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).

Oh of course you can't get private education on state funding. Is anyone really that thick?
I'm fine with a bit of Ovid, by the way.

"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."
This particular chestnut relies on the bizarre thought that someone opposed to selective education might be only opposed to the grammar part, not state selective education as a whole.

Most schools are bubbles. Islands of their own particular class/tribe.

Many British people have very little idea how people different to them (significantly richer or significantly poorer) live. I am often surprised by it on MN.

It's true of lots of other countries too of course. But social mobility is so appallingly poor here. And only getting worse.

Nobody has said all state comprehensives are bad, or even most. But just like you can't have grammars without secondary moderns, in the present system we can't have good comprehensives without bad and mediocre ones. If the system is basically good then why the outcry about reallocating funding? Surely if all these great comprehensive areas exist across the country then all those schools having their funding cut to the same low levels will remain great.

Most mumsnetters do not live in deprived areas. So 5,10, 5000 posters on here saying how fantastic their dc's school is doesn't prove that is the case for everyone else in the country.

noble you don't need me to work out the percentages or proportions for you, it's still closer to the private schools funds.

No, that doesn't mean I think London state schools are like private schools. But compare the funding alone and they have more in common with a cheap private outside London than a badly funded state one. And although not applicable to a deprived area like tower hamlets, the best London state schools have more in common with cheap privates than they do with the sink schools.

Also, won't the £400 extra per child be in part down to having the funding to have qualified, experienced teachers? I know they are paid higher across the board in London because of living costs, but higher levels of funding suggest they aren't being forced to hire nqts with no subject qualifications like schools on the lowest funding.

Every day during school term time I drive past one of the most prestigious private schools in the U.K. It's right next door to my dc's comp. The private school is beautiful, with enormous grounds, state of the art science labs, several playing fields.

My dc's comp has double the number of students crammed into a site half the size and no playing fields.

You can see the difference between the kids. The ones at the private school are taller and slimmer, and mostly better looking.

It deeply offends my sense of justice to see such blatant, ugly inequality between children laid out in front of me every day. To know that the children at the private school already have much, much more, even before you take their expensive education into account, and yet being clever, tall, healthy, well supported - it's still not enough. They have to heap privilege upon privilege.

The existence of private schools is morally indefensible at a population level. I understand why people want to send their children to them, but society shouldn't do one single thing to support or perpetuate such a morally appalling system.

I am a fan of abolishing private schools, and all religiously selective state schools .

Ain't going to happen..

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.

Great comment ontopofthesunset. You "win" the thread for me.

Really I've heard it all. Private school kids are now better looking? And height is not only a privilege but one achieved through attending a private school?

I drive past three secondaries every day. One is a lovely old building with big playing fields that is in need of some tlc but with smart, mainly well behaved kids. Second has similar kids but a big shiny building and great facilities and fields. The third building is a concrete block with no fields, and the most noticeable kids are those that are causing trouble. They're all state schools in the same county.

Minifingerz - surely it's not the fault of the private school if the children are slimmer?
Actually, come to think of it, many many moons ago I went to a private school where the food would have provoked a riot in a Victorian workhouse so disgusting was it.
I think my stomach shrank like a jockey's as a result of so little food passing my lips and I'm sure that's the reason why I've never put on much weight as an adult.
I know you loathe all private schools and all who sail within them, but they also have their faults:
My dd went to a local prep school and she and the rest of her year went on to various secondary schools including a public school and a state school in the same nearby town.
In her first term my dd saw a girl she'd been friendly with who was now at the state school and greeted her warmly.
Her former 'friend' completely ignored her and walked past as if she wasn't there.
The same thing happened with other pupils at my dd's school when they attempted to say hello to their former classmates now at the state school.
They'd obviously been told not to speak or fraternise with the ghastly 'posh' children.
My dd was sad about it.

it's sad but true often families with more money eat better which does affect brain development height and overall health (such as skin and hair) they may also prioritize looking good.

My post above should read:
"Minifingerz I know you loathe all private schools and all who sail within them, but state schools also have faults".

I kind of know what mini means.

On the first day of reception at my DC's prep school I was taken aback by the level of advantage those little kids had.

Wealth, attentive, educated, articulate parents,tanned healthy bodies from a summer spent outdoors ( obviously there are always exceptions).

But as the years have worn on that group of sixty children have not been immune to all life throws up. One has died, one is profoundly disabled, three have lost a parent, several have parents who have had a divorce ( some hideously messy).

But putting that to one side, as a parent, where do you stop in terms of giving your DC an advantage that you can reasonably easily give them? Do you say no, I won't give them x because others don't have it, or y because others don't?

Don't we each have to decide where our own line might be, rather than tell others where there's should be?

Or if we do decide communally that there should be a line, how do we decide where it is?

As I look back at my ( almost) 18 years of parenting, and the numerous advantages I've given my DC, many of which have been due to the fact that we are wealthy les be honest, I'm not sure which ones I wouldn't give if I had my time again.

As I've said before, I could look round any reception class on day 1 and predict pretty accurately who is going to pass the 11+. Privilege shows early. And is built on throughout childhood.

So where then should a parent draw the line?
When should a parent say no to giving an advantage they can offer reasonably easily for all concerned?

Over in real life, parents seem to do whatever they can for their DC with the resources they have. They consider that just to be what parents do. And they don't judge other parents for doing it or tell them where to draw the line.

For example bert you point out that you have chosen not to give your child a particular advantage ( private school) but what about all the other advantages you have chosen to give?

Why is the former worthy of a mention, but the later perfectly acceptable ( to you)?

Bert, its a bit more nuanced than that, at least round our way (inner city London). Parental aspiration will presumably show up in a child's focus, and that aspiration will often be linked to a parents own educational background and achievement, but equally there will be links to the importance a parent's background and culture places on education. Three generational unemployment is apparently the killer, and parental illiteracy does not help.

A good school can help, and these can be schools that are labelled upthread as "crap" because of their poor results. (Or cheap privates, perhaps, if you add in the additional funding they may receive to run all manner of integration and catch up classes and other initiatives.) But schools are only part of this.

Westminster has the highest childhood obesity rate in the country. There is a visible difference between pupils coming out of state and private schools. But equally the bus on the way home will often smell like a chicken shop. Most parents want to do the best for their children. For some this seems to include giving their DC money for after-school takeaways. The problem is more than simply one of privilege.

"For example bert you point out that you have chosen not to give your child a particular advantage ( private school) but what about all the other advantages you have chosen to give?"

Of course u know tgt children are born with different levels of privilege, and privilege attracts privilege however the privilege is gained. Not even I think you can do anything about that! What I am opposed to is the entrenched, institutionalised privilege that our education system perpetuates.

I just want a school with decent behaved kids and a strong work ethic and not have my kids education disrupted by other kids who can't behave or won't behave. Period. Most school gate mums that care in my primary school cite this as their no. 1 concern. It's not the staff, facilities and grounds that make a good school . It's the intake.

When you talk about your dc's comp, mini, it's as if it were a complete sink school, not one which is oversubscribed, whose architecture wins awards and which sends children to Oxbridge and RG universities every year. And many of whose pupils socialise with the pupils at the local private schools... there are plenty of tall, slim, active, highly achieving children there too, along with children from more difficult backgrounds but the picture you paint of it bears little resemblance to reality

So we will congregate and move and be with other like minded families. Im not interested in schools where teachers are social workers, growth mindset, yoga etc classified under 'education '. That isn't what I want for my children. I want to see education being taught at the very highest level, where potential is reached and where the world's greatest literacy, arts, science and Maths can be taught and shared and gifted to our children the wonders of humankind. And I would like for kids to access that if they want it and they can be the next Elon Musk if they wanted to. And i dont want dumbee down education for the masses as the UK is suffering from a massive skills shortage beinh filled by international graduates. It's just a shame that to access that kind of education you need money. A lot of it in either private or housing form.

I really wish we had either connections or money to buy into private ed or a better area.

We are well educated but low income sue to a number of factors. Its frustrating to have seen first hand the life privilege brings and be well aware you can't access it!

Emotive talk about health and height there.

My kids are slim and healthy. They walk everywhere and are given a relatively non junk food ( boring to them!) diet. This is cheaper than me driving a car and buying them what they'd like to eat. Ime lots of their friends' parents feel they would be cruel denying "nice" food to their children or forcing them to walk places. In the vast majority of cases it's not poverty causing health problems in our comp, but misplaced nurturing.

Outtopasture: I knew plenty of tiny old people growing up. Often born to worn out mothers of many, they had grown up half starved in Edwardian slums. Their children didn't have healthy, middle-class diets but with enough calories they did grow to normal heights.

These old survivors seemed mentally lively iirc , they had interesting and sometimes harrowing stories. Of course they pushed sweets and goodies at us children..which maybe connects with my point above on nurturing gone awry.

Poverty is a pretty powerful driver of poor health.

The "poor people are bad parents" narrative is a very powerful one in this country. The "why don't the poor make nourishing soup" brigade.

Good health is a huge advantage in life.

No one would criticise a parent for using every resource at their disposal to promote their DC's health, would they?

Bertrand I am not denying that.

Some posters were being ridiculously sentimental about us poor fat, potentially brain-damaged proles. Thought I'd put an alternative view.