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).

to Bertrand...

This thread baffles me: picking over the possible motives and personal life of someone who is defending comprehensive schools and pointing out the deficiencies in his own (private) education?

Very bizarre, usually Mumsnet applauds those types of comments...

(Also his tweet is being massively misinterpreted by some - the piece he is commenting on is, as a pp said, all about a particular working class culture and mentality. Pretty sure you don't grow up with a parent who advises a Labour PM without knowing the working classes exist.)

"Very bizarre, usually Mumsnet applauds those types of comments..."
Mumsnet hates comprehensive schools!

That is so funny Bertrand - maybe my unconscious bias is deceiving me.

However my perception is that most people defend state schools, rubbish private schools and attack Tory ideas of selection.

So having a go at SF doing the same thing read oddly to me...

I disagree Pride, my perceived mumsnet wisdom is that private schools are a waste of money until 11+. Posters are then very smug about their state primary children receiving senior school offers and regard prep school fees as a waste of time. Some even seem to view allowing their children to attend state primaries as some kind of charitable donation.
There follows a couple of years boasting of the great facilities and the "underwater stamp collecting club" etc. 7 years on and the very bright children who stayed in the state system receive great results and great Uni offers and those who achieved similar or not so good at a cost of £140k are a lot quieter.
I'm not sure where SF lives but I wouldn't bother with school fees where I live (SW London) if it was any kind of a financial stretch.

I think it's that you get polarised views on Mumsnet in terms of the people who choose to post. The vast majority of people in the country aren't agonising about school choice, either because there's no point as there isn't a choice, or (far fewer here) because they don't care, or because (in most cases) they're perfectly happy with their school choice.

The most vocal posters will be those with a particular axe to grind, a particularly strong social or political conviction about education/grammar schools/private schools, or a particular choice to make.

That's why there are a disproportionately large number of threads on here about Eton or Winchester - not because most posters here have ever considered those schools, but because for the tiny minority thinking about it, the choice seems very high stakes.

You also get anomalous posters on here like me - I'm strongly opposed to grammar and private schools and any kind of religious or academic selection on principle, but am not very principled in practice, given my choice of schools, and so have sent my children to a selective private school.

People also post blanket statements like "Schools in London are so much better than the rest of the country and get much more money" which can irritate and inflame. Not all schools in London are good or outstanding or are particularly well funded - it varies by local authority.

There seems to be a view among some posters that state education is shit, just terrible. Then you hear that London schools don't count, they get great results because they're practically funded like private schools (even though they face a very different cohort). Grammars obviously don't count, they're as good as private schools. Any great comprehensive outside of London doesn't count because it's practically a grammar school given its intake, what with it being so leafy. Any outstanding school in challenging circumstances actually isn't a great school because it doesn't get really high headline figures, and might not have many high achievers so can't 'cater' for them. Once you've discounted all schools with high results as not really being state schools, and said that great schools with lower result aren't actually great, you can then point to crap unperforming comps and say 'that's what the state system is actually like'. Of course Sam Freedman wouldn't send his kids to one of those, therefore he's not actually a supporter of the state school system.

Noble - in that case an analysis of private schools should exclude all the over performing London private schools. It should also exclude all other selective private schools because they are de facto grammars. That leaves about the bottom third at best from which in the interests of comparing an apple with an apple we should also exclude those in leafy, educated areas.

Ontopof
you also get anomalous posters on here like me - I'm strongly opposed to grammar and private schools and any kind of religious or academic selection on principle, but am not very principled in practice, given my choice of schools, and so have sent my children to a selective private school

You certainly are not principled! Why on earth bother to say you are opposed to private schools if you send your children to one?

Though I recognise in what you say a lot of the specious arguments people make about schools, of course in real life, if you have a choice at all, it's between one or two schools. The meta-analysis only serves to help people justify their choices. For me, the choice in the end wasn't a philosophical one (though some might argue it should have been). It was between two actual schools. I didn't need to defend all private schools or criticise all state schools to make my decision, nor did I need to criticise all private schools and defend all state schools. I only needed to look at the two schools I was choosing between.

"It should also exclude all other selective private schools because they are de facto grammars"

Really? How?

"I'm strongly opposed to grammar and private schools and any kind of religious or academic selection on principle, but am not very principled in practice, given my choice of schools, and so have sent my children to a selective private school."

Isn't that more or less a definition of unprincipled?

That's exactly what I said. I said that I'm not very principled in practice. It's perfectly possible to believe in something but not do it. I believe it would be better if I didn't own a private car because of pollution and congestsion and only used public transport, but I don't do that either. Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor and all that.

Often it is not about the system, but about the child.

Some/most will do well in any competent school. But it is not unusual to see late entrants to the private system, whose parents are surprised to be there but hoping a move is the solution to bullying/SpLD support/etc problems.

It is also not unknown for grandparents to offer to step in financially to help facilitate a move that may help a child to the next stage. I have come across adults who have regretted that parents did not use the options available because of principle. Presumably not sunset's DC!

Not sure what is the point of your Latin phrases unless you are trying to show off your superior intelligence to us simple earthlings.

There's a difference between accepting cars cause pollution and being 'strongly opposed' to something.
How do you justify your choice of school versus your principles to your children?

"Often it is not about the system, but about the child"

You mean " I am a huge supporter of state schools, of course I am. It's just that Mary is so clever/struggling/sensitive/outspoken/musical/artistic/sporty/withdrawn/over confident/ insert adjective of choice that we just had to go private. Any other child........."

Oh I think you can be a huge supporter of state schools and not be a supporter of crap schools.

I don't like the thinking that if don't want to send your kid to a sink school that makes you not a true fan of the state system. I'm sure there are plenty of private school supporters who wouldn't want to send their kid to some weird or crap private school (and there are a few).

We must meet the same people

Our experience was that having decided not to move (or rent strategically in the right catchment), tutor or get religion, but simply work very hard and pay, we were roundly criticised. Somewhere between reception and sixth form, the criticism has died off. I don't know anyone from baby group days who sent their child to the local catchment school. Plenty used state, but without exception desirable state schools, with all sorts of moral fudging. In general the outcomes, in terms of University places, were similar, though State seemed to produce a bigger range. My observation is that Private kids may have come away with a better enjoyment of education (one big concern with the more pushy Grammars) and a wider range of skills gained from EC. But conversely state educated kids have a wider social experience.

I agree. Nobody wants to send their child to a crap school- and nobody should have to. But for many people, comprehensive and crap are synonyms.

Whilst I don't think that all state schools are crap, I do think they are all vastly underfunded.

Sixth form in the state sector is simply untenable at this level of funding.
We saw the numbers of successful candidates to Oxbridge from the state sector go in the wrong direction this year. I have no doubt that will be replicated elsewhere.

No matter how great the SLT, the situation is, frankly, crap.

Really? Our local catchment school gets very good results given it has consistently had about 93% free school dinners. So well that it is not one of the schools that attracts contextual offers from Bristol University. It has some brilliant Ofsted reports outlining how well it supports a difficult intake.

But... local MC parents will read the University destination list and be more ambitious for their own children. Not delivering to high aspirations, whilst delivering a lot of other important support and opportunities, does not mean "crap".

I assume also that the school also loses some of its more talented pupils at sixth form to grammars, and new selective state sixth forms.

Does it not depend on what the Principle is? Is it that education, like health, should not be a private commodity; or that all children should have the same provision regardless of talents; or simply equality of opportunity. I'm not really sure, but then I clearly don't have principles.

You certainly are not principled! Why on earth bother to say you are opposed to private schools if you send your children to one?

The same as the posters on here who apparently are opposed to grammar schools yet choose to use them because you 'have' to in a selective area.

It's not true, you do not have to use them.

Sorry, the Latin was just what I thought was quite a well-known quote (I thought) about seeing the better way and approving, but following the worse - I wasn't trying to show off. It's sort of a catchphrase that we use quite often.

In practice, in my case, my choice was between a school that was in the bottom decile for progress, to which none of my son's friends were going, going to church retrospectively (impossible), moving retrospectively, or paying. I acted expediently. My kids only had one chance to go to school.

I believe that the education system in this country would be much fairer and better for everyone without any kind of selection - religious, grammar-style, fee-based. But that isn't the system we've got. Could I have tried to change it from within? Yes. Would it have practically made a difference to the system? Probably not. I give my voice where I can in another way by my work in local education.

We talk a lot in our family about why we took the decisions we did about schooling. We've always been very open about our ambivalence about private education and we're not pretending to be moral crusaders. We're flawed human beings with selfish instints. The children went to a local primary school and have friends and acquaintances who've followed different paths. They understand why we took the decisions we did and understand the unfairness of privilege.

Ok private school fans. You can either send your kid to the bizarre private school where Rees-Mogg sends his kids. The one with the horrible uniform and the deeply inadequate inspection report. Or Or you can send them to Holland Park (don't know much about it, but Tatler says it's one of the best state schools in the country).

If you pick state, then that will be used as evidence that you think the state system is the best and that you don't actually think private schools are very good at all. Certainly not good enough for your children. How can you continue to support private schools when you rejected that one?

I'm not sure Tatler is right. Holland Park's Head has a fairly marmite reputation. But perhaps I have met too many disappointed parents who thought they were getting a top London Private education without paying. Aspirations tend to be super-high in what might be Britain's most expensive catchment.

Where do the Rees-Mogg brood go?