Apropos of reading an article in the Sunday Times titled "When is it right to put family ahead of principle?" Am I being unreasonable to be annoyed by people who align themselves with the left such as Polly Toynbee, and who according to this article has urged the Labour party to be more left wing, and yet has sent 2 of her 3 children to Bedales an extremely expensive and private boarding school. The article also goes on to mention other writers and editors on the Guardian who have opted for the private route. For me, if you subscribe to being a socialist, I would assume that one of the things you would want is a more egalitarian society, however seemingly for some they don't want to put their "because they're worth it children" out into a level playing field but give them that all important leg up in life. Will Self did actually try out a state primary for his son but removed him at the age of 10 as he felt he was not being properly educated and commented that he was "not prepared to sacrifice him on the altar of his own ideals" Fine for him, what about the people who don't have that choice. Journalists and public figures have a certain amount of influence and that influence could be used to raise standards. It just seems to me to be rank hypocrisy. I would like to add that I'm not having a go at a) People of the left or b) People who send their children to private schools, only the two together.

I don't have a problem with them doing this - we all have to do the best we can for our own children. If you are faced with a rubbish local state school or a child with particular needs that cannot be met elsewhere, then you do what is right for your child.

These left-wing intelligentsia can still fight for better state education, and they often do, as clearly this is what is needed - excellent state schools so the issue simply does not arise. They still hold to the principles of excellent state education for all - the fact that it does not exist is necessarily their fault (unless they happen to be the sec of state for education).

I agree with you baNANA. The money that goes into private education creams off the best of education for a fortunate few instead of the many who need it. My grandson went to prep school, and that sat uncomfortably for me, as he was in a class of 6, whereas other children are in classes of 30 and more. Prep school didn't prepare him for grammar school where he has to compete to be heard, and struggled before he learned that he has to take some responsibility for ensuring he knows what his homework is, and that no-one will chase after him if he forgets anything.

I get fed up with the champagne socialists who don't practise what they preach. Diane Abbot really blew it for me when she proclaimed that white people divide and rule by privilege, criticised Blair and Harman for sending their children to private schools, and then did the very same thing.

I am of the Left, but sent my lads to a local catholic school and then high school. Mind you, these schools are hardly elitist, with low fees or no fees if you can't afford. The local state school was appalling and the state premier was imposing his own ideals on the state education system and these were fundamentalist 'christian' ideals. For instance, they were talking about teaching creationism (it got blocked I'm glad to say), and they were refusing to consider sex education.

The catholic schools taught hard science and age appropriate sex education.

I would never have sent them to a snob school, but I plead guilty to giving then the best education I could - at schools that did not go against my principles..

Mishap "excellent state education for all", but just not for them. We had 13 years of Labour remember the Blair mantra "education, education, education" under their watch standards have fallen we have slipped down the world league tables for literacy, maths and science. Meanwhile private schools continue to dominate the intakes for the elite universities. Medicine, law, journalism, top civil servants etc. all have high percentages of the privately educated amongst their masses. Given that the private sector is supposed to account for about 7% of schools I'd say that they are massively over represented in the higher echelons of our society, how can we expect to change anything when so called socialists subscribe to maintaining this status quo. Yeah there are loads of rubbish state schools shouldn't they be trying to change that from within. When I'm 64, totally agree with you about Diane Abbot who used the race card to justify her decision when in fact her son, having a mother as an MP and Cambridge graduate and I believe an architect for a father would I'm sure have ended up at university, perhaps not Oxford where I believe he is at the moment. Class is a greater divider than race in our country and there will always be those who are disenfranchised by their unfortunate family circumstances and who don't have a mother like Diane Abbot to fight their corner. This is further compounded by being sent to a sink school, how can we expect to improve the lot for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds when we operate like this. When my children were young I was friendly with a young German mother she often used to say that she felt that many of the mothers we were mixing with were obsessed with private education and talked about schools endlessly compared to Germany where they don't seem to suffer from the private versus state dilemma as I understand that German state schools offer an excellent education for all.

Whenim64, do agree with you, but should point out that the Blair and Harman offspring weren't at private schools, they are state schools, nevertheless very good ones. My husband's grandchildren from his lst marriage are at a couple of them, they are very strict but I understand that one of these schools in particular takes 25% of its intake from poorer backgrounds they are nevertheless very over subscribed and you do have to prove chapter and verse that you are a practising Catholic. In the case of St Olave's where I believe one of the Harman children went it's a selective grammar, which I also thought they didn't approve of.

Many of these champagne socialists have no personal experience of state schools and no background which would allow them to make sensible judgments about them. If they were really committed to the improvement of state education, They would send their children to a local school and become involved in the PTA or as governors or just as supportive parents. With the kind of influence they can bring to bear, they could do a lot more than they do by pontificating in the media.

Lilygran - Exactly!

baNANA says: " shouldn't they be trying to change that from within?" - and my answer would be "No, not if it is at the expense of their child's well-being." You are then using your child as a political tool. Your child needs your protection and 100% support, not being made to suffer for some high-flown principle that they do not understand.

"German state schools offer an excellent education for all." - that is what we need, but do not have.

I too deplore the need for private schools, but until government gets its act together and creates an excellent state system, then they will be there.

I too am sad that many children get a bad education in a sink school with no money to bail them out of it, but as a society we need well-educated young people and if the state sector is not providing what is necessary, then people will move heaven and earth to do the best for their own children.

Do not forget that at the same time as paying school fees, they are also paying taxes to support state schools - I believe that they should also be lobbying for better state education - they are often intelligent well-educated parents and in a good position to do that.

Blair's education mantra gained us nothing.

If I saw my child suffering in a school I would not sacrifice their well-being for my political principles, much though I might regret the need to seek private education. What is gained by one more miserable ill-educated child? - does it help the other children one whit? - I don't think so.

The argument about creaming off the brightest (which makes logical sense) doesn't cut any ice when you have a weepy child on your hands and the whole family is miserable - been there, done that!

Mishap - When sacrificing your children to your principles is mentioned, what exactly do they mean? Putting their own children through a process which the vast majority of children in this country go through? Some sacrifice!

I don't condemn anyone for opting for private education if they don't have any other choice, I would do the same, but then I don't regard myself as leaning to the left and tied up in never ending knots!

Much more fundamental than the hypocrisy is the implication that while it's OK for your kids to go to the local comp and take their chances, OUR kids are altogether too important (as we are). Us and them in a nutshell!

Lilygran it's a case of "don't do as I do, do as I say" very convenient there's always a get out clause if you have the money!

Whilst I agree totally with the notion that a socialist or person of left wing ideals could not possibly send their child to a private school, I do not agree that these politicians are being hypocritical for the simple reason that they are neither socialist nor left wing, simply carrer politicians like all the rest. I thought MPs from the 'New' Labour party had been banned from using those terms ever again!

And I forgot to add

I do so agree baNANA and what drives me into a frenzy is when these so called socialists write about all the agonized soul-searching they went through in trying to decide whether or not to send their children to a fee-paying school (and of course they always end up doing so).

Are we supposed to feel sorry for them?

I almost prefer the straightforward conservative approach; at least they aren't hypocrites.

Petallus I agree with you, particularly last paragraph and also like Lilygran's comment "our kids are all too important as indeed we are" Sorry, for me, calling yourself a socialist and educating your kids privately do not marry up they are a contradiction.

You've got a point there nightowl

Sadly Lilygran, that is exactly what it does mean - there are some abysmal schools out there. Just because someone might not want that for their child does not mean that they do not care about the children who are getting a crap education.

And many people who send their children to private schools can barely afford it - they make huge sacrifices to give their children what they see as the best. They are not all landed gentry!

There are of course also some excellent state schools - which is why people move house, go to church when they don't believe, lie through their teeth etc.

In a funny way I admire high profile left-wingers who take this decision for their child, knowing the flak they will take. But it does leave them with a responsibility to use their influence to improve the state education system - if they do not do that then my admiration wanes somewhat!

I don't think a lot of them care about the flak - they've justified their actions to themselves, and anyway, they don't live in the same world as we do.

Agreed there are some struggling schools but I would be surprised to hear that many of these individuals had to live in an area where they have no decent schools!

I am a socialist, as are my close group of friends. All our kids went to local primary and secondary schools in South London. All have done OK and are graduates, employed and most now settled with families.
When I sent my girls to the nearest middle school my neighbours were horrified I had not sent them to the 'popular' and more 'middle class' school.
DH & I taught in schools in poor socio economic areas and knew one of the the ways to change the perception of schools is to have a better socio economic mix. If we wanted it for the schools where we worked we had to do the same for our local school..so we 'sacrificed' our kids for our ideals. They do not seem to have suffered too much!

Seems a bit late in the day to get het up about the schools attended by Polly Toynbee's children; they must be well in their forties by now.

Nanaej to you!

True, Mamie, but she has an influence and it's that we ought to be trying to combat. More so if she is basing her pernicious and destructive views on state schools on the opinions she formed 30 years ago!

Do you think she is pernicious and destructive about state schools, Lilygran? I think she is sometimes a bit inaccurate and her stuff can be ill-researched IMO, but I would have thought her more broadly sympathetic than that. I think nobody researches the PISA data properly before they quote this "falling down the league tables" stuff, when in fact there are so many more countries in the PISA sample now, that you can't really compare anything with anything.
The problem is always that journalists only seem to know (or think they know) about London, when it really isn't typical of the rest of the country (although they have done some good stuff on raising standards recently there.)

But I thought all left-wingers loved Polly Toynbee!

Mamie - I withdraw my intemperate remark about P Toynbee but maintain the principle that by withdrawing from the educational (or health) provision made for the nation, they simply indicate what she and her mates think of the rest of us - for whom it's the only option.

Mishap I can't help smiling when I read the often made comment that many people make sacrifices to send their children to private schools. The implication seems to be that others could do the same if only they were prepared to be thrifty.

But what kind of economies could someone earning £17000 gross p a make to be able to afford school fees of £10000 plus per child?

First of all let me say very clearly that I am a socialist, and completely opposed to private education. I sent my first two children to the fairly average state secondary school where the first one did very well (bright, motivated child - liked by his teachers). My second child did less well as she was more feisty, got in with a nice group of girls who unfortunately had no ambition, and more to the point she was not particularly liked by the teachers (too opinionated).

My third hated school from the word go, struggled with everything, and was eventually diagnosed as dyslexic. He received no appropriate support or help and against all my principles I would gladly have paid for appropriate private education out of sheer desperation. Unfortunately it was too late; he had become incredibly resistant and refused to attend a school of any kind. At the age of 18 he made up his own mind to engage with education and it has all worked out very well for him. However I have learned that while bright children will do well anywhere, a child with difficulties is likely to struggle within the state system.

Indeed petallus, some families have no leeway at all.
But those on medium incomes who choose to both work, not have holidays etc. to get what they think is a better education for their children do exist - maybe they get something better, maybe they don't - depends where they live I guess.

But I would never judge a parent's choice - we all have to do what we think is best for our children.

My 3 children all went to different schools at different times: state, private, Rudolph Steiner - and the decisions were made on the needs of each child and whether what the state had to offer locally would best serve their particular needs or whether we needed to make the necessary sacrifices to give them something better suited to them. Politics did not come into it at all - we just wanted to make sure that each child had the best we could do for them - for some it was a state school and for some it was private. One of my children was dyslexic and this made it necessary for us to shop around to see who might make her happiest and give her the best education that she was capable of achieving.

Mishap - I have no quarrel with independent schools. We choose what we think is best for our own children within our own resources.Some of us have more restricted choice than others because of where we live or our income. If you choose to spend your own money on your children's education, that's your right. What I'm objecting to is the left-wingers who deplore the state of the education provided for the majority, often from a position of ignorance, and opt out for their own children when they could do more than write articles, make speeches, contribute to programmes on telly if they opted in. At least they would then know what they were talking about.

Lilygran and Mishap agreeing with both sides of the conversation here and that the choice must be in the childs best interests,DS2 went into prep at 3yrs 4mths the simple reason was that it was cheaper than private childcare at the time,then you did not have help towards childminding costs and I had to work even though after using child benifit and my contribution after working full time only left me with approx £300.00 at the end of the month but if I did not have that money we would not have been able to afford the bills and the increased mortgage payments at the time,I was lucky that my friend picked him up when school finished and then mr g. collected him 1 hour later,I have always felt guilty about sending him and not his siblings but needs must at the time.

Lilygran - Exactly the point I was trying to make when I started this thread I stated that I have no argument with people who opt for the private sector, although I would say in an ideal world schools would be free and good, as in countries like Finland and Germany, even if taxes are higher to pay for this. My annoyance is with those who say they are socialist but opt out of the state system for whatever reason. I understand why you would do this if your child is dyslexic, but what do skint people do if their child is dyslexic and don't have the means to pay for an education where their child would get the help needed. I can't remember whether Ruth Kelly answered that one when she was Minister of Education and removed her son/daughter because he/she was dyslexic. As for those who have never used the state system, such as Fatty Falconer, who wanted to become a labour MP a while back and had all of his brood in the private sector and I believe a number of homes, both here and abroad, as you do if you are a champagne socialist, why don't they just cross the house and chum up with the Bullingdon Boys, what's the difference?

baNANA I didn't know that Blair and Harman's children were at state schools, but it seems neither did Diane Abbot - I remember listening to her chatting with Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo late one night, berating all the New Labour MPs who don't espouse state education, and saying that Harman and Blair were the biggest hypocrites, hence my comment.

I don't have a problem with anyone who has a particular political view, acting in accordance with that view. I struggle with those who are vocal about their views, but only revert to their politics when it suits them.

There are plenty of MPs whose views and behaviour are a bit all over the place, but are wise enough not to get on their high horse about things, as they are bound to be knocked down again.

Are there no private schools in Germany? I thought there were.

I have a problem with MPs in particular not acting in accordance with their supposed beliefs when - how can we believe anything they say when they clearly have no principles? As to the rest of us, I'm really not sure what I would want to do if faced again with a similar dilemma of having a child with difficulties whose needs were not catered for in the state sector. It's just wrong that all children cannot have equal opportunities.

As for Germany - my friend's daughter has just enrolled her child in a private school in Berlin because she does not believe she will receive the same standard of education in the state sector there. Perhaps not all is perfect there either.

Oops missed your post Bags - there are indeed private schools in Germany, and if my friend's experience is anything to go by, parents there spend just as much time agonising over which school to send their children to. My friend's daughter has been visiting different schools, state and private, for over a year.

The Blair and Harman children attended selective schools, not your common or garden state-funded school!

baNANA I read the article in The Sunday Times yesterday as well and agree with everything you've said!

Since we have selective schools alongside so-called comprehensive schools (so, therefore, we don't have comprehensive schools in the true sense of the word), I suggest that our school system is a bit of a mish mash. Labour governments (back to Harold Wilson, folks) did try to change the system so that it would be fairer but resistance from various sections of society meant that it didn't work as intended. Since then Blair and his New Labour cronies have encouraged all kinds of divisive school options. Tories, we know, don't generally believe in comprehensive schools, so they will continue the divisive trend.

My conclusion is that parents of whatever political persuasion cannot be blamed for using the current system (whatever it is when their kids go to school) to what they see as the best advantage of their kids. What sensible parent would do otherwise.

Folks without the money or other resources to make the best use of the system (whatever it is and, let's face it, it'll never be perfectly fair here or anywhere else, however hard some of us try to make it so) just have to make do with what there is. No, it isn't fair. But I'm not going to judge others for using the system there is in whatever way they see fit for their own kids. They, after all, did not make the system.

Alongside that though, I have a special admiration for people who could send their kids to private schools but don't. Private schools aren't always better and don't necessarily give their pupils a better, well-rounded education.

Whenim64, I didn't see the interview to which you refer, but did see Andrew Neil, obviously at a later stage having a go at Diane Abbot for placing her son in the private sector and to which she herself stated before she came on this programme, she "couldn't defend the indefensible" but nevertheless went ahead and did it anyway. Andrew Neil wiped the floor with her and it was good to see her undone by her own hubris and unable to come up with anything better than "no comment" even Michael Portillo was squirming on her behalf. She must have been quite fed up because she didn't appear on the programme for quite a while after that, thus forgoing her fat BBC fee, which no doubt she needed for the school fees! It was good not to have to have her on for a while and listen to her pontificating in that self important way through closed eyes as if she's in great pain. Bags, I'm sure there are private schools in Germany, I was remembering a conversation I had with a German friend some 20 odd years ago, when she said that the impetus to use private schools there was not as great as it was here as most people felt fairly satisfied with the state system in Germany, but said people would possibly consider using private schools if you child had a particular problem such as dyslexia. I don't know if that's still the case.

It's not just about perceived quality of education, but also the style of that education. My DD and her OH have been looking at schools for GC and went to loads (they live in the country and there is no school nearby so they are looking around). They have chosen a state village primary because they felt it was more in tune with their "style" - they went to the main private school and were very impressed by the facilities and results but deeply unimpressed with tiny tots in blazers and ties sitting behind rows of desks. Some people like that kind of stuff.

I just think that whatever one's politics or position, you have to look at what is there (as Bags says, the system there is) and make the right choices for your children - it would be wrong to do anything else.

Just because an MP might wish to strive for the ideal of excellent state education for all does not mean that they should not look at what is available locally and do the best they can for their child.

There really are some truly grim state schools and the fewer children that suffer them the better. That does not mean that I dismiss the fate of those children - but I am powerless to change anything. Voting for TB with his education mantra got us nowhere. What else can we do?

Diane Abbot's defence at the time was that black boys can't be guaranteed a fair chance in the state system.

Lilygran - Neither can working class white boys who languish right at the bottom of the heap.

Quite, baNANA - imagine a working class white MP (if there are any!) using that as a reason/ excuse for sending their son to a private school!

I don't class myself according to any political party because my views differ according to the particular subject but I do feel strongly that people like Blair and Abbot should not put their children in some form of privelidged education and then be paid as Labour MPs. Those outside parliament are a different matter.

The money we earn is for us to spend as we wish and those with more money will have more choices. How can it be wrong to blame people for the choices they make about how to spend their money? Some people choose to spend it on expensive cars, TVs, holidays and lifestyle and some choose to spend it on their children's education whilst also contributing to the education of all children. I know people who have really struggled to send their children to private schools and gone without things others would call essentials, that is their choice. Others move into the catchment area for the best schools and pay a huge premium for houses in those areas. Again it is their choice. Some pay for private medical care and in so doing subsidise the NHS.

There will always be people who cannot afford things that others can so why do we sometimes stigmatise those who pay for education or health?

In an ideal world state education would be as good as private but that is never going to happen so all we can do is work towards improving state education as much as we can. I would prefer all schools to be good comprehensives as I think it is unfair to decide on a child's whole future based on one exam on one day. Some children at 11 are much further developed than others but a few years late it can all change.

Nanaej - we experienced the same judgement by neighbours and other professional colleagues and friends. We chose to stick to what we believe, and were accused of sacrificing our children - even though we could have afforded to send them to private school instead of the local comprehensive.

Never understood this 'sacrificing' bit at all. They did really well academically, but yes, possibly could have done even better with prep and being 'sat on'- and went on to excel later on professionally. But they also learnt something else which to us is priceless - how to cope with all sorts of people, how to look at things from different angles, how not to stereotype, how to fight for one's corner when necessary (with our support in the background). They can now talk to people at every level- unlike their friends who went to private and very selective schools (not just academically but socially) - and it has really stood them in good stead and made them much stronger, more confident, more versatile, etc.

One of my colleagues was Deputy Head of a comprehensive but sent her kids to private schools - and I always thought it was a terrible 'do as I say, not as I do' example. Later on when I started teaching in local comprehensives after training as a mature student after our youngest started school - I was often offered much easier/cushier jobs, with longer holidays, etc, in private schools, due to our 'contacts' - but I just couldn't do it.

For me, 'doing the best for one's child' but damaging the social structure of the country even further, and therefore perpetuate and further deteriorate the society we live in, our kid's and other kid's live in - seems totally counter-productive and destructive. What is the point in doing 'the best for your child' if said child cannot walk home safely, play with other kids in their area, cannot go to town without being beaten up for 'being posh', etc.

Here in Switzerland all the kids go to the local school, irrespective of social class- and social divisions are not marked as in the UK. There are plenty of private schools in Geneva and Zurich- but they are mainly for expats with children who could not cope in the local system due to lack of local language- and who want to keep their children in a British style school system.

I hated living on an 'estate' (be it a very middle-class one- where everybody had the same sort of jobs, ideas, etc) where people from the local council estate would refuse to talk to me because I lived in a 'posh' area. We just have to move out to a more mixed community before it drove me crazy. The UK education has been split and polarised for so long- I just do not have any idea how to mend all those rifts now. When you look at areas like Glasgow where children are still sent to schools on strictly religious sectarian lines - doing away with religious schools would be a start (but would push more parents to send their children into the private sector!). Tony Blair made it so much worse by giving school 'licences' to Creationist and Islamic girls/boys schools, and now Gove continues the total disaster with his so called 'academies' etc.

Sorry for the length of this post. I am passionate about education - and always will be. I wish my grand-children could come to school here, and not have to be educated and raised in such 'sectarian and divisive' conditions.

Somebody may have said this already (I am trying to catch up after a weekend off line, but it's hard) but here goes: I rank as upper hypocrites, the people in influential positions who got to where they are by the education they received at their Grammar School- as did many many working class children who would otherwise never had had a cat in hell's chance of a university education. Then these self same people decide to dismantle the Grammar School system because it is seen as elitist. Secondary Moderns were grossly imperfect, but the system could have been improved in other ways. The original 3 tier system of Grammar/Secondary Modern /Technical schools never did achieve what they were intended to do, but for many kids they got a more helpful and useful education than at a comp which may be big on "media studies" but weak on subjects which might help kids actually get a job. My Scottish High School was strictly streamed, but there was room for movement up or down for those who were either late-developers or struggled with Latin and modern foreign languages. Freeer mvement between an academic and so-called non academic system might have achieved more without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But we're never going to improve education if the higher echelons of society can send their children to better schools than those who can't afford to pay. The left wing school of thought [or so I believe] is that every child should have the opportunity to have as good an education as every other child in the country. But, that hasn't happened and probably isn't ever going to happen [wasn't it the original idea behind comprehensive schools?]. If I was young again and better off than I was then would I send my children to private school; the 'me' of now probably would but my young idealist self would never have dreamed of such a thing. I thought I could change the world then . I don't know what the answer is these days, but still believe that education is the most important thing in this country. Old, tired and cynical I am.

I agree absolutely, gracesmum.

Hi granjura just read your post, the bit about the deputy head with her children at private school resonated with me. When I first moved to my last house, my older son was 3 and a half and had just started in the nursery at the state primary that he attended. I was invited to a coffee morning by the woman across the road from me who had a daughter the same age as my son. She asked me if I had moved to this road so my son could attend the posh prep school up the road, I remember being quite annoyed that she had made this assumption as we had never met before. I said no he would be going to such and such state school, she literally recoiled in horror as if I had told her I had Bubonic Plague. During the course of this coffee morning, I found out that she was a teacher in the state system with her children at the aforementioned prep school, her friends who she introduced me to, also teachers, one at the senior school where my children eventually went. All their children were at prep schools, but one however did say her son was going to go to the same nursery, because it was free as my child, but would be withdrawn before reception because it just wasn't good enough, which I thought was really rude given that I had already told her that my son would be going into that reception after nursery. These same women made no bones about the fact that when their children came up to the 11 plus age they would try to secure them a much sought after place at the one and only state grammar school in the area, and I think it was around that I began to realise just how divisive the whole education system is in the UK.

People like that, banana, tend to make me think it's more about snobbery than useful education.

Indeed Bags they did have frightfully nice blazers and little caps for the boys just like the one W G Grace wore back in the 19th century!

I still know of people that send their kids to very mediocre private schools when there are high performing comprehensives round the corner. It is what one does in certain circles.
gracesmum there were some truly shocking secondary moderns in England and Wales the 50s and 60s - I remember people close to me attending them. No science or modern languages teaching at all. Let alone gyms or playing fields. There was little enough money going into grammar schools at the time and the secondary moderns that I know of were the poor relations. And it was only 3 or 4 years of post 11 education back then. And the vast majority of children were consigned to this educational scrapheap at the age of 11 as grammar schools places were very limited. Even fewer for girls than boys in some boroughs if I remember rightly. Many of those who failed the 11 plus would these days be going on to get A levels and go to university.
I think todays comprehensive system, even with the creaming off of the private sector, is immeasurably better than the secondary moderns of 40 years ago. A long way from perfect I know, but a huge advance.

Hear, hear!

I went to one of those shocking sec mods. Left at 15, no languages (hardly any English)

Now at the age of 69 I have just started teaching myself a language; Spanish.

Gracemum, I fully understand what you are saying. My OH would have never succeeded the way he did, had it not been for the Grammar School system in those days. He was one of those who got through - but so many were borderline- lots of talent and intelligence, but maybe not in the academic way Grammar School exams prescribed, and fell right through. I probably would have been one of them.

The comprehensive system (and we all know is is not, as the system is still creamed off, and not only on academic ability) does allow for contact between different groups, levels, social classes, etc. As children are streamed per subject, the best still study with the best, at their level- but without being segregated from other members of society.

It is a bit like the Health system in the US - it's gone so far, that it seems impossible to redress. The more a school is labelled as 'bad' and another as 'good' - the bad becomes worse and worse, and the good not necessarily better.

Petallus - Bravo. Muy bien

My late FiL, a socialist (Cambridge communist in the 1930s) to the backbone and not a drop of champagne in his bloodstream, sent my ex as a day boy to a minor public school when he failed his 11+, rather than send him to the local sec mod. Ex succeeded in passing O-levels and then completed his A-levels at the boys' grammar where FiL taught. If my FiL could justify private education for his son, almost anyone could!

Gracias amiga

Annobel, I think I might have done the same in those days as some of the Sec Mods were so awful. Very different situation as he only did so in extremis, when his son was failing, partly due to the system. He did not 'choose' to do this, but felt he had no choice in the circumstances. I respect that.

Nowadays, in good Comprehensives, and there are plenty around, that just would not be necessary.

petallus- That was me, too. Married a man from a posh public school.
Opposites attract, eh?? Got a Masters in my 40's.

I reckon that I had a better all-round education in an 'ordinary' Scottish Academy than my ex had in a second-rate public school where the only advantage I could detect had been small classes. Having said that, by the time I reached the Sixth year, I was doing classics in a class of one.

The girl who did classics in a class of one at my school ended up running off with the (married) classics teacher!
IMHO many parents who pay for education are not always worried about education but are buying exclusivity so their kids are not mixing with children they think are less worthy than theirs.

No chance of that for me, nanaej. My classics teacher was a maiden lady with a PhD who had been at school with my mum. She didn't half make me work hard.

home

baNANA'

I agree with everything you have said, gracesmum also.

Yes Polly Toynbee and the likes of Dianne Abott are hypocrites of the first order. I have watched and listened to them annihiate the fee paying school system.I find those who proclaim the loudest to be true socialists usually are the most disingenuous actually.

Take the likes of Billy Bragg and the church. They are very wealthy property owners, they bang on about poverty and the homeless. Do they give their property to the poor, like heck they do. The Arch Bishop of Canterbury is a classic hypocrite socialist. The church has it's own property department with a megga portfolio. The 'palaces' lived in by him and others would make fantastic accommodation for the homeless wouldn't it.?

Polly Toynbee, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and Joan Bakewell claim to be socialists. They worry about the poor elderly and societies less well off telling us it is our duty to help pay for their care. What happened when the so-called Granny Tax came in. They ran for the hills crying wolf In other words it's O.K. for me to tell you lot what you should do, oh but hang on a minute this is going to cost me money, bugger that for a game of soldiers, sod socialism on this one.

Bono, Will Self, Polly Toynbee, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown etc., are all as much a part of the hypocritical political machine as anyone, left or right of politics, take your pick.

Butternut I too got a Masters in my (late) 40s.

Didn't marry a posho though. It was someone from an even humbler background than mine but he made it through to Grammar school.

petallus

The 'wealth of the church' isn't the personal property of the AofC! The income from church investments goes to pay pensions for retired clergy, train priests and laypeople, run charitable foundations, support dioceses with no money, and above all, help to maintain the thousands of crumbling ancient buildings tourists love to visit. A £1 in the collecting box doesn't go far to replace the lead nicked off the roof or replace the 12th century gargoyles. And a lot of Bishops' 'palaces' are already used for other purposes while the bish lives in a 3 bed 2 recep down the road. Clergy don't have much choice about living a frugal life given what they are paid!

POGS - Don't even get me started on Yasmin Alibah-Brown, boy does she have one big chip on her shoulder given that she has done very well in her adopted country? Although I think she writes very well about the many problems Muslim women face, having to cover their face etc., I nevertheless find some of her articles relating to race unbelievable, she even finds nude shoes an issue would you believe, because they don't match darker skin tones. Well personally I'd say black and brown shoes are more prolific and they don't match paler skins, is this a problem? I didn't see it, but I believe it is on Youtube, an interview she had with Richard Bacon, where she said something along the lines of I wish you white middle class men would all just go away, so we could step in, (I'm not quoting verbatim), but you get the gist, how she got away with it I don't know. Very prickly woman who sees slights everywhere.

Gracemem I do find that those who went to grammar schools are all in favour of them but what about those who didn't? Were they not worthy of a good education too? Is it really fair to judge a child at the age of 11 on one exam? Was it fair that in some areas 30% of children went to GS but in others it was as low as 5%? For those 95% of children who 'failed' in those areas there was not such a good education. I fail to see how any parent can think that is a fairer system than allowing those who can afford to pay for their children's education to do so whilst also subsidising the education of everyone else. If you abolish the private system where is the extra money to come from? Yes, in an ideal world all children would have the best education for their needs but we don't live in an ideal world.

Alison, are you saying, then, that Secondary Moderns didn't provide a 'good education'? As far as I can remember, the friends of mine from primary school who failed the 11 plus seemed to have a similar education to those who went to the Grammar School, apart from not doing Latin! They did do more practical subjects later on, such as typing, woodwork and cookery, but so did we at the Grammar School (not woodwork, unfortunately) if those were the subjects a pupil wanted to take up.

And of course in those days (60s) everyone either went on to higher education or got a job after leaving school - unemployment was very rare!

A very distinguished retired professor whom I know well failed his 11+ and eventually gained several doctorates. His family were all educated in the comprehensive system and have succeeded in their chosen fields. A former colleague failed hers and was able to gain a degree in languages and have a successful career in teaching - ironically, in the selective system. Some sec mods were better than others, and the same can be said about present-day comprehensives.

I'm sure that's true, but we no longer have Grammar Schools as an alternative, unless you count the selective schools.

There are still plenty of state grammar schools (164 nationally according to Wiki), Anagram. Next year will see the frantic private coaching and preparation of many of the children in my eldest DG's class. She will not be taking part.

Yes, I know there are some left, but not enough to go round!

Yes, I do think that those who 'failed' had a poorer education and were expected to do the practical subjects. I don't think anything would convince me that children should pass or fail after one exam at the age of 11.

JessM While it is true that many secondary modern schools were under-funded and of poor quality, that is not true of all. Mr absent attended a secondary modern which had an entire science and technology block. It also had playing fields where a wide variety of sports took place. He became a competitive junior gymnast through his training at school. He frequently relates how they made canoes in their woodwork class and then launched them successfully on the river and practised canoeing. He didn't learn a foreign language, but certainly has a grasp of grammar and punctuation in English. Many of the practical skills he acquired at school have served him well in later years.

I absolutely agree, Alison. I also know that there are lots of independent prep schools where my daughter lives, that coach the children very heavily for the 11+ places. There have also been children at the GD's school who come for the first couple of years and then go off to prep school after a couple of years. This means that parents who would have loved to have sent their children there miss out on a place. It seems wrong to me.
My daughter has friends whose children have been completely heartbroken when they have "failed" (and that is the way they see it) the 11+. One girl missed out by one mark and her best friend passed by one mark.

Where we lived in the UK, many parents got children babtised and then went to the CofE Church quite regularly and helped with charity events - to ensure a place at the CofE Church. Then the school made sure that the Curriculum prepared for the 11+ exams for the local (now private) Grammar school. that CofE primary school was therefore used as a free prep school - and the majority went on to the Grammar school or other private school at the secondary stage. The other local primary school suffered terribly from that 'creaming off'.

I sent my children to a private school & I don't apologise in the least. We were not floating in a sea of spare cash & had to effectively re-mortgage the house to do so. But the alternative was that my bright daughter would have continued to be bullied and spiral into a state of depression and completely lose what little self-confidence she had left. When we asked her to be moved to an alternative state school we were told that 'we were outside the catchment area'.

Within a term at private school the difference in my child was remarkable and my husband said it was the best money we had ever spent. This does not mean that I don't care about other young people & feel that successive governments have failed a generation of young people. It also makes me angry that as a working class grammar school girl, I had to pay for my children to receive the standard of education that I got for free 30 years ago.

I was recently rounded upon by a couple of 'chamapagne socialists' who had made such a big thing about not sending their kids to private school. They live in a large comfortable house in a leafy suburb and take their 3 kids on foreign holidays that we couldn't even begin to afford. Oh and they've just bought a second home in an area where the locals can't afford to buy a first one.

This discussion interests me and makes me sad. I am a mum of 2 (girl aged 3 boy aged 2). My parents in the 70s/80s were strongly left wing. I was the eldest of 4 children and we all went to state schools.
Both of my parents were sent by their parents (my grandparents) to expensive private schools. My mum frequently boasted during my childhood that she could read at the age of 3 and that she won many academic prizes at her prep school and private secondary school. If any of us 4 children showed any slowness at reading or academic progress she was quite sneering. At the same time both of my parents regularly influenced us that it was and is "morally wrong" to send your children to private schools. They are both extremely defensive about the schools we went to which were a mixture of middling to good state schools.
I reluctantly returned to work when both of my little ones were 6 months old and the combined nursery fee for both of them per month is £2,200 - although it killed me to pay this I thought - well if I can afford this i can afford private schools for them when they get to school age. I thought this especially as both the primary school and the secondary school in our catchment area in Oxfordshire are both under special measures (the primary having been so for 3 years now and showing no sign of coming out of special measures). I told my mum i might consider paying for private school for my 3 year old (who can not yet read) and she went ballistic. It is all theory now anyway, having done the sums not even £2,200 per calender month (my entire salary) will cover the majority of fee paying schools for 2 pupils which are within my driving distance and which I could take them to and get to work at a decent hour.
so i will have to send them to the special measures primary, or move house again. Meantime my mum is distinctly disappointed at me working 4 days per week instead of 5 (betrays feminist ideals) and even thinking about private schools.

Time to stop worrying (or even bothering about) what your mum thinks, redblue. Unless she's offering to pay, it's none of her business. Your life; your choices from what's available (which is not to say I'd make the same choices). Good luck.

Just what I was about to say Bags - you can spend a lifetime trying to do what your mum wants, when you are yourself a grown adult and her opinion on what you should or shouldn't be doing for your own children (or with your career) is a total irrelevance. Stick to your guns - you know your own children best and only you can know what your aspirations are for them. Don't let yourself be browbeaten by her or anyone else!!

Re school fees etc. I live in an area of cheshire with good local comprehensives. If I lived in a difficult inner city area I might think differently.

One thing that really makes me angry is hearing people say "we make sacrifices to send our childern to private schools."
We managed reasonably well without debt but we could never have afforded school fees!
The current average south of England rate is now about £14,000 a year. that would now be £28k for 2 children. We never had that amount of surplus money even by the equivalents in the 1980s.

No! those lucky enough to have that sort of money dont make "sacrifices" they just have enough money to have choices as to what to spend it on. They clearly have no concept of how the other half live.

I went to the usual local schools in West Yorkshire - including a grammar school after passing my 11+. Private schools were not even considered.

Here in Australia catholic schools are open to all, and some have very affordable fees. I am left wing, and have no religious beliefs now, though I was a catholic back then.

Anyway, my children's safety and well being was more important to me than any political principles, so i sent them to local co-ed catholic junior and senior schools. The state equivalents were rough as guts, and a friend's daughter ended up with a permanent injury at the local state school. We lived in a very working class area. However, I have always fought for better funding for state schools, and nowadays they have improved.

My son now teaches at the same high school he attended, but he did his prakticum at the local state schools. One day after he'd been teaching a while, he came up to us and hugged us, saying "Thanks for going to the trouble and expense of sending me and my brother to St Francis Xavier and Peter Clavier schools, and not sending us to state schools. it made all the difference to my happiness at school"

Family before politics.

Nelliemoser I've always felt irritated when people make that statement as well.

They sound so virtuous, as though they think the rest of us with children at state schools are just too selfish/hedonistic to make sacrifices.

Happy families live in happy societies- sometimes we also have to look at the wider picture.

I am not of any political persuasion but I do believe in equality and fairness. We could have afforded to send our children to private schools but, living in an affluent middle class area, we reasoned that if a child couldn't go to a comprehensive school there, where could they. So, off they went when most of their primary school friends went to direct grant grammar schools. Lo and behold, son went to Cambridge and daughter became an architect. Would they have done any better or been any happier at a selective school? Who knows. Our children only have one chance of experiencing school and as parents we do our best. We saved a lot of money by sticking with the state school, so went on good holidays and were able to be more generous when they were at university and subsequently.
But staunch socialists who send their children to private schools are just hypocrites of the highest order.

it's easy to be full of principles when the local state schools are safe. When they are unsafe, children's needs come first. Mind you, our catholic school weekly fees were the equivalent of 2 hours pay for a cleaner (the lowest pay around), and free for the unemployed, so they were hardly elitist.

I consider myself a staunch socialist, and have spent my professional life in the state sector. However, both my children were educated at independent schools, as their father is a dyed in the wool conservative. I didn't marry him for his political views! Despite our divorce in the years to come, he was a good father who was determined that his children should have the best start in life, according to his lights and I respected this view. I think there has been something of an assumption in this thread that parents always share the same political views, when I'm sure that often they don't and have to find a compromise that works for them.

I wonder if some contributors also think that socialists shouldn't avail themselves of private health and dental care?

Good point, vegas. During the Thatcher years my up until then NHS dentist when private. I stayed with him because he was a good dentist and there weren't any NHS dentists around anyway. Then he retired and sold his business to two young men who went back to being NHS dentists. I stayed with the same practice until I moved to Scotland. Living in Scotland, naturally I have an NHS dentist once again, because Scotland is civilised about things like that.

So, much as I believe in state 'sponsored' health services, I was availing myself of the best of what was available at the time when I needed it. Nothing hypocritical about that.

The truth of it all is that in an ideal world there should be no difference between state and independent schools, and in the same way that there should be no difference between NHS and private hospitals - but there is. And, because there is, and because parents want to do the best for their children, if they can, they buy the best rather than impose their chosen lives on their children. That doesn't stop them from working for the best for others.

How can any of you say that parents who send their children to independent schools have not made sacrifices? Of course they have! If, as you say, it cost £28k a year to pay school fees that is a sacrifice in anyone's life! The fact that they find a way to, usually, borrow the money does not mean it is not a sacrifice. Of course a lot of people cannot find the money to do so but then everyone makes choices about what they can and can't afford, e.g shall we have chops or mince for dinner.

Nobody bashes people for spending their money on cars or holiday, why bash those who spend their money on their children?

I think the point was that some people, however hard they try, never have the opportunity to "make the sacrifice" of whether to spend a lot of money on schooling. In other words, some people, by the nature of human society, have more choices than others. Once someone has acquired money, of course they can spend it how they like, so long as it doesn't damage anyone else. Some people cannot acquire money whether by working hard or by borrowing. And no, that is not necessarily their fault. If they are not intelligent enough, say, to do more than a menial, low paid job, or are restricted from earning a lot by other means, they are stuck and their choices are limited.

i don't think I'd ever call spending money a "sacrifice". It's a choice, if you have it, that's all.

An acquaintance of mine - an active member of the Labour Party - justified sending his son to a fee-paying school by saying that although he didn't want to, his wife did, and that theirs was an equal opportunity household - therefore he gave in to his wife's persuasion. More likely for the sake of domestic peace, I would say.

We sent our children to independent schools after we had a run in with the local Director of Education when we tried to exercise our right to choose a school. We asked to send our children to a school just outside our catchment area as it was not operating on Open Plan lines. His reply was that 'all schools will be open plan in a couple of years - it's the way forward!'

I don't think being educated privately made them unable to get on with other people. They played football, cricket, swam, danced and acted with the rest their peers in our town. They were taught, by us, that they were in a privileged position, that there were people not so fortunate and that we should strive for a better, fairer world.

Academic education might be given at school but it only a part of education for life most of which happens in the family and the outside world.

My grandson starts at an independent school this September after attending the local primary school for two years. My DD has given the school every chance to improve. Something as simple as being heard read at least once a week couldn't be guaranteed even with a TA in the class. This was simply not acceptable.

Neither my DD or SiL earn huge wages and it will mean every pound will have to be accounted for. I do take your point Bags, but this is not something they would have chosen had the quality of primary education in their area been adequate.

My kids started their primary education in Leicestershire,kitty and were subjected to that county's avant-garde notions. What a good thing that the trend for open plan schools has died the death. I was Chair of Governors at such a school and every OFSTED inspection made the point that it was detrimental to teaching and learning, which it certainly was. We managed to use these reports to bulldoze persuade the local authority to apply for a grant to build a new school in which all classes were taught in separate rooms out of earshot of the other classes. Kids loved it, teachers loved it and parents thoroughly approved. As did OFSTED.

This is hard - I don't know what we would have done if our local schools had been 'bad' (whatever that means, my 'bad' could be your 'good'). And yet, what I have been trying to say is that it is a vicious circle. Same for the health service. Schools which have some problems, become worse and worse as those who can afford it, who are also often those who have more influence and clout, jump ship. If all the parents who could make a difference and influence things leave- then schools become more and more polarised.

It is very difficult in the UK, as things have gone so far for far too long- with a long traditions of (so-called) public schools and fee paying schools, CofE and other denominational schools, etc. In most other European countries, this has not been the case, and children have always grown up and been educated in mixed social groups- and the parents who can support the whole school for all the children. The concept of 'doing one's best for one's children' - even if to the detriment of others, and society at large, is an anathema- as it is detrimental to all in the long term.

I'd perhaps make a comparison with the immunisation of children - what is more important, the right of an individual to say 'no' - with the current huge increase in diseases like measles, etc- with the enormous risks involved. Or the rights of children as a whole being protected by a 90%+ immunisation. In many countries, children are not accepted into school until their immunisations are up-to-date- and this is accepted as best for all. My parents always taught me that my 'rights' had to be curtailed if it affected the rights of others.

I am fully aware this might be controversial, but the bigger picture is sometimes more important than the individual. Do we want a society which is so polarised that the 'lucky and better off' cannot play in the park or walk to school safely? Think of the situation in South Africa for instance- where anyone with a higher standard of living has to drive the children to school armed with a tazer and a gun - and live behind electrified fences. We do get the society we deserve sometimes.

Here all the kids go to the local school, and walk there happily together, rich or poor, irrespective of class, colour and religion. We always felt that it was our duty to help the school system for all, not just our own- and that in the end, it would also benefit our children in a different way.

Of course choosing to spend limited resources on school fees rather than other things is a sacrifice let alone working two jobs, longer hours etc to earn it in the first place. But, it should in a perfect world not be necessary, it should be that all children get the education best for them, but the world is far from perfect and doing your child down won't improve it. And then of course there is the argument that all children should be able to reach the peaks of whatever they choose - reality is that some children just are less able, less committed, less focussed and pushing them into a top-level education would be as bad for them as not.

I have not posted so far as everything I think has been said - I sent my two to the local comprehensive school even though we could have afforded (just) to send them to a very 'good' school - Upton Convent. I was a head in the same authority and apart from my own scruples I thought it would send out a very bad signal if I did not use the system for my own children.
I agree absolutely with granjura that the wider community has to be considered and the vaccination question is a very good parallel.
My daughter became a parent governor of her children's C of E primary school (the only school in the village) and she was able to get many improvements implemented.

Yes, I would have had much more respect for those neighbours and friends who opted to send their children to private schools, due to large classes at our local primary- had they then decided to become School Governors or get involved at local level to improve things. But they didn't - once people opt out, be it from education or health services- they rarely take time and effort, and use their own influence (because of their high ranking or professional jobs) to improve things for the majority. Would getting stuck in, although their children didn't go to the local school, be 'doing down' their own?

Good on ya, jura!

That was for your previous post in particular.

Granjura - we did try to become school governors but were discounted because we had opted out!

I sent my children to private schools because my son was being bullied at his junior school and couldn't have coped with a large comp, which at that time had a bad reputation. Having done it,for one, we felt we had to GDP the same for dd!
In fact, she is an 'elbows out type and would have been fine)
I was a governer of our local church school. Also on the PTA of their stare junior school!

Leicestershire Director of Education in the 70s was just slightly prejudiced jeni and very left wing.

That chap who had an affair with one of his pupils and then became something to do with education was at this comp!

My ex worked in Adult Ed in Leicestershire, so we heard a good deal about the Director. jeni, do you mean the former head of OFSTED whom the BBC trot out on every possible occasion to comment on educational issues?

Does his name start C

Sir Chris Woodhead.

That's him!
See my point

Yes!

Quite! Private education!

My DC went to private schools and it was the best thing I ever did.

So ...l should we have left my grandson to struggle on in receiving an inferior education??????

You have only said that his class teacher couldn't guarantee to hear him read once a week. I've no idea how often my kids were listened to reading because I never asked. I didn't need to ask because I both saw and heard them reading at home every day and I also saw that their reading was improving all the time – this without them ever having to open a school 'reading book' too. I don't know the details of your case, nanadog, but there's often a lot parents and other family members can do to help a child who is deemed to be "struggling" at school. And, what is more, this has been shown many times to be what makes more difference to a child's education than almost anything else.

No bags that was just one example of how even something so basic wasn't even being done. I taught at primary level for many years and then became an education advisor. I have contributed chapters to course books on teaching and learning, so believe me I understand what makes a good primary school and this one was far from that. Both his parents are teachers too. The reason we decided to move was precisely because we were having to do all the teaching ourselves out of school hours.

So we have a young child, tired after a day at school, who ought to be relaxing at home, playing, and we were having to teach him basic maths and teach him his sounds and sound blends, show him how letters and words are formed and written, etc. all work which ought to have been done at school. His school report was so badly written, full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes that it was returned to be re-written. My DD complained to the headteacher on numerous occasions as did other parents, but things did not improve. Needless to say their OFSTED report reflected the poverty of provision at this school.

So after two wasted years of trying we have thrown in the towel.

That does sound bad, dog. I certainly would not criticise anyone for choosing, if they can, to move their child to a better school where they will be well taught. The never-ending question is what to do about such a school as the child was moved from.

I think the first thing to do is to rally other parents, perhaps even call a meeting, but many people lack the confidence to take on what they see as authority figures. That is why it is so important for more confident and articulate parents to be involved. If a child is being bullied at school, there should be a school policy in place to deal with it. Parents may need to be very persistent to get the school to act. The big problem is the downward spiral, where even good teachers become demoralised and move on, leaving only the mediocre and uncommitted. I think most research has shown that the quality of the Head teacher is the most important factor in the success of a school. I have seen schools turned round by having a new and enthusiastic head. If enough parents complain to the education authority a poor head teacher could be replaced.

That is true, gn, and I've seen it happen. When the Ht of my elder children retired she was replaced by someone who was a good class teacher but who I did not think would make a good HT. I was on the interviewing and appointment panel for the new HT and spelled out my reservations about this man. Unfortunately, the (ahem) consensus of the majority disagreed and he was appointed. The school went down hill. (My kids had left by then, thankfully). Eventually, after pressure from parents and other interested parties (not including me; I was busy elsewhere by then), this man was moved to a much smaller school a long way away and a new HT was appointed who did indeed "turn the school around". Can't say I liked his technique, to be honest, but he knew how to get the right boxes ticked.

I agree completely Great, especially that the school reflects the standard of leadership. Sadly LEAs are losing their teeth, and personnel, as cuts and government policies bite. It is up to articulate parents, or the governors if they have the necessary skills to do something. But, who really has the energy or time to take on such a task? My DD did try in her own way, she was persistent, she didn't give up easily, but after a full day teaching herself, and a toddler as well, she honestly had very little left to give.

Children aren't an experiment for us to play with, they only get one chance at education and if it's not good enough and we can do better for them, with or without sacrifices, then it's our job to do it. And, then of course, for people in the public eye, there is the security issue for their children let alone the possibilities of bullying because of who their parents are.

I think Paul McCartney sent his children to the local comprehensive school - Stella used to be quite bitter about it, she said it was just because he was mean! I could understand if he and Linda had decided that there was too great a risk of kidnap.

Stella doesn't seem to have suffered as a consequence of her parents' choice of school, or maybe her schooling had nothing to do with her success now.

nanban, we only get one chance at life. Education continues throughout life unless one chooses not to carry on learning.

Don't get me wrong there are some excellent state primary, secondary and special schools out there. I was more than happy to send my DD and DS to these. It's just a shame that in the 21st century, with all the resources that have been pumped into them, some are not up to standard. Equally true there are schools who try their damnedest but their pupils just don't want to be taught and the parents aren't supportive.

If only we were all the same, it would make life so much easier - boring, of course.

Bags - quite right but our characters are hugely affected by our early years, and the directions we might go in. Life is a never-ending, unavoidable, steep learning curve but that's a whole other topic!

Agree, nanban and dog. What depresses me is that we hear so many sad stories of state education and not enough happy ones. I'm willing to bet that the sad, unsuccessful schools are a small percentage of the whole. I also wonder if that won't always be the case because the goalposts keep changing. What was regarded as adequate two generations ago no longer is. From personal experience I'd say my own kids went to better schools than I did and yet the schools I went to were regarded as good (though nothing exceptional) in their time, but if they were examined by today's standards, I think they might be found wanting in several respects.

From what my parents told me of their schools (also good by the standards of the time), my schools were better than theirs too.

It is very hard and I can understand why your family acted as they did Nanadogsbody. You are absolutely right about the lack of resources and personnel in Local Authorities now; of course in Academies the LA has no official role to play at all.
If the school has been in special measures for a long time, then I would have expected the head to have been replaced, because, as others have said, good leadership and management is at the heart of school improvement. Sadly I think many teachers feel very demoralised at the moment and recruitment and retention of school leaders gets harder and harder.

My grandchidren's schools were immeasurably better than mine, but apart from DotheBoys Hall it would be hard to find a worse school than my catholic junior school. We learnt a lot of catholicism and not much else.
I used to visit every primary and middle school in the Wirral as part of my job and I am happy to report that even then, in the late 1970's, the huge majority of schools were happy, productive places. The very worst school in the area had an alcoholic head who was far more interested in running his own music business from school than supervising the teaching. I was able to take all his staff onto the Teaching Reading course which my service ran, and they began to get enthusiastic in spite of him. The local authority education department knew about him, and did nothing.

I saw an interview with somebody who had been at Design College with Stella McCartney - he said she was not considered to be very talented and they were surprised at how well she had done. Hmm.......nothing to do with having a multi-millionaire father and endless contacts, then.

I don't think either my junior school or my convent grammar school contributed much to my development - I was encouraged to read widely at home and found my own route to higher education as a mature student.

That's my point, the huge majority are 'happy, productive places'. Reasonably we can't expect 100% ..can we? Let me give you an example. I drew down lottery funding which meant that every primary and every special school in the authority could have either an adventure playground or a play zone to the value of £12,000. I wrote to all the Headteachers in the weekly bulletin.

90% returned a 'YES' within a week.

I wrote individually to the other 10% and most of those replied by return.

Over the next few weeks, I wrote, faxed, emailed the remaining few. One eventually responded. The reminding few never did respond, even after a phone call.

When the play areas were installed guess who were the first to complain they had never been included? Luckily I keep detailed paper trails ain't it?

My senior GD and her half brother went to a first rate primary school almost on my doorstep. The fact that it was in a prosperous and - dare I say it - middle class area with largely professional/managerial parents might have had something to do with it, of course. Few of the kids in the neighbourhood were sent to any of the private prep schools, and hardly any of my GCs' cohorts went on to private secondary education. The local authority at the time had one of the best records in the NW which meant that there was a remarkably low turnover of teaching staff.

Nanad I have had a similar experience to the one you describe, including visits to head teachers! I've also come across very low expectations on the part of staff, and teachers persuading kids not to apply for Oxbridge or even the Russell group because, so they said, the kids would be happier at the Asda Uni down the road.

I think there's a lot of truth in the post that said often good teachers get demoralised. I don't know what the answer is.

Like Bags, we listened to the children reading at home everyday - not sure anybody ever heard them read at school. It is a very worthwhile thing to volunteer to listen to children at your local school.

We complemented our childrens' education with music lessons (both went to Grade 8 with 2 instruments). Also art and pottery (free courses at our local Teacher training school), studying local wildlife, youth hostelling trips with a fun + study element, etc - always including other children in the neighbourhood that didn't have those opportunitites.

Here in Switzerland we also help with the local primary - with English, and outside actitivities like hiking, skiing, etc. Very worthwhile and rewarding.

listening to the news tonight and hearing about the shortage of school places, and first choice of school. Tragic.

My niece couldn't get her 'school of choice' for her girls 2 years ago, so her parents bought a flat for her in the catchment area of said school - and she 'pretended' to live there until they got the girls in - then sold the flat and moved back to their own home. Just one example of those that go on - and of course only available to the middle class.

I live in the South East I can tell you that we have a shortage of school places and a dire shortage of affordable homes which will get worse as the population grows. We are a small island with a finite amount of space to expand even if we were to have a massive house building programme.

It's a comment often made, and yet England has huge areas with hardly any population on it. When we lived in East Leics we could drive to Norfolk or to Lincolnshire without coming across any towns at all (apart from going past Peterborough). That of course does not apply to such an extent in the South East.

Here in Switzerland, by comparison, we are much more densely populated, on land suitable for building, as so much land is taken by mountains and lakes - one reason why people tend to live in flats (but generally not high-rise) rather than houses.

In world density ratings, Switzerland is 52nd and UK 74th.

Now that is surprising, granjura! I bet a lot of people wouldn't expect the UK to be anywhere near that low. I suppose the problem is that there are so many places where you couldn't build, as well as places where no one would want to live!

Granjura - the problems with parents helping out in schools is the vetting procedure they have to go through here which is costly apart from anything else. Do you have the same rules in Switzerland?

And if people are going to all sorts of lengths to get their children into 'the school of their choice' why is it considered so wrong if some parents also pay? Unless there is absolutely no choice at all, which is rather communistic, there should be no grounds for criticism.

My grandparents paid for my brother and me to go to a private school. This was due to the fact that that Dad being in the Forces we had been to a large number of schools. By the time I left full time education I'd been to 19 schools, my brother to 14 schools. You can imagine the effect that had on our education. When my father was posted to Canada my g'parents wanted to send me to a private boarding school but Mum couldn't bear to part with me. I know it sounds awful but I wish I had gone. I did not get on with my father and that made homelife very difficult. Also, I knew that given the chance I would have done very well at school and gone on to university.

Nanban, Switzerland is hardly known as 'communistic' and yet this is exactly what happens - no choice, and it works really well. That way you don't get 'excellent schools' and 'sink schools' and children learn to grow up in a mixed environment, rich, poor and in-between- which stops stereotypes being formed in childrens' minds and finger pointing. When you grow up in a mixed school, you know right from the start that stereotypes don't apply in 90% of cases - and it really helps society as a whole.

As said, the UK has had such a long tradition of (so-called) 'public', private and religious schools - and I just do not know how this could be addressed now.

Totally agree that the shenanigans and border fraudulent behaviour of many to get their kids into the best of state schools- is in many ways 'worse' than paying for private education. See the example give re my niece on a previous post. I have of course not discussed this with my sil and bil, nor my niece- as it would cause upset, but I just couldn't believe they would take such steps.

I also know some parents who let their house and rented another for the 6 month period of application for schools to wangle a place in the school they preferred!

What would be the worst that would happen if tomorrow all private/public /faith/ community schools were all just called 'Learning Centres' and admitted children based on their nearness to school? Would it really be so terrible?

We sent our only daughter to a private school for a very good reason and never regretted the decision as she received a superlative education and went on to be a high achiever. The reason was that we experienced great difficulty in selling our former house and sales fell through while we "bought" houses in different catchment areas and introduced her to three different comprehensives. She became disturbed by all of this and to prevent further problems we chose a private school in the area where we intended to live. Have to say that when I told the headmaster of her current state school of the move he we very sniffy, verging on rude.

I was lucky enough to go to a good old state grammar school with very high values but feel that every penny spent on our daughter's education was a penny well spent and only wish that I could pay for our twin grandsons to be privately educated as it is anyone's guess what sort of school they will be admitted to when it comes to high school.

Where I have lived with children (Edinburgh, Oxfordshire, Argyll), only a tiny minority of people send their kids to private schools. The vast majority just send them to the nearest state school. I wonder if the seven or eight per cent national average for private school attendance is heavily weighted by London and its environs? I imagine England weights the average more than Scotland or Wales too.

I don't think private education is that rare, here in the north east our children and those of work colleagues went to good private schools.

harrigran fewer than 10% of children and young people attend private schools. 90% of children are educated in state schools, most of whom are happy and well educated.

I did not pay a penny for my children to be educated in their local schools and they are both high achievers too! Not sure it's always to do with the money you spend!

The state school in our area was known for it's drama and sports not academic subjects. I sent DC to a school with traditional teaching methods and to mix with like minded students. I wasn't trying to be better than anyone else, we just wanted our children to be happy.
I don't accept that bright children will succeed anywhere, I have seen bright kids dumb down so that they fit in with their peers.

Just because a school is known for a particular subject does not always mean it does not do well in other subjects too!

I accept I am 'hard line' re private education. It's aenathema to me. I have heard all the arguments from teachers, parents and some students too who are in favour of private education but I have not been convinced it is the best for a country /nation.

Trust me, you would have agreed with me if you had seen the local school.
Remember too nanaej by removing our children from state education we made class numbers smaller and in effect paid for education twice.
If the state education had been up to standard it would never be an issue. DS will probably not send his children to a private school even though he went.

There are good private schools and good state schools. Ditto bad. This thread actually started as a complaint about our elected representatives who make the educational policy which determines the fate of the vast majority of our children and then decide it isn't good enough for their own offspring. If they had no choice, they might make decisions based on more urgent considerations than political ideology. As long as there are fee-paying schools, everyone (except politicians) has a right to pay for their children's education. I believe the same applies to private health care.

Well said, lily. Absolutely spot on.

Bags

Yes Lilygran I started the thread and I agree with your post and would defend anyone's right to send their children to private school, but just don't say you are fundamentally left wing if you do so because it sounds so lame. I also believe in an ideal world we would just have good state education and everyone would subscribe to that, however, clearly that's not the case.

Fascinating thread!
@nanaej quite right to point out that less than 10% of population go to independent schools. The picture varies greatly across the UK. In some parts of London, the socio-economic make-up of people living next to the top state schools is 'higher' than that of people living next to the top independent school in other parts of the country. So going to a state school doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get a raw deal and going to an independent school doesn't necessarily mean you're rolling in money - granted, you have to have disposable income, but many scrimp and save to afford it. I can't see how it can be true that independent schools are creaming off the intellectual top - first of all, they aren't all selective and secondly, with only 7% of the school age population in independent schools, it's a statistical impossibility. But something's clearly happening in those schools that translates into progression to university. Someone - sorry can't remember who - posted that what's important about school is having a good socio-economic mix and I agree. I also think the recent call for 'open access' to independent schools is a good thing. It will open up existing independent schools to children from lower income families in a far greater way than offering a few bursaries ever could and, if the Government allow it, it could be a small baby step towards a more egalitarian school system. @baNANA it IS annoying for so-called socialist journalists to turncoat when it comes to their children's education. I understand their motives and don't condemn them, but they are really two-faced if they then continue to spout ideals that fly in the face of their own actions.
Our family was in a similar situation last year and I came across this on Google. It doesn't really add much to the original point of this thread, but it may just be useful to someone out there if you're trying to decide between school types: www.mydaughter.co.uk/educating-your-daughter/7-11/education-choices/independent-vs-state-how-do-i-make-the-most-of-my/
Personally, I find the whole concept of choice in education quite alien. But it's all different now!