All Private School Parents Should Get State School Places to Fight Back VAT

[LondonSam]

All Private School Parents Should Get State School Places to Fight Back VAT

Yes, that was in essence the statement + more. As grammar is a selective school for "the best" the educational provision should be better than in comprehensive. As Ofsted reports were showing in many many cases it is not. I consider then parents who pay for tutoring for 11+ or even hothousing in all ways to get in... naive and not well informed. Just following others basing on a principle: hard to get in= must be the best.
Obviously, it is a general statement and still there are many great grammar schools. But the Ofstead inspections revealed that in terrifying number of cases they are not better than many comprehensive.

I believe that if the school is selective then the teaching provision and management etc should be superb. Otherwise, it is just a fake fame

@mugboat

"Wow, your prejudice is showing. How incredibly offensive. On both counts. I can only assume you've got no idea what it's like.

Let me tell you. I'm not 'poor' yet cannot afford private sch. I do not in anyway slate rich people or private schools to my children. Never. My neice and nephew go to private sch for starters so I wouldn't want my kids being rude to them, making assumptions or thinking that they are in any way inferior for not attending private sch. In fact, I never mention it in order to play it down.

Secondly, I do not believe my 'situation' ie helpless. In fact we are lucky in many ways. I also support my children's education in ways I CBA to explain to a stranger on the Internet.

So perhaps you can shove off with your offensive views.

You assume us state sch parents are bitter and jealous because you can't conceive some of us care about those beyond our 4 walls.

Not the case. I merely want a two tier education system to be abolished. It's that simple. And insulting me and "the poor' is not going to change my mind."

The problem is that you read my post from a personal perspective rather than a societal perspective.

If you have not witnessed amongst the truly poor the absence of hope the feeling that no matter what you do it will make no difference to the outcome of your life, that professional well paid jobs are for posh people then you have lived a privileged existence.

There are so many things that the truly poor (parent and kids) can do to improve their lot and that education is the best way out of poverty. Plus whether you believe it or not there are so many initiatives and bodies trying to advance social mobility from the Rowntree foundation to contextual university offers.

But telling the underprivileged that the cards are stacked against them because the best university places and jobs will always go to the posh private school kids is a classic left wing politics of envy that destroys the hope and ambition to even try.

That is what I find a truly offensive view.

that education is the best way out of poverty

often but not guaranteed.
very much depends on what education, what degree we are talking about,

many people with university degree are spending many months, years before they find any job

@PeachSalad

"often but not guaranteed.
very much depends on what education, what degree we are talking about,"

Fair point and which is why the more liberal message of "you should study something that you are really interested in or enjoy " is fine if your family is already well off but if you are trying to escape poverty then study something like medicine, law, engineering, finance, dentistry, economics etc at good universities.

If you don't need a well paying career and can rely on family money then crack on with Medieval English History from Thames Valley.

Rather disingenuous reply.

How could I possibly comment on the attitude of "the poor" from a societal POV?

Answer this, why do you think "the poor" have a particular attitude towards private schools? and why do you think "the poor" don't care/aren't involved in their children's education? What evidence do you have?

@1dayatatime I think we both agree that education is an important route out of poverty. Weird then that you seem to support a two tier education system whereby rich folks have different experience than poor folks.

Weird then that you seem to support a two tier education system whereby rich folks have different experience than poor folks.

You mean the state system? I think everyone here agrees that schools in deprived neighbourhoods, especially those in working class seaside towns, need to up their game to provide the benefits of state schools such as the one Kier Starmer sends his kids too.

@mugboat

"@1dayatatime I think we both agree that education is an important route out of poverty. Weird then that you seem to support a two tier education system whereby rich folks have different experience than poor folks"

The reason I disagree with VAT on private school education is because it is a distraction and reinforces the left wing message to many but not all of those in poverty that the cards are stacked against them and that regardless of how hard they try or study the top jobs will always go to the posh private school kids when this is absolutely no longer the case.

But more importantly it destroys hope and ambition - "there's no point in trying because people like us don't become doctors or lawyers"
Or I don't want to try hard at school in case I get bullied for being a nerd or thinking I'm better than everyone else etc. Instead it's all the fault of posh rich people who are the enemy.

What needs to happen is that the poorer have more stable childhoods in more stable two parent families with secure housing (where they are not at risk of being evicted by a private landlord). That they believe again that they largely control their own destiny through their actions. That education is the one of the best routes out of poverty and any failures or setbacks is not automatically the fault of someone else but a chance to simply try again.

@KielderWater

"You mean the state system? I think everyone here agrees that schools in deprived neighbourhoods, especially those in working class seaside towns, need to up their game to provide the benefits of state schools such as the one Kier Starmer sends his kids too."

I completely agree that more funding is required for education as it is an investment in the future of both its citizens, society and the economy. I would if necessary be quite ruthless about cutting spending in any other department to achieve this.

However it's not all about the money- the parents, children and general attitudes need to change as well. For example if you are asked to come in to school to discuss say your child's bad behaviour that day then see it as an opportunity to try and turn around things for your child rather than take the side of your child and argue against the teacher. What kind of message does that send to your child?

@1dayatatime how does removing private schools destroy hope and ambition?

Do state school parents and children lack hope and ambition?

Why do you think they think they can't get well paid jobs? What has given you that impression?

If there were no private schools at all, would all hope and ambition disappear? would we cease to have doctors and lawyers?

at present it's a several tier system... if you're going to pedantic...

private schools
grammar state school
outstanding state school
good state school
inadequate state school

and no, I don't think it's fair. Yes I want to remove these tiers so all schools are outstanding.

Yes I realise there will still be inequality, but I do not seek to entrench this deliberately as so many posters seem to.

Yes, I realise this is a big ask... but we all seem to agree that there's nothing more important than good quality education in a safe environment. It's just some people think only their children are entitled to this.

@mugboat

"@1dayatatime how does removing private schools destroy hope and ambition?

Do state school parents and children lack hope and ambition?

Why do you think they think they can't get well paid jobs? What has given you that impression?

If there were no private schools at all, would all hope and ambition disappear? would we cease to have doctors and lawyers?"

In simple terms the left wing perspective blames inequality on external factors it creates the view for a large section of the less well off (but not all) that it is for the state to intervene to create opportunities and social mobility and not for the individuals themselves to do anything about it. When the individuals fail to progress or succeed they blame structural inequality, that the cards are stacked against them, that the state should do more to intervene and ultimately why bother trying. When what they should be doing is getting back up and trying again.

@mugboat

"Yes, I realise this is a big ask... but we all seem to agree that there's nothing more important than good quality education in a safe environment. It's just some people think only their children are entitled to this."

Yes we do all seem to agree that a good quality education in a safe environment is essential to at least give the opportunity to escape poverty.

However it is for parents to provide safe stable family environments where education is both valued and encouraged. Where parents don't always take the side of their children in disputes with their teachers, where they think it is acceptable missing a week of school to get a cheaper holiday (and then attempting to justify as cultural enrichment), where parents do everything they can to ensure that their children actually attend school.

In short to be parents to their children and not to be their friends.

@1dayatatime you are speculating and reaching. You have no idea how regular people live and seem to be implying that state school children and parents lack ambition.

You also seem to imply that all state school parents remove their children from school on a whim. A small minority do, and there will be stats to prove it. Most of us don't.

And most state school parents have high ambitions for our children, whether you think we do or not.

You also seem to imply that state school parents do not know how to parent their own children.

I'm not going to reply any more to you. I have the measure of you and your views of wider society.

Frankly, you are making private school parents look bad and are coming across full of anger and prejudice.

I actually think a lot of people will send their kids to state schools and realise they're not actually all that bad. In fact I think private schools are probably quite worried about not only retention due to increasing costs but also word will spread that state isn't as bad as private schools love to make out.

I've never heard a private school run down state school education. Obviously, a big selling point is the smaller classes and they'll try to sell that, but that's just a fact.

@mugboat

at present it's a several tier system... if you're going to pedantic...

private schools
grammar state school
outstanding state school
good state school
inadequate state school

well, this is not pedantic at all. Within grammar state schools you also have outstanding, good, inadequate. And there are also faith schools ( Catholic, or CoE) that are outstanding, good or inadequate - many of them are better than some grammar.
Going at depth in pedantic aspiration we also have to add Special schools

yes, they do in some areas. Some parents here were describing situations where they have quite good private and below-average in results comprehensive school. I recall one mum who said she lives in a rural area, where well-off farmers take their kids to local private schools and the rest go to comprehensive. She said that there is not much choice.

I'm not sure what you mean. The private schools themselves aren't going to run down state schools. That would be unprofessional. Do you mean private school parents being dismissive of state? It sounds like in the rural area there weren't a lot of options.

ah not run down purposefully. Of course not. Simply the children of more affluent parents go to private schools.
Many studies have shown a correlation between affluence and school results. To get to private one has to pass 11+, and parents usually spend money on tuition. Also private are snapping the most talented kids by providing scholarships, and bursaries for poor kids that passed well 11+ exams. In some instances they even approach very talented academic kids offering them free space- because they are sure that this kid will get to Oxbridge, win competitions bringing glory to the school.

@mugboat

"@1dayatatime you are speculating and reaching. You have no idea how regular people live and seem to be implying that state school children and parents lack ambition. "

You clearly missed my point about "many but not all parents", you also assumed my views are informed from a privileged private school position whereas they are in fact they are formed from a first hand observation of a state primary and secondary school.

Yes there are state school children and parents (a majority) that do provide a stable home life, where both parents and children have ambition and value education. But equally there is a sizeable minority that do not have these. Action needs to be taken to help and encourage these parents and children as well to give them hope.

To deny the existence of this flies in the face of the reality that I have witnessed, either that or you live in a much more affluent area than I do.

Ah, I see what you mean. I think the problem is that a portion of the 6.4% (or whatever it is) are concentrated in areas which already have good state schools. Another portion are too thinly spread out to make much difference. It might help your rural example, but, countrywide, I'm not sure 6.4% can make the difference people imagine. My memories of State are sitting listening to the bright kids reciting their times tables at the front of the classroom. The teacher was delighted to have them. Nobody ever checked if I knew my times tables. I still don't know them! 😂

Obviously opinions vary. That’s okay in a free society, as long as everyone allows each other to make their own choices within reason.

If we can only be happy by controlling what other people do with their own money, and own children, it’s going to be a very unpleasant place to live.

We've had different experiences than and that's ok :)

Absolutely. We are talking only about some areas where private schools impact the state schools and obviously, it is not everywhere at the same scale. Nevertheless, it is to a degree everywhere. More as the examples explained or small impact.
The county grammars impact the local state school in an even broader scale. In some counties where they accept up to 26% of top pupils, the state schools have poor results due to social segregation.

Nowadays you would need to learn that timestable. The schools do tests after tests to make sure that all kids know times tables