Why do people openly criticise decisions to send your kids to a private school?

[scotmum1977]

I sent my Son to a private school (Glasgow) last year for various reasons and it's working out really well. There is the cost but we just do without expensive holidays etc. I can't think of a better gift for my children than a good education. I was so surprised at how offended people get when they ask which school he attends. They think it's ok to criticise you openly and make bitchy comments here and there. Surely how you spend your own money is your own business. Anyone else have this experience?

It’s best not to talk about it in real life. There is nothing you can say that doesn’t look like a criticism of the local schools.

I don’t think I’ve been asked about it, other than by people thinking about doing the same. Most people don’t mention it at all.

The state system is also unfair, selective etc but people seem less willing to criticise that.

Like so much in the public sector schooling health social care libraries roads museums etc the lack of money is seriously impacting on the qulality and level of providion offered. Few on here I suspect think that this acceptable but I also suspect most feel that they are powerless to really change it.

The state system is also unfair, selective etc but people seem less willing to criticise that.

That’s really the nub of it, I think.

Comps are not uniform. Money is spent chasing places in the better ones. Tutors, house moves and so on.

But many of those who hate private ed will always feel able to shout “privilege!” yet never examine their own behaviour and spending choices.

In some respects this argument is just a sort of political game for the eternal campaigners among us.

“The state system is also unfair, selective etc but people seem less willing to criticise that.”

Really? There are many posters on here who criticise it loudly and consistently. You must have missed them.....

I could never be smug about state educating having purposely bought a house in catchment of a high performing girls state school with best results in the county. The state schools in the next city are not good so we chose to live here. It’s more nuanced than state / private

I said “seem less willing”, not that it’s never done.

Plenty on here who climb over others to access religious, grammar, postcode selectives. All paid for by taxpayers. This is much worse imo.

Where we live (for family and employment) our only state option was a school where classes had 7 different science teachers last year, has dropped a whole bunch of gcse options as they can’t find staff to teach there and where police are called to break up fights, and the head has just returned from a nervous breakdown. We were fortunate to be able to pay for an independent. There are 3 religious state options that require 7+ years church attendance that suck out a high proportion of kids from privileged families. There are 3 large independents and several smaller ones that thrive because the state options are so shite.

We have friends with kids who are at great comps and selective state schools. Lucky them.

Is it possible to standardise state ed so that all are at least “good”? I suspect even if you could improve the general academic education there will be parents who aren’t happy not enough sport music lessons too much testing not enough to strict more religion etc. So even if all were “good” I think some parents will pay to get something they specifically like or feel their child should have.

The state non religious has always been awful. All the 6th forms were shut years ago and kids sent to a needs improvement further education college. The independents have sprung up because of this, not caused it.

Parents rightly believe that their child is precious and an individual so it’s human nature to want the best and to believe that your special child should have better fencing lessons or music lessons etc. Or to have something you didn’t have that would have made you happy as a child.

“Plenty on here who climb over others to access religious, grammar, postcode selectives. All paid for by taxpayers. This is much worse imo.”

I agree.

“Is it possible to standardise state ed so that all are at least “good”?”

The vast majority are.

But it’s - IMO - much less often about getting the best than about despair at what the state offers locally.

Able to move? Do that and retain your credentials as a caring progressive.

Not able to move? Go private and become a pariah.

Our “local” large town offers appalling education with many with shocking progress 8 scores putting them in the bottom 15% nationally and we’re not talking about an area with high unemployment or deprivation.
Any way “good” doesn’t mean it’s the sort of education you want for your child.

I was shocked at how different the state schools were even just a few miles apart. Certainly factored that into our house purchase decision not sure that’s “climbing over” anyone what are we supposed to do - purposely send our kids to a worse school? Cos that’s not gonna happen!

I read these threads and am always amazed that it seems to be ok if you are filthy rich but if you are middle class you are a social climber trying to buy privilege. So if you are already vastly privileged carry on but don't you dare change your lifestyle to afford private school. And if you are poor and got a scholarship well done you.

It's nuts, we are all in charge of our own destiny and if I want to forgo repairing my roof and remain mortgaged up to the hilt into my 60's that is up to me!

Exactly. I would love to send my kid to a comp where they could achieve their potential and most importantly, feel safe and nurtured. To keep my money and spend it on other things. That simply isn’t an option round here unless you are prepared to fake religion for years.

I’ve said it on here plenty of times but the state system should start to select by behaviour, not ability or religion. People will use state comps quite happily if we stop this failed idea of persevering with educating kids with challenging behaviours in mainstream. Much earlier intervention with troubled families is needed. Put the money in there and you’ll save on unemployment or prison costs later.

I often found myself thinking the same way about behaviour and selection. My DD was always placed next to a naughty boy to provide a good model for him.
But on reflection it punishes the child not the parents. In most cases the behaviour is the fault of a poxy upbringing. Not all, I admit. Bit most

Can I offer riding as an example of an extra- curricular which straddles all social classes ? (having just dropped the horse mad 12 year old off) The dcs there come from absolutely every social situation. If they can't afford the fees, they can "work it off" from 13. 3 hours mucking out= an hours riding.

Oh and it's on a bus route before anyone starts.

Ds's football team also has some social diversity although it is a pre-requisite to have a car

“Can I offer riding as an example of an extra- curricular which straddles all social classes ?“
I don’t think you can, actually! Certainly not in my 50 years worth of experience.

It is very unusual for a stable to do mucking out in exchange for a lesson these days. I don’t think there is one in our very horsy area that does.

Also 13.3 hours for an hour is completely outrageous.

In our rural area it's for markedly well off kids not those in the deprived urban and coastal pockets. It costs a bomb.

The fact remains there are girls there who are in care, others in unwaged houses (one girl's mother is fleeing domestic abuse). Others live in detached mansions and attend local private schools. Admittedly there are no titled families to my knowledge.

At age 13 it is 3 hours for an hour, not 13 !!! That would be mad