What annoys you about state schools?

[NormaJeanBaker]

Just in the interests of balance...

I teach in a school that has lower than average results. Our average results are lower than average. Doesn't mean I'd expect your child to perform below national average. I understand that you might want your child to be educated in a school full of high achievers rather than just in a top set, but you shouldn't think that all my pupils perform poorly, nor that I expect them all to do so.

Of course, just to blow my own analogy out of the water, it's nothing like caviar at all, because good caviar is a rich person's commodity and good education should not be. Every argument about private schools ultimately touches on discussion of state schools too, and even impacts on people's perception of them. It's impossible to put a "flat earther field" around it.

our local primary has an outstanding ofsted, is very much part of the community and is a 'lovely' school - well-behaved kids, mostly good teachers, but ...

the expectations are so low it makes me cringe - ds1 (ridiculously bright) managed to coast for years getting praised to the skies for frankly mediocre work which didn't stretch him for one milisecond - he went into an academically selective independent secondary at y6 and once he recovered from the shock of actually being expected to do some work is thriving

there is no sport worth talking about - at one swimming gala the inclusive approach included entering one child who had to be rescued half-way down the pool!

the younger dcs' xmas concert was sweet, but the standard of singing and playing was incredibly low - however the head told them again and again how fantastic they were

don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want to see the school become elitist with only the best children ever getting a chance to take part, but I know what children are capable of if they are at least striving for excellence - whether or not they achieve it and it frustrates me that the school settles for such a low common denominator

Message withdrawn

So "irrelevant" - UQD - that that is all you can find to post about - "chip" and "shoulder" come to mind - so you can't afford it and others can - get over it. I'm with Quattrocento here.

Focus your time and energies instead into getting your kids into a decent grammar/uni instead of spending so much time flaming us hard working middle class parents who choose to spend their money on thise kids education (instead of a brand new mercedes every 2/3 years of four five star holidays a year) - sheesh how amoral.

bythesea No, OFSTED are not interested and advised me to go via the Governors, which i did ... no joy. Then to the LEA, which is where I'm at right now .. waiting for reply. Think I shall be waiting and waiting. Surprised I've still got a job really labelled chief whistle blower!

Someone's got to do it ...

I think these two threads are bringing up something that maybe we should all have know at the outset: there is no one type of state school or independent school; like children, they are all annoying or good in their own individual way.

And most of us have little choice in the matter, anyway. Grammar schools are only an option for those of you who live in counties which have them, indendent schools only a choice for those who earn enough to afford them by cutting down on non-essentials.

As for the general question, I find I hold two mutually exclusive positions here:

As a parent, thinking about my own children- it doesn't worry me at all that state school is the only alternative (no grammar schools here, not enough money to pay for both fees and a roof over our heads). I know they will make the best of any opportunities they get and it is a total waste of time to envy other people for what they can give their children. My children have a love of learning- that's more important than anything money could buy and you don't need a school to give them that.

As a voter- I would wish this country had a less divisive system. I think the Scandinavian school system, as it used to be until recent changes, did a lot for the social cohesion of those countries. Whether it would work in this country, with its enormous social division, is a different matter.

amber2 - oh yes, I have a new Mercedes twice a year. There is such a HUGE gulf between you people and the message I am trying to get across to you that I think it's really not worth my while bothering...

Oh we hear you UQD. Loud and clear. We just don't happen to agree with you. Incredible though it might seem.

I do agree with Cory actually that the inequality in the UK is massive. Part of this is clearly due to the education system. It would be absolutely fantastic if the education system were not so patchy, and that all schools were high quality and motivational etc. I personally don't want to fork out for school fees.

"Focus your time and energies instead into getting your kids into a decent grammar/uni instead of spending so much time flaming us hard working middle class parents who choose to spend their money on thise kids education (instead of a brand new mercedes every 2/3 years of four five star holidays a year)".

It is comments like this that really get peoples backs up. So if you don't send your children to a private school you are either not working hard enough or wasting your money on luxury items.

There does seem to be the assumption that anybody who is not paying school fees is therefore able to afford a car. Which is not the case. Often it is precisely the people who cannot afford school fees who also cannot afford luxury items.

Let me clarify as my point it seems was misunderstood - I meant I could choose to spend my money (and yes i worked hard at uni' and chose a career tracj that pays ok) on a new luxury car; 5 star holidays or more rapidly paying down my mortgage - but I choose to spend it on getting my DS the best education I can help obtain for him... I can't think of a better use for it, once I have a house over my head, there was no attack on anyone else state or otherwise choosing to spend their money on whastever they choose.

The issue here should be focussing on better choice and higher standards across the board on state schools, lack of grammar school places, not descend to the politics of envy which is what it smacks of. The insinuation is, that the worst thing one can do morally /socially is pay for a child's (better) educational chances because that may give your child better life chances than a state school child - while I agree that every child in the UK should have access to a decent education, there will always be those middle classes who put education above most other things and will pay for it from private music lessons to tutoring to private schools. I for one don't need to justify it.

I do understand, Amber, and I for one do not blame you for spending money you have on something sensible. I think some of us may be a little sensitive to this, because of many past discussions where the assumption is made that anyone who is highly educated and working hard will also be earning enough to afford either school fees or luxury goods. This is not the case. Lots of middle class types (however hardworking) are not actually all that wealthy and lots of working class members work extremely hard.

Not a problem for me personally, but I would like any discussion to accept the fact that choice in the matter of schools fees only applies to that relatively small sector of the population who get paid high enough wages.

Paying school fees for our two would mean no money for a house over our heads, for food, for other essentials. So choice just doesn't seem a relevant word in this context.

By the way - I also wish we had a Scandinavian type state school system - in Denmark, university also is free, and there is little private education, as the state is so good.

If we did, I would be happy to save the £££ - but I doubt we ever will, so I will have to continue to buy into private as long as I can comfortably afford to do so.

UQD - I think the schadenfreude you clearly enjoy at some middle class parents pulling out of private schools to state because if the recession should be tempered with the fact that the same tutored middles class kids are going to now more likely to be heavily competing with state primary kids for those precious few grammmar places.

Amber, do we know that UQD actually lives in a county where they have a grammar schools? For a lot of us, grammar school competition is also irrelevant, because there aren't any. In my part of the UK, there is a choice between private and state comp.

What annoys me about state schools?

Well - they expect my kids to achieve well academically and push them to realize their full potential.

They put on so many (free) activities - cricket cub, tennis, archery, rowing, cross country club, (and plenty of school fields upon which to practice) table tennis (run by the county coach), opera club, drama, gospel choir etc etc that my kids poor little heads are spinning from all the choices.

They had the cheek to put my child into an athlete education programme as he is sporty, which means in this last term alone he has had training from the physio of the NZ rugby team, coaching from ex-professionals of our (premiership) football club and sports psychology training at our university.

The head is easily contactable by phone, as are all the teachers, and if not available will always ring back.

My kids friends are friendly, charming and kind. Their parents actually have proper jobs. Teachers, doctors, electricians, lawyers, plumbers. Some of them live in bigger houses than us and some in smaller.
They wash and do not smell. (OK, the teenage boys can be a bit whiffy.)

There seem to be quite a few of these divisive threads around at the moment.

Annoyed? Don't get me started...

What annoys me about state schools?

The HUUUUUGE inequalities nationwide. There is more of a postcode lottery for education than there is for health but no-one in authority seems to care.

Our county has grammar schools but there are none near here. There used to be, but the Socialist twats who ran this city in the 70s and 80s scrapped them, in their infinite wisdom.

I mean, how awful to have schools where the brightest are encouraged, rather than those who have a spare £20k a year.

Some people are conflating the "need" or the "desire" or the "moral imperative" to spend money on school fees with the actual ability and/or inclination to do so. This is a rather nasty and old-fashioned Tory way of looking at the world. "Oh, you can't afford stuff. That stuff would make your life better, you know. You must be scum."

If people "hear me" then why are there idiotic posts like amber2's, which clearly illustrates a total lack of understanding of the arguments?

Again. From the top. Pay attention this time. For 90% of people it is not a choice between "luxuries" and school fees. It is simply that there is no choice other than the "inadequate" comprehensive. So why do we live in a society where a school is recognised as failing, judged as such by significant numbers of parents in the catchment, and yet thought to "do" for the vast majority of kids?

I will keep banging on about this until I am heartily sick of it, believe me.

Dunno. I went to an appeal about one of my kid's alloted schools that was failing, in special measures etc etc, and said that given all that (as judged by the govt's inspectorate), how can you tell me I must send my child there? Weird, huh?

wow, UQD, that chip is sure getting heavy, .. first it was "you people" and now it's "nasty Tory" (sorry you have my politics wrong) and "idiotic" - hardly a reasoned response - perhaps you should read my posts again since you deliberately misinterpret them - - your constant theme is a dire moral stance against the notion people can try to buy their children a better education than that offered by the state. I can't afford to fly my family first class everywhere but I don't gnash my teeth at others' ability to do so.

Again I see no need to justify my DS's private education or spending my hard earned money on it (yes and everyone works hard I know - my parents worked really hard and I don't resent that they could not afford private for me and my siblings) - some jobs pay more than others so having recognised that from a position of relative lack of wealth growing up that's the career plan I firmly made long ago with school fees in mind - nor do I need to apologise for that.

There were no silver spoons or public school connections involved in my case - sorry to disappoint you in your generalisations.

I have no superiority complex for my DS in sending him to a private school - there may be better state schools here and there just not in my area, while there is good number of decent private schools nearby so I do it for the small class sizes and wrap around care/clubs and more liberal (freedom from Sats) notion of education - I put my DS first rather than having greater luxuries for myself or a gold plated pension - if there were decent state options in my area (there are at primary not secondary level then believe me, I would be be happy to consider them and save myself a fortune).