Q for private school parents: Do you expect to be consulted about big changes to the school?

As they say you can please some of the people some of the time but never all of the people all of the time!
In this day and age any significant changes in approach are likely to be towards trying to improve exam results/university destinations and for the vast majority save money. You just have to bear that in mind when you consider a school.

I don't know about private schools, but speaking as the governor at a state school, I'd say that the problem with seeking parent feedback is that you'll receive so many different responses. Then if you decide to go ahead with the change, you end up annoying people who feel that their feedback was ignored. To be honest it's simpler just to do it and focus on communicating the change as positively as possible!

Its an interesting subject. Prep was fine under one head. Some lovely active and inclusive parents who invited everyone (without pressure) to help create a school garden etc. The next head seemed to feel more at ease with richer parents and had some clear favourites (not us or indeed our children!) He did not last too long and I hear things are now back to a culture of happy staffroom and happy contributing parents.

DS' school handled a diverse and sometimes very affluent parent body well. Mainly by seeming to have no favourites, indeed not allowing anyparents to wield much influence with the school at all. DDs school appeared to fall into a trap of seeing parents as a source potential donations, and focussing on American style fundraising efforts. So pet parents would write to others in the class asking them to contribute, essentially highlighting they were rich enough to be invited onto the fund-raising committee. The worst was a horrifically expensive fund raising dinner, which was organised by a group of seemingly very affluent Chelsea wives and with a limited invite list. Trouble is they did not sell enough seats so two weeks before the event all parents were invited. Some who I knew might have gone, except it was so very obvious that we were not good enough first time round. (One lovely mother who did a huge amount for the school was very upset, as she should have been.) The trouble was that this same group of parents then seemed to have the Head's ear. Perhaps not true but some slightly odd decisions were then ascribed to this influence.

The fundraising thing means that richer parents at another similar school are invited to dinner with the Head (it was assumed to be done by looking at postcode, perhaps even by viewing Google Earth....maybe the school then look at Zoopla - I wonder what the qualifing house value is?!) when their girls start in Yr 7. Unfortunately some mothers are crass enough to see this as some sort of social honour and could be heard boasting that they were rich enough to be invited. We would have failed. I dont think I would have enjoyed this obvious social apartheid so early in my DDs school career.

I hear from a teacher friend that it is not unknown for parents to expect big donations to buy something. But this is within a culture where even humble sports coaches can be given Christmas gifts valued at £1000 or more. Its tricky ground.

pebbles about 13 years ago I learnt a useful lesson:
Hideous mum chair of PTA says "I was wondering if you'd like to man the teddy bear stall at the school fete?"
Me: frown, slight hesitation "No I wouldn't".
The world didn't come to an end, my DS wasn't expelled and best of all I was never asked again the whole time DS was at this particular school.
On the rare occasion I've been asked at other schools I now dont even frown or hesitate. I'm never asked a second time.

"If you're not deemed important or useful you end up making tea at events or sorting through second hand kit for the second hand uniform sale"
Pebbles I think you're at the wrong school I'm not important or useful but I've never been asked to make tea or sort through smelly uniform. Or as an alternative to changing school is it not worth the 20k not to have to this!

You are undoubtedly right ! Maybe I'm paranoid .....???.. !!!! I'm glad you smiled Ingrid.

However if pupils perceive unfairness they don't like it. The children did notice. Maybe it's a girl thing . It is not sinister . It's just not inclusive.

Milly I recognise your description of "pet parents" from prep school we had a quite a few of those but in my experience it wasnt money that made you a pet parent.
But I personally don't recognise it at senior school I'll watch other people comments with interest, We're never invited to special events (thank God I can't think of anything worse) I'm not even sure we have any, we certainly don't have "connections", I always sit in the back row of speech day so that I can make a hasty exit, (we don't have speech day at senior but it was definitely the back row at prep), we also thankfully don't even have to endure a nine lessons and carols service at senior, I personally don't believe anyone has perfect lives (how tedious that would be) and I haven't the faintest idea who are in the 6th form leadership team although I do know that only 1-2 wanted the head of house job and that frequently those offered it turn it down as it's not seen as a privilege but a pain in the neck.

I'm not bring unkind Milly but do you not think that you coming across as slightly paranoid? Who wants any of this stuff?
I just want my DS to receive a good intellectually stimulating broad education, to have fun, make friends and to be looked after whilst he's actually at school by decent genuine caring people people I would like then to be courteous to me and I will extend the same courtesy to them. But I don't need any special relationship with Head, the less school social functions I have to attend the better and I have absolutely no desire to have influence over it or be asked my opinion about fairly trivial changes.
They're teachers I hope experts in education, I'm not a teachers so it's not my area of expertise I let them get on with it.
Finally re comment about exams being moved I think this is standard stuff, this is when DS's had exams at prep and sounds about when DS2 had exams in yr 9 and 10 (others who know more than me might say differently) I can't see the problem with it.

Milly your description of 'pet parents' did make me smile, DSs prep school definitely had a group of golden parents, but I really don't think that it was quite as sinister as the picture you have painted. (Sinister is not the right word, but I can't think of a better one atm.)

Basically, there was a group of parents and governors who all socialised out of school and who knew each other well. They did a lot for the school, and were happy to organise an event as an extension of their social lives, and because they knew a lot of people, they always got a good turn out by organising things they knew people would like. Their children did also tend to be high profile, but I don't think that other children were ever denied a position of responsibility or an award because of that.

As regards the OP, we were never consulted about fairly major changes. Several years ago the school decided to end Saturday school, it was very contentious and several people ascribed this to some of the 'pet' parents not wanting their weekends spoiled, however I'm absolutely certain that this was not the true reason - it was an assumption made by others who put two and two together and got five.

MillyMollyMama - there are always going to be some parents who are closer to the Head than others. Clearly some parents are useful to the Head. School politics follow pretty much the same rules as politics anywhere.

"Pet Parents" are the ones who the Head greets with kisses because they have a special relationship. The ones who are always on the front few rows at speech day and whose children get a prize (or indeed 7 one year) for something even if they are pretty average. The ones who are invited to special events at the school whilst others are excluded. They often have a lot of influence in their sector of work and the wealth that goes with it which is of interest to a school that needs to raise money for projects. I know the school seeks them out because of their connections. A friend of mine refused to play ball but told me what she had been invited to and why.

Those with a bit less money are hand picked to show new parents round the school. Parents who can organise social events for the school and donate the most amazing prizes at the ball are very sought after. A pet parent is always picked to read one of the nine lessons at the carol service. They never, ever, criticise the school, or a teacher, to another parent. They don't gossip but they come to parent events occasionally to hear what others are saying. They are ultra loyal to the school but they quietly have influence. They don't need to write letters of complaint, or even a query, because their views are taken into account because they have unique access. Largely, they appear to everyone else as having perfect lives. Their children are always appointed to the leadership team in the 6th form regardless of their abilities.

Not all wealthy parents seek such influence, by the way, but there are parents who do want to be influential and expect their offspring to have recognition. Our school had lots of opportunities for parental involvement, even though it was full boarding originally. It was very obvious to the rest of us mere mortals who the premier parents were. If you are too busy to look, that's fine, (I don't work) and I attended lots of events at school and it was glaringly obvious. Maybe I am hyper sensitive though? I fully accept that criticism. However, I hate that parents and their children have an entitlement that is greater than others and it actually meant there was a "them and us" feel to the parent body, and eventually amongst the pupils, which was a great shame.

I do not expect to be consulted every time the headteacher changes something no. As a customer, I have chosen the service the school provides and I do not get a say in every tweak. If I am unhappy, I can choose to discuss this with the headteacher and (if the relationship is irretrievably damaged) leave the school.

Presumably the governors are happy with the changes? If the teachers really aren't, then it is up to them to discuss them with the head.

Barring the impact on drama events in the summer term, I wouldn't have any issue with these changes. the 3 year GCSE run is surely designed to give them the best chance of success? And triple science is no bad idea.

In our school, the exams are way earlier, meaning that everyone coasts for the last half of term - with lots of meaningless school trips and lessons spent doing word searches. I'd be far happier if more of the summer term was constructive personally.

I think that schools/universities need to wake up to the power of technology to unite their customers and have a coordinated voice. That power is not going away.

Pebbles I think the thing is that I do not trust this head - he is all smoke and mirrors and seems to shy away from discussions with parents.
Is n't that the crux of the matter for you? All the changes you mention have positive and negative aspects so views will differ from the parents. Many schools I know of have internal exams after half term for example, there is more teaching time up to the exams and still plenty of time to fit in extras after.

Personally I would much more irritated by MillyMolly's example of stopping full boarding provision but I accept that is my POV.
Headteachers will always have problems introducing change. Ideally they need the skills to take the whole school community with them but I imagine that when there is formal consultation it may just be an exercise in PR.

I would guess that the changes you mention may have been implemented (presumably successfully) at his previous school and therefore the governors would have known of them and his likely direction when appointing him. Whether they were right in their choice of appointment is another matter but ultimately it is the governors of a private school that shape the general strategy and vision of a school by these critical appointments.

I'm curious about the idea of "pet parents" I don't think I know of any. I struggle to accept in a full boarding school they really exist. Most parents we know are too busy working to pay the exorbitant fees with their everyday life's and I suspect let the school get on with it.

I suspect that the strength of parental voice is directly proportionate with the availability of other schools in the area.

Quite true. However if you know you are a linguist or just not so good at science and definitely not doing Pre U, triple science is just not necessary, or desirable, for arts degrees, even for the best universities. Also double science is not dropping a science - it is doing less exam papers in all three sciences. I can see that there is a push to do STEM subjects but lots of people do know these subjects are not for them and the extra timetabling of science does mean extra lesson time that could be useful to a linguist is lost, for example. It keeps your options open if you do geography and history but lots of schools don't allow this and many pupils do know they will never need science GCSEs ever again. Triple science is a bit of one upmanship. Looks good in the prospectus because we, as a nation, do not value the arts and look down on people who don't do STEM subjects.

Surely the advantage of doing triple sciences is that it keeps your A level option open. My DS2 and many others I know swopped around quite a bit before actually choosing their Pre U's (A levels) one minute it was all sciences, then a mixture of both science and MFL's, then two sciences and two math triple sciences give you this freedom. It appears in some arts subject having it at a GCSE is not a prerequisite but this would not apply to the sciences.

Triple science, started in year 9, is compulsory at our school (all girls). I wasn't concerned by this, although I think some parents were at the time. It has worked out well I would say. Maximises the girls options, and I don't see it as having lessened the scope for arts teaching at the school. If you are concerned, I would go and see the head for a one to one to find out what's behind it.

Ours is not a fantastically academic school but the results are very good. I think the move to triple science was aimed at changing the school's academic profile - but I just thought it made a lot of sense from the girls' perspective, not to drop any of the sciences at this stage if there was the possibility of a three year syllabus.

I have only once queried a strategy choice - following a merger, the new merged school didn't stream for English. People have different views about this. I wasn't in favour - and after my meeting with the head of English I still wasn't persuaded - but at least I did end up with a much better appreciation of where the school was coming from. I think being able to talk things through and have a view is a big advantage of paying - but I'm not kidding myself that I have any direct influence. But what does really matter is that the parents go out into the community telling a positive story about the school - and this only happens if we feel listened to.

Oh I forgot to say.... I wrote a letter once about A level choices because it appeared my DD was no longer going to be able to do an MFL A level she was studying at GCSE and she wanted to do this language at a University. I received a reply from the Deputy Head 3 months later. At this point you know you are not a preferential parent. I just wasn't rich enough!

Triple science is absolutely not pretty atandard in the independent sector (definitely not at girls' schools) and is not necessary for humanities or MFL students, for example. They would be better employed doing something else with the extra time needed for triple science teaching. The arts maybe?

My knowledge of Governors at independent schools is that they look after the money and the strategic vision. They leave nearly everything else to the Head. Therefore I am not surprised your Governor had no idea what the head was doing because the governors would not discuss any of the points you raise. Often the detailed knowledge of the school by Governers in the independent sector is lacking. Do your children ever see a governor in a classroom, for example? Or do they just have Governor dinners and sit on the stage at speech day? They are essentially the great and the good who no longer purchase education. We did have a parent or two on the Governors but they were there for their legal and financial expertise, not to take any notice of parents. In fact one was dead against the change to weekly boarding, but a minority of one will not be persuasive. The other parent wanted weekly because his DD liked to go home and hated boarding.

Our fees were £30k a year for boarding - well, part boarding, because it could be as little as 4 nights a week. I have found schools to be reluctant to discuss anything very much and tend to have a few "pet parents" who are a sounding board but are actually cheerleaders for the Head. By neutralising our Friends Assiciation, it weakened the links parents had with the school still further. A master stroke if you want to sideline parents.

If you do write about the exams, I think the biggest difficulty you might articulate is how much work your children will need to do in the half term holiday, thereby making it a revision week and not a holiday. It is better to get the exams out if the way before half term.

I don't think the fact the head was at a state grammar makes any difference. Ofsted actually inspect state schools on their relationship with parents, ISI, from what I can see, don't really look at this. As a governor of a state school, I can assure you that we are responsive to parents views. Of course we cannot change everything to suit a minority but we do listen and explain our position.

Over the years I've seen various changes made to the schools DS2 has attended, we've never been consulted once, neither do I expect to be consulted.
I believe their lesson time table is about to be changed or has been changed and the rational behind it was included in a letter from the head to parents as I didn't actually know what the original time table my eyes started glazing over after reading the first few lines.
I just let them get on with it.
We did experience a shift in boarding at DS's prep from full to mainly weekly it was introduced slowly and achieved by not making full boarding compulsory for all who joined just after my DS and we certainly weren't informed until eventually it became very clear there were only a few full boarders left. I was annoyed but frankly unsurprised full boarding at prep is not popular.
OP if you feel that concerned why don't you ask for an appointment to see a member of the senior management team, they may have a different take on the reduction in time given over to art and may allay your concerns. I know nothing about the value three year GCSE course or how normal this is or what the pros and cons are but frankly I thought virtually compulsory triple science was pretty standard in the independent sector.
I do know it's easy to listen to gossip from other parents and pupils including your own, and assume comments like "staff are unhappy" "staff are leaving in droves" etc is true, my advise see how it pans out it might not be as bad a you think.

I can't imagine anywhere else in life where you would happily fork our £30k+ a year and have so little 'choice' and influence over what you have purchased.

In theory you can always leave, but of course in practice once your children are settled at a school you're reluctant to move them.

I guess I come from a business background where feedback is regarded as a gift and an opportunity to further improve your offering, rather than some unwanted interference.

And then I think, 'why bother, what's the point?' my kids will probably just get penalised in future if I do.

YY to all that. You don't even get a chance to become a parent governor.
Walk away and put the money in extra-curricular activites and tutoring.