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).

" it's generally good if everyone goes to school together"

That's an ideal I don't share.

If I dont like the way schools in my area are that well run why would I think it good to send all children there? My children do attend the local school as it happens but I wish the other kids that don't all the best. I know someone who is home edded and some who go to private schools out of town.

It shows my children that there is more than one style of education. I see that as desirable tbh.

Yes, I know it's not an ideal everyone buys into, as many people explicitly buy out of it! I'm just saying that rather than thinking it is a moral good for every middle class child to know a working class child, the general idea is that mixing is better than not.

I know several people who have made statements about state education when their children are at primary school who suddenly change their minds a few years later. Usually when they realise they don't live close enough to the most high achieving comprehensives (which have the most middle class intakes and the highest house prices in our city). That certainly true outside London but could be different there, of course.

One things for sure. If you don't want people to discuss your family's educational arrangements, don't go making public pronouncements about it.

I've seen people speculating about his children's schooling arrangements on here before he said this on twitter. I think as a high profile figure from a privileged background heavily involved in state education, it's going to come up.

I agree with you SeekEveryKnownHidingPlace....
the general idea is that mixing is better than not.
Add message | Report | Message poster

Yes I too like my children to be able to mix rather than not!

It is different though to saying everyone should go to the same school which was my point.

Anyway as previous posters have said mixing doesn't always occur. The large comp in our town seems full of powerfully defined cliques from what I can see via the pupils.

MN is quite good for encountering people outside your normal experience. E.g. Clavinova now knows that people like Bertrand exist

www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/09/sam-freeman-selective-schools-destroy-choice-and-competition-why-conservatives-should-oppose-mays-plans.html

I have three young children. At the moment I can choose between three comprehensives for them. If one of those became selective, my choice would disappear. I’d have to enter them for the eleven-plus to try and get access to the school that has all the advantages of selection. And if, even after I’ve shelled out thousands of pounds for private tutors and gone through months of domestic stress, they didn’t make the cut I’d be left with no choice at all. The remaining comprehensives, which would become secondary moderns in all but name, are it, unless I could scrape enough money together to move or go private – which, of course, wouldn’t be an option for the vast majority of people.

So, he would consider scraping the money together for private education (or move) if his dcs were allocated places at secondary modern schools? He cannot really afford private education for 3 dc and Bertrand is very much in the minority I think.

Surely if the reason was that he couldn't afford it, he didn't need to say anything about it in the first place?

He is a coffee-shop liberal and as catslife suggested, his children are very young and he genuinely doesn't see the need to pay for a private primary school? He would like to change the views of people who can afford private education, happy in the knowledge that he has bought a house in the catchment of an excellent comprehensive? He may also have the option of a North London faith school.

The cost of private schooling has risen hugely while the wages of the traditional professions have not. it used to be, at least up till the 80s, that doctors, lawyers etc could send their kids to top private schools, as the single earner in the family. Now they are very unlikely to earn enough to do that and the top public schools are full of the kids of aristocratic landowners (of eg the Samantha Cameron variety) and wealthy businessmen, very often from overseas.

clavinova do you think a skilled political campaigner trying to convince conservative MPs and voters that grammar schools are a bad idea would write 'if the comp near me turned grammar, I'd just send my kids private because I'm pretty well-off?'
I'm not sure that article can be used as evidence of his financial status.

I've a feeling that if his kids don't get into Fortismere (hardly rough street comp) then he'll have the option of a couple of faith based comprehensives which allocate on a lottery system and are frequently in the top 5 comps in the country. His kids won't be slumming it with the plebs for sure.

"Bertrand
I am slightly stunned that you didn't send your youngest dc to a private school (or move house) if you have been able to afford private school fees for the past five years."

Sorry to have stunned you! There are more people like us than perhaps you imagine.

Thinking about it, I got a scholarship to a private school but went to a state school instead.

Dh uses that argument for against private school. He went to a comprehensive with a wide range of classes. I went to a small private.

Only thing is that if you actually look closely.
Dh 's friends he kept up with and chose to mix with at school are all white very much middle class detached big house type people.
My friends that I keep up with and mixed with at school include people from top to bottom. I knew a couple of people with parents with titles, but no close friends. However of my close friends one was a first generation immigrant, another basically bought her younger sister up on a caravan park while her dm did nothing. I don't remember it ever mattering at school. Only now I can look back and think "how on earth did they cope so well etc."

Yes, we had the assisted places scheme then, which did make it possible for people who couldn't afford it to go, but when he starts talking about comprehensives throwing all walks of life together I start asking about how many of his friends weren't middle class. I get responses like "well Tracy, she's the one who shouted hello across tescos that time." "Was she your friend?" "Oh no, she was in a totally different group? Never did anything with her."

But it's also easy to be morally right when it actually doesn't effect you. Dh gets his attitude from his parents-who realised the comprehensive wasn't going to suit his younger siblings, so guess where they went?

Giraffe, his DD (and Gove's) got places at our nearest state school. Guess what. Our DD did not. Ours was only offered a deeply troubled school some way away on the outskirts of Brixton, with a really difficult journey.

I would guess that the Cameron girl will leave for sixth form. Budget cuts are starting to bite in the State sector, and it is at this level where the difference is starting to show if parental ambitions are Oxbridge, medical school or a top RG. It is really difficult for schools to offer the support needed by a minority. Easier for privates, especially the better London ones, as they are selective, live and die on their Oxbridge etc numbers, and so are able to offer good support.

Duh, I was replying to Giraffe's post on the first page.

But it is still pretty valid. To some extent education is a financial decision. If the state sector offers a good enough education, then use it. We would have done, perhaps topped up by a bit of tutoring, had we been offered acceptable options. But we were not. (Indeed DS did not get an 11+ state offer at all, a decade ago when there was a real shortage of places.) What happens is that better-off parents review at 11+ and 16+, and in between if things are not going well, and will switch their children if they feel they need to.

Ah the "I can afford private education but choose not to" contingent is out again! Love those guys. Odd (or not) that one never encounters them in RL.

You mix with the wrong people, Karlos.

There are loads in real life! Not me as it happens as could not afford private but think my principles would stand.
One of my brothers on the other hand could afford private for his 3 children and has chosen state. Not a state I may add that Mumsnet would consider leafy. He is odd one out in the street he lives [lots of gasps I understand] but not generally I am sure.

Yes, how odd. There are a bunch of extremely well off parents who send their kids to the school I teach at.

And do they 'push up standards'?!

Probably, because they can afford to hire tutors

Oh my children push up standards all right Some of their friends had never even seen houmous before they shared their lunches....