No, there's the 'Been There, Done That, And Survived' mentality. For your information, when my son was small there were several periods when both my husband and I (excuse me sounding like the Queen, but I like to use correct grammar! ;)) were unemployed, so yes, I understand about being on low incomes, thanks. :) Money isn't everything. Prioritising spending is far more important that the actual amount of income. I'm not whinging - I wouldn't have changed anything, because what doesn't kill us makes us stronger. :)

Prioritising spending is far more important that the actual amount of income

Well maybe you can explain how you can prioritise spending of money you don't have? :rolleyes:

Prioritising spending is far more important that the actual amount of income

Well maybe you can explain how you can prioritise spending of money you don't have? :rolleyes:

Can I just ask though - do you think its right that two children should have such differing standards of education as might happen in this country?  It is not the child's fault if its parents are poor and I thought education was a basic human right in this country.

Yes it is a basic human right and the UK has a state education system that meets that basic human right.  The fact that some people want something more for their children is no different really to me driving a perfectly decent Astra from A to B while my neighbour does it in rather more comfort in a Jag, how unfair is that? :)

the UK has a state education system that meets that basic human right

That just the point, it doesn't always.

But is that in schools where the children sit still in rows of desks and listen, or is it where they chat amongst themselves and fool around during class? The education is usually there; it's just that so many children appear to reject it, and spoil the opportunity for those who do want it.

or is it where they chat amongst themselves and fool around during class?

Part of being a good teacher is controlling the class

>I thought education was a basic human right in this country.

And you'd be right. The law states that every child has a right to an education, and that is provided. There is a school place available for every single child in this country, with teachers to provide that education. All children, by the time they reach school leaving age, will have had many, many years at their disposal to learn how to read, write and be numerate. That is a basic education.

If someone isn't happy with that quality of that education then they have the right to challenge the providers of that education. This is still (just) a country of free speech, and we are allowed to complain very vociferously if we want to.

to learn how to read, write and be numerate

but some children are not being taught.

Usually the ones (and their unfortunate classmates) who are so ill-disciplined they don't allow the teachers to teach, and the law doesn't allow the unfortunate teachers to make them. You can lead a horse to water ...

and their unfortunate classmates

And it is these children for whom the system is failing

That's the whole point - it's not the education system, it's the law. Change the law so that the disruptive element isn't permitted to spoil the others' educational opportunities - or their own.

it's not the education system, it's the law

I think it's both.  There are some very bad teachers out there too.

But that is not always the fault of the actual education system - if the child doesn't want to learn or the teacher is spending most of his/her time trying to control uncontrollable children, then what can you do ??? Spending more money just won't help.

Daisy

if the child doesn't want to learn

I think there are very few children who really don't want to learn.  It is the minority spoiling it for the others (as usual).  That coupled with some very poorly run schools and some teachers who should not be teaching.

Yes, I agree it is not fair.  Of course we have a collective responsiblity to society (and my vote reflects that - even if I do feel it's a wasted vote at times :rolleyes:), but we also have an individual responsiblity to our own children, and if we choose to try our utmost to do our best for them, often at considerable sacrifice, why should we not do so?

but we also have an individual responsiblity to our own children, and if we choose to try our utmost to do our best for them, often at considerable sacrifice, why should we not do so?

Sorry did I say I disagreed with that at any point?

> I feel there is some 'let them eat cake' mentality here .

I don't think that's fair - actually, I have been on a low income - I had a hubby walk out when the kids were 6 and 2 -  leaving huge debts - I nearly lost my home and have had to work my butt off to get myself out of that situation (which took many years I might add).  I had to retrain and now have my own business where I am providing work for others as well as myself, but my children are and always have been my priority.  We are extremely fortunate that they were offered an opportunity to go to a great school, where the fees are subsidised, but I still have to make huge financial sacrifices to enable them to do so, sacrifies that many would not be prepared to make.  I do not begrudge it - I am just grateful that they were offered the opportunity - and I can assure you that even now I earn less than the average income.....

I agree that all children should have access to a good education, but life isn't always as we want it - therefore we have to do the best we can with what we have got.  Where there is a will there is a way. 

We are extremely fortunate that they were offered an opportunity to go to a great school, where the fees are subsidised, but I still have to make huge financial sacrifices to enable them to do so,

Fantastic :), well done to you (I do mean that sincerely :) ).  Had your children been of secondary age though when you hubby walked out, would the picture have been as good?

I agree that all children should have access to a good education, but life isn't always as we want it

I agree, but does that mean we should all just sit back and accept it?  Children were made to go up chimneys in the past, someone had to come along and change it. :)

I want to say that I am not speaking about my own family here, although we too have had some very tight times.  I have always chosen to work part time while my children were young, but if it came to it, then I would work more hours to get them the education they deserve.

I just know there are some people out there that do not have it so good and not through choice or lack of effort.  Some bright children are born to less able parents, or parents who really don't care (not always low earners either).  Surely they have a right to a good education?  That is all I am trying to say. :)

Surely they have a right to a good education?
Certainly.  All children in this country are given a good basic education.

but when my son was given the chance to go to a local school where you sit an entry exam and have an interview to get in (still a comprehensive officially, but really more like a grammar) which achieved really top notch results, he declined.  He felt, as I do, there is more to life than academic achievement and he didn't want all his spare time taken up with homework.

You didn't want your son to go to a school that was "more like a grammar school" and I didn't want my daughter to go to the local comp!  So there are plenty of choices in this country for everyone and as I said before - we're both happy with what we got! :D

Certainly.  All children in this country are given a good basic education.

How can you say that Val. From your own experience you speak of the comp local to you where none of the children did very well and you didn't want to send your own daughter.

You didn't want your son to go to a school that was "more like a grammar school" and I didn't want my daughter to go to the local comp!

I would have liked my son to go there, don't get me wrong BUT he didn't want to go there and the other comp was also a good school so I had no real problem with his choice.

As I say, I am not arguing for myself ;)

I am stunned that some people just cannot comprehend the situation of some people on low incomes!

Been there, got the t-shirt.  Single parent by the time my daughter was 2 years old.  We lived in Royal Berkshire!  Accepting that prices were cheaper in those days, I was earning £40 per week and my mortgage was £100 per month!  I was the only bread winner.  It was tough!  How many more personal details would you like?

People CAN succeeed if they are prepared to change the way that they live, sometimes not what they would chose.  All we ever hear is what they can't do and what they ought to have!  We lived on dented tins, reduced meat, with second hand clothes.  When I couldn't afford petrol, we walked and my daughter had a brilliant childhood.

Some people will never be high earners, no matter how long they have been working, so do you mean that they should not have children?

Maybe not the popular opinion but I believe that everyone should have the children that they can afford to bring up.  That's why I didn't have anymore.  I wouldn't dream of producing children and then complaining about what wasn't provided for them.  That's MY responsibility to provide the best that I could. :(

>I believe that everyone should have the children that they can afford to bring up.

Quite right. I've often read on here that people say if you can't afford the upkeep of a dog you shouldn't get the puppy. How much more important is a child? After all, we all know what causes children and how they can be avoided! :D

> I've often read on here that people say if you can't afford the upkeep of a dog you shouldn't get the puppy.

Exactly - I would love to get another dog, but I cannot afford to....... at the moment ;)

I believe that everyone should have the children that they can afford to bring up.

I don't hear anyone saying they can't afford to bring up their own children - not me for sure.  Surely though it is only fair that if you are paying for an education system, then your child gets an education? Maybe only wealthy people should have children then?:rolleyes: 

I presume you do not contribute to children's charities then?

I don't think only wealthy people should have children but if you are planning to solely raise them under what the state has to offer you have to accept it will be the basics, if you want more you will need to provide that yourself.

>I presume you do not contribute to children's charities then?

I don't :), unless it is something like a disaster fund, the state should be taking care of all basic needs.

I don't , unless it is something like a disaster fund, the state should be taking care of all basic needs.

At my children's primary school, alot of parents refused to contribute anything on that premise.  That just meant that their children went without extra books, trips, etc.  I think you said you do not have children though, so I completely understand that you may feel you contribute enough through your taxes. :)

Trips aren't essential, actually - they're a pleasant bonus at the end of term if school funds can cover them. Many teaching-hours are lost transporting children on trips. In my son's GSCE year (at a state grammar) we parents succeeded in getting the week of 'trips' cancelled because we refused to pay for them when our children could have been in class actually learning instead.

we parents succeeded in getting the week of 'trips' cancelled because we refused to pay for them when our children could have been in class actually learning instead.

What a shame.  Education comes in all shapes and forms and in all environments.  To limit a childs experiences in my mind is limiting their education.  As I have said before I do not think education is all about academic results.

>What a shame.

Why? Because we thought it more important that our children were taught for 6 hours rather than spend that time travelling to and from an establishment that was closed later that year because of the complaints from the people who did go there? :rolleyes: The quality of 'trips' is even more variable than the quality of schools.

Why? Because we thought it more important that our children were taught for 6 hours rather than spend that time travelling to and from an establishment that was closed later that year because of the complaints from the people who did go there?  

You could not have know that it would be closed later in the year - unless you have a crystal ball.... and in your previous post you gave the reason as:

when our children could have been in class actually learning instead.

And Yes I do think it is a shame that parents feel that a child cannot spare 6 hours from its classroom education - especially when the school obviously thinks they can!!!

The quality of 'trips' is even more variable than the quality of schools.

Yes I agree, but surely even that is part of learning about life?

>unless you have a crystal ball

No, we just did research on the internet to find out the reputation of the place - hardly rocket science! :rolleyes:

The 6 hours was just the travelling, to spend two hours (including lunch!) at that establishment. The teachers were annoyed that the weeks' outings were cancelled because it meant they didn't have the time off ...

If school trips are so important they can be done at weekends or in the holidays - or make the term longer to compensate for the absences from the classroom. As for 'learning about life' - they have the rest of their lives to do that; they only have the one opportunity for school, and it's too important to waste.

No, we just did research on the internet to find out the reputation of the place - hardly rocket science!

So why had the school not done this?

The teachers were annoyed that the weeks' outings were cancelled because it meant they didn't have the time off ...

If school trips are so important they can be done at weekends or in the holidays -

I presume the teachers would have accompanied the children on the trip - so hardly a holiday for them! If not then I am sure they had lots of other work to do.  Why should teachers give up their weekends/holidays for other peoples children?  Surely that goes against everything that has been said about providing for your own children

As for 'learning about life' - they have the rest of their lives to do that;

By the time a child reaches adulthood, their experiences have already helped shape the type of person they will be.  You cannot become a well - rounded adult if you do not start those experiences early enough.

they only have the one opportunity for school, and it's too important to waste.

I think most schools schedule into the curriculum the time for trips. At least a good school should.

Some teachers were needed to accompany the children, of course. Their rota meant that they each went out on three days and had two days not teaching and not out with the children. I'm sure they did have lots to be getting on with - but we parents decided that we would prefer our children to be taught during term time.

As far as I'm concerned it's the parents and family's role to teach about Life: the teachers are there to concentrate on the academic and sports side.

As I said elsewhere in this thread even as a nullipara (spelt correctly I hope ;)) I feel my responsibility to provide for state education is the same as anyone elses. 

Well done Val, you got your priorities sorted and you really went for it didn't you :)  I agree with you that people often seem to find it incomprehensible the things you can happily go with out.  It's incomparable to the sacrifices that you made for your daughter but when I got married I decided to only work part-time at most, for my dogs and because I felt it gave us a better home life with my husband's career being a demanding one.  Like you we went without a lot of things that others seem to regard as essential so when people say they have to take a course of action because they can afford no other I can't help wondering how much are they really prepared to try?
As far as schooling goes I think it is important to place your child as well as you possible can.  I say this from my own experience of going to a small girls grammar where I was nurtured and encouraged and in the top end of the class for most subjects to moving and ending up in a large comprehensive when I was left to slide to the point of giving up all but 4 subjects prior to O level without anyone even troubling to check with my parents. 
Some bright pupils will do well where ever they are but some with appalling levels of self discipline for instance (hands up me :rolleyes:) will not. 
My parents were not to blame they had two older daughters who had completed their grammar education with excellent results I don't think they could have possibly appreciated how different schools could be.  Out of the all the factors affecting how well children do I would say the greatest has to be the leadership within the school.  I say this because when schools are failing often a new superhead is appointed and a turn around can be achieved.  The pupils don't change, the parents don't change and yet it can still be done so that must indicate that the latter are the lesser influence.
However, if anyone has children that they feel have not benefited from education as they should I would say I have gone on to study subjects that interest me in my own time and have a professional qualification now via lots of fun and travel, but more significantly, in my eyes compared to my three accademic sisters I have had a more successful life in other areas such as relationships and general satisfaction with life :)

I was earning £40 per week and my mortgage was £100 per month!

Val I don't want to pry.  However, I really don't understand how any bank would have given you a mortgage if those figures are accurate!

All we ever hear is what they can't do and what they ought to have!

Well I am sorry that you disagree with me when I feel that all children should be given the chance of a good education :( 

I wouldn't dream of producing children and then complaining about what wasn't provided for them

Well I don't know who you are referring to here?  I am not in the wage bracket I am referring to, but I am the one complaining that the children of lower earners should have access to a good education.  Surely that is what charities are tying to do in Africa, etc, so why are people disputing that our own children should have it?

However, I really don't understand how any bank would have given you a mortgage if those figures are accurate!

I had no problem getting a mortgage to provide a roof over our heads.  It was arranged through the same building society with which we had our 'married' mortgage.  I have never been in debt, never did miss a mortgage payment, never borrowed for anything apart from the mortgage.  And £40 per week was VERY good money for working 20 hours as a part-time rep for Lever Brothers - no qualifications needed!  Most part time jobs at the time were either cleaning or filing.  I looked and looked until I found one that gave me the hours that I wanted, the money that I needed, and enough responsibility to use my brain!  My godson's Mother had a high earning husband, an enormous house, 2 boys at private school and couldn't find anything to keep herself occupied!  If you're hungry enough then you find a way.

All children are given the chance of a good education.  Some teachers/head teachers are better than others because they are all human and they're all different.  What you consider to be a good school is probably different to what I consider to be a good school and it's up to the parents to put them in the position to attend the most suitable school.  

We are all fortunate to have freedom of speach, freedom to vote and freedom to move around the country.  But most people don't like change.  They want to keep things are they are in the comfort zone and expect others to make the changes for them.  I'm not like that and thankfully, my daughter has grown up the same.  I don't know what I would do if she was to sit on her backside and whinge!! :D  She didn't even tell me that she left college with a £32,000 student loan!  She just worked hard and paid it off - then told me!

I had no problem getting a mortgage to provide a roof over our heads.  It was arranged through the same building society with which we had our 'married' mortgage

Well you were extremely lucky then.  My ex husband had a very difficult time trying to convince the bank to take my name off the mortgage he alone had been paying for a year after I left and he was on a full time salary.

All children are given the chance of a good education

Well we obviously disagree here ;). I think everyone would agree a good school is one which provides a good education though.

I think I have tried to put my case - unsuccessfully.  I realise you have done your best by your daughter and I am truly pleased for you :).  All 3 of my sons go to state schools and I am happy with their schools thankfully.  (I did refuse the offer of my most local comp school though as I did not want my son to go there).

Well you were extremely lucky then.

Yeh right, the harder I try, the luckier I become! :rolleyes:

I suppose that you would think that my daughter was also lucky securing a mortgage when she had only left college and been self employed for 6 months when most lenders insist that you have 3 years' worth of books before they will consider you for a mortgage?  No luck involved at all.  She carefully kept books, went along with a business plan, showed the amount of rent that she had been paying for 6 months and proved that she could repay the mortgage that she wanted.  Her mortgage was approved the following day! :)

Well you were extremely lucky then.

Yeh right, the harder I try, the luckier I become!

Well how could you possibly buy a house earning only £40 per week?  I don't know of ANY area in the UK that is that cheap - even 20 years ago.  Now some banks are more flexible, but they certainly weren't 20 years ago.

The same as there always has been - as my mother did - to make the most of yourself - the money may not be there - but everyone still has a choice - to make the best of themselves as they are from where they are ......takes longer - but a happy fulfilled life is still there for the taking!

Margot

I have no complaints Margot and would do the same all over again if I had to! :D

Me too Val.  I couldn't agree more -it is my choice and I do it willingly.

Good for you girl! :D

Our children come from a low income family and both have attended a local grammar school where, I have to say, they have received an excellent education. As well as them both achieving excellent exam results, due to good teaching in classes of 30 or more, they have received an all round education and are both well adjusted, caring, thoughtful members of society -  which IMHO is just as important as the academic success they have achieved.

I personally think that a selective education works well but feel it should go further and that selection should also apply to the lower end of academic achievment where less academic children could then have the opportunity to receive more vocational training - every child is good at something and academic achievment, although important, is not the be all and end all.

Our local non-selective community college for 11-16 year olds include lessons in such areas as brick laying and other practical skills which are very popular with less academic children who often struggle in some areas of education. Since these courses were introduced for 14 year olds and over they have had far less incidents of unacceptable behaviour and absenteeism and children who have elected to continue with more traditional subjects are not distracted by those who are not willing or able to participate fully in traditional classroom settings.

The old secondary moderns were the schools that taught bricklaying and other trades. Then the Powers That Be decided it was inappropriate and started the rot that's ended up with a target of getting 50% of school-leavers into 'university'. The poor children are being conned, and it's not fair on them.

£800 a month for childcare

ChloeH I am not having a dig at you but that alone is more than some people take home in a month!  Being able to really AFFORD something is not about making a choice of what to spend your money on it is that you REALLY DO NOT HAVE IT.  I have 3 children and I do not consider our family to be on a particularly low income, but I could not pay out £100 per month on uniform, let alone school fees and where I live £1250 is certainly NOT an average mortgage.

My neighbour tells me she cannot afford to be a stay at home Mum, but then she has a villa abroad, pays after school/holiday care and has several holidays a year.  Its about choice for some people, but for others, there is no choice.

It is all about what you are able to earn (unfortunately some people will never be high earners) and what you want to spend your money on (every one has different priorities), but some people really CANNOT AFFORD to pay private education - even half of it.  If you ARE paying it, then you obviously CAN afford it. (and good luck to you :) ).

I personally believe that if your child is intelligent, then they will do well whether in private or state education.  My sons certainly are.