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?

In my experience, the most vociferous anti lottery people are the system-gamers!

Ruffina
You need to understand that there are some parents out there (me among them) who just opt for the local school bc we feel it's the right thing to do and that our children will cope. We didn't ever engage tutors, and our children gained a wonderful bunch of local friends.
The school was bog standard, and they managed. Very well as it happens.
This is most parents. We don't care any more or less about our children and are using no more special advantages other than that we ourselves have decent educations and are supportive, responsible parents who also have the wider good in our sights.
I'm not polishing a halo, but to suggest that everyone is 'fiddling' the system is just daft and out of touch.

The difficulty with a fully lottery arrangement is a knock-on one on transport - both in terms of congestion within built-up areas and also long distance travel in rural areas. Would all areas have the same number of schools within the lottery (in rural areas, this might mean some 20 mile commutes), or would urban areas have a 10 school lottery and rural areas 2?

thereal

I will happily agree. Though I didn’t say “everyone”.

But have you never heard people say things like “we moved because of the schools” or even “we preferred to bring up kids here” or variations?

It’s commonplace!

“I'm not polishing a halo, but to suggest that everyone is 'fiddling' the system is just daft and out of touch”

The suggestion stems from the idea that all but a tiny minority of “leafy” state schools are rubbish.

Sorry, to be properly accurate...it’s commonplace among those with enough money to game the system. Including the vocal left wing middle class.

For example - currently live in a large town. 5 secondary schools would be perfectly feasible for a lottery - could also include 3 more which are outside the town proper but accessible.

Old rural area had 1 school in a 5 mile radius. 3 more if you extended that to a 10 mile radius BUT in diametrically opposed directions, so someone in small town A with school A, allocated school B in small town B would have a 20 mile commute each way.

The suggestion stems from the idea that all but a tiny minority of “leafy” state schools are rubbish.

That’s one characterisation. Another is that state schools are all fine, other than just a few poor examples. Which is equally wrong.

A way upthread someone said that London is full of really great comps. That, with respect, is rubbish.

Don't know where you live Ruffina. When I lived in SW London I did hear that (occasionally). Where we live now? Never. If I gave you the location (which I won't bc it could
Out me) you'd probably be shocked when you googled the school's attainment levels. It's an area of some deprivation but mainly low levels of parental aspiration. Yet. My kids were fine and so were most others.

I just think parents should relax a little and be less paranoid about outcomes. Bright kids (especially with the Uber involved and interested parents of Mumsnet) do well.
I would honestly have hated to deprive our local school of my kids. If parents like me do that, results understandably spiral downwards. I know that sounds bloody sanctimonious, but it's true and fits with my beliefs (I am not by the way a lefty liberal!).
Repeat after me 'my children will be fine...". Trust them
And yourselves.
And save ££££

Ruffina,

It depends what you mean by 'fine'.

If what you mean by 'fine' is 'identical to highly superselective grammars or private schools', then of course they are not 'fine'. If what you mean is 'enabling most pupils to make average progress while having the national average proportion of PP and SEN kids', that's a different measure.

Yes thereal, I can easily believe that.

But I’ve heard it time and time again from people who live all over the country.

If parents like me do that, results understandably spiral downwards.

Why?

can'tkeepawayforever I completely accept your point about comparing school results with different intakes but I wasn't going to name particular schools in Kent. There are a whole swathe of relatively poorly performing grammars which are complacent and have stagnated under mediocre leadership. That is not a good model for grammars nationwide. I said to Bertrand I wasn't too wrapped up about value added because there are inherent difficulties with value added and grammars. The results to anyone used to looking at results can see very easily which grammars are far more middling than they should be. And a significant number of those are in Kent.

Goodbye,

the thing is, you can say 'there are a relatively poor performing swathe of...' about any group of schools:

There are relatively poorly-performing private schools (only 1 in my area performs better than the comprehensives)

There are relatively poorly-performing comprehensives.

there are relatively poorly-performing secondary moderns.

There are relatively performing grammars.

[By 'relatively poorly performing', I mean in comparison to how decently-performing schools of that type perform given a similar intake]

What I don't understand is why you want to roll out the grammar system, if you acknowledge that a significant proportion even of the current 164 are relatively poorly-performing, rather than deal with the relative poor performance of a similar proportion of comprehensives?

I do genuinely believe that many schools perceived to be 'poor' are simply those with more challenging intakes, but equally, like you I agree that there are schools that could be better. The effort - and extra money - should be provided to do this, not to change the system.

And a chunk of that improvement could come from sensibly matching better-performing schools WITH CLOSELY MATCHED INTAKES with poorly-performing ones, providing money and opportunity for them to learn from each other. A head of a school in challenging circumstances was NOT amused to be paired with their allocated 'improvement partner' ... an all girls' highly selective grammar in a privileged area with virtually no PP or SEN children....

(Oh, and expansion and full funding of good short and long term expert provision and support for all children with SEN, both within schools and in the special school / pupil referral unit network)

I don't think I've ever said I'd like to roll out a full grammar system for the top 25% as in Kent .

The grammars in Kent, with a few exceptions, are exactly the sort of grammar I wouldn't like to see re-introduced nationwide. Dull, unimaginative and complacent because of their intake. Nope, not my idea of a good model at all.

“Another is that state schools are all fine, other than just a few poor examples. Which is equally wrong.”

I actually think that’s true.

“If parents like me do that, results understandably spiral downwards.

Why?“

Because the truth universally denied is that kids who do well do well wherever they are. So taking the kids that will do well out of any school will make that school look worse, results wise. And results are what most people look at. Giving them a false impression of individual schools. My ds’s school, for example, would terrify many posters on here. But it did very well indeed by it’s cohort.

'I don't think I've ever said I'd like to roll out a full grammar system for the top 25% as in Kent' .

I would prefer up to about 40% of the cohort to experience a grammar school education.

Another is that state schools are all fine, other than just a few poor examples.

Tbf, I too would agree with that, IF differences in intake are properly taken into account. When people say that a state school is 'terrible', they usually mean it has a socio-economically deprived intake, with all the associated issues that tends to bring.

Bertrand

If I may ask, did you enjoy your time at Rose Tinted Specs High School?

Because the truth universally denied is that kids who do well do well wherever they are.

That isn’t a truth, or nearly a truth. Bright children do not inevitably achieve in the teeth of disrupted classes, poor teaching and, most significantly, cultures of rejection and ridicule of academic success.

And even if it were true, which it isn’t, why is that a reason to suppose that less interested pupils benefit from these unstoppable succeeders? You appear to be saying that they’re good just for keeping up results which would otherwise be dismal.