Forum menu
kids from feepaying schools tend to do less well at university compared to kids from state schools in comparison to their A level results
Could be related to learning more self study skills. Could also be due to them underacheiving in their A levels, then studying for a degree on a more level playing field.
If that's the case, the risk is they might underacheive at A level sufficiently to not get to the university they want to or get to study the degree they want to.
Soup, thanks for the words of support. As parents we also are wary of our youngest (5 yrs old) of forming friendships that we would consider less than ideal. We can't stop it. And in true fact it is very hard to discourage for a child of 5yrs.
We have a larger than average house for parents at this school. And in the worse case scenario - it could be quite awkward at kids parties and having friends around to play ie. invitations, reciprocal invites etc.,
And yes we are considering downsizing and moving.
TJ, goes on and on about mixing with children from all backgrounds to ensure social development. In my case - what social skills will a 5 yr old gain from mixing with socially challenged children from uneducated backgrounds?
Lets face it at 5yrs they have no concept of class, by the time they get to 8yrs they do become aware of *differences* and avoid them. The period when children do mix with other children of different backgrounds is at secondary towards their teenage years - and by then parents will get little say.
" Smee - Member
TJ - what school was that then? You may have said already, but i aint reading through all the pish."
Hillpark Comprehensive. It was a school of about 1200 pupils when I was there ( many years ago) It was the last to be upgraded before the 70s recession. We had hi tech language labs, 2 gymnasiums, swimming pool, 3 sports fields, huge sports hall with climbing wall and so on.
The really sad thing is the nearby comprehensive of "shawlands academy" which had been grant aided but went comprehensive had far worse facilities but onece the bogus choice agenda came in all the middle class kids went to shgawelands despite its poorer facilities and educational record because of simple snobbery. Hillpark became a sink school
HTTP - I really think this issue can be very important for [i] some[/i]kids. For me it was invaluable. Primary and secondary
what social skills will a 5 yr old gain from mixing with socially challenged children from uneducated backgrounds?
That sounds like really horrible snobbery to me.
[i]That sounds like really horrible snobbery to me.[/i]
No. It's a real question.
The class size is an intresting point, in state schools the lower sets will be small with upper sets large. The lower sets will have the teaching assistants to help kids with learning difficulties. As a teacher I enjoy teaching the lower sets more as despite more behavioural problems they are more fun and you feel like you are getting somewhere. So whilst the government and head teachers will say every child matters its bollocks, high achieving kids are not pushed enough in state schools IMO.
Well from my experience of doing youth work with kids from all different types of backgrounds, kids from 'challenging' backgrounds can often be less pretentious/arrogant than well-off middle class kids. The middle class kids are often just as badly behaved, but are better at 'playing the system' and tend to get away with more.
But if you want your kids to be arrogant and pretentious then not exposing them to the oiks is probably a good plan.
grumm that's an over simplification and a half. I might as well just send my children to the worst school in the area and reap your benefits.
I'm just quite disgusted that you seem to think that 'socially challenged children from uneducated backgrounds' are basically worthless people who your children should be kept away from. If that's not snobbery then I don't know what is.
I might as well just send my children to the worst school in the area and reap your benefits.
And then maybe your kids won't grow up into the ignorant stuck-up snob that you seem to be.
Just a thought, but what's the difference between someone calling their kids 'Blade' or 'Trinity', and someone naming their kids after someone in a 19th century novel, or a former prime minister, or historical figure? People look to their own cultural influences, for reference, and inspiration. To suggest that their method of choosing a name for their child is somewhat inferior to your own ideas, suggests that you feel in some way superior to them. Are you? Do you believe your existence on this Earth is in any way more valuable than theirs? Because if you do, let me tell you; you are as much a victim of brainwashing or 'social conditioning', as they may be. You're just deluded into thinking you are somehow cleverer.
You need to open your mind, and try to understand people as individuals, with as much potential as the next person, for your kids' sake. Otherwise, you are merely reinforcing and perpetuating the 'divide and rule' of our divisive and prejudiced class system.
Where I went to school, for Miketuallys benefit - Hummersknott, the kids from the poorer backgrounds were the most disruptive, and most came from one particular area of town, I was bullied by several of them until one day I beat the living crap out of one of them. Was never bullied after that funnily enough, but I can see why some of my friends parents chose to go private.
So its all very well getting on your ideological high horse Rudeboy but the fact is when these situations can be avoided by parents, albeit at an often huge cost, why not?
Fortunately the best state school in the area is on my street, and I made a conscious decision to live in the catchment area at a substantial cost compared to houses a few streets away..
Can't be bothered to wade through all the above...
I was at private schools (quite a long time ago now...), my 12 year old has been in state system all the way and just started secondary. Yes, some of the kids there look and sound a bit rough. She's been teased a bit for her 'posh' voice (picked up off her southern mum and only slightly modified by the Yorkshire she's lived in all her life), but has made friends, seems to be learning stuff and enjoys school.
I think if you've given them a good grounding in values and importance of education, they'll do fine and benefit from NOT being at a school like I went to where everyone is middle class.
Well bully for you, dj!
I have no problem with parents wishing to chose where they send their kids, just with the OP's attitude. Personally, I think kids mixing with all sorts can lead to better balanced people later in life. I'm glad I went to my state schools in a 'poor, run-down area'. At least I haven't turned into a narrow-minded bigot.
For balance, I also spent a couple of years of my secondary education, at a public school, with a very high reputation. I din't last, due mainly to my background, and being made to feel inferior. I've never seen such arrogance and class-prejudice, as I saw in that place.
IMO; there should be no 'private' option. All schools should be of sufficient standard to offer all our children equal opportunities, regardless of social background. Then, we might actually move out of the Dark Ages of serfs and feudal masters...
Well bully for you, dj!
I probably came across as a bit of a snob there! 😆
No, not really. I can fully appreciate parents wanting the best for their kids, and surely it's better to send yer nippers to a school where there's minimal disruption. But, wherever they go, they will encounter bullying and that. Maybe better to let them toughen up a bit; the World is not a perfect place.
high achieving kids are not pushed enough in state schools IMO.
I always think that actually 'high achieving kids' are pretty much defined by how much they can be bothered to work. If they get bored and don't work, that probably suggests that they aren't really high achievers. Real high achievers don't need their hands holding, and will just get on with learning stuff anyway. I was around when they started bringing in special educational needs for highly able kids, and what a waste of time that was. The whole 'my child isn't being stretched thing' always seems like an excuse for people who have money to claim that their kid is quite clever but somehow the way in which the school are dealing with them isn't letting them flower.
Joe
Grumm - [i]I'm just quite disgusted[/i] you can't read or interpret what I said.
I didn't say 'socially challenged children from uneducated backgrounds' were worthless. I stated you grossly over-simplified a very complex situation focussing in on a single aspect. These are the wants for my children's school
- Better discipline
- Better PTA support
- Better achievement
And what is wrong with that? I can get this from a better school!
But according to [i]some [/i]this is wrong and it is better for them to turn out like qualified street savvy geezers from a Guy Ritchie movie.
Rudeboy has really got to come down from his separate plane of existence. You've addressed real world problems - with esoteric waffle.
[i]perpetuating the 'divide and rule' of our divisive and prejudiced class system.[/i]
wtf? I'm talking about my family's welfare and development and you are talking about some theoretical social responsibility to remove class division. Well, all I can say is - do it to your own.
I think you've just been to the shed and got out a longer handled shovel. You're not coming across terribly well with some of the things that you've written and you're just adding to them.
I'm quite often surprised by the recurring need to get public peer group approval for decisions - can't any of you make up your own minds?
HTTP. Calm down dear! There are a lot of good points raised on this thread. Only you can decide 'cos only you know your kids. Myself I am 100% sure that the wider education that you get in a state school - socialisation and understanding of others and so on was of huge benefit to me and I would not have got this in a private school. This does not apply to everyone but I am convinced it is important for many.
Another wee point - save the money you would spend on school fees and you kids can go to uni without debt?
Your kids, your choice and I think you have plenty of helpful comment on here
aP - You're probably right. there was no need to go create a thread on a subject that quite clearly parental prerogative overrules. But it was a Friday work thing 🙂 Some responses have been a bit hard not to bite - that's all.
TJ - [i]HTTP. Calm down dear![/i] Yes. It's not like poor people can only buy SSC pads. 😀
If I was you I'd turn the beige box off and go and do something with your family - before they bury an axe in your head 😛
If I was you I'd turn the beige box off and go and do something with your family
Can't. Wife's down the pub watching football, oldest daughter has taken her baby for a walk in the park, the youngest is happily kicking a ball against the neighbour's fence and I've got to wait in for an appointment from the local authority housing association. 😀
We all have to share this country, segregating our kids from others whose views and life-choice we don't agree with isn't doing anyone any good in the long run.
I'm talking about my family's welfare and development
Are you? So, can you then explain this:
there are a fair few parents with an excessive number of tatoos, sporting the Croydon facelift, smoking and taking their little 5 year olds (with pierced ears, skinhead haircuts) to school in the morning. But there are some "normal" people too.
Do you actually know any of these [i]untermenschen[/i]? Ever actually tried chatting to any of them? Or do you just base your judgement of people on whatever crap you read in the papers, or see on some crappy sensationalist TV show?
Sorry, but your comments stink of prejudice, and an arrogant assumption that you and your family are somehow 'better' than others. You've put yourself, and others, into boxes, and labelled them accordingly. Unless you can see beyond such compartmentalisation, I doubt you will really be able to offer as well-rounded and objective an upbringing your children deserve. Seriously, try stepping outside your Safety Zone, once in a while. You might find, it's not quite as bad as you imagined.
you are talking about some theoretical social responsibility to remove class division. Well, all I can say is - do it to your own
Fortunately, there are many others who also feel that we live in too divided a society, and who are willing to make an effort to change this. Sadly, we all to often have to deal with ignorance and bigotry. And a selfishness that cares for no-one except Number One. Ah well, you can but try...
I reckon some of the people on here spouting on about how wonderful it is mixing with all sorts at comprehensives didn't actually mix with all sorts at their comprehensives - just half decent kids. Yes there is a bit of stereotyping going on, but the characteristics mentioned do mean the kids are more likely to be disruptive, bully and cause trouble, even if most of them don't. I went to a rubbish school and had some bad experiences - I really wish I'd gone to a better one. Whilst I survived and came out OK, that was because I'd have done OK anywhere - doesn't mean I enjoyed all of my school life that much in the lower years of that school, and I certainly won't be subjecting my kids to that.
aracer. My school was not one of the worst but it certainly had its share of troubles. Two stabbings while I was there, daily fights and a couple of big gang fights. Certainly scary enough for me as an English kid with a lisp and called Jeremy in a big Glasgow comprehensive. I did judo for 4 yrs to survive. I stand by what I said about mixing with allsorts - for me it taught me far more than the academic stuff and I am convinced that it has stood me in good stead all my life.
The comprehensive I went to, from 13-16, was awful. Racism, violence, apathy and **** all resources were standard. I don't remember anyone being killed while I was there, but there were a few stabbings/violent beatings. A sprinkling of teenage pregnancies (the youngest was just 13, If I remember right). Some kids were being abused at home, quite a few were malnourished.
I was bullied, and took my share of kickings. I did manage to stand up for meself, though. I was a lary little sod (no, really??), so I often got meself into scrapes. I learned to get out of them, too..
Some of my peers went on to Higher Education, as did I, eventually. Some went on to a life of crime. I think my year alone produced at least two murderers that I know of. Then there were the suicides. About half a dozen or so, in my year, at the last count.
So, pretty normal really, for an inner city comp in a rough part of London.
Mixing with all sorts? I wouldn't change a thing. I learned a hell of a lot about life, at that place. A lot more than the public school I'd come from.
I'd probbly be richer, had I stuck it out at the first school.
Happier? I dunno. More experienced in life? I doubt it.
TandemJeremy - Memberaracer. My school was not one of the worst but it certainly had its share of troubles. Two stabbings while I was there, daily fights and a couple of big gang fights. Certainly scary enough for me as an English kid with a lisp and called Jeremy in a big Glasgow comprehensive. I did judo for 4 yrs to survive. I stand by what I said about mixing with allsorts - for me it taught me far more than the academic stuff and [i]I am convinced that it has stood me in good stead all my life[/i].
Why?
Can't say I regularly get involved in fights, certainly try and avoid any incidents involving people being stabbed. All sounds like the kind of people you'd want to avoid as much as possible.
Also, surely if you go to an expensive private school you get to mix with other areas of society, perhaps ones that you may want to associate with in later life. Surely you are better off being able to interact with intelligent people than violent thugs.
Doesn't it depend on the area? As an example only, in Feltham there are two public secondary schools, both of which are really awful. Given you can apply for a bursary I'd send my kid to a private one rather than there as, judging by the number of local single mums who aren't even 16, the only life skill learnt at the school is giving head.
Haven't been arsed to read all the posts but wanted to add my two-pence worth.
I spent 3 years at a Comprehensive Boarding School before moving to a Private Boarding school for a further three years.
The two experiences were sooooooooooooo much different and looking back now if I had the money I would send my kids to Private school everytime.
For me it wasn't who I mixed with - you get people from all walks of life and all personality types at both schools. The academic education was slightly better at the private school due to better facilities and more money invested.
But for me it was the extra activities that were available at the private school which made the biggest difference (Sports especially but not keen on the 6am runs most mornings, but also things like regular talks from people from all walks of life and on all subjects, Being made to join the cadet force, having to go to church every week, various clubs you could get involved in varying from rock climbing, shooting, fly fishing to much more).
Private schools get you involved in so much to make you a much more rounded person which in my experience Comps just don't have the facilities or time in the timetable to do. For me school and those formative years aren't just about getting qualifications but about new experiences and learning about the world. Private schools also teach you to be independant and look after yourself, something Comps and living at home just don't do to the same level.
But at the end of the day if parents have the time and focus they can replicate these experiences just as well, so if this is the case is there any difference between schools?
jonb - I was a very unworldly middleclass kid living in a small middleclass enclave. Going to the comprehensive opened my eyes to how other folk live and gave me the confidence and ability to mix with anyone.
I didn't need lessons in snobbery - I needed lessons in life.
This may well not hold true for everyone but it certainly did for me.
TJ - that is the thing - we are the sum of our experiences (or thereabouts)
Being made to join the cadet force, having to go to church every week
These are good things?
Private schools also teach you to be independant and look after yourself
That's also highly debatable - some of the ppl I went to uni with from public schools were ridiculous mummy's boys who could barely fry an egg.
fwiw the original post is about private junior or primary schooling and you are all preaching about the virtues of tough under achieving comprehensive schools. it's not the same thing. we are thinking along the lines of private for the early years and state for the latter years (probably due to the increase cost) but at least they will have a good start in schooling.
additionally, from my own experience, at state school i did under achieve because of disruptive influences. i didn't have to waste a year doing resits before going onto sixth-form college and then university (and in those days it was harder to get into a *real* university - makes me a snob!) - but some of my friends did. And some never made it there at all.
racism, bullying, gbh, abh, truancy, teenage pregnancies, smoking, drugs etc were all present at my comprehensive and i'm sure too are present in ALL other state comprehensives to a lesser or greater degree. so to bang on about how great it was to be a product of this kind of education is not a unique feat. if i had a choice, i wouldn't like to have seen or experienced any of it.
it simply didn't make me a better person. and anybody who says it does is wrong. and anybody who thinks it good for bringing up rounded children has a very warped take on life.
Grumm - no they aren't all good things - but life is about contrasts for me - I like having the good and the bad so I can understand how much I really enjoy myself. If everything was good or bad all the time they would seem normal.
I suppose what I meant about being independant really is a statement of boarding schools not Private schools. I've met a lot of mummies boys who were day pupils at private schools and agree.
Private schools also teach you to be independant and look after yourself
That's also highly debatable - some of the ppl I went to uni with from public schools were ridiculous mummy's boys who could barely fry an egg.
I concur. And some of the little Lord Fauntleroys at my Uni were to scared to go out at night, from their halls, in case they encountered Black people. Their sphere of social experience was so small, I actually saw it as a form of deprivation. And imo, too many people from privileged backgrounds, without a broad range of life experiences, go on to run our Nation, our banks, etc...
Granted, academic standards are a lot better in most private schools, but a balance is needed, for a child to grow up with ahealthy, informed view of the world in which they live. I don't think many private schools really offer this enough.
The biggest problem is money. Many poorer kids will not be able to enjoy the better standards which they deserve; they are excluded from having a decent education on purely academic grounds. One of the main reasons I would like to see ALL schools as part of the state system. Such exclusion of worthy pupils prevents people from more disadvantaged classes from benefiting from the higher standards on offer. This is, I'm sure all right-minded people will agree, unfair. And yet another example of our divisive and compartmentalist class system.
Most of the people I know went to state schools. Most of them have pretty decent, fulfilling, rewarding careers. The state system can work, it just needs more effort on the part of everyone, to make it work.
Quite clearly you've a preconceived perception of the products of a private education. Believe it or not Eton, Charterhouse, Repton, Rugby, Stowe are not the [i]only[/i] schools in the private sector.
I've met and have friends from public school (Charterhouse) and yes [i]some [/i]of them do conform to a public school stereotype that you so keenly project as the [i][b]only [/b][/i]kind of people to graduate from a private education. There are hundreds of private schools - not all of them are your so called public schools. And these private schools are within financial boundaries of a middle-class existence.
And these private schools are within financial boundaries of a middle-class existence.
See, there's yer problem, right there; Many people simply can't afford to send their kids to such schools. I was lucky enough to get an Assisted Place at a 'public' school (they're all fee-paying 'private' schools in my book), but I never felt included in that environment.
I feel that the existence of fee-paying schools perpetuates the class divide, and prevents the social mobility of those who have less economic resources at their disposal. That is wrong. Let's have an even playing field.
Or is that simply too scary an idea for the Upper and Middle classes, to have someone from a 'lower' class, who is actually brighter than them, actually achieving something on their own merits?
What HTTP404 said, those people are the only ones you notice. Out of all of my friends at Uni I recon there was only one or two that you could "tell" went to private school and fitted your steriotype. The vast majority are just like normal people and you wouldn't notice or think to even ask.
Notice the word 'some' was used?
I think the point is, that 'some' people from a private education background can be more ignorant about 'real life' than those that had a more rounded education at a state school.
IME, most of the people I've met, who went to private school, have been quite naive and inexperienced of aspects of life outside of their little sphere of comfortable respectability. Some of the most narrow-minded and ignorant people I've ever met, went to private school. That said, the same goes for some I know, who went to inner-city comps. I do feel that mixing with as many different people as possible, is essential in gaining a reasoned, objective view of life. I don't feel that educational exclusivity can really offer this, effectively.
The vast majority are just like normal people and you wouldn't notice or think to even ask.
Just like at comprehensive schools then
fee-paying schools perpetuates the class divide
No it doesn't. Again, you're over-simplifying the situation and focussing on a very narrow argument. I'm sorry to shatter your Utopian dreams but for one - a classless society cannot exist where an individual's merit is measured by commercial worth. If you could understand some basics of globalization and some basic economics you would see this.
I'm sorry to say you actually sound very bitter from past your experiences and also with a huge chip on your shoulder.
Btw, I think North Korea could be a place you would enjoy living in.
I'm gobsmacked, Some people have some bizarre misconceptions obviously based on reading the Daily mail rather than actually having experience of what they are talking about.
Opinions by the looks of things based on meeting the odd person who is obviously from a privileged background and whose parents sent them to private school as it was par for the course - most people I have met like this have been tossers - arrogant ****s and make up less than 1% of people who actually have been to private school. I wasn't from a priviledged background - my step father worked as a building services engineer abroad and as part of the contract the HK government paid for a UK education.
The strange thing is most people who went to a private school (or any school for that matter) don't shout about what school they went to - unless you only make friends with people from certain schools and ask them on meeting them??
This is like saying because you've riden Llandegla all trail centres are shit!!!!!!
I particularly like the following gem :-
jonb - MemberSurely you are better off being able to interact with intelligent people than violent thugs.
The most violent thug I have ever known, was a highly intelligent person from what could only be described as a solid middle class background. He was in fact a direct descendent of the Darby's of Coalbrookdale. He was university educated. He just lived for fighting.
I think there's been an awful amount of both snobbery and ignorance displayed on this thread and I can only suggest that a little perspective, the kind you might aquire by attending a state comprehensive school for instance, would be a useful aquisition to the life skills of some forum dwellers.