Or in this case, keep the elite going by supporting private schools. What a load of tosh.

What a ridiculous article.

What right does he have to be irritated that people live in nice houses, and earn good money, and choose to have their children educated in the very good local state school to which they contribute through their taxes?!

Those people sound a bit like DH and me. We live in a nice house and have good disposable incomes and choose to send out children to the very local state school - because we believe it provides a better experience than paying for private would. Not about claiming any moral high ground at all. More about making an informed choice.

Smells a bit of desperation to me, with many private schools having a hard time in the recession.

But he's not saying he's irritated by their choice.
He's saying he's irritated at the way those people take the moral high ground when actually, they're hardly slumming it.

And St Albans, Radlet and Harpenden are some of the most wealthy areas in the country outside of London. The stations are packed every morning with bankers and lawyers piling into the city. There are lots of houses in excess of a million.

He actually says he's irritated by the way these people 'feel they have the moral high ground'. Which is a little odd when he doesn't cite any evidence to how these people feel - it's just based on his observation of their affluence, and his assumption that they must be claiming to choose state school as some sort of moral and politically correct statement. Most people I know care very much about their children's education and do prioritise it. It's just that for a lot of people, particularly those who are successful products of state education themselves, that choice is state. Which is what that particular HeadMaster seems to have a gripe about. Basically, that people are choosing not to by his brand.

Whoops 'buy' his brand! And there's me, a successful product of state education

I think some parents do claim the moral high ground about sending their child to a state school (after paying through the nose for a house that will get them in), and I agree that it's irritating. But I don't think it's up to him as an independent school head teacher to find it irritating! People can do what they like with their money, and a house can at least be sold on to the next generation of parents in due course, while school fees can't. (Assuming similar outcomes for the children from the two uses of the same money)

I think some parents do claim the moral high ground about sending their child to a state school (after paying through the nose for a house that will get them in), and I agree that it's irritating. But I don't think it's up to him as an independent school head teacher to find it irritating! People can do what they like with their money, and a house can at least be sold on to the next generation of parents in due course, while school fees can't. (Assuming similar outcomes for the children from the two uses of the same money)

But he does sound extraordinarily defensive. I can't say I'd noticed any great 'moral high ground' from those choosing the state secondaries - St Albans doesn't have stocks in the market place for throwing rotten fruit at private-edding parents to my knowledge

Those who live near excellent state schools but apply to independents tend to go down the private route for a range of reasons - now many people (including me I admit) don't quite 'get' the reasons for this when you can get an excellent state ed and save yourself £12k per year to boot. Horses for courses and all that. But announcing moral high ground - don't think so.

I have to say though, that his views (he has a long history of contentious public pronouncements) would not exactly endear me to sending my ds to his school

oops

lots of people say 'oh I would never send little Johnny private', as if it were some great sin, but then spend £200k extra to buy a house in the catchment of a school that is private in all but name (because you need £1m to buy a house in catchment). There's no difference at all.

The whole point is that it is wrong for a child's decent education to be dependent on the relative wealth of their parents (whether that be paying school fees or buying a house in a good catchment area or paying for tutoring for a grammar school).

What is morally wrong is the two tier education system that is going on at the moment and the ludicrous assumption that most people have a choice.

If people do spend money on securing their children's place at a decent school, then they should at least accept that they are buying their children an advantage, and give some thought to those poor souls with no choice whatsoever.

I don't see it in the same light as buying a newer car, going on an expensive holiday. I see it as a fundamental right for all children to receive a decent education and not for some children to receive a better basic education that others. It's not right and it's not fair.

(Disclaimer: my DCs are/were at v.g schools and universities so am not jealous etc etc)

There is not a two tier education system as much as a two tier society.

'Good' schools are only good because they get a good intake. The education isn't really better, it's just that some schools spend so much time dealing with bad behaviour and children who have no parental support that they can't hope to achieve good outcomes.

A school that takes its intake from a local council estate will struggle, while one in an affluent area won't.

They used to overcome that with grammar schools, which admittedly only benefited a minority, but they were a minority in every area, so everyone at least had a chance.

"A school that takes its intake from a local council estate will struggle, while one in an affluent area won't."

In an affluent area you can often have problems too, well certainly in primary education anyway. Children can be surprisingly neglected on the one hand and on the other spoilt rotten and unused to accepting discipline and work.

Of course you can, but overall the trend is undeniable - the 'worst' schools are in poor areas, the result of social problems, and the 'best' schools are in rich areas, the result of the absence of those problems.

As for that comment about the rich parents and the state schools, it reminds me of the Hilaire Belloc poem:

Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.

Loved this. Spinning off, reminds me of:

There's been a accident they said, your servant's cut in half, he's dead! Indeed, said Mr Jones and please, bring me the half that's got my keys!

And..A re-working of the middle verse of All Things Bright and Beautiful:

The poor man in his castle sells tickets at the gate
So that the rich plebians can play on his estate