I made my point clearly and concisely, do you only want a ‘discussion’ if we all humour your middle class hand wringing?

You havent made any point other than you dont like me. I dont object, but why is it a good thing to hassle those who want to do well for their kids? What reason please tell?

I already said I work part time. The wife works. I couldn’t afford to take the girls on holiday this year, but that’s a cross I have to bear. I ask them would they rather be going away or have me around and they look at me in disgust. Something must be working.

Loddrik, sorry that defines you as well off, most genuinely poor people I know have to both work full time and still do not get a holiday. I’m not digging at you, but its a fact that you must be doing OK.Nevertheless I’m not sure what this brings to the discussion? Are you saying that you intend to buck the trend that kids of rich parents do well, where kids of poor parents don’t. Your time at home surely will help them on their way right?

You havent made any point other than you dont like me.

I don’t even know you. Your posts suggest you’re a bit of a whinger with a persecution complex, but you might be a lovely guy apart from that.

I dont object, but why is it a good thing to hassle those who want to do well for their kids?

What reason please tell?

I thought I’d expressed myself in the simplest terms I could but I’ll try to expand a little for you.

Your link says research shows that the children of people who have the resources to send their kids to private school have more opportunities in life.

I believe this is wrong and personally disapprove strongly of private education.

For this reason I think it’s a good thing that you might be experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance about your beliefs.

Clearly you’re middle class if your kids are in private education – but I might have been wrong about the hand-wringing bit as I took you at your word when you said you’d like a discussion.

You’re clearly only interested in reinforcing your own viewpoint, as demonstrated by your refusal to accept Loddrick’s account of his own family arrangements.

Your link says research shows that the children of people who have the resources to send their kids to private school have more opportunities in life.

I believe this is wrong and personally disapprove strongly of private education.

So what should’ve we have spent our money on then, coke n’ hookers?

Don’t be facetious.

Interesting discussion.
Have been having similar with people recently as we have got a 3 week old in the house.
My personal view is that he is going to go to the local school, but we will ensure that he has a very wide range of life experiences (travelling, sports, etc) which will hopefully give him a balanced view in life.

The only thing is….. this is not a new thing. I know that I am in the position I am in my life is due to the effort my Grandfather put into his kids (my mum and her siblings), by working like hell and putting his kids into a good school and supporting through uni, etc it resulted in his Kids becoming respectively a Teacher, Staff Nurse, and Business man.
This then translated into the family at my generation getting a huge amount of life experience that we have all had.
I am not saying that we would not necessarily gotten to the points we have without it, but it certainly made the possibility a lot more likely.
I have no qualms about giving my son all the opportunities I can, but as someone said the major issue in society is that the drawbridge is being drawn up behind the entitled baby boomers

My kids don’t go to private school – I did it the proper middle class way by living in the catchment of an excellent state school (though as always these things are a virtuous circle – we’re surrounded by other parents who value education, and I’m far from the only parent devoting significant amounts of time volunteering at the school).

If you want to and can afford to do whatever you believe it takes to give toys jnr a head start, then it’s not even worth having a discussion about it. Really, who GAF what other people think?

The other side of the coin; I had parents that didn’t give a shit about my education, went to some pretty shocking schools, where they didn’t really care about my education. I, in turn didn’t really care about my education. I left school with zero qualifications and not really much going for me. To be honest I was a miserable little shit who made other people miserable just to feel something.

Joined the Army, as it was that or bashing pots in a kitchen or flipping burgers for the rest of my life. Thankfully there were some people there that gave a shit and I have a healthy raft of qualifications, work ethic and experiences, I’m also currently looking into a degree course. Because I can.

I’m not middle class, but by god my kids will go to a good school, be it private or state, and I will do everything I can to equip them with the skills and experiences to be successful, productive and happy members of society. I couldn’t care less of what anyone thinks of that.

Really, who GAF what other people think?

Wrecker, indeed, good advice. I’m not looking for approval, just interested in the philosophy behind it. I have done and always will do it the way I want.

Your posts suggest you’re a bit of a whinger with a persecution complex, but you might be a lovely guy apart from that.

Chapaking, you are such a flirt, you’re making me blush.

But this

I believe this is wrong and personally disapprove strongly of private education.

is what I am interested in, please explain why? I know the research shows the children of well off parents do better, but I am still stuck as to why this is wrong. Perhaps you could go in to it a bit more constructively for me?

Aracer

I did it the proper middle class way by living in the catchment of an excellent state school (though as always these things are a virtuous circle – we’re surrounded by other parents who value education,

Believe it or not, but it would have been more expensive for us to do this than go to private school. By a long way.

moose – all power to you mate.

Believe it or not, but it would have been more expensive for us to do this than go to private school. By a long way.

Probably something wrong with your maths there fella…

No need to worry Jezza is on to private education. Early ban under neo-labour in 2020.

My daughter went to the local free state nursery, she’s starting at the local primary school in a few weeks, and she’ll go on to the local secondary school.

I don’t feel I’ve deprived her of any life chances – I’ve provided for her by paying my taxes to help fund these schools.

There’s a lot of silly oneupmanship that goes on around this.

Probably something wrong with your maths there fella…

Nope. The increase in mortgage for an equivalent house in the catchment area of the only decent comparable state school over 13 years (thats 5-18 yeas old) is more per month than the school fees for both of them put together.

The catchment area thing is very odd – it doesn’t happen much at all in Scotland, and I’m not certain of the reason why.

What I would really hate is for my kids to become pompous, self righteous middle class doughnuts on their knees fellating some corporate cock in the hope this may make them happy.

Nope. The increase in mortgage for an equivalent house in the catchment area of the only decent comparable state school over 13 years (thats 5-18 yeas old) is more per month than the school fees for both of them put together.

Did you take into account the extra value in the house at moving time too or was it just a basic monthly outgoings comparison?

What I would really hate is for my kids to become pompous, self righteous middle class doughnuts on their knees fellating some corporate cock in the hope this may make them happy.

<Insert standard joke about typical STWers here> 😀

Nope. The increase in mortgage for an equivalent house in the catchment area of the only decent comparable state school over 13 years (thats 5-18 yeas old) is more per month than the school fees for both of them put together.

If you say so, though I find it hard to believe, especially for secondary schools.

I believe that if you have the funds or means to provide for your kids futures WITHOUT damaging your own then fair enough. Otherwise you do what you can for them whilst still leaving yourself a life and let them find their way.

bencooper – Member
The catchment area thing is very odd – it doesn’t happen much at all in Scotland, and I’m not certain of the reason why.

We’re all equally uncivilised? 🙂

But the catchment area does raise a thought. If the school is so bad, then so probably is the neighbourhood. Why live there? Your kids are exposed to life after school too, and if the local kids are drongos, then it may be contagious. It’s healthier for them if they can mix freely in the neighbourhood they live in. If you kids are getting cloistered after school to avoid contact with the local yobs, what are you doing there?

Yes it does.

“Social mobility” inevitably involves downward, as well as upward, mobility.

If, in fact, “downward” mobility does not happen because parental wealth very effectively insulates children against the consequences of not being very brilliant, that makes upward mobility much trickier.

There is a “stickiness” to people’s social and economic status as a result.

That doesn’t imply any judgement on anyone. It does imply that if you’re remotely serious about a society which rewards individual talent rather than parental background, there is some work to do.

🙂

But the catchment area does raise a thought. If the school is so bad, then so probably is the neighbourhood.

This is unfortunately not an accurate assumption. Many local authorities have tried to dilute the issue by stretching the catchment area across well off and deprived areas. We live in a nice area, with lovely neighbours, rich and poor, but the local schools intake is not just limited to our area, and are woeful. Anyway the issue is broader than that, the bloody stupid system brought in by labour means that your kid might not get into your local school. Our neighbours oldest child is in one local state school, but the youngest did not get a place, which is a fricken logistical nightmare for the parents, and possibly has a bigger effect on their social mobility than anything else.

Bigdummy

That doesn’t imply any judgement on anyone. It does imply that if you’re remotely serious about a society which rewards individual talent rather than parental background, there is some work to do.

I an bit sure I am serious about this. It makes it all sound like a race..
I was thinking about my kids future, and insulating them from any issues, 10 years before we even had an kids.

Yes it does.

How much, though? There was a special case with Hillhead Primary in Glasgow, where lots of parents tried to get their kids in because it was a fancy new school, and there are the occasional placing requests*, but as far as I know there’s not the phenomenon of people moving to get the “best” schools much.

*I did this – the secondary school I was supposed to go to was quite a bit further away than the nearest secondary because of local authority areas.

I an bit sure I am serious about this. It makes it all sound like a race..

Is this a typo? Did you mean “I am not sure”?

Did you take into account the extra value in the house at moving time too or was it just a basic monthly outgoings comparison?

I’m a long way off this being an issue, but the plan is to move to a good secondary school catchment once we have kids nearing that age, then move again once they’re in 6th from and any accumulated money will make their choice of university at least cost neutral like my parents did (the university bit, the school bit we just got lucky).

“Social mobility” inevitably involves downward, as well as upward, mobility.

If, in fact, “downward” mobility does not happen because parental wealth very effectively insulates children against the consequences of not being very brilliant, that makes upward mobility much trickier.

There is a “stickiness” to people’s social and economic status as a result.
That doesn’t imply any judgement on anyone. It does imply that if you’re remotely serious about a society which rewards individual talent rather than parental background, there is some work to do.

+1
I think this is the answer to your question OP.
Society desperately needs people like yourself to help stop the vicious circle.

If, in fact, “downward” mobility does not happen because parental wealth very effectively insulates children against the consequences of not being very brilliant, that makes upward mobility much trickier.

I can’t see the OP (or any parent) volunteering to enable upwards mobility to the detriment of his own kids. I certainly wouldn’t, if I could afford it, I’d put jnr in the best school I could.

I can see the OP (or any parent) volunteering to enable real social mobility for the improvement of his own kids lives.

Makes more sense (for me) looking at it like this, rather than in detrimental terms.

Our kids attend one of the best state schools in Scotland, with an excellent reputation for great exam results. Most parents also pay for tuition on top. Most (ourselves included) also run round many ‘extra curricular’ events, mainly sporting and musical, in an attempt to extra educate their children.

We also have the highest drop out rate at university of any school in Scotland (figures as of 2011), and mental illness is a common theme at school.

While I, and most other parents, would try their best for kids to ‘achieve’, I do find our education system’s definition of ‘success’ as narrow minded. This applies to state and private schools.

Personally, I would rather have kids that can be robust, solve problems, be creative and navigate the world with a smile on their face than have a CV of pure A’s.

I don’t think there is a right or a wrong, but I don’t think we should assume our education system and society (particularly many parental attitudes in middle and upper class) as the measure of success for our kids.

Interested in your logic theocb; how do you think that not getting a better education (assuming that ££££ does buy you one) will benefit jnr?
Even if they are average, they are going to get a better chance at doing well/OK if they have the best results they possibly can (and probably the network won’t do any harm too).
It may not be palatable to some, but personally I wouldn’t care (it’s hypothetical for me as mine will go to a state school as I’m not wealthy)

I’m interested to see if anyone would want “other children” to be a successful as their own, if they were in a position to influence it?

In other words if you could make a choice that would make the largest numbers of children well educated, would you?

Bit then I am resolutely against private education, and the education system would improve exponentially if the money spend on private education was reallocated across the wider system.

This is just stupid though. Of there was only state education, why would these parents suddenly pay the state sector extra?

I’m interested to see if anyone would want “other children” to be a successful as their own, if they were in a position to influence it?

I want every child to be able to achieve their full potential. I don’t want my daughter to be ahead of or more successful than other children by some measure, I want her to be happy and achieve all she can.

It’s about getting the best for all kids, not about my kid beating other kids.

Of there was only state education, why would these parents suddenly pay the state sector extra?

Because they were taxed more.

????

Remove the tax exemptions and charitable status of private schools, increase taxes to pay for education and childcare (and other useful things), stop spending money on wars and nuclear weapons.

I should be chancellor, really.

Personally, I would rather have kids that can be robust, solve problems, be creative and navigate the world with a smile on their face than have a CV of pure A’s.

You’re bang on, but good luck persuading the rest of the world – it seems the vast majority are incapable of looking beyond easy reading statistics.

Still like to see the mortgage / private schooling maths. All the schools around here are about £5k a term for non boarders, so roughly £1.3k per month on the mortgage??

This is just stupid though. Of there was only state education, why would these parents suddenly pay the state sector extra?

I think maybe he means that the money parents spend on private education would be spent elsewhere in the economy. But that also doesn’t make sense because it’s still being spent and spent locally too – the teachers spend their wages locally, the building upkeep and so on is all local. But maybe he means something else.

Personally, I would rather have kids that can be robust, solve problems, be creative and navigate the world with a smile on their face than have a CV of pure A’s.

Believe it or not, most teachers agree with you. It’s just idiotic education ministers who don’t get it.

While I, and most other parents, would try their best for kids to ‘achieve’, I do find our education system’s definition of ‘success’ as narrow minded. This applies to state and private schools.

Personally, I would rather have kids that can be robust, solve problems, be creative and navigate the world with a smile on their face than have a CV of pure A’s.

I think you’ll find that the best schools, private or state, have far wider goals than just exam results, whatever the parents may think.