So called left wingers who pay school fees

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!

Petallus - Bravo. Muy bien

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.

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.

Hear, hear!

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.

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!

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

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.

I agree absolutely, gracesmum.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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