[Closed] Confusion about parental responsibilities..

How dare you do what you think is best for your kids!

The only unfortunate turn of phrase in that for me was this

Surly it is an instinct to try put my kids as far ahead as I can?

If you had said "give them the best start I can" it would probably mean the same thing but for me at least would sound a lot better.

Whilst inherently left wing in most of my beliefs I struggle with folk mixing up excellent healthcare and education free for all and a desire to prevent others from "topping that up" if they wish to. Personally I don't have an issue with your life priorities (save the choice of text above).

Apologies, I have fixed the spelling of surely.

This is a very personal opinion, but having known many people who's parents were away from home a lot striving to give them a "better start" in life, I would say the best thing you can do for your kids (and yourself) is to be there for them instead.

This article, and other stuff I have read, seems to imply that trying to give your own child every advantage you can afford is morally wrong, or even scandalous.

That's not what I read from the article.

To me this is not about middle classes at fault, more society at fault for allowing bright working class kids to fail.

Thats a joke ^.(The surely thing)

But Convert , Hmm, I'm not sure I agree, if you were given an opportunity to put your child ahead of any others you would not take it?
EG - it is likely that if you teach your child to read at an early age then you will put them ahead of many of the other kids in school, you wouldn't do this?

Perthmtb, I agree, but I counter this by being am home every weekend and spend 36 hrs with my kids to the detriment of my own social life, it also means we can afford for my wife not to work so she is there all the time.

But Hmm, I'm not sure I agree, if you were given an opportunity to put your child ahead of any others you would not take it?
EG - it is likely that if you teach your child to read at an early age then you will put them ahead of many of the other kids in school, you wouldn't do this?

As I said, for me, it's a bad choice of term. I don't think it should be about putting them ahead but improving their chances of accessing high level work. In your example if you taught your child to read before attending school, provided you did it the right way (therefore not teaching them bad habits which will slow down their learning in the future) it would mean they might access more tricky reading, might enjoy reading more or if it turns out they are a bit slow on the uptake it might take longer to slip behind in class. Putting them ahead just sounds like they/you would get off on one with them being "top of the class" in some sort of competitive dad, gold star chaser kind of way.

Perthmtb, I agree, but I counter this by being am home every weekend and spend 36 hrs with my kids to the detriment of my own social life, it also means we can afford for my wife not to work so she is there all the time.

Sounds like you've got a fair balance then. It's difficult - as parents we want to give our kids every advantage in life that money can buy, but I think we sometimes forget that what they need most is a loving & nurturing environment.

I took it to an extreme by giving up work and becoming a stay-at-home Dad for the first few years of my daughter's life, but I feel we have a very strong relationship as a result. Luckily the financial sacrifices we had to make as a result don't seem to have disadvantaged her academically, as she's just won a scholarship to a good secondary school.

Convert - I think that is a perception thing. I would be extremely happy for them to be top of the class, what exactly is wrong with that? Is it wrong of Lewis Hamiltons Dad to be proud of him for being the fastest racing driver? I do not really understand what a goldstar chaser is, I think this is perhaps your perception and not my intention.I just want my kids to be the best they can be.

Perth MTB, congrats to her. I was home until the youngest was 4, and then this opportunity came up. Might not be forever.

Yeawh I think that is a perception thing. I would be extremely happy for them to be top of the class, what exactly is wrong with that?

I guess my distaste for this come from professional experience as a teacher. It's a desire that tends to come from the more dim witted parents. Being top of the class means so little unless you have an inkling of the abilities of the class in question. The more profound enquiry from, dare I say it, the the more educated parents is knowing how their child is doing relative to their innate ability, the progress they are making and their opportunities and potential in the future. That's what important.

Gold star chaser - teacher short hand for parents that "help" with homework to the extent that they ensure their sprog always gets top marks.

toys19 - Member
...Surely it is an instinct to try put my kids as far ahead as I can? I feel morally vilified for giving a damn about my offspring.
I wonder if I should stop reading to them or encouraging them to do their homework?

We all want the best for our kids.

I'm not convinced of the benefits of private schools, unless their entry is purely on merit, and the fees are high enough to attract the very cream of the profession (ie eye watering)..

I think most of their perceived superiority is due to their greater ability to bamboozle the parents with top notch PR and a ruthless culling of the underachievers so that the exam results look good.

The money is better spent on tutoring your kids on their strengths or weaknesses within the ordinary system, and also for paying for extra curriculars and family time outs.

The more additional education you give them yourself (as you are doing) the better for them.

Oh, and don't expect your kids to appreciate any sacrifices... 🙂

I have said many times on here that the only advantage we get from the school we have selected is (from our experience and research into our school)
1) smaller class sizes - which leads to more attention and better pastoral care.
2) Parents and hence peers who respect the desire to work hard and do well at school.

In the state sector the classes locally are enormous, and a proportion of the kids think academic achievement is lame/wrong. (as do some of the parents).
If I was king I would fix these two issues before blaming those who work hard to help their kids.

(PS they are already ungrateful little sods, so I'm thinking I must a bloody crap Dad)

society at fault for allowing bright working class kids to fail

This hits the nail on the head.

Society needs to kick itself up the arse and realise that providing equality of aspiration and opportunity are the key things, starting with equal access to parenting skills and pre-school education, and then on from there, free education right through uni/vocational courses to any child who demonstrates the potential to really benefit from it. Then we might see some social mobility, some role models, start a delicious spiral of belief and aspiration.

If the "middle classes" or whatever we want to call them wish to pay for their less able kids to then go onto uni, good luck to them, I'd do the same if I thought it was the best thing for them.

There's a lot of left wing angst at the moment confusing parents who can supporting their child well,embracing the opportunities as they arise and the state continuing to fail brighter kids from all backgrounds. I don't see anything wrong with the former as long as the kids happy, you're not doing things for them and you don't deliberately disadvantage another child.

To me this is not about middle classes at fault, more society at fault for allowing bright working class kids to fail.

+1

If we had a better funded state system that could help gifted kids, universities with stronger scholarship schemes and more summer school programs that could help state school kids and a better funded/cheaper for the individual, university system - then throwing your money at your kids would be more of a case of diminishing returns.

But instead of improving society, you know what....let's complain about the people putting their kids first. Bring them down to our level - I consider myself left wing but that's the kind of left wing whining I really can't stand.

In the state sector the classes locally are enormous, and a proportion of the kids think academic achievement is lame/wrong. (as do some of the parents).

Tell me about it, at my old state I had to put up with kids smoking in class, anyone who worked hard having the shit kicked out of them in the locker rooms and parents who found that funny. Everyday was a nightmare at that place, I clawed my way through it by being that kid at the back of the class pretending or not actually listening and getting into trouble but making sure I read a lot at home. I could have ended up a Tory - somewhere deep down there are some remnants of my idealism though.

To me this is not about middle classes at fault, more society at fault for allowing bright working class kids to fail.

This is the salient point for me. I don't think anyone can "blame" you for doing your best for your kids (though personally, I'm not sure being away all week is the best thing...another discussion...and not a dig...I'm sure you have evaluated the reasons and are doing it as a result of pros outweighing cons) - but there's no doubt that rich idiots will almost certainly do better than poor clever kids. And to me, that doesn't seem fair, no matter whose fault it is.

DD I agree that isn't fair, but implying its the rich kids/parents fault is missing the point and a bit divisive. I am glad that I pay tax which contributes the education system, despite me not using it for my kids and paying lots extra.

PS if you read up there I kinda countered that. I also know people who dont get home until 7:30-8 most evenings so they miss out on a lot of kid time anyway. I reckon my commitment on weekends more than makes up for my not being there monday to friday (I'm normally home by 6pm friday)
Add up the hours you spent with your kids last week. Did you go for a ride this weekend? I have been with them since 6pm friday without a break. We have gone to martial arts classes together, been cycling in the woods together, watched a film together on tv, played board games, went to see minion movie this morn cos of rain, now we are all in the front room and they are drawing and chatting to me as I type this. Some less than charitable family members reckon I am a better Dad since working away..

I'd say 'almost certainly' is a bit strong but it certainly happens - more through nepotistic job opportunities than anything else.

I'm all up for society doing their bit for helping underprivileged or disadvantaged kids but I do worry that the pervasive 'it's somebody else's fault' mantra we are developing is leaking into our attitude to parenting. The biggest thing we could do as a society is make poor parenting socially unacceptable. There are plenty of parents of all social and economic groups that could make a better fist of it than they do whose first thought is to blame others for their lack of effort.

And nepotism happens at every level. My mate the commercial decorator got his son a job working for his firm. That is not fair on the kids with parents working at big firms with a stricter employment process.

I only have the one toys. He goes to childminders Mon-Wed and my wife and I share the Thursdays and Fridays between us...depending on who has work booked in first. We suffer financially, being self-employed, it kinda takes 2 working days out of a potential of ten from us (well, not "it" - that's our choice). I reckon I've spent more time with him in his first two and a half years than the average dad. Again, that's our choice and I'm not beating up on anybody who doesn't get that flexibility. However, this year has been busy (again, not complaining - all those rich idiots having posh hardwood floors and all dat... 🙂 ) and my wife has had quite the majority of the Thursdays/Fridays and y'know what, his behaviour towards each of us has changed. He's now murdering his mum and being an angel for his dad. (he is just doing some classic toddler stuff.) So there's my wake-up call to spend a bit more time with him. I don't want to be a fun-time daddy as easy and as fun as it is to do. I know plenty of guys who use "work" to get out of doing the shitty stuff with their kid(s).

I don't blame the middle classes, I'm just saying it's not fair - it's a societal thing and thus, has a variety of reasons, meaning there's no silver bullet to solve it. If rich kids had to go to state schools, we'd see an improvement in them bloody quickly. The opt-out means that a load of people pay their taxes and think the responsibility stops there - it's not their problem.

EDIT: I really don't want to see the OP's discussion turn into a private vs state STW whingefest, so I'll leave it there on that front.

And nepotism happens at every level. My mate the commercial decorator got his son a job working for his firm. That is not fair on the kids with parents working at big firms with a stricter employment process.

Nepotism happens in those as well, if you went to the same school, university etc as one of the managers and can thus have "bantz" you will be deemed a "good fit".

Wife came second to a Warwick grad with a 2:1 and no work experience, despite coming top of her class from a good university and having relevant work experience. The manager was from Warwick and the same private - the feedback was that "he was a good fit".

I guess where do you draw the line between nepotism and finding employees you will get on with.

I guess where do you draw the line between nepotism and finding employees you will get on with.

True, but it's this kind of attitude that has led us to having a house of commons dominated by a bunch of boring conformists who read PPE at Oxon. We have one scientist in the commons....just one.

The best, most qualified person should get the job. But hey, we are slowly squirreling money away so she can study at the LSE which should get her into the right circles - we prefer not to dwell on these things too much.

We have one scientist in the commons....just one.

That is terrifying.

Nahhh trust me, the most terrifying part of it is all the PPE graduates. I've found that many of them genuinely think that they can engage you in your own subject on equal terms. I overheard two of them on the coach the other week explaining away Chamberlains behavior leading up to the war on the fact that he was the least educated Prime Minister in history as "he was an engineer"....not because he actually never graduated as an engineer....but just because he was one.

Explains the government wanting to ban/build back doors into point to point encryption.

That article basically says "study discovers the rich get richer".

It's good that this makes you feel uncomfortable IMO.

Stick to the Telegraph if you just want reassuring on such matters.

Gave up my career to spend all my time with the kids. Am always poor. Kids are always happy. They are top of their classes. For me, the concept of being 'better, more successful' due to having more money, a bigger house, more 'stuff' is all bollox. I'm happier now than I've ever been, and if can pass anything on to my kids it's that this shite isn't important.

They might not have a private education, but they'll be fine and do well, if that's what they want.

One if my wife's best mates husband works away 5 days a week, earns a fortune, kid goes to private school, they have a brand new Porsche Cayenne and an enormous house. The kid is a ****, the family are unhappy. There is more to life.

Far too many dad's in particular measure their success and happiness in pounds and career status, it's the kids who suffer.

I'm amazed how many times I read on here that people have x kids, but seem to spend most of their spare time doing y and z. How? I don't even work full time and I still barely have any time for myself as I spend most of my spare time with the wife and kids

It's good that this makes you feel uncomfortable IMO.

Why? This is a discussion, so it would be great to have one.
Loddrik, well thats nice, my kids seem happy as larry, and I have never spent more than 5k on a car, don't think this si the topic at hand though is it? You must be reasonably well off to be able to give up work, so you are up there with this statistic are you not?

Ideally, money should not be able to buy you an advantage. This doesn't mean preventing people with money fro buying one, it means that every possible advantage you could have would already be free.

It's a lot to do with the ratio of classroom time being devoted between behaviour management and education..

The fact seems to be that the ratios are preferable in certain schools

Loddrik, well thats nice, my kids seem happy as larry, and I have never spent more than 5k on a car, don't think this si the topic at hand though is it? You must be reasonably well off to be able to give up work, so you are up there with this statistic are you not?

Precisely the opposite, I'm skint, but it was a sacrifice I didn't have to think twice about.

Unless you are fortunate, the financial ability to pay for the private education is by being successful in your given career, which usually takes much time and commitment. Time which in 'my' view shoukd be diverted to your family, if you have chosen to have one.

Bit then I am resolutely against private education, and the education system would improve exponentially if the money spend on private education was reallocated across the wider system.

I hope no one paid for that research (sic) - so parental incluences (including levels of education) has a major impact on children's performance (for want of a better word). What next? The world is round...

The thing that has always stopped my buying a fancy car. Is the thought of the number of terms fees it may represent. Education? The best investment you can make.

[i]Society needs to kick itself up the arse and realise that providing equality of aspiration and opportunity are the key things, starting with equal access to parenting skills and pre-school education, and then on from there, free education right through uni/vocational courses to any child who demonstrates the potential to really benefit from it. Then we might see some social mobility, some role models, start a delicious spiral of belief and aspiration.[/i]

tbh probably the time we were most 'equal' was after WW2 thru to the late 70's/early 80's - as my (and my OH) parents did well, from their 'social' position. Grammar Schools and University for the bright ones which enabled them to succeed where their parents hadn't.

I was lucky in that the system was still there when I left school but it's not there for my children - at least it's not as accessible as it was.

And I'll spend my money where I want to - if I choose to pay for schooling (or further education/advancement) for either my children, me or my OH then that is my choice. Many friends/colleagues who had equivalent earnings seemed to spend theirs on flash cars, bigger houses and more holidays. Their choice.

Precisely the opposite, I'm skint, but it was a sacrifice I didn't have to think twice about.

I made my point clearly and concisely, do you only want a 'discussion' if we all humour your middle class hand wringing?

True, but it's this kind of attitude that has led us to having a house of commons dominated by a bunch of boring conformists who read PPE at Oxon

What wrong with that? Keeps them out of harms way and let the rest of us to get on with real work.

I'm sorry but you must be well off in some way. Maybe your partner earns enough that you dont need to work? Nobody I know can live on nothing? How do you pay for rent/mort food, clothes, utilities, transport, internet?

I already said I work part time. The wife works. I couldn't afford to take the girls on holiday this year, but that's a cross I have to bear. I ask them would they rather be going away or have me around and they look at me in disgust. Something must be working.

I made my point clearly and concisely, do you only want a 'discussion' if we all humour your middle class hand wringing?

You havent made any point other than you dont like me. I dont object, but why is it a good thing to hassle those who want to do well for their kids? What reason please tell?

I already said I work part time. The wife works. I couldn't afford to take the girls on holiday this year, but that's a cross I have to bear. I ask them would they rather be going away or have me around and they look at me in disgust. Something must be working.

Loddrik, sorry that defines you as well off, most genuinely poor people I know have to both work full time and still do not get a holiday. I'm not digging at you, but its a fact that you must be doing OK.Nevertheless I'm not sure what this brings to the discussion? Are you saying that you intend to buck the trend that kids of rich parents do well, where kids of poor parents don't. Your time at home surely will help them on their way right?

You havent made any point other than you dont like me.

I don't even know you. Your posts suggest you're a bit of a whinger with a persecution complex, but you might be a lovely guy apart from that.

I dont object, but why is it a good thing to hassle those who want to do well for their kids?

What reason please tell?

I thought I'd expressed myself in the simplest terms I could but I'll try to expand a little for you.

Your link says research shows that the children of people who have the resources to send their kids to private school have more opportunities in life.

I believe this is wrong and personally disapprove strongly of private education.

For this reason I think it's a good thing that you might be experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance about your beliefs.

Clearly you're middle class if your kids are in private education - but I might have been wrong about the hand-wringing bit as I took you at your word when you said you'd like a discussion.

You're clearly only interested in reinforcing your own viewpoint, as demonstrated by your refusal to accept Loddrick's account of his own family arrangements.

[i]Your link says research shows that the children of people who have the resources to send their kids to private school have more opportunities in life.

I believe this is wrong and personally disapprove strongly of private education.
[/i]

So what should've we have spent our money on then, coke n' hookers?

Don't be facetious.

Interesting discussion.
Have been having similar with people recently as we have got a 3 week old in the house.
My personal view is that he is going to go to the local school, but we will ensure that he has a very wide range of life experiences (travelling, sports, etc) which will hopefully give him a balanced view in life.

The only thing is..... this is not a new thing. I know that I am in the position I am in my life is due to the effort my Grandfather put into his kids (my mum and her siblings), by working like hell and putting his kids into a good school and supporting through uni, etc it resulted in his Kids becoming respectively a Teacher, Staff Nurse, and Business man.
This then translated into the family at my generation getting a huge amount of life experience that we have all had.
I am not saying that we would not necessarily gotten to the points we have without it, but it certainly made the possibility a lot more likely.
I have no qualms about giving my son all the opportunities I can, but as someone said the major issue in society is that the drawbridge is being drawn up behind the entitled baby boomers

My kids don't go to private school - I did it the proper middle class way by living in the catchment of an excellent state school (though as always these things are a virtuous circle - we're surrounded by other parents who value education, and I'm far from the only parent devoting significant amounts of time volunteering at the school).

If you want to and can afford to do whatever you believe it takes to give toys jnr a head start, then it's not even worth having a discussion about it. Really, who GAF what other people think?

The other side of the coin; I had parents that didn't give a shit about my education, went to some pretty shocking schools, where they didn't really care about my education. I, in turn didn't really care about my education. I left school with zero qualifications and not really much going for me. To be honest I was a miserable little shit who made other people miserable just to feel something.

Joined the Army, as it was that or bashing pots in a kitchen or flipping burgers for the rest of my life. Thankfully there were some people there that gave a shit and I have a healthy raft of qualifications, work ethic and experiences, I'm also currently looking into a degree course. Because I can.

I'm not middle class, but by god my kids will go to a good school, be it private or state, and I will do everything I can to equip them with the skills and experiences to be successful, productive and happy members of society. I couldn't care less of what anyone thinks of that.

Really, who GAF what other people think?

Your posts suggest you're a bit of a whinger with a persecution complex, but you might be a lovely guy apart from that.

Cha****ng, you are such a flirt, you're making me blush.

But this

I believe this is wrong and personally disapprove strongly of private education.

Aracer

I did it the proper middle class way by living in the catchment of an excellent state school (though as always these things are a virtuous circle - we're surrounded by other parents who value education,

moose - all power to you mate.

Believe it or not, but it would have been more expensive for us to do this than go to private school. By a long way.

No need to worry Jezza is on to private education. Early ban under neo-labour in 2020.

My daughter went to the local free state nursery, she's starting at the local primary school in a few weeks, and she'll go on to the local secondary school.

I don't feel I've deprived her of any life chances - I've provided for her by paying my taxes to help fund these schools.

There's a lot of silly oneupmanship that goes on around this.

Probably something wrong with your maths there fella...

The catchment area thing is very odd - it doesn't happen much at all in Scotland, and I'm not certain of the reason why.

What I would really hate is for my kids to become pompous, self righteous middle class doughnuts on their knees fellating some corporate cock in the hope this may make them happy.

Nope. The increase in mortgage for an equivalent house in the catchment area of the only decent comparable state school over 13 years (thats 5-18 yeas old) is more per month than the school fees for both of them put together.

Did you take into account the extra value in the house at moving time too or was it just a basic monthly outgoings comparison?

What I would really hate is for my kids to become pompous, self righteous middle class doughnuts on their knees fellating some corporate cock in the hope this may make them happy.

<Insert standard joke about typical STWers here> 😀

Nope. The increase in mortgage for an equivalent house in the catchment area of the only decent comparable state school over 13 years (thats 5-18 yeas old) is more per month than the school fees for both of them put together.

If you say so, though I find it hard to believe, especially for secondary schools.

I believe that if you have the funds or means to provide for your kids futures WITHOUT damaging your own then fair enough. Otherwise you do what you can for them whilst still leaving yourself a life and let them find their way.

bencooper - Member
The catchment area thing is very odd - it doesn't happen much at all in Scotland, and I'm not certain of the reason why.

We're all equally uncivilised? 🙂

But the catchment area does raise a thought. If the school is so bad, then so probably is the neighbourhood. Why live there? Your kids are exposed to life after school too, and if the local kids are drongos, then it may be contagious. It's healthier for them if they can mix freely in the neighbourhood they live in. If you kids are getting cloistered after school to avoid contact with the local yobs, what are you doing there?

[quote=bencooper ]The catchment area thing is very odd - it doesn't happen much at all in Scotland, and I'm not certain of the reason why.

Yes it does.

"Social mobility" inevitably involves downward, as well as upward, mobility.

If, in fact, "downward" mobility does not happen because parental wealth very effectively insulates children against the consequences of not being very brilliant, that makes upward mobility much trickier.

There is a "stickiness" to people's social and economic status as a result.

That doesn't imply any judgement on anyone. It does imply that if you're remotely serious about a society which rewards individual talent rather than parental background, there is some work to do.

🙂

But the catchment area does raise a thought. If the school is so bad, then so probably is the neighbourhood.

Bigdummy

That doesn't imply any judgement on anyone. It does imply that if you're remotely serious about a society which rewards individual talent rather than parental background, there is some work to do.

Yes it does.

How much, though? There was a special case with Hillhead Primary in Glasgow, where lots of parents tried to get their kids in because it was a fancy new school, and there are the occasional placing requests*, but as far as I know there's not the phenomenon of people moving to get the "best" schools much.

*I did this - the secondary school I was supposed to go to was quite a bit further away than the nearest secondary because of local authority areas.

I an bit sure I am serious about this. It makes it all sound like a race..

Is this a typo? Did you mean "I am not sure"?

Did you take into account the extra value in the house at moving time too or was it just a basic monthly outgoings comparison?

I'm a long way off this being an issue, but the plan is to move to a good secondary school catchment once we have kids nearing that age, then move again once they're in 6th from and any accumulated money will make their choice of university at least cost neutral like my parents did (the university bit, the school bit we just got lucky).

"Social mobility" inevitably involves downward, as well as upward, mobility.

If, in fact, "downward" mobility does not happen because parental wealth very effectively insulates children against the consequences of not being very brilliant, that makes upward mobility much trickier.

There is a "stickiness" to people's social and economic status as a result.
That doesn't imply any judgement on anyone. It does imply that if you're remotely serious about a society which rewards individual talent rather than parental background, there is some work to do.

+1
I think this is the answer to your question OP.
Society desperately needs people like yourself to help stop the vicious circle.

If, in fact, "downward" mobility does not happen because parental wealth very effectively insulates children against the consequences of not being very brilliant, that makes upward mobility much trickier.

I [b]can[/b] see the OP (or any parent) volunteering to enable [b]real social[/b] mobility for the [b]improvement[/b] of his own kids lives.

Makes more sense (for me) looking at it like this, rather than in detrimental terms.

Our kids attend one of the best state schools in Scotland, with an excellent reputation for great exam results. Most parents also pay for tuition on top. Most (ourselves included) also run round many 'extra curricular' events, mainly sporting and musical, in an attempt to extra educate their children.

We also have the highest drop out rate at university of any school in Scotland (figures as of 2011), and mental illness is a common theme at school.

While I, and most other parents, would try their best for kids to 'achieve', I do find our education system's definition of 'success' as narrow minded. This applies to state and private schools.

Personally, I would rather have kids that can be robust, solve problems, be creative and navigate the world with a smile on their face than have a CV of pure A's.

I don't think there is a right or a wrong, but I don't think we should assume our education system and society (particularly many parental attitudes in middle and upper class) as the measure of success for our kids.

Interested in your logic theocb; how do you think that not getting a better education (assuming that ££££ does buy you one) will benefit jnr?
Even if they are average, they are going to get a better chance at doing well/OK if they have the best results they possibly can (and probably the network won't do any harm too).
It may not be palatable to some, but personally I wouldn't care (it's hypothetical for me as mine will go to a state school as I'm not wealthy)

I'm interested to see if anyone would want "other children" to be a successful as their own, if they were in a position to influence it?

In other words if you could make a choice that would make the largest numbers of children well educated, would you?

Bit then I am resolutely against private education, and the education system would improve exponentially if the money spend on private education was reallocated across the wider system.

I'm interested to see if anyone would want "other children" to be a successful as their own, if they were in a position to influence it?

I want every child to be able to achieve their full potential. I don't want my daughter to be ahead of or more successful than other children by some measure, I want her to be happy and achieve all she can.

It's about getting the best for all kids, not about my kid beating other kids.

Of there was only state education, why would these parents suddenly pay the state sector extra?

Because they were taxed more.

????

Remove the tax exemptions and charitable status of private schools, increase taxes to pay for education and childcare (and other useful things), stop spending money on wars and nuclear weapons.

I should be chancellor, really.

Personally, I would rather have kids that can be robust, solve problems, be creative and navigate the world with a smile on their face than have a CV of pure A's.

You're bang on, but good luck persuading the rest of the world - it seems the vast majority are incapable of looking beyond easy reading statistics.

Still like to see the mortgage / private schooling maths. All the schools around here are about £5k a term for non boarders, so roughly £1.3k per month on the mortgage??

This is just stupid though. Of there was only state education, why would these parents suddenly pay the state sector extra?

I think maybe he means that the money parents spend on private education would be spent elsewhere in the economy. But that also doesn't make sense because it's still being spent and spent locally too - the teachers spend their wages locally, the building upkeep and so on is all local. But maybe he means something else.

Personally, I would rather have kids that can be robust, solve problems, be creative and navigate the world with a smile on their face than have a CV of pure A's.

Believe it or not, most teachers agree with you. It's just idiotic education ministers who don't get it.

While I, and most other parents, would try their best for kids to 'achieve', I do find our education system's definition of 'success' as narrow minded. This applies to state and private schools.

Personally, I would rather have kids that can be robust, solve problems, be creative and navigate the world with a smile on their face than have a CV of pure A's.

I think you'll find that the best schools, private or state, have far wider goals than just exam results, whatever the parents may think.