Are The Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph for real?(38 Posts)
It continually stuns me how we are supposed to believe that private education is so amazingly fantastic for The Country, how we should all revere and support it- when the reasons include the widely held beliefs that, for instance:
-State schools must learn from private schools (um- like how to ensure your quality by excluding 93% of possible candidates due to lack of money? By interviewing each and every child and their parents? Like making sure there are no SN DC in a class, with 'oh, we couldn't provide for them so they must go elsewhere'; Like providing scholarships to ensure you can poach the best academically performing DC from the state sector in order to boost your league table position; like providing small classes filled with the similarly abled DC of like-minded families- NOT overlooking the tremendous 'social diversity' brought in by Chinese (middle class) children, and Indian (middle class) children, of course....). Yup, I reckon my DSs school could do very well if it were permitted to choose its intake.
-That it is an affront to the natural order of things, that somewhere along the line, Russell Group unis have had to recognise that 'well-tutored' doesn't necessarily mean 'The Best'. It may have been politically engineered (being allowed to charge £9K p.a), mind, rather than altruistically minded.... but they are having to recognise some hard truths.
I am genuinely mystified as to why it is that such clever, so often privately educated themselves commentators cannot see how stupid they come across as when they decry that of course the RG unis must only choose on raw A level score (plus more or less professionally written Personal Statements) coming from brimmingly confident 17 year olds well tutored in interview technique, often by (moonlighting?) university admissions officers in order to ensure they get The Best students whilst also acknowledging that that many, many DC from these private schools may very well be B grade students hand-fed and nurtured, and tutored, and guided towards that A, therefore may not necessarily be 'as good' as the A grader DC from an 'average' comp who had to sit through 5-7 years of low level disruption, a very mixed class academically, 30 DC in that class and so forth.
I would actually have far more time for these people if they came right out and said "I am angry that my DC on whose education I have lavished quarter of a million pounds cannot be more or less guaranteed a Russell Group university place that will, in turn, guarantee them a well paid, influential job that will provide for them the power that will ensure their own offspring benefit, regardless of their actual ability or worth to society".
I have a good friend who plucked her DC from an average state Infant School at 7 to send them £12k p.a. private. Her reason? "I want my children to have the best leg-up in society they can possibly have, we have money, I want to buy them advantage. I want them to shine above other children so they get the opportunities that will guarantee them a comfortable life, a life that allows them to be in powerful positions of choice, an education that buys them confidence- and so be it if others regard that as arrogance"...
"My DH works hard" (presumably unlike the rest of us ) "to provide this, I expect my DSs to benefit from this so that they, too, have all life's choices before them, and if you (putative- she is my friend!) don't like it, well, work harder and send your children private too." She doesn't work, as an aside .... However, she wants to send her DSs to a top-performing state 6th form to maximise their RG chances, incidentally, and is in direct conflict with her DH who feels such spoon fed privately educated boys might disappear sans straight A*s in the maw of the teeming state 6th form thus wants them to continue private to 18.....
I don't like what she says, I don't like her openly playing the system but I have far more time for the blatancy of what she says than this ridiculous 'We must all love private schools because they apparently educate the best which makes us all competitive in the 'global market', etc etc.
Actually, as an aside, I think there'd be considerable less of this apparent anti-private school 'bias' that is allegedly rife if our esteemed 'leaders' weren't proving to be so spectacularly out-of-touch with most peoples lives and weren't all from the upper ends of the private sector themselves!
OP, people send their DC to rpivate school for all manner of reasons.
And I can absolutely assure you that I am completely in favour of universities using contextualised data.
Some extrememely disadvanatged DC need to have their situation taken into account.
However, if you actually look on web sites, you will see that the contextualised offer is not that much lower, anyway.
Most DC from private schools will still go to Russel Group universities.
Eton offer places without meeting the parents.
OP - you really shouldn't refer to people as "chavs".
It's not very nice.
And there are children with SEN at all independents I know personally. The schools actually pride themselves on the quality of their SEN provision.
It si hard to generalise but no one tends to think there child is intrinsically better. It is an IQ think. There are very thick children in the private system who go to schools just about anyone can get into. We all know our local pecking order. There are other private and state grammar schools where most children have no chance of getting into and yes the children there are very bright.
The 7% of us who pay fees tend to find our children do pretty well and most of us are happy to pay fees. If the children are bright they may well go to a good university and if everyone in your school is very clever and all going to the same sort of places that peer pressure on teenagers and high expectations is well worth buying.
However we all know if we have a child who does no work then whatever sector they are in they are not likely to pass any exams.
Nothing wrong with the Telegraph. It writes words of truth on these issues.
You cannot turn a thick child into an A student by just paying fees. Look at Prince Harry's A level grades. It simply cannot be done and parents don't expect it. However some (not all) state schools rae not very good and they may well fail a mediocre child in a way a private school may not. Thus your criticism should be at the uselessness of some state schools in bringing on children who need that encouragement - not criticising those private schools who do well with those children who need extra attention and help. You should be applauding the fact in our private schools we have some of the best schools on the planet in the UK. We are all very proud of them.
OP - are you sure that your "good friend" said all those things to you or have you merely cut and paste some interview and are now attributing it to personal experience?
I mean, it's a long word for word quote. I'm guessing you don't have a habit of sticking a voice recorder onto a friend or transcribe a conversation, just in case you need to quote them later.
OP it is so easy to sit on the internet pontificating and casting chippy aspersions at to why parents choose to send their DC's to independent schools rather than use the local state school.
Im not denying that there are people out there like your friend whose motivations however honest are unsavoury but there are a whole raft of other reasons why people do it some may be as equally unpalatable, some people believe its better and have the money, we wanted super selective environment but also like what a proper boarding school provides and some parents genuinely feel they have no choice because for them their state school option was not viable.
The bad news OP is that many of those children from independent schools who go to RG universities would have gone form a state school as well I'm sorry to shatter you illusion but not all are "distincly average Hugo" with a "polished personal statement". It is by the way completely beyond my comprehension why a state educated child cant also produce a polished personal statement,Is it surprising that people turn to independent ed if its that important?
You also need to look at Nick Cleggs history (i'm not fan I can assure you) . He went to what many justifiably consider the best academic school in the UK with a very long history of academic excellence (unlike Eton who've only become academically selective in the 1990's) he truly knows what it means to be in a school where academic excellence is the norm where there is no limit on what you can achieve. Its hardly surprising that he wishes his DC's (I've no idea whether he has boys or girls) to experience the same thing.
Seeker - are you reading this thread? If so, are you more shaken by the OP referring to people as chavs or by an earlier poster on another thread calling comprehensive pupils scrotes?
Tbh I had never heard the word scrote before so I don't know if it as much of an insult as the word chav.
Scrote means 'scrotum', I believe.
Surely dapple both terms are equally offensive and insulting? The OP gets on her high horse about independent ed but without any qualms insults others many I'm sure who can't afford the education she so despises.
OP has disappeared since evening of
ranting colourful rhetoric. Hasn't come back to engage in any fact based debate. Perhaps was involved
dapple - where I live a "scrote" is a slang name for any person taking part in criminal behaviour.
I find that far less insulting than "chav" which originates from the Romany word for child I believe. It's a nasty word with lots of nasty assumptions behind it.
What kind of person thinks it's OK to assume I am a snobby hooray Henry for privately educating, and then admits quite happily she pays extra for a private holiday villa to keep away from "chavs"?
Hypocritical in the extreme.
Far worse snobbery from this OP than I ever hear at DS's Prep school.
I always though 'chav' stood for Council House And Vulgar.
We ( in the Midlands) use the term to describe low income people who combine Primark with expensive bling items.
From wiki : "The term has its origins in the Romani word chavi, meaning "child". One 2010 book surmised that "chav" was an abbreviation for "council housed and violent"; however, this is a backronym".
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.