How do you reply to this? Private school hatred.

[Elec]

Ds goes to swimming, in the class is another boy who he likes. I was chatting to this boy's mum, who I have not spoken to before. She asks me what school ds is at so I tell her. It's a private school and she replied - I don't agree with private schools.

What should I have said? I cannot believe how socially acceptable this sort of prejudice is, she just said it in earshot of plenty of other people so clearly she didn't mind who heard.

I imagine if this had been the other way round and I asked her what school her ds went to and then said, well I don't agree with state schools (not my view obv!) that she would have had a go at me and probably so would people overhearing!

Well, I am amazed that anyone with enough education to read the Guardian could be so misguided- both about private education and ASD. I apologise on behalf of Guardian readers everywhere!

I realise it's hurtful to discover one's fellow travellers are not always very nice, but I'm not sure that level of sarcasm was necessary, was it?

"I realise it's hurtful to discover one's fellow travellers are not always very nice, but I'm not sure that level of sarcasm was necessary, was it?"

I beg your pardon?

"It's unfair to think that everyone goes around slagging state schools off or bragging how well they're doing."

Did anyone say they do?

catinhat,are you sure you amd your mum are reading the right implications and assumptions?

Sounds to me like both sets from both sides of state and private can be rude.
It has been on the tip of my tongue to say
"2 rudes dont make a right",for much of this thread!

I'm ducking out

No. What I have said is that the reasons people give for sending their children privately almost invariably carry the implication that they think state education is inferior. I wrote a long, and I hope, thoughtful post about it at 6 in the morning. I said that they may not realize that is what they are doing, but they are.

You're right, amillionyears. But unfortunately, the "private" side find it difficult to admit that there are be rudeness from that side. I've tried to explain, but I don't think I've made any impact!

Isn't it the unpalatable truth that some state school education is inferior!
Fwiw, I sent my dc to a state school and I have been really disappointed. Dc1 started reception in 2006. That's nine whole years after Blair"s education, education, education speech.

It"'s interesting to listen to the teaching organisations talking about the changes to teacher trAining this morning. The keep bleating on about the importance of personal skills, charisma etc. FFs. Don't our children deserve to be educated by people with these qualities who are ALSO very clever

You can't possibly have meant this seriously:

"I am amazed that anyone with enough education to read the Guardian could be so misguided- both about private education and ASD."

Can you?

Which bit do you think I didn't mean? I genuinely didn't think that anyone with any education, a high enough IQ to read and understand a serious newspaper, and the socially liberal views that guardian readers tend to have could possibly think that people with ASD couldn't also be extremely bright. Or that private education isn't just for the extremely bright.

Which is why I offered an alternative explanation for the "not worth sending to private school" line- an explanation of what I would mean if I were to say something like that.

Sorry "is just for the extremely bright"

But Seeker isn't the fact that is in some ways superior what makes people argue against it?

That it is advanatgeous to those children lucky enough to attend; that it 'gives them a leg up' etc. That it is highly unbfiar that some cgildren can get this advanatge by virture of their parents' wallets.

If people trully believe that this is not so and that those poor misguided parents are just wasting their money, then they can't really have any moral objection to it can they? They might think it's daft, they might not do it themselves...but that's not a moral objection is it? The posters here who clearly believe that state school is in fact superior can't have any political objection can they?

Do you think that the high achieving private schools would still out-perform state schools if the intake of both were mixed up/homogenised?

tethersend - you mean if you took away the ability of private schools to select their intake?

Yes, I think private schools generally add a great deal more value than merely selecting their pupils for IQ/motivation/parental support on entry. But selection is, of course, an important driver of superior school performance.

Absolutely, word factory. But what I am saying is that private school parents are wrong when they say, hand on heart, that they never criticise state schools or state school children. Every single time they talk about why their child is in private school they inadvertently (usually) do just that. "the state school is perfectly fine. But my child is too bright/quiet/well behaved/ talented/sensitive for it" And it is hard to take. And must be particularly hard to take for those who would go private if they could.

Tetheresend- a school which selects- whatever the selection criteria- does better than one that doesn't. And poor children do worse than not poor ones. So selective state schools do as well as private schools. And well off children do better than poor ones, whatever school they are in.

Gosh, I never say about my local state schools that they are perfectly fine! Of course, we removed the DSSs from their local state school, so we have many years of experience (and some recent comparisons) to draw upon!

thethers DD's school is not very academically selective, yet often outperforms the nearest grammar school in public examinations.

Clearly something is making a huge difference. Small class sizes, rigorous setting, zero tolerance discipline, tons of sports and fresh air...a slippery mixyure of all these things I suspect. Many of the girls will not be as inherently bright as the girls to the grammar, but by God do they bring out their potential.

seeker I think you can be critical of a school, without being critical of the parents who use it IYSWIM. The vast vast majority have no choice whatsover. Even within the state sector choice is pretty illusory.

But that is the case with many things in life. I can feel critical towards somehting and have the sheer luxury of not having to use it myself...but I'd never criticise someone who had to use it.

tethersend - you mean if you took away the ability of private schools to select their intake?

Sort of, yes- as seeker also points out, any selectivity ensures better outcomes... But further than that, if all private schools were abolished and everybody by law went to their local state school; or if all state schools were abolished and parents given vouchers to attend the private school of their choice (and private schools could no longer select), would this raise the outcomes for everybody or, as I suspect, prove that the better outcomes for children at private schools are not wholly attributable to the high-quality education they receive, but that economic/social background plays a huge part in children's academic achievement?

I would have said " well, I dont agree with state schools" and done a very annoying giggle (NB - I do agree with state schools. Would have done it to set cat among pigeons. Cheeky cow!)

I'm not talking about academic selection- I'm talking about selection per se. And all private schools are selective.

Wordfactory- in what way does your school outperform the grammar?