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?

Tbh they also lead the little ones and sort out feeds, give the ponies medicine. Not just muking out, though of course there is a lot of that

“Can I offer riding as an example of an extra- curricular which straddles all social classes”

That is hilarious. And I grew up in a horsey area.

Iheartniles 'simply isn't an option', for you, you mean. But simply the only option for the vast majority.

This is really surprising round here lots of dcs with a travelling heritage ride. Is that so unusual ?

Also agricultural college is a popular non academic (and therefore not v. MC)option post 16, so loads of WC dcs riding and messing about with horses generally.

I so agree about selecting by behaviour great idea. Once there is a big enough cohort of disruptive kids in a class whether through plain bad parenting, non valuing of education culture or sen your child’s education is stuffed. My family all teach this is their view. Dh and I both state educated and had first hand experience of this so we bought a house near the strictest all girl state school we could find. When I ask dd about disruption in class she looks at me blankly. Isn’t an issue. Very low turnover of staff there and friend of a friend is a teacher there recently crowing about how “easy” her life is now and how much material she can cover due to not having to constantly crowd control unlike her last school.

mstswift and the kids whose parents don’t give a shit so they haven’t learned good behaviour? Just stick them in a class with some poor teacher who now has 30 poorly behaved kids to deal with and let them all wind each other up?

It’s not used in schools for a reason.

I did think 13.3 was peculiarly specific.

If you’re going to raise your eyes at me BusConductor it might be worth learning to quote correctly. I said that being safe and reaching potential wasn’t an option in our local comp, not that it wasn’t an option for us. Luckily we were able to buy other options.

Selecting on the basis of behaviour would trigger the same issues and complaints as selection by ability. Possibly more so.

I don't criticise to someone's face but I can't help but feel uncomfortable with it. I do feel a bit sad that those children won't mix with all types of children. It seems so sheltered. How will they cope in the real world?
I'm glad my kids got to mix with all types of kids. Yes even the 'difficult' ones. I think it makes for a more rounded person rather than just amongst priveledged people (whether financial or academic).

Guess I’m still sore about my crap gcse French grade - weak teacher and badly behaved group (not sen just bad behaviour) who ran riot us swots who wanted to learn couldn’t - we all dropped one, in some cases two, grades. Utterly shit.

Iheartniles, it might be worth learning how to write less ambiguously? Perhaps, luckily, you could pay to do that?

"I do feel a bit sad that those children won't mix with all types of children. It seems so sheltered. How will they cope in the real world?" Yes, and also true for the disadavantaged students - equally good for them to mix with all sorts.

Creaming off the rich and academically selected leaves behind other students who have a disproportionate number of troubled, SEN, behaviour issue students to exist with. If you spread the disruptive students out thinly then their influence is diminished and many will learn from better behaviour if they are in the minority. Put them all in a bottom set and the other students will in the class suffer. Is this fair? There is a stigma to secondary moderns and bottom sets that can be very detrimental. I wish those in favour of grammar schools would say they are in favour of secondary moderns instead.

I agree with the PP who said it is more nuanced than state/private. In my experience the divide is between good schools and poor schools and even then, that is a huge generalisation and there is immense variation.

I am strongly in favour of secondary moderns. What was wrong with them?

Are you happy for your kids to attend a secondary modern? Personally I would not want mine at a school with no top sets, a disproportionate number of disruptive students and with the stigma of having failed a test at 11. I would prefer a comprehensive school for mine.

Ruffina,

70-75% of pupils in Kent are currently educated in secondary moderns.

[They are what people who don't understand the system there refer to as 'comps which are terrible compared with the grammars']

If they are so brilliant, why are the results overall in Kent no better than in non-segregated counties?

I’ve never understood the stigma argument. I think it just gives away prejudices.

Why no streaming? If there’s streaming you’re just describing a comprehensive school.

Greentent if the secondary modern system worked properly then I wouldn't mind it. My DC are all at the more academic/ able end and so on that basis I would mind it yes (and of course much easier for me to say I wouldn't mind it, because they won't have to experience it). In principle I think selection on different types of ability is helpful for all DC across the spectrum. The caveat (worth repeating) is that the secondary modern end works properly. The current system, especially with the new GCSEs, is a mess for the least able as well as the most able. Probably just about passable for those in the middle.

can'tkeepawayforever because a large number of the Kent grammars are crap.

The way i think about it is to imagine two children of statistically the same academic ability. in a single test on a single day, one gets 1 mark more than the other. One therefore goes to a school with very few SEN children, very low %PP, almost certainly teaching multiple languages, separate sciences etc, and with lower staff turnover {because there is greater prestige in teaching in a grammar school, and behaviour and the reduced amount of pastoral / social services type care makes the job a lot easier). The other goes to a school with a less academic curriculum, a concentration of children from deprived backgrounds and with SEN (remembering that the first £6,000 of SEN support must come from the normal school budget, the impact of that difference on funding alone is significant). ad the stigma of having 'failed'.

What is so good about the secondary modern for the second child, who is of exactly the same academic ability as the first?

Streaming - which as I have said multiple times is, IME REALLY rare, with setting an almost universal alternative - allows the possibility of movement, and at least the funding, facilities, teachers etc for both streams are identical.

So the ONLY reason that education in Kent is not FAR superior to non-selective counties is that the grammar part, serving just 25% of the pupils, isn't very good??

Are you SURE about that?