response to private school

[plumling]

DS did not get a place at either of our good local schools (live within .5 mile to both) and so after much thought rather than walk 1.5 miles each way to nearest school which I didn't really like(for lots of dull valid reasons) we have decided to go private (5 min walk each way) after much navel gazing and general pissed offness with the state system of catchments etc.

Have been really saddened about friends' reaction in that people at a recent Ds friend's birthday party - got lots of quite intrusive questions challenging this decision (don't know how you can afford it...how will you? etc etc).

Just really curious around the thinking - why is it ok to challenge people going to private school but not when they overtly move into catchment areas? Very difficult to move, my mother lives with us etc so moving wasn't an option but even so going private is a lot cheaper for us than hunting down a house within 0.2 mile etc.

LegallyChallenged - Interesting you think the ethnic minorities are far more unlikely to afford private education. That is not true everywhere. 14 out of the 17 children in my sons prep school class in West London have at least one parent who is from an ethnic minority (including my son) so perhaps you should substitute Ali or Yusef for Henrietta!

So middle class parents support the local state school which then gets a great reputation leading house price inflation in the catchment which prices Dave and his family out as they can't afford to move close enough to the school. Then middle class parents are villified for buying their way into a good state school to the exclusion of poorer children.

I really don't think there is a simple answer and the whole education system in this country needs looking at. There are big issues around the way the state controls and meddles with education and the fact that education is not seen as relevant by some families.

LC- your argument is flawed. Why does Henrietta not deserve those grades? Dave too deserves those higher grades doesn't he? Why do you need to drag Henrietta down to Dave's level? Shouldn't we want an excellent education for all, regardless of background?

I am not sure where you live, but in my city the fee-paying schools are actually filled with children from Indian, African-Caribbean, and Chinese backgrounds, with White-UK children being in the minority- the two best-performing independent schools were actually around 60% children from Indian backgrounds, whereas the city as a whole has around 6% of children from Indian ethnicity, so a real imbalance.

How would I as a parent make my local school a really good one? (leaving aside the fact that my children cannot actually attend their local school as it is a Catholic school ) What is it that parents can do on a practical level? (please bear in mind that most of them work, mainly FT)
I was previously a governor (at an outstanding school), but it seemed to me that the hard work was done by the school staff, not the governors, who in the main simply went along with much of what the staff governors proposed.

I think LC's analysis is flawless [ducks for cover]

Really hester? It's okay for all our children to fail just so that there's no inequity?

The areas with the poorest schools do not have mc parents in their environs, so how on earth will those schools improve? I am thinking of the schools in the middle of council housing estates, and ethnic minority 'ghettoes'- there aren't many mc parents there braying for the teaching to improve.

There can be no doubt that ethnic minorities are on average poorer than whites. That is not too say white rich, dark poor. Clearly the Chinese are doing very well, and there are many poor whites living and attending school alongside the Bangladeshi?s, blacks etc. But ethnic minorities are significantly poorer on average, which means when rich (and mostly whites) desert the state sector so that those left in it have an inferior education, this has racial consequences as well as social class ones.

I am not saying everything is perfect, and I agree the situation is in a mess. Personally I would introduce quotas to ensure state schools ALL take a fair proportion of kids with special needs, don?t speak English as a first language, living beneath a certain fixed poverty level. I also think faith schools should not be allowed to operate within the state system (and by the way I am a practicing Christian, but my Christianity does not involve shafting poor people). I would also very heavily tax (but not ban) private schools. They are bad for society, much like alcohol and petrol are, and should therefore be heavily taxed. Also, universities should take into account what backgrounds and schools children attended. Some already do this (eg Bristol), but it should be compulsory and done on a greater scale. If Dave gets ABB at the local run down comp and Henrietta gets AAA at her private school, Dave is almost certainly the better candidate and so should be preferred by X university.

Swanker/Jajas ? ironically you both hit the nail on the head. The reason Henrietta gets a better education is because her class is full of people whose parents give a damn about her education. This is more important than smaller class sizes and better labs, and is the very reason why middle class parents ought to use the state sector. Simply using it, and complaining when a teacher is rubbish, being vocal if teachers write rubbish reports, and having some children in the school who attend already valuing education to a great extent, is THE most important reason why paying for private education unfairly disadvantages Dave. The question is not why should Henrietta suffer: the question is why should Dave suffer, and why should Henrietta get an undeserved boost.

Actually even schools in poorer areas gain if more middle class parents use the state sector, even if they do buy their way into the better schools. For example political parties so desperate to placate the middle class that decide elections will put more money into education which will benefit all. Of course, it is better still if schools are more socially and racially mixed, but actually even parents buying houses near good schools are better than those who use private education (though I don?t particularly approve of it).

Various people are saying they should be able to do what they want.
Actually I am not trying to stop that and make private education illegal; simply pointing out that it is an extremely selfish thing to do.

Many parents who have opted for private school education refuse to sensibly discuss any of the political and ethical issues associated with the existence of private schools . I do know that Kingsbury Junior School is a well reputed school in North London and I plan to have my kid study in that school.

Well I am in a middle class village with an outstanding school full of middle class children, if you parked outside you would think it's a private school.

However the school does not deliver and it is not true that we are able to change it. The Head things parents are interfering and pushy and has retracted parents' helpers or any opportunity to have a say. Teachers are generally complacent as they know the children will have support at home.

A lot of parents are very unhappy, but they are either too busy working to keep their lifestyle or profession going or not wanting their child to be singled out. Complaints are always ignored.

Most children from Y3 get tutored as they will fall behind otherwise. This is just the way it sadly is.

So in my experience of my school, I don't think being MC helps one iota. The working class town school my children used to attend, which also had a large percentage of children on free school meals, was 10 times better and really cared about its children. If we hadn't moved house, my children would be back there in a shot.

Toughasoldboots, what school did you go for? What did you look out for? I have lost all confidence in my ability to choose a school after this!!!! (Sorry for thread hijack!)

LegallyChallenged it's not a matter that state schools won't take kids with SEN, they do because they have to but they then provide a totally inadequate level of education. I was FURIOUS that my local community school totally failed to provide DS what he needed, but I'll be damned if I'm going to leave him there to rot when it's within my power to make sure he gets the quality of education he deserves. I didn't fail to improve a failing school as my civic duty - the school is an oversubscribed, middleclass enclave with crap teaching standards because everyone relies on the fact that pushy middlesclass parents will get the job done. Which works fine until you have children with SEN who need actual teaching during school hours (novel idea that one...)

Should I have left my DS there to struggle while I fought for the SEN to improve? you clearly think so, but all the time I do that I'm sacrificing my child's chance of leaving school with any qualifications or be fit for adult life not to mention that pyschological harm he was suffering due to the acute awareness he had that school felt as though he had nothing of value to offer. If you would really leave your child to that as a matter of principle, then shame on you.

It is my role as a parent to ensure that MY DCs have the best education they can get. It is not my role to hinder their education in any way in an attempt to level the playing field.

Would our presence at our local state secondary make a difference? No, it's rammed to the gills with MC parents already.

You will get this I'm afraid. I found it awkward at first, but now if anyone asks why we switched to private I just say DS's orignial school was good, but over-crowded. People seem to accept that. Most people were ok with us moving, but some obviously were annoyed and had to make a comment. One person that I met at a neighbour's house asked me if there was 'something wrong' with my DCs that they couldn't cope at a 'normal' school. I was a bit that she had that attitude about state/private schools, and that she felt those were acceptabel terms to use.

You get it the other way round too. Parents who draw their breath in with a hissing noise and purse their lips when you mention that your child is going to the ordinary non-outstanding state school round the corner, instead of the faith school or the private school or the school at the other end of the city or wherever they are sending their children. Some people just feel so insecure in their choices that they need to judge others.

Personally, I would like it if private education were abolished and we had a system of outstanding state school catering for all abilities. (This was pretty well the Scandinavian system when it was top of the world and a jolly good system it was too). But that doesn't mean I feel called on to judge individual parents on individual decisions made under the current system.

Also with sugartongue

A lot of the parents from our childrens old middle class primary have questioned our motives, but as many have already posted, we feel the highly succeeding comp has a lot of issues brushed under carpet by pushy middle class parents.

The drug problems are commonly talked about in our catchment comp, thieving isn't an issue as the kids all have plenty of money, and there is a social worker on hand to deal with suicide attempts.

Parents are in the majority of being high flyers, many of whom were privately educated themselves and have moved back to an affluent area but are now paying extortionate mortgages purely to send thier children to a top comp, I would rather live in our cheaper home and send our children to our preferred private school.

a posh postcode is not going to come at a cost to my childrens education.

Both my DCs went to private school. I can assure you OP you now have years ahead of people telling you how lucky you are that you can afford private education when they have far more in material terms of holidays, new cars, etc, etc and all the things you may have to compromise on to afford the fees.

My lot, attend private Schools. We as a family made a decision not to broadcast where the children are schooled. They attend a really top Public School and most of our family would not be supportive. The few external family members that are aware, have now effectively stopped talking to us. There is an element of jealousy but that is their problem not ours. We work really to make sure the children can attend.
One thing that we do- is instill in the children is not to be pompous. We explain that with privilege comes a set of social responsibilities and that they need to be good human beings.
When people ask where they go-we just say to a school near by. Also quite a lot of our external family are like leaches and would think, we would be a good target to hit for money.
We don't drive great cars or spend that much money,so most people don't realize. We make serious sacrifices and go without,to ensure a good educational future.
There many people against private schooling and i do understand their viewpoint. Yet reality is very different from ideals.
I don't think a lot of people appreciate that there is a real prejudice against children in private Schools and open hostility.
So my advice is, send your children but don't be boastful.

Legallychallenged, surely your argument only holds weight in areas that are very mixed? In areas such as where we used to live, where the average house cost around 750K and the school was very well supported both financially and in practical terms by affluent, professional parents, tell me how the children there were disadvantaged? Yes we had smaller classes but other than that, most of what mine got at school they got as after school activities (rugby, ballet, horseriding etc)

I wasn't keen on the school because it was very SATs driven but I think it would be very arrogant of me to assume that my children attending would have affected the ethos of the school. The vast majority of those parents could also have paid. They also had the choice. Almost all went independent at 11.

I'm not justifying my choice, I'm just taking issue with your comments that my children opting out somehow disadvantaged those who went state and saying this is certainly not the case in many affluent areas with tiny, ridiculously priced catchments.

SpottyFrock: "opting out" of private education disadvantages those that use the stated because:

1. Even a very middle class school will have some children from more disadvantaged backgrounds in it eg by law all schools have to give priority to kids in care who are applying.
2. As per my previous post, if middle class parents use the state system it will be a higher political priority with increased funding etc.
3. Even though the most important advantage is a class full of other kids who's parents care about their education, the other benefits of private education (smaller class sizes, better facilities, posh acent...) should not be overlooked, and clearly not having these disadvantages poorer kids (as education is largely a positional good - see my previous post.)

Also, for all those parents with kids who have mild SEN I am afraid your arguments are completely unconvincing. Mainstream state schools can cope with these problems, (though possibly not with pushy parents who think their children are the centre of the universe) and you should pull yourselves up a bit more and support those from disadvantaged backgrounds with genuine needs. (BTW I have dyslexia and dyspraxia myself so I ought to know!).

Oops should be "state" and "whose" - did say I was dyslexic!

LegallyChallenged quite a number of private schools will have children from a disadvantaged background as they will qualify for a substantial or full bursary. A private school offering a couple of bursaries may have as many disadvantaged children as a very middle class school with a catchment the size of a postage stamp.

BTW my dyslexic son gets one on one help and specialist sessions most days at his prep school at no extra cost some state schools may be able to provide this but not all will.

ChazsBrilliantAttitude - there may be some kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at a posh schools because of bursaries, but it depends what you mean by disadvantaged. Such kids may well come from a home with very limited income, no access to higher education, English as a 2nd language etc, but for the most part they will come from caring homes where parents really value education, even if they don't have much of one themselves. You can hardly argue that this means boycotting the state system does not further disadvantage the already disadvantaged?

One on one tuition daily seems a bit OTT for dyslexia, though depends how long it goes on for I suppose.