Sam Freedman wouldn't send his kids private

[noblegiraffe]

Because he went to a private school and had no idea that the world of working class people existed until he started working in education.

twitter.com/samfr/status/898845134028029952

I guess it helps that he lives in London where the state schools are great.

(Posting this because I've seen people speculate on here about where he will send his kids).

mmm- just because a school in a disadvantaged area does not make it 'crap' or 'bog standard' or whatever other offensive term you can come up with. Most people obsessed with bottom line data I find and also for some, choosing a school seems to be a class issue.
Having principles, supporting inclusive education is not something that should be sneered at or create an immediate- you must be sacrificing your children response.

Thanks bizzy !

Last year Sam Freedman stated that if he lived in a full grammar school area then he would be obliged to pay thousands of pounds for (11+) tutoring - just like all the other middle class parents do - which proved that grammar schools were socially unfair. He would still pay the tutors though - so why would he not send his dc to a desirable comprehensive school in London?

Woodside is obviously an outstanding school with excellent Progress 8, however:
High Attainers on entry 12%, fsm 56.4%, EBacc 20%

There are plenty of other comprehensive schools to choose from in North London if he lives that way; Fortismere is only a mile away:
High Attainers on entry over 50%, fsm 15% and EBacc 59%

You are assuming that he can easily afford private school fees for 3 dc in London.
Senior Policy Advisers to the Cabinet Office appear to earn £65,000 - £70,000 pa - he would need to earn considerably more at Teach First and/or be married to a relatively high earning professional to afford £36,000 pa (minimum) school fees for twins in London at age 11, plus a London mortgage, plus a nanny/child care?? From his tweet, one of the reasons he wouldn't send his dc to private schools is his social conscience, another good reason might be the cost of the fees.

Given that all London schools have higher funding than the rest of the country, attending a comprehensive there is no more socially principled than any other choice of school.

Good point Clavinova, he might not be able to afford private school fees for 3 DC. Fox and grapes?

Not everyone pays for 11+ tutoring! My daughter did a couple of past papers and that was it.

I can afford private but my children went/are going state.

There are plenty of us about!

God if Sam isn't earning enough to send his kids private then Teach First are way underpaying him. It's a massive organisation these days. Or he could tap his parents for some cash, they had enough to send him private and have no concept of the working classes.

Are people suggesting that London state schools are funded enough to be as good as private schools?

Not at all noble just pointing out that the funding of London state schools makes them very different to what a lot of the country has. However iirc someone did once post the funding for a school in tower hamlets and it was a lot closer to the funding for some privates outside London than it was to state funding for some areas outside London.

Does that include PP funding?

Tbh I can't remember, however it's irrelevant because schools in other areas also have high pp, so no difference whether you compare it to a similar school elsewhere with or without pp funding.

He had no idea the working class existed? Did he grow up in a cellar?

"He had no idea the working class existed? Did he grow up in a cellar?"

Or an ivory tower?

If he genuinely grew up with no knowledge of "the working classes" (patronising twat) the problem wasn't that his education was private; the problem was it was bad.

"Are people suggesting that London state schools are funded enough to be as good as private schools?"

People have to believe this. And in "leafy comps"

So that people who support state schools and use them can be disregarded. They aren't using ordinary state schools, you see.

I do think that a big advantage of comprehensive schools is that you get to have friends from across a wide range of social backgrounds and abilities. In London in particular you're maybe not going to get that if you go to a private school esp as they mostly seem to be quite selective.

Whether you think that is an advantage in life depends on what you want for your dc I guess. In the same way that independent schooling gives people a certain level of confidence, contacts etc which clearly help in many professions, feeling comfortable in a wide range of social situations can also be an advantage in life I'd say.

If you already come from a background where you can give your dc confidence, contacts, any extra backup tutoring etc to pick up holes in their education, then you could easily see state schooling as the better choice for them.

I wonder how long his principles will last.

There is a massive jump at sixth form, especially in London, in the proportion of kids privately educated. It may reduce with the new pseudo-private sixth forms like Harris Westminster and King maths school, alongside the Grammars, but there is a pattern of parents not wanting to take chances at the crucial pre-University stage.

Very few Middle class parents living in challenging London catchments retain the moral high ground all the way through their children's education.

It's not irrelevant, lurked if you're comparing funding inc PP in Tower Hamlets to funding per pupil for a private school outside of London. It's not like PP funding will be spent on the same things as private pupils, the whole point of them getting extra money is to bring them up to the same level as non-PP kids.

We all want the best for our children and so that means sending them to the best school if possible.

Not wanting to send your child to a private school does not mean that you'd send them to any school - it just means that you have certain principles about private education.

Um. Are people on this thread reading more than the linked-to Twitter thread?

Because I'm not sure how you get from this:

My experience - going to an expensive private school - is that I had literally no conception of the world @michael_merrick describes.
It wasn't until I started working in education that I realised this other world existed. It's one reason I wouldn't send my kids private.

To "no idea the working class existed" ?

Personally never heard of the guy before today but the thread doesn't seem objectionable - he's aware he lived in a privileged little bubble, and would like his kids to be a bit more aware than he was.

A couple more thoughts. I think his comments about 'not knowing' really refer to having no experience of working class culture, rather than literally not knowing that working class people exist.

So the point about not realising that if you're being rude about Sun readers you could easily be being rude about your listener, or about their parents / grandparents is a good one. Or my then MiL being amazed that I had a friend who hadn't been to university and wondering what I could have in common with them - pretty offensive given none of my family had stayed at school beyond 16 (ditto most of my pre-uni friends).

And Needmoresleep if he's choosing state schooling because he thinks it is the best choice (rather than because of some abstract principles), there's no logical conflict in then deciding private is the better choice at 16.

X-post with glitter!

London Challenge poured many, many millions into state schools (each) that others southern cities relatively 'nearby' with significant areas of deprivation like Portsmouth and Southampton just didn't get. Ditto midland and northern cities. Not a level playing field.

London schools used to be absolutely terrible. There was a reason it was called the London Challenge!

But yes, now we know it works, they should do the same for other areas of deprivation. They tried to do the National Teaching Service to get good teachers to relocate to places like Blackpool but got it completely wrong and hardly anyone signed up.
I guess this is what Justine Greening's 'Opportunity areas' was about. I've not heard about them since the whole failed general election fiasco.

I agree London schools are a great illustration of what you can do with better funding for education.

I've never really understood the logic that says if you believe private schools should be abolished (generally with the reasoning that if all families had to use them they'd be better) then you must send your children to state schools as they currently stand or be judged a hypocrite.

It's a bit like saying that if you're an anarcho-syndicalist by belief you ought to give up your job in Tescos right now and starve rather than working for a boss (whilst trying to bring down the state and create a utopia for all).

(Should say in the interests of full disclosure that I don't think private schools should be abolished, my dd goes to state school, and I'm self employed)