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.
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.Really, who GAF what other people think?
Your posts suggest you're a bit of a whinger with a persecution complex, but you might be a lovely guy apart from that.
Cha****ng, you are such a flirt, you're making me blush.
But this
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?I believe this is wrong and personally disapprove strongly of private education.
Aracer
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.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,
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?
[quote=bencooper ]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.
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 [b]can[/b] see the OP (or any parent) volunteering to enable [b]real social[/b] mobility for the [b]improvement[/b] 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.
Believe it or not, most teachers agree with you. It's just idiotic education ministers who don't get it.
I agree they do. It is 'the system' that fails and leads us this way.
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.
Nothing to do with money, it would help provide more political impetus to improve the state system if privates were banned.
It is 'the system' that fails and leads us this way.
Well you have to be careful talking about 'the system' because some people might take that to mean the whole of institutional education. Whereas it's really meddling politicians' fault that we are overwhelmed with metrics; most teachers teachers are doing everything they can to push back.
This article, and other stuff I have read, seems to imply that trying to give your own child every advantage you can afford is morally wrong, or even scandalous
If thats what you think the article says then I hope your kids are at a better school than the one you wentvto
Well AA you will have to join the queue for my affections you little charmer. I felt your handbag brush my cheek and I am somewhat Sewell-ised.
I read this bit
If policy makers are determined to increase social mobility in a climate where ‘room at the top’ is not expanding then the factors that limit downward mobility will need to be addressed
as a threat to my efforts to prevent my children from mobilising downward. IS there another meaning to that sentence that you could help me with in a constructive fashion?
PS you and the other haters need to coordinate your efforts, some seem to think that it is good that I feel uncomfortable, you are saying that I have misread the article. Can you clarify, does this mean you think I need not feel uncomfortable?
PPS Either way I don't feel uncomfortable, I pay a shit load of tax which I hope the govt puts to good use to help everyone, I'm extremely happy about that, I feel privileged to have been born in a country like this. What is left is mine to do what I legally want with.
And this bit
The fact that middle class families are successful in hoarding the best opportunities in the education system and in the labour market is a real barrier to the upward social mobility of less advantaged children.
I'm not hoarding anything. I don't even get what this statement really means. So perhaps your amazing pedagogue status can help me out, cos I'm a bit thick and my school let me down.
Still dont think it says what you are trying to get outraged about.
No worries, perhaps we can discuss this? What I love about your advances are the way when you think that someone gets it wrong, you help them to ease their way into the right way of thinking. I'm sure this is reflected in the way you behave in the classroom/rugby field with your charges. How lucky they must feel.
I was right about the persecution complex then.
Try to keep your toys in the pram.