If money was no issue would you send your kids to a fees school?

[Dissident Junk]

Yes, I would. My attitude to private education has changed over the last ten years, particularly since I taught in a secondary school myself for a year.

These days I feel that 'principles' are great, but you can't adhere to every one of them you've got. Yes, it would be great if every kid regardless of background or wealth went to the same school, but we don't live in a Utopia and it aint gonna happen.

And even when kids from different backgrounds do go to the same school, they rarely associate with socio-economically different others after the first year -- they fall into cliques and start to bully the poor 'outsider' kids (either richer, poorer, smaller, taller, white, black, asian, whatever dependent on the majority group identity).

So I now believe you've got to choose your battles; otherwise, you burn out politico-mentally, your life becomes fraught with stress and difficulty trying to maintain an unmanageable stance.

I reckon I've come down to maybe four key socio-political concepts that are important to me and that I practice on a regular basis. I've dropped the anti-private health and education facility thing because, actually, I reckon it's a false debate -- a way to 'prove' your credentials at someone else's expense is never a good indicator of anything.

And my comprehensive school was regarded quite well in our area, but I look back at it and it was a poor show really -- the only kids that did well (ie. above 3 Cs at A level, less than 10% of our year -- 200 pupils in a year -- sitting A level exams) were those with teachers as parents. I came out three years behind kids that had gone to private schools.

It's a bloody good job my grandmother had a good bookcase; otherwise, I'd have never got anywhere.

And I mean that.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No absolutely not and neither would I use private health care.

Louis MacNeice

 

[purenarcotic]

I went to private school all my life (mixed primary, all girls secondary situated right next door to private boys who mixed some lessons during sixth form, no boarding for either. Boarding schools are abusive institutions). I think because of the location, if you were in the popular crowd, there was a lot of mixing with the kids from the local state schools, so I think the ability to mix with 'other' groups was there, although as we grew up I think the separation from the local comp kids grew and grew.

Now I've been out of the system for a few years, I can see that a lot of the education focussed on getting us to pass our exam results rather than teaching us much about 'life'; my favourite teachers I now realise didn't really care about the exams and were more interested in giving us a more rounded view of the topic / life itself. We did a lot of charity work as part of our education and it was always drummed into us to remember that we were a privileged few and lucky, but the notion that we should be fighting for this sort of privilege to be available for everybody was one I learnt at home, it was never even suggested at school (but of course, why would it be suggested haha).

I absolutely hate the idea of paying for education, I think it's wrong, I think every child is entitled to a great education that helps shape them into well rounded human beings. However, if I was living somewhere where the schools were shite, I have to say I'm not so sure I'd be thrilled about sending my kid there. Yes, exam results aren't everything but it would be naive to think they provide no advantage whatsoever. But I would probably be more inclined to consider moving to a better area first, before contemplating paying.

 

[weltweit]

Now this thread has come up again, I revise what I wrote some time ago. My kid is going to a local comprehensive and we are happy with it, even if I could afford private I would prefer them not to go there, too divisive socially.

 

[_angel_]

No. But I'm thinking more mainstream. I don't have the money and Leeds special schools are not too bad, but some areas have shocking provision for special needs and if I had the money and there was effectively no state provision in my area, I'd think about it for that.

 

[dessiato]

I don't have kids, but if I did, there is no doubt at all that I'd have them go to a fee paying school. I don't know if I'd have them boarding, although I enjoyed my time there.

 

[Brainaddict]

Isn't it too absolute to say that you will follow one particular principle (my child should not be one of the privileged) when in fact that may come into conflict with other principles? For instance if you think school is primarily involved in turning out wage-slaves and you found a (fee-paying) school that seemed interested in turning out neither wage-slaves nor future rulers (like the old public schools) then I can imagine wanting to follow that principle rather than the first one.

Or to put it another way, you might think that state education is not what you want because of the crappy national curriculum and the competitive exam-focussed environment.

I can also imagine wanting to send your child to the school where they would be happiest, and putting the principle of making them happy over the principle of state education.

 

[susie12]

No. I had the opportunity, my late father in law offered to pay, but we said no. My husband went to a public school, in fact the one featured in the film 'If' - and was still having nightmares about it years later. So we turned it down, but our daughter now says she wishes we had agreed. Too late now though and I don't regret it.

 

[Fedayn]

No

 

[xenon]

In the doubly unlikely event I ever have children and become wealthy, unless the nearest comprehensive schools were all absolute hell holes, I don't think I'd send my children private. I probably would pay for out of school tutoring if they had a particular interest in something or were struggling. Of course this is stil using finances to secure an advantage otherwise not available but this is the normal utility of money.

I think you can probably expand the original question to ask whether you'd pay for your child through university, pay to support them whilst they did an unpaid internship. But I've had enough thinking about my hyperthetical money and children for one afternoon...

 

[frogwoman]

no.never

might not get a choice though if this government have their way

 

[butchersapron]

Isn't it too absolute to say that you will follow one particular principle (my child should not be one of the privileged) when in fact that may come into conflict with other principles? For instance if you think school is primarily involved in turning out wage-slaves and you found a (fee-paying) school that seemed interested in turning out neither wage-slaves nor future rulers (like the old public schools) then I can imagine wanting to follow that principle rather than the first one.

Or to put it another way, you might think that state education is not what you want because of the crappy national curriculum and the competitive exam-focussed environment.

I can also imagine wanting to send your child to the school where they would be happiest, and putting the principle of making them happy over the principle of state education.

Is that a yes?

And no, one overarching principle contains all the others within it.

 

[Edie]

I've decided that I don't want our boys to. This is almost solely for the reason that I think a LOT of private school middle class people are fucking cocks. They'd get a better education probably but they might come out wrong.

My husband is determined we will if we can afford to next year cos he thinks confidence is worth a risk of arrogance.

Corners please

 

[Brainaddict]

Is that a yes?

And no, one overarching principle contains all the others within it.

No, not a yes. A debate. What's the overarching principle?

 

[maldwyn]

Yup, afraid I would. The same day school Diane Abbott sent her kid - around £13,000pa

 

[DotCommunist]

fearless exposing of labour hypocrisy there

 

[butchersapron]

No, not a yes. A debate. What's the overarching principle?

Sounded like a yes to me. Was it a no?

That you don't engage in the transmission and production of privilege and inequality, and that you don't privilege your individual needs over wider needs - and certainly not where they harm others.

They call them principles because they act as guides to action -real life action.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Depends on the quality of the local schools, think the first option would be to have an after school tutor. A family did this with one of their kids that was struggling and now the kid is top of the class, he's a lot more confident in conversation and doesn't misbehave as much either.

 

[frogwoman]

I've decided that I don't want our boys to. This is almost solely for the reason that I think a LOT of private school middle class people are fucking cocks. They'd get a better education probably but they might come out wrong.

My husband is determined we will if we can afford to next year cos he thinks confidence is worth a risk of arrogance.

Corners please

it certainly didnt do anything for my confidence tbh. but yeah, most of them are fucking twats.

 

[frogwoman]

Sounded like a yes to me. Was it a no?

That you don't engage in the transmission and production of privilege and inequality, and that you don't privilege your individual needs over wider needs - and certainly not where they harm others.

They call them principles because they act as guides to action -real life action.

exactly.

 

[weepiper]

Not on your nelly.

 

[bi0boy]

No because I'd want the kid to grow up surrounded by some normal people.

What may well be a quality education on paper won't seem quite such a good idea when a peer-group consisting of the sprogs of aristocrats, landed gentry and the nouveaux riche turn the beloved child into the next Boris Johnson.

 

[Edie]

it certainly didnt do anything for my confidence tbh. but yeah, most of them are fucking twats.

There are a lot at Uni. Weirdly the posher you are the less you seem to brush your hair The seriously rich girls look fuckin borderline homeless

 

[zenie]

Edie!!!

Are the state schools up north worse than in the south? My mate and her husband were from Sheffield and they said if they'd still been living up there when they had thier kids, they would have sent them private as the state schools were shit

 

[frogwoman]

There are a lot at Uni. Weirdly the posher you are the less you seem to brush your hair The seriously rich girls look fuckin borderline homeless

Haha

I didn't know you were at uni mate!

 

[Edie]

Edie!!!

Are the state schools up north worse than in the south? My mate and her husband were from Sheffield and they said if they'd still been living up there when they had thier kids, they would have sent them private as the state schools were shit

No worse or better afaik. Lot of variance though. Our local one thank GOD is just out of special measures and heard some better things lately.

 

[ShiftyBagLady]

All things being equal, no I wouldn't as I would like my child to socialise with a range of children.
Problem is our education system is not equal, standards vary wildly and schools are put under such pressure to drive up quantifiable aspects (ie results, attainment) that they often lose sight of more important things like personal development, community values and happiness
As such, I've often felt that my child was not served very well by the school system, he's fiercely intelligen and not challenged and hasn't been supported in othe ways that he needs. I'd send him to public school tomorrow if I thought he would benefit from it and that system of education was more rounded and holistic. But it's not.

 

[Thora]

Isn't it too absolute to say that you will follow one particular principle (my child should not be one of the privileged) when in fact that may come into conflict with other principles? For instance if you think school is primarily involved in turning out wage-slaves and you found a (fee-paying) school that seemed interested in turning out neither wage-slaves nor future rulers (like the old public schools) then I can imagine wanting to follow that principle rather than the first one.

Or to put it another way, you might think that state education is not what you want because of the crappy national curriculum and the competitive exam-focussed environment.

I can also imagine wanting to send your child to the school where they would be happiest, and putting the principle of making them happy over the principle of state education.

I did consider a fee-paying kindergarten (that would go up to age 7) on the basis that it would delay formal schooling til later and we are already paying for nursery fees so paying for a couple more years wouldn't be too much of a stretch. However my other half vetoed that on the basis that it is a nutty Steiner kindergarten

Actually my feelings on schooling now is that it is important for children to be part of a community and go to the local school that they can walk to and that neighbouring kids go to. Local primary school is graded Satisfactory and seems nice, secondary is Good but is an academy (not that there is much alternative to academies anymore). If all the local options were awful I would home educate I think - though is that buying priviledge too?

 

[editor]

Not a fucking chance.

 

[Thora]

No worse or better afaik. Lot of variance though. Our local one thank GOD is just out of special measures and heard some better things lately.

There's an argument that being just out of special measures is a good thing, as they have loads of money/resources thrown at them - often new headteachers, loads of new staff, no student/newly qualified teachers. Our second nearest primary is in/just coming out of special measures and is really oversubscribed (though that is partly that there aren't enough reception places in Bristol).