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.

Swanker Why do you need to drag Henrietta down to Dave's level?

Why do you assume that would happen? What's so toxic about Dave that he makes everyone around him as stupid as you assume that he is?

Sorry, but I disagree that all schools have children from disadvantaged backgrounds. As an ex teacher I can tell you this simply isnt the case. Yes, children in care are priority 1 but you will find very few, if any apply for schools in these areas unless the school is a resourced school. This probably changes slightly the more urban a school is.

Also, I admitted to the smaller class sizes though the school my children attended when we lived there had 22 as opposed 30 so not a huge difference. Yes to some facilities though mainly at secondary level. Our local state primary was very well equiped and I know that one parent donated 20k from his banking bonus the year before my eldest would have started. They had a class set of laptops etc and interactive whiteboards well before they were expected in all classrooms. We used to get fliers through the door to tell us the summer fair had taken 6k etc. As I said, almost all the parents then went private at 11.

These kids were not in any way disadvantaged. Huge houses, expensive holidays, interested parents and an abundance of extra curricular stuff. There are many, many schools like this up and down the country. In areas such as this it does not make one jot of difference to the state school whether affluent, interested family A chose the state primary or the indie one.

And believe me, the day schools in Cheshire were no more posh than the state ones. Mind you, were we are now is a little less affluent but people seem just as posh-maybe its the sea!

where

I guess the problem I have with your argument, LegallyChallenged, is that you seem to be saying that parents who chose to educate privately because they aren't happy with the education offered by their local state school are extremely selfish and actively making Dave's chances poorer, when in fact it is more likely to be those who are still using state education but not sending their kids to Dave's school who are ruining his chances. Private school users are after all a very small minority.

I would imagine that parents who are middle class and actively involved in their kids education and due to their social conscience have sent their kids to a poor, possibly failing but local school, stepped in to try to improve it when is not achieving national literacy or numeracy standards and has other social deprivation issues when they had any choice at all in the matter are actually rather few and far between. I know several parents this year who ended up with a place in such a school and they are actively appealing against it.

It's a lot easier to have a social conscience if your catchment school isn't in special measures, or if your catchment school is at least in line with national literacy and numeracy standards.

The flaw in the argument isn't really about private schools. That's a red herring.

Let's imagine Dave's parents aren't so bothered about education and don't have a family tradition of valuing it, so they just send him to the failing sink estate school unthinkingly. Tabitha's parents are teachers/NHS workers/whatever, and they live a few streets away in the muesli belt. They were university educated and they do care about Tabitha's reading level. So they don't put down the local school as one of their choices, and Tabitha cycles to the better (but still not outstanding) school a couple of miles away. Dave is still a loser in this situation.

Likewise, let's think about Michael, whose parents are second generation immigrants living in the same street as Dave. They are a bus driver and a nusery nurse. They do value education and though they are not "middle class" like muesli munching Tabitha's parents, they also want to avoid sending Michael to the local school where the kids truant, shoplift sweets from the local shop and . So Michael goes to the local faith school, or the better school that Tabitha is going to. Either way, Dave is still a loser.

The private schools ruining Dave's chances? I think not. Look a bit closer to home perhaps?

Let's discount the traditional old school style public school users (toffs, aspirational successful builders , the nouveau riche and high level professionals) who probably do may well buy into the whole "buy your kids an advantage" or "keep out the hoi polloi" thing and assume that Henrietta's parents live near Tabitha and are of similar socioeconomic standing and value education similarly.

I think you're kidding yourself if you think that Henrietta's parents are more selfish than Tabitha's or Michael's, just because they have been able to use money to solve the problem they faced. Obviously, the option is not available to everyone, but that's life in our country at the moment I'm afraid.

Henrietta's parents should send her to the crap school, but Tabitha and Michael get a free pass? Why?

In each case it is still Dave that gets left behind, and the reasons for that are far more complex than other peoples schooling choices, and frankly, can't be solved by them.

LegallyChallenged if a child is in a home that does not value education then no amount of middle class parents in the school is going to help that. You only have to look at the current Evening Standard compaign about literacy rates in London to recognise that if a child is in a home where there are no books at all there is a limit to what a school can do no matter how middle class and pushy.

Perhaps the focus should be on engaging those disinterested parents instead of targeting the 7% of kids who go private.

On the dyslexia support you may think its OTT but having seen my son's reading, writing and spelling improve from way below his chronological age to a bit above it and the huge confidence boost he has received, it was absolutely the right thing for him. As you may know if dyslexia is tackled early (DS is now 7) the brain is often still plastic enough to work around some of the problems and so the symptoms may be mitigated more effectively than if intervention is left until later. Also schemes such as Toe by Toe and Stareway to Spelling rely on overlearning / repetition so need to be done very regularly. I am a little surprised that you are questioning this given your own dyslexia.

But a child whose home has no books and so on should not be educated in an environment where that is not just the norm but the only model.... there should be more shoulder-rubbing.

chickenshit, I recognize the scenario you're describing, and I think you make a lot of sense - I do think it's reprehensible the way that middle class parents unthinkingly shun what they perceive to be less good schools and wangle their way into the ones that are doing better.

On a sliding scale though, and in terms of society more broadly, I still think Henrietta's parents are worse, and that Henrietta will grow up with less of a clue about the realities of the lives of Dave or Tabitha or Michael, than Tabitha and Michael will about Dave's.

well you don't really get secondary schools in villages, but I still maintain that the kids who go to comprehensives, whether good, outstanding or satisfactory or whatever have more in common with one another than any of them do with the kids who go to private schools.

And I honestly don't believe there are any comprehensives where the intake is 100% middle class, anyway.

legallychallenged I will deal with your points in the roder you raised them if you don't mind.

1. Most state schools in affluemt areas, in particular grammar schools, have a tiny amount of children on FSM let alone children in the care system.

1. You assume that if independent school parents were forced to use state school then more money would be spent. During the last Labour administration a record amount of money was spent on education. If you recall it was the siren cry for Tony Blair's first election.

Most state school teachers will tell you that the changes in resourcing have been huge. I really don't think it's ever oing to get better funded than it has been.

1. You seem to assume that the parents in question can somehow change schools. Have you any idea how hard this is?

I've been volunteering at my local school for a few years now and I can't see that I've made any positive changes in the long run. Those children are still going back to their disadvantages each afternoon. The disruption, poor attainment, lack of interest etc is a dialy battle for the teachers there. How would having me as a parent there help? Honestly, I don't thinkit would make any difference.

everlong I tend to think in terms of secondaries, I suppose, especially when grades/faith schools/'sink' schools come into it.

if we are just talking about primaries, though, my answer would be that the child in the outstanding village primary will end up in a larger secondary where he/she will mix with the kids I was talking about.

If private schools were banned, it would just mean those schools in wealthier areas would become better because the parents would invest in the facilities in these schools. This would leave to more class divides because people outside these areas would have no chance of getting in. The parents near us who send their kids to private school do so because they do not spend anything else. They are not wealthy but just perceive it is worth spending their money on education. Most are from nations where traditionally you do pay for education so this is no big deal. In the area I live in, one child went to the local school and ended up in trouble with the police so was removed and sent to private school. There were only two other children I know that attended this school, one got involved in drugs and is now dead in a road traffic accident due to no license, speeding etc. The other child is 18, left school at 16 and is still unemployed. Believe it or not, this is not an innercity school but a village secondary with an outstanding ofsted report. I liked the school but how can I overlook the experience of the other children I know who went there. My kids therefore attend a church school in a neighbouring LEA (not one of the better ones in terms of results, but a good nurturing school and the only one we would have had a chance of getting in to due to our religion).

In all honesty all those who preach that you should attend your local school and improve it from within, would you take this risk with your children? How can you criticise parents who are worried about their local school and choose another option. Understandable if parents do not even consider the local school. I am all for equality but not when evidence goes against what I want for my kids. My cousin was sent to the local school as his parents did not believe in providing their children at the time with any advantage, he was continuously bullied and racially abused as he was one of only a handful of non-asian kids. He left school with nothing despite being very bright when leaving primary. He has never had a proper job and is still floating at 30. Needless to say, his parents used another school (non-local comp) for the other three children and they have all done really well with one teacher, one medical student and one pharmacist. By going against their priniciples, the younger three are also make really needy contributions to society so society are actually benefitting. Principles are great in theory.

I think there is good and bad in both sectors. If there wasn't I wouldn't have started off at the independent and switched to state when we moved because the independent was rubbish.

I don't think it helps to say stuff like, 'all the kids I know at state school are druggies or now unemployed' any more than it helps to suggest that all kids privately educated will be snobs unable to relate to people less advantaged than themselves. Or to keep referring to schools like Eton when most day schools are vastly removed from such an environment.

And on the subject of advantage, it's a little naive to pretend that the real advantage doesn't comes from parents' level of interest, educational background and financial stability. The difference between the child privately educated and the one state educated who lives in the nice big house and whose parents are professional and value books and education will really be nominal. However, the difference between this state educated child and the one from the deprived area with no books and parents who, for whatever reason, are unable to support their education is huge!

Disagree with private education all you want but don't forget where the advantage gap really is.

no LegallyChallenged, mainstream schools are supposed to be able to deal with SEN, but absolutely does not mean they all deal with it anything like an acceptable manner. Anyway, who said anything about the SEN being mild?! Just because you have mild SEN don't assume you can comment on other people's circumstances

Bitsyandbetty I agree totally with what you say as it reflects my own experience.

Our local secondary sounds similar to yours and I have seen a few children going from our primary to that school transformed within months - and not in a good way at all. The school delivers exceptionally poor results, the classes are disrupted, teaching is appalling, drugs are rife, the building is falling to pieces and anyone who can avoids it like the plague.

I don't know of any success stories from that school.

The other issue is that to move to the catchment of the nearest decent state secondary - and it's only decent, by no means very good or exceptional - the premium for say a 4 bed house is about 250-300k on top of what it is here. So a lot of parents feel it is cheaper to send them private, especially if they have one or two children.

Legallychallenged i fear a certain amount of stereotyping goes on when describing children from certain sectors of society. There is a strong tradition of standing up for the underdog by denigrating those in society who're perceived as being more economically successful. To help support this story, caricaturing of 'types' gives some people a vent to air their frustration and envy (of those who they think have more) and guilt (about those who they think have less).

To create complete equality in the system, you would have to make sure all parents sit down with dc after school and read with them/ensure homework was done do best of ability/encourage visits to libraries/museums and create an environment where children could perform in an optimum setting etc etc. On top of this you must ensure that no child is disadvantaged by having a school with nothing less than very good teachers, or by coming from any other than a loving, close-knit, functional, happy family that values education very highly. This just ain't going to happen any time soon.

Lovely if it did though.

I have had similar experiences OP. What I find funny is that some of the moral objection comes from mums who opted for NCT antenatal classes and did not attended the free antenatal sessions at our local hospital. How on earth do these women not see the comparison?

Sending your children to an independent school may not be altruistic, but people have individual choice over how and when they behave charitably.

It would be interesting to know whether any of the parents who object to the OP's choices have children at the schools the OP rejected - then I could see their dismay at the OP's reaction to them.

Sending your children to an independent school may not be altruistic, but I'm not sure I would see sending your children to a state school as charitable, AnnaMolly!!!!! Still, it is an interesting concept - charitably to donate your children to the local state school. I very charitably attended the local ante natal classes, too. I see now that I am a far more worthy citizen than I ever realised. I shall continue, charitably, to offer my body up to the NHS and my children to the local primary school. Hopefully, in a few years, I will have chalked up enough charity points to have some time off - I'm finding relying on state provision quite exhausting.

Rabbistew that last comment made me laugh out loud!! On a serious note, that's how I feel too - exhausted!!!!

Rabbitstew - That made me laugh too. I dont feel that sending my children to a state school (or more accurately, the particular state school that I am allocated) would be charitable, as like other posters, I don't see what difference my children and I would make, particularly to the children of any disinterested or even obstructive parents. Perhaps charitable was the wrong word and I should have stuck with having choice as to how and when to behave altruistically .

LegallyChallenged Why do you think that it's Henrietta parents' job to do what Dave's parents are failing to do? Why can't Dave's parents make the changes at their local school that you think can be made so easily?

Dave has disinterested parents you say? That's hardly Henrietta's fault though is it? Why should Henrietta's parents not do the best for their child just because Dave's parents don't want to do their best for theirs?

We all have to take responsibility for our own actions, and this attitude that 'someone else will make the effort so I don't have to' or 'the government will step in and fund the extras that I can't afford and don't want to make the effort to provide cheaply' is way worse than pro actively working so that your child can have the best you can provide.

It's not ok for Dave's parents to sit back and do nothing to enhance his education, and if Dave fails in life, that would be his own parents fault, not that of other parents who did bother to do their best for their children.

Of course, we could always just execute Dave's parents and force Henrietta's parents to take Dave on.

But then again, why should Henrietta suffer Dave living with her and cramping her style? Perhaps he should go the way of his parents, too. So long as we don't have to see Dave, we don't really care what happens to him.

Sugartongue: re SEN being mild - I was responding to several parents saying their kids had dyslexia and dyspraxia. Whilst I appreciate both conditions very and clearly kids have them severely, on the scheme of things these are mild SEN and hardly require going to a specialist school. Before parents with these kids get on their high horse too much, thing of those (like myself) with a close relation with a very severe disability, and ask how dyslexia could ever be anything other than mild SEN.

More generally, why should people help others? Why should those who are more advantaged help those who are disadvantaged? Am I my brothers keeper? Yes you are. Because it is the right (non-selfish) thing to do. And there is no better reason for doing anything. We all have a duty to help Dave, and to ensure his education doesn't suffer. That doesn't mean his parents are without blame (though they might be, their circumstances could be dire), but whatever blame they may have does not remove the obligations of the more advantaged towards him.