So called left wingers who pay school fees

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.