To be in awe of private school's...

[whydontwehaveasharpknife]

I am a nanny, the other day I accompanied the girl that I nanny for in rural Northamptonshire to the schools open day, it was AMAZING- the grounds were like a national trust property, the uniforms all hand made by a famous London fashion designer, there was a lake, climbing wall, beautiful dining room, tree climbing, den building, the children who already attend the school were incredibly polite and sat in the library reading broad-sheet news papers.

I grew up on a council estate with a peado living round the corner that used to terrify me when I walked the dog, my mother is mentally ill and I've never lived with her, in my early teens my step mother left to become a heroin addict.

Needless to say, I have had to fight pretty hard for my A levels/sanity/ health and have applied to university this year but I must admit I couldn't help but feel 'lower than these people, the staff, the parents and even the children they were all so refined and I felt they could see that I am not of the same breed.

It is just luck though isn't it, why do some people who are born into fortunate circumstances get all the opportunities at success whilst others have to work really hard into their late twenties just to get the success these children achieve when they are 18.

I have lots of friends who went to expensive private schools, and lots who went to state schools like myself. I would say that the ones who went to private school are now a little richer, on average, than those who went through the state system.

However, I would also say, with a fair degree of certainty, that they are no more and no less happy than the others.

Honey would you say they are richer due to family money, or the type of careers they chose?

"Richard Branson is the public-school educated son of a millionaire. Fuck knows how that constitutes 'coming from nothing".

Well, don't those people who cite Branson feel kind of stupid.

Interesting, Honey. My cousins all went to state schools and me and my siblings went private. My sister has her own highly successful business (she is so driven it's untrue) my brother is also a bit of an entrepreneur and very successful, and I am a university lecturer, so no money but successful on paper. My cousins did things like work in sandwich shops, worked as carers, worked in DIY stores, that kind of thing - a lot more hand to mouth. I actually think I have had more fun and excitement overall, but then again I don't think my cousins have any sense of what they might have missed. I suppose from a happiness point of view my peaks have been higher but there have been times life has been more fraught for me than them.
On the other hand their mum is more homely and less academic so that's probably a major in how our families diverged.

I don't think success means earning lots of money. Having a fulfilling job is more important. It always bothers me that a lot of the private school bashers think that unless a kid goes on to earn millions their education has been a waste.

I don't bash private schools.

I'd love my children to be educated in classes that are half the size of the ones they're in now.

And I'm willing to admit to feeling bitter about the fact that other children - who deserve no more than my children - will have a nicer time at school and better opportunities at the end of it. Life is unfair. I can cope with this for myself but not so for my children.

Have to say though - I feel even more bitter about the fact that half the places at the local grammar schools are filled with children who've been to private primaries, who've been advantaged by being taught in tiny classes since reception, having 11+ booster sessions at school and tutoring at home. I'm not saying these children are not bright enough to benefit from a grammar education, but there will be children who are similarly bright in state schools, who'll miss out on places because they've not had the same degree of preparation.

I think the intake of grammar schools should reflect the make-up of the local population. If only 8% of local children go to private schools then they should only take 8% of children into year 7 from outside the state system. They should be looking for POTENTIAL, and there are just as many children with potential in state schools as there are in private.

shag your post is refreshingly honest and you make some fair points.

As a person who had a very poor education (at school level) and now being able to buy my DC a much better one, I absolutely accept that this is unfair. My DC are no more special or entitled to better than yours or anyone elses.

I agree with the last two posts. wordfactory your experience sounds similar to my own.

I found myself being sneered at by some middle-class people for being from a working-class, northern background. What really winds them up though now is the fear that their children may not be getting as good an education as mine. It makes them froth at the mouth.

OP, the things you mention:

"the grounds were like a national trust property, the uniforms all hand made by a famous London fashion designer, there was a lake, climbing wall, beautiful dining room, tree climbing, den building, the children who already attend the school were incredibly polite and sat in the library reading broad-sheet news papers" ...

...means nothing to me at all.

All I care about is good teaching and good pastoral care. Could not give a hoot about grounds or uniforms.

I wish there could be private schools that would just focus on that (teaching, class size and pastoral care), and to leave the rest to people with more money than sense.

Private school "light", now there's an idea! Small class sizes, subject specialists, excellent SEN unit, and no frills :)

Yes. I couldn't give a fuck about uniforms. Put them in polos and jumpers. That would weed out the idiots who are doing it for image purposes.

I'm not trying to generalise about privately educated people, I'm in no position to as I've only ever known a handful of people who have been to private school! I went to a normal secondary school, then college, worked in a local holiday company for 10 years and have been doing various part time jobs since having my first child, ie working in a nursery, hotel reception, anything that's fits around the school runs and holidays really!

However my sister in law is privately educated, and two people that I reported to in a previous job. Thinking about it, although they are three quite different people I found they had very similar personality aspects.

For instance, none of them are the types of people you could really have an ordinary conversation with. Any normal chat about our kids, weekend/holiday plans/who said what to who, they are COMPLETELY disinterested! You almost feel you have to have a topic in your head before you speak to them, a major news story or something political/sports related for example. Conversation is just more of an effort somehow, but then obviously I'm used to my friends, family and colleagues, most who have had much the same work experience and education as me so maybe outlooks are just different.

When I worked in the travel office on the phone all day, the ability to do my job relied a lot on the support workers who did all the filing, sending out of documents, relaying messages etc etc. I always had a good relationship with the support workers, thanked them for anything they did that made my job easier, (as did most of the others), and I'm still in touch with two of them now years later!

Our two colleagues who'd been privately educated though were completely different, basically ordered these support workers around, no pleases and thank yous, expected everything done yesterday, grunted a response if one of them spoke to them, awful behaviour really. They were completely different though talking to the heads of departments, co. chairman etc, couldn't have been nicer!

I just got the impression they felt they didn't have to bother with those "below" a certain level. Not saying that goes for ALL privately educated people's but I've noticed it a lot with these three.

I just wish people would be honest about it.

Have to say though word, collectively, as parents we've helped to make the education system in the UK as bloody awful and fucked up as it is.

Everyone scrabbling for the best for THEIR children (and bugger the rest) has created a terrible, divisive system where only the wealthy, the lucky and the utterly determined will get a decent education for their child.

There really is this view that whatever you do for your children is morally justified, if it advantages them, no matter what impact your choice (as one of thousands of similar choices) makes on other children in your community and on the country as a whole.

The exodus of bright and motivated children and parents into the private and selective sector has left those of us who've sent our children into comprehensives in a terrible situation. The school my dd goes to is in no way representative of the local population because children round my way from professional and educated families send them to private, church and grammar schools if they can). Because of that it's become a difficult place to learn and to teach. And of course the situation is self-perpetuating.

Honey would you say they are richer due to family money, or the type of careers they chose?

Hard to say - I think it is a range of factors.

Family money certainly plays a part, I think, and more importantly, family connections. Perhaps school connections too. A lot of my friends from public schools went off and did internships etc as students, and most of these were arranged through family & friends. Meanwhile, I just needed to earn some money over the summer, and couldn't have afforded to do an unpaid internship even if I had been able to find one.

I also think it's easier to take risks if you are from a wealthy background, as there is more of a cushion to support you if it all goes wrong - I think that makes it much easier for wealthy people to start their own businesses.

However, I don't think it's all about family money, and I do think there is a more general tendency for people who are privately educated to go for more lucrative careers. I don't know why that should be, and of course there are exceptions, but it is certainly a pattern which has been borne out by my own friends - despite all having Cambridge degrees, far more of my privately educated friends went on to jobs in the city, law etc, whereas a lot of my state educated friends ended up in the not-for-profit sector - civil service, education, charities etc.

Perhaps it is a values thing, or rather, a different perspective on how much money is "enough" - after all, if they want to send their own kids to private schools, then they need to earn a salary that will enable them to do this! Obviously, though, I'm generalising hugely, and my particular group of friends isn't a scientific sample. :)

As I said earlier, I don't think either group, on balance, is any happier than the other.

Sadly I think some people do send their children to certain schools in order to promote a certain image. Having said that as I am arguing that everybody should be able to send their children to whichever school they chose I should perhaps put up and shut up

But let's get one thing straight ... schools don't determine academic achievement, parents and the home environment do.

There is tonnes of research on this - it shows that you can accurately predict a child's performance at A level when they are 3 years old !!! Social class is the crucial factor - not just wealth but also the parents' level of education.

Of course schools influence your values, attitudes, friends, experience of childhood etc. But private schools don't sprinkle magic dust on kids.

The reason why private school kids mostly do better is because they are a self-selected group with affluent, well-qualified and motivated parents. Those kids would have done just as well had they attended comprehensives.

Not quite, boobmeister. The research suggests that they would do as well if they attended comprehensives with a critical mass of other pupils resembling them.

Which backs up what shagmund says about the local area suffering when the middle classes opt out of state education en masse ...

theboob youe view is somehting I've thought a lot about over the years as I've watched DC and their peers do so well; would they have perfroemd equally well in a different school?

They arrived at school so advantaged. They live in one of the most beautifyl affluent, safest areas in the UK. They have loving, interested, successful (both educationally and finanacially) parents. They have, in fact, all the advantages of wealth.

Everyhting was primed from the word go.

Now I do happen to think that the school did make a difference, but how much is very hard to say.

I suppose what I am saying is that their school just heaped advantage upon advantage.

Enjoying this thread. OP - you should feel proud of yourself. I hope you get to that Uni and have a blast educating yourself.

I actually think that if my children, brought up with highly educated, articulate, confident parents, can't achieve via the local bog-standard comp, they don't deserve to achieve. They shouldn't need "advantage on advantage". I am not a fan of independent schools anyway, but I think we can just about manage the perks the OP mentions - the tree-climbing, lake access, den building etc ourselves, we can even stretch to the odd broadsheet at home, and I even expect politeness from my offspring despite their state education.

I suppose what I am saying is that their school just heaped advantage upon advantage.

I can relate to this. In fact, I feel very similarly about my dd's state school. But we are lucky that it is a very middle class school with all the typical middle class advantages. For example, I worked out a while ago that at least a quarter of the kids in dd's class have at least one parent with a PhD!

I have parents who are loving, interested and valued education. Because of their encouragement, I did work at school and go to university - so it made a real difference.

But I grew up in a very very poor area. The primary school I went to was pretty poor, but I learned the basics. My secondary school had committed teachers who spent much of their time trying to make sure that pupils learned the basics e.g. reading and writing and left with some type of qualification. Kids like me were basically left to get on with it, so I think I actually under achieved at secondary. And i hated school at 16,17 and would have left like all my friends without my parents encouragement. My 6th form was tiny and although the volume of work was high, I remember just feeling bored most of the time.

My grades did affect both the university I could go to, but also crucially I got no guidance at all about suitable courses or universities - a pretty crucial decision. The only thing school told me was that I needed to fill in an ucas form and gave me a copy. My parents tried, but didn't know about this to really guide me. And apart from the teachers and GP we knew no one else who had gone to uni, so had no one to ask for advice - pre internet. My parents tried to expose us to different experiences so they did take us to the local free art gallery and museums, but compared to those from middle class or wealthier homes, I had been exposed to much less.

In final year of university again I had no guidance from anyone about work/careers I might want to look at, no family connections to call upon or even family knowledge of how things work. I also lacked confidence. Ended up now in my 40's earning 40k in a job I largely like.

But ime it is both parents, school and environment that matter. I don't think you can just isolate one.