'Why I send my child to a private school' Guardian piece...

[PollyParanoia]

Is there no thread on it? Surely there must be.
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jul/23/why-send-child-to-private-school here
It's just so badly written with lots of fatuous unsupported statements. She's been so suckered by that clever thing that private nurseries do to encourage parents to sign up until 11. Our local one makes the nursery children buy and wear the uniform in the pre-reception year. Especially if the uniform has an expensive boater as hers does (I always notice that the most prestigious schools around us have the least pretentious uniform).
And as for 'Katy's exceeding national expectations', well, a good section of children in a state school will do the same, doh, as you'd know if you really were an educational expert.
And that bit about how lots of children would thrive in a non-academic environment/technical school. But not her child of course.
Oh and she lives in Kent so I think we know the answer to her point about her going private if she's not happy with the secondary school provision.

I'm one of those hypocritical parents who moved house, in part, to get into a good school. I'm not going to slag off parents who send their children private. I disapprove of private education but I know that there are circumstances, and if I had the money to spare, when I would make the same choice. I think it's a crappy system that makes hypocrites out of many of us.

BUT I think prioritising your child over your principles is one thing. Completely abandoning those principles is another. I find it harder to forgive parents (and journalists) who immediately start justifying their choices as though there is no moral dilemma, no wider social consequences, no poorer, less privileged children who have been disadvantaged by our ability to get the best out of the system for our kids.

I don't get why it is apparently so hard for some to acknowledge our privileges and the morally compromised choices we make within a decaying capitalist society. I was raised poor, got socially mobile, and am acutely aware of how much more social power I have than my mum had when she was raising me. I'm glad of that, and I'm going to use that social power to help my children, but that doesn't mean I just walk away from all those other children and stop fighting for an education system that works better for all.

25%. of Edinburgh pupils go through the private route.

There are alot of bursaries to be had.

mirry2 "I think that much of it is jealousy and no wonder parents who send their children to private schools are on the defensive"

Really? Jealousy? (not picking a fight, just genuinely interested because I had once considered the private school route for DS1)

Yellowraincoat, every parent is trying to do what's best for their own children.
What sort of wealth are we talking about? A child living in social housing in Tower Hamlets, East London is unlikely to have the same educational or other opportunities as a child living in social housing in Hampstead. Wealth distribution occurs across the board and across and within social classes. We should be ensuring no cild is disadvantaged in anyway, but it is just not possible in our capitalist society. Communism didn't work.

That's a good post Devora.

No interest in a bun fight. At all.

If not housing then what about feeding a child? Surely wealth brings inherent advantages there? Or health inequalities that come from different levels of wealth.

I distinctly remember 4 of us in a mouldy 1 bed flat growing up, my mum would have taken a 3 bed council house over a prep school place any day of the week and yet we had to wait years. Families now are languishing in b&bs, isn't this a moral issue when some people have spare bedrooms aplenty?

Yes, it is YouBroke and I'm not sure why you think that I'm not bothered by that as well.

We can sit here and talk about 200000 different social issues, it's not going to make me suddenly say "you know what, you're right, private educate away."

mumof to - if you send your dcs to private school you are likely to be constantly asked wh you'd done it, what's wrong the the local primamry or secondary, if it's good enough for our kids why isn't it good enough for yours. In my experience people take personal offence and you just have to grit your teeth and smile and agree that yes, the state school is reaaly briilliant but your child wasn't allocated a place/there was no wraparoundcare. heaven help you if you even hint that you prefer the teaching style offered, which is the most common reason people send their children to private school.

Noone wants to pick up on the 25% here in Edinburgh?

mirry2, because you are directly giving your kids an advantage based solely on your income.

Do you really expect people not to be pissed off about that?

If you weren't giving them any sort of advantage, you wouldn't bother sending them would you?

Yellow in London it isn't really as clear cut as that. Day nursery fees can be the same as prep fees and once you have got used to that for 3-4 years you can just continue. Mad but true.

In areas like Richmond isn't the private number of children educated supposed to be nearing 20%?

For me it's clear cut.

Of course people who send their children to private school are giving them an advantage. Most parents who have any choice in how they spend their money are using their income to do the same whether private school or not.

We all use our incomes to benefit ourselves. Otherwise why work? (I'm not talking about people who barely survive on a minimum income).

Why shouldn't people use their income to send their children to private school? Many people argue that private education is no better than state education anyway. If that's the case there's no reason to whip the morally bankrupt parents, is there?

yellowraincoat - 'it isn't clearcut.' - say that again when you have children and live in London.

yellowraincoat - sorry - I mean to quote you as ''for me it's clear cut.'

Hmm, mirry, you see I doubt that most people send their children private for 'the teaching style' unless that is shorthand for small classes and selective intake.

I'm thinking back on conversations I've had with friends who went private. There hasn't been that many because I don't ask them to justify it. The one that I found best was a friend who said, very simply, "I was educated privately and so was my dh. We understand the system and are comfortable with it. I can't get my head around class sizes of 30. We can afford to give our children the best - or our understanding of the best - and so we're going to".

The one I found most irritating was one who talked about how her own (extremely posh - one of the very famous ones) school was packed full of teachers who 'had a real passion for helping children learn, and couldn't teach that way in the state sector which believes it's elitist to help children flourish'. Like she knew ANYTHING about state education, or about the teachers within it, or about how much more skill it takes to get 30 disadvantaged children to a place of excitement and enthusiasm, than it does to get 15 privileged children through any number of exams.

But most irritating is parents who refuse to acknowledge the role played by private education in social inequality. Who will not accept that they, or their dc, did not get to where they are today through talent and hard work alone. Again: why? My dd goes to a really great state primary, but frankly it would have to work at it to get bad SATS scores with the intake it has, and it does a great job of transmitting social privilege. Not as great as the local prep schools, but it plays its part.

There has been a response in the New Statesman. I thought Matthew Parrish's quote in it was interesting

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/dont-delude-yourself-about-why-youre-sending-your-children-private-school

Devora when I said teaching style I mean not having to stick rigidly to the national curriculum plus other rules and regulations that would be viewed as old fashioned in state education terms.

Anyway it's great that you think your dcs school is doing such a good job at transmitting social priviledge.

Lots of parents would also admit that their child wouldn't have done so well if they hadn't gone to a private school but my argument is that there are many other ways that some chi,dren are disadvantaged more than others but for some reason private education is the one that always raised parents' hackles.

There are as many obnoxioul parents who send the children to private school as there those that send their to state schools. As many parents don't have a clue about private education as those who don't have a clue about state education.

"My argument is that there are many other ways that some children are disadvantaged more than others but for some reason private education is the one that always raised parents' hackles". Well yes, that is the point I made further upthread. Of course it's not the only way of embedding social disadvantage, but it's a big one, and I think it behoves those who profit from it to acknowledge that.

"It's great that you think your dcs school is doing such a good job at transmitting social privilege". You see, it just doesn't help to try to twist meanings and so traduce others in this debate. My point is that I think all the individual mudslinging over this issue is entirely pointless. I have no interest in slagging off parents who pay to go private. But I do think it's a crying shame that we always get pulled off down this path, rather than discussing how we can improve the system. I don't give a flying fig whether you or anybody else on this thread uses private education; I am interested in how we can move forward and do something better for the next generation.

"the role played by private education in social inequality"

because it's better?

surely better to improve state schools than to worsen private schools

why would you want to get rid of a successful arm of the education system?

I can't believe anyone thinks that people don't have opinions on the size of others' houses. I've heard plenty of opinions expressed on that one in my life.

I'm amazed that people exist who justify what they do by arguing that if they aren't willing to expose their children to malaria, beat and starve them, that means they can justify anything they do, because they are taking advantage of someone, somewhere, so why not go the whole hog and piss all over everyone else they come into contact with? That's like the African dictator who swans around in palaces of gold, removes as much money from his country as possible in order to preserve it for himself and presides over a starving populace. There are limits to what most people consider reasonable, even when it comes to excess. We don't all have to be anorexics or morbidly obese, so to try to shut people up on the basis of that sort of reasoning is inane.

As for wanting rid of a successful arm of the education system - why indeed? Why not just open public schools up to anyone who wants to go to them, regardless of income?

(What?! That wouldn't work?!...).

It's a side show. Private Education is a symptom of a very unequal society, not a major cause of it.

And while we are fretting about our choices and judging each other we're not addressing the real scandals of such unequal life outcomes at birth.