Out to dinner with a black friend of mine in his forties, we stray off the usual topics of politics, education and religion, and I ask him about his daughter.'Where does your daughter go to school again?'
'Sunnyside Up'
'Oh. So what's it like?'
I'm expecting him to give me some stats, percentages of pass rates at GCSE etc., but instead my friend looks to the floor. He's embarrassed.
'Well, well, you know... well, it's private.'
'Oh.' I pause. 'Yes, I mean, yes, of course.' I smile, remembering that my friend used to be a teacher. He knows the drill. Of course his child is at a private school. He continues, looking up from the floor.
'The thing is, well, it is basically my local school.' He smiles nervously. 'There aren't any closer schools really. I mean, this school is...'
I hold my hand up.' Whoah... what's up? Why so defensive? You don't have to defend yourself to ME... I get it, remember?'
My friend laughs. 'Yeah, yeah, yeah, of course you do.' He then goes on to explain some of his daughter's achievements this year and how proud he is of her.
I start to wonder more about the school. 'So what's the percentage of black kids at the school?'
My friend's eyes open wide. 'Well, there is a huge number of Asian children at the school!'
I wince. 'What the hell is wrong with you? Why are you so defensive?? I didn't ask how many Asian kids there are. I asked how many black kids there are.'
I'm guessing there can't be many. What's weird is his reaction: just like his reaction to sending her to a private school. He feels bad. And he feels so bad that his instinctive reaction is to defend his decision to send his daughter there, or to tell me that there are lots of Asian children at the school. I never criticised him. Yet, he is defensive.
Is this because other people have criticised him in the past? Or is this because it is not socially acceptable to send one's child to a private school? Anywhere in the developing world, people would never be ashamed to admit their child was at a private school. They would be proud. They would be admired. In some countries, putting one's child first isn't frowned upon.
So why do we frown on it here?
13 comments:
Snuffy,
I am the animous poster who said he was sending his little girl to a private school in September, on the 'Importance of Language' thread.
Thank you for raising this topic.
We have only just enrolled her, so yes we're waiting for the jibes, sideways glances, and snears from friends, neighbours, and workmates.
I agree why is it such an issue in this country. Like you I've made the point; you wouldn't even have this debate in anyother civilised westeren nation - so why here?
How about good old fashioned working class, socialist spite?
I'm talking as a working class lad,living with my working class girlfriend in our terrace house in a working class area. We own a small second hand car, and only take a holidy once every couple of years. I'm just waiting for the first prat to call us 'elitist'.
We took this decision because the state system is dire!!!not because we're snobs.
Twenty years ago there wasn't a single private school in the borough now there's three! All stuffed not with rich kids, but uppper working class, and lower middle class kids. Mortgage payers living in terraced houses and three bed semi's.
I don't know if you caught the debate on Radio 5 Live a couple of weeks ago, but the usual silly arguments were troated out: i.e. 'Parents buying their children life chances' and oh the most vacuous argument I've ever heard; 'If we closed down all the private schools, then middle class parents (the elite -remeber them?) would spend their time and energy making state schools better - HA HA HA HA!!!!. Oh like standards just soared when we ended education by selection, and grammar schools.
We would prefer not to scrimp and save to send our little girl private, we would prefet not to go 2 miles out of our way everyday twice a day, and we would prefer she mixed with a broader range of kids, but the state have forced this on us, but that's the reality of the situation.
If we had good state schools with discipline, and a curriculum based on the gaining of knowledge not, trendy ideoligies, that will be out of fashion in five years time, and acedemic rigour that encouraged real achievement and excellence, and identified failure then they could compete against private schools and the issue would not even exist.
Oh and finally we won't be saying sorry to anyone for our decision for doing the very best for our daughter.
If anyone doesn't care for our decision - they know what they can do!!
The British affect to despise hypocrisy*. Maybe it was this that drew your friend's frown - I assume with no further evidence that he was a standard issue, Guardian-reading member of the staff room-occupying class.
Your friend is being rational, however:
The main reason he is likely to identify is the sub-standard education provided by too many state schools, meaning bright pupils are held back from winning good enough A-level grades.
Others are deterred by negative advice from staff who guide pupils into low-skilled jobs, assuming they are unsuited to higher education. In addition, much of the £400m spent by the government on schemes to attract more students from deprived backgrounds has been wasted.
*We are, of course, Olympic standard hypocrites, this latter being the crowning act of hypocrisy.
Not everyone does. The only reason to be ashamed is because you believe the average child is more important than your own child. If you believe that giving your child an advantage is immoral then you are clearly going to be ashamed when you do it.
Alan Bennett for an example.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7207070.stm
"I think quite plainly the public school should be abolished ... It was the first time I ever came across boys from public school. They were so confident. We were timid grammar school boys but they were very much at ease ... They were just louts, but I also realised that they had been better taught than I had. I thought that was unfair when I was 17, and that view has never changed."
The irony is that Bennett went to a grammar school and thinks *they* should be retained. I'd have more sympathy with a womb-addicted crackhead saying everyone else should have to sell sex on the streets like they do - at least they would have fewer people looking up to them saying how lucky they really were.
What better arguement could there be for Vouchers?
It is only socially "unacceptable" to send your children to "private" school, because the fanatical socialists who insist all must have prizes - and the same prizes at that - have turned it into as bigger sin as smoking and voting Tory!
Vouchers level the playing field completely. Many "private" schools may well revert to independence, but with state funding. After all, 85% of schools in the Netherlands are independent, but funded by state vouchers, transported to them through parents.
I am so pleased my party stuck with it and that we will fight the next election on this, truly radical, platform.
I despise Alan Bennett and don't understand why everyone fawns over his borderline paedo-erotic film/play.
"I also realised that they had been better taught than I had. I thought that was unfair when I was 17, and that view has never changed."
What an arse? He thought it was unfair that someone else had been taught better than he had been? Not that he had been taught worse, but someone else had been taught well. No such problem with him having been taught better than the kids at the secondary modern, though.
If you don't tell people how liberal and progressive you are, how will they know?
They might think you were a member of the enemy tribe.
Its guilt and love not pride that motivates people to send their kids to private schools.
Even out of the city the behaviour in secondary schools is dire, and the government seems determined to abolish actual knowledge and replace it with "skills".
I know a number of guardian reading lefties who have suddenly discovered they need to send their kids to private schools when they get to eleven, and that's in Surrey.
What's not acceptable is denying the same opportunity for that type of education to everyone else.
I'm hoping that's coming soon after 5th June 2010.
Man in a Shed,
Correct on every point!
My original post at top of this thread explained our motivation for sending our little girl to a Private School.
When she finishes at her Independent Primary school at eleven, we will be looking at an Independent Secondary school.
Our local Secondary - which of course we would otherwise be obliged to send our daughter is known as 'Drugie High'. Can't think why we would have a problem sending her there then!!!
We live in the suburbs a good ten miles away from a city, but behaviour is bad here in our borough too.
Hopefully things may be very different after six or seven years of a Tory government.
I like the idea currently being floated that gives parents vouchers to use either in the state or private sector - that's real parent power, and choice. Schools will then have to teach real knowledge, and apply discipline in the classroom, or go to the wall.
To my mind there are only two ways forward, either the way they do things in the Netherlands as detailed above, or the Canadian route: The state sector is just so damn good that there are very few private schools because they are irrelevant, and unnecessary, and are generally the preserve of the rich wanting a bit of cudos.
If parents aren't happy with their local school, they can request the one of their choice, but local kids in the school's catchment area are placed first. Kids from out of the area go on a waiting list, and get places as and when they occur.
Both systems seem fair, and give parents a degree of choice.
Contrast that with our 'Communist' style state education system that denies parents any choice or say in their child's education/future.
Not only that but the curriculum is nonsense. Schools should be imparting knowledge; reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography, and physical fitness/sport. Instead children are taught vague airy ideologies and skills they deny life chances, and stifle social mobility.
Is it any wonder the latter has dropped dramatically under this government?
Middle class parents can generally afford to buy their way out of the state sector, and working class parents who actually give a damn like myself and my partner make sacrafices in order to give our child a good start in life.
"They were just louts, but I also realised that they had been better taught than I had. I thought that was unfair when I was 17, and that view has never changed."
And, like any socialist, he doesn't think 'How can everyone have these advantages', but 'How can I ensure no-one has these advantages'...
And it still won't help. Because some people are naturally brighter than others, and will..
Oh. Wait. That's what comprehensive education is for, isn't it?
"Even out of the city the behaviour in secondary schools is dire, and the government seems determined to abolish actual knowledge and replace it with "skills"."
Indeed. Abolishing the skill and desire to think for yourself seems to be a jey goal.
Snuffy
Welcome back! Missed your posts.
Anonymous 12 July - trust me - your daughter will thank you one day for what you are doing.
My parents were not wealthy (dad a lab technician, mum a housewife) but having seen the way my older sister was failed by the local comp (and it is still a source of regret to my mum that she didn't do more to help her), they decided to send me to an independent school - quite a decision in the late 1970s.
A friend there (let's call him John) had parents who were both state school teachers and card carrying labour party members.
A few years ago, I was talking with John's mum (let's call her Liz). The subject of education was inevitably raised and I informed her that I was sending my daughter to a private school.
Liz: Why? It's a shame you're not sending her to the local school (Liz knows nothing about the local schools in my area)
Me: Not really, they are not that good.
Liz: I think it's a shame that she won't get to mix with children from different backgrounds (Liz knows nothing of the mix of kids in the school)
Me: Actually, the kids come from variety of backgrounds. Lots of parents with very modest incomes choose to send their kids there.
Liz: I still think it's a shame....
I thought it a tad hypocrtical to be lectured by Liz, after all, look where she sent her son.
It got better. I subsequently learned that Liz also thought it was a shame that her grandson was going to his local school and had offered to pay to privately educate him......
Liz is a decent enough person but a stinking hypocrite of the highest order. She, like most(but not all) of the socialists I know, would like to deny other people's children the opportunity to reach their potential but find all manner of excuses as to why it is entirely right that they do the best by theirs (look at the number of Labour MPs that privately educate their kids).
My point is that not everyone that educates kids are like Snuffy. There are lots just like Liz. I find it difficult to believe that they can separate their political ideology from the job at hand, namely teaching kids.
For the record, I don't send my daughter to a private school because I like paying twice for her education. I simply want her to be at a school that believes in all children achieving their potential, and not one that exists to push a social engineering agenda.
Looking forward to the next post Miss.
I don't see that your friend should be at all ashamed, looking out for your own children is the most natural thing in the world. If the state schools aren't up to scratch then of course they are going to send them elsewhere.
I am an unashamed leftie and would love all state schools to be of such a high standard that most parents would not worry about sending their kids to them. Sadly though they are not (for various different reasons)and no one should be for reacting to it.
By the way, welcome back, you've been missed!
That a parent should do the best they can for their children is obvious and should be unremarkable. That they do so anticipating flak from the ignorant is commendable. Attempting anything difficult without at least moral support is heroic. So three cheers for a pioneer.
On the subsidiary topic- we only have Mr. Bennets word for it that the public schoolboys he met were louts- I went to a grammar school and I wouldn't describe our behaviour as angelic- we behaved the same as the kids from the secondary modern, only we got a better education. From observation as well as local rumour, the same could be said for the boys from Harrow, only more so.
Interesting contrast yesterday when one of our friends visited. Her daughter is the same age as mine, 14, both just deciding on GCSEs.
I won't give details, but the state school educated child is required to do an "enrichment" subject, choosing to do statistics, but they are not allowed to study three separate sciences and her preferred choice of second foreign language, spanish - after italian, was not available due to being over-subscribed.
She is also required to take ICT at GCSE and our friend said that she had envigilated in the exam this year and without any study, (she is not a teacher), belived she could have answered every single question on the paper!
My daughter is required to do maths, english lit and english language and three sciences. Her additional subjects are german, art, history and music, plus she will do Duke of Edinburgh award, which our friend's child is also doing.
They will both do well I expect, but why is the state school educated child denied separate sciences and required to take ICT and forced to choose statisitcs?
I know every school cannot teach every subject, but the wider and deeper grounding in maths, english and science my daught will get will be a wider base from which a hiher pyramid can be built.
Isn't that what we want for all children and should we not be seeking to restrict the subject choice avalailable at GCSE to ensure all children have a good grasp of the core subjects, possibly at an earlier age, before specialising?
Post a Comment