"school snobbery"

[dinkybinky]

I think it?s hysterical that some people think that if you child doesn?t attend a Grammar school or selective independent then they?re not academic. The level of ?school snobbery? that goes on is quite bewildering sometimes.

Yet another MN thread where those who choose state are seen as worthy and those who choose private have only done so on the basis of state schools not being good enough.

Ds has been to two private schools. First one because no state school offered wrap around care and I didn't want to give up work and live on benefits. Second school because ds sings very well and other local state (or private) school can offer that amount of singing opportunities ds now has. Neither private schools are better than our local state provision but both enable me to continue in a job I enjoy and trained several years for.

Xenia if you expect everyone with degrees to earn 100K, then actually you are definitely part of the problem. Most Scientists and Engineers have more than one degree and earn far less than that. Most of the ones who do earn that much have quite useful occupations like Science and Engineering and are now working in the city. We need Scientists and Engineers, who oddly enough like University Academics, Teachers, Nurses and a lot of other useful people are not motivated by money or power but by solving problems or helping people.

bisjo I think we've just been saying that for most it's not a choice.

Everlong
Nothing wrong with being a snob.
Quite a few of us comppers were quite the inverted (albeit tongue-in-cheek) snobs at college:

Oh, you had to go to private school did you ?
Parents weren't quite sure you'd be able survive an ordinary school, eh ?
How much were those fees again ?
^^

They of course sucked it up with good grace; they didn't have that much choice.

Basically it's all swings and roundabouts in life, and state schoolers tend to feel they made it on their own merit and had a more "rounded" education.

Aarrgghh I am sick to the back teeth of threads being hijacked by Xenia to peddle her nonsense.

i don't think xenia peddles (lol does she recruit for the schools?) nonsense at all. in fact i really like and respect her views.

It's certainly not a choice for us - we just do not earn enough. Mind you, I am probably a hard line ideologist in that I would rather HE than send my children to private school, even if we won the Lottery. I come from Holland, which has no private schools, and ranks above the UK in the (wholly unrepresentative) PISA tables. I'm a self-confessed leftie, and I just really don't like the idea of institutionalised inequality by ability to pay. However, I would not dream of judging others for their choices - as I mentioned above, I have friends with DC in private schools for a range of reasons, and it just isn't an issue.

lol, xenia is pretty cool

Has anyone commended anyone else for choosing state and said they are worthy? I haven't seen that!

Xenia would like every single sodding mumsnet thread to be about how all women should earn 100k. This one is actually about grammar schools.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos 'It's the parents that create that problem, not the fact that the 11+ and grammar schools exist.' -

So you're suggesting that our national education system should be specifically designed to entrench privilege? That some parents are not able to pass on cultural capital to their kids is EXACTLY why we should build an education system that gives all children the chance to shine, and not one which makes failures of 70%+ of mostly working class kids at 11 years old. I think as a society we might manage to do that without banning horse-riding lessons.

As a matter of fact, it's called the comprehensive system. It's been going a while! You'd think from this thread that we were still in 1965.

By implication if you say that someone has chosen private school because they think it is better than state then it is certainly viewed as 'worthy' to make the apparent 'sacrifice' of sending your dcs to state school. Like I said, I ended up going private because it was cheaper than the combo of state + childcare for the hours I needed and I didn't want to claim benefits.

I just get fed up with the black and white assumption that is always made on MN that those whose dcs are privately educated are doing so because they think it is better than state. And converse, those whose dcs are in state school are there because their parents could not afford school fees. I know plenty of parents whose dcs are at state school but whom could pay school fees if they wanted. Instead they chose to invest that money in their £600,000+ (minimum for a two bed cottage) to live in the catchment area of a very good state school which offers no wraparound care at all because the families whose dcs go to that school have SAHMs so no need to provide any out of school hours care (they tried to offer it but no one used it).

Rant over.

And by the by, I spent a number of years doing university admissions interviews. It was an enlightening insight into how well the best comprehensive schools educate their pupils. I genuinely think that if a child is seriously bright, they'll end up more creative and self-directed learners if they go to the local comp than those pressed through the academic treadmill of grammar or public school. The statistics bear it out, in that for a given set of A-level results, comprehensive kids tend to get a better class of degree than their privately educated counterparts.

And while I'm on my high horse, why is is that the stock right-wing response to anyone suggesting that more social equality would be a good thing is a variation on 'So would you like to live in communist china/russia/north korea then?'

It's a bit like the tory equivalent of Godwin's law. Cos the only alternative to raw, tooth-in-claw capitalism is chairman Mao, obviously.

*tooth-and-claw

As a matter of fact, it's called the comprehensive system. It's been going a while! You'd think from this thread that we were still in 1965

There are downsides to comprehensives too. They are not the magical solution to the countries education problems that some people seem to think they are.

I just don't believe that it's right to take something beneficial away from one child just for the sake of making him the same as another child. Especially when the other child's needs are being met already.

The education system needs to ensure that every child reaches their full potential. The focus needs to be put on the schools that aren't enabling children to do that, not the ones that are.

*And while I'm on my high horse, why is is that the stock right-wing response to anyone suggesting that more social equality would be a good thing is a variation on 'So would you like to live in communist china/russia/north korea then?'

It's a bit like the tory equivalent of Godwin's law. Cos the only alternative to raw, tooth-in-claw capitalism is chairman Mao, obviously.*

Almost the most sensible thing I have ever read on MN.

Bold Fail

Oh Xenia, do please fuck off. I'm sure I'll be deleted but I really don't care. How the FUCK can't you understand that not every woman can earn £1000 per day - even £1000 per week is unrealistic for the vast majority. I just don't understand what planet you are on.
WHY is Private education the only option for your family? Are they too thick to manage in the comprehensive system? Do please enlighten us all.

What is it that makes some women earn £1k a day and some nothing or minimum wage £13,500 a year? Is it truly impossible to get to a position to pay school fees? Why do some women assume they can never earn a lot and others can?

Because, Xenia, put very simply some women are less intelligent/capable than others and can't do jobs which earn 100 grand. Just like some men are less intelligent/capable than others. I've never seen you on a single thread where you acknowledge this basic fact.

And I in no way mean to insult anyone here. I know for a fact that I am not capable of being able to hold down a job which pays this sort of money. I don't want one either. You can't take it with it when you die.

The circle of clever women giving birth to clever children of course may simply be genetics.

As a very wise (and highly educated) old lady who was a good family friend used to say 'A teacher can marry a vicar but it doesn't mean their son will be the Archbishop of Canterbury'........

laqueen I think that some grammars may be the best schools for some very academic children where the alternative is poor.

Our eldest son is at the grammar, he is very academic however he went to the grammar because he is on the autism spectrum. He likes the rather dull and predictable style of teaching that he gets at the grammar. I also hoped that there may be a greater number of oddball geeky types at the grammar, my son was bulled at his primary school. I naively thought he would fit in again grammar and make friends. My son was also bullied mercilessly at the grammar . I suspect some children will be bullied wherever they go.

My daughter passed the grammar test and she is also bright but perhaps part of the cool crowd. She is one of the golden children , always picked for star roles n plays, on all the sports teams and top of her class. She was in two minds about the grammar and wanted to go because she did not want people to think that her brother was cleverer than her! She is at the local comprehensive / secondRy modern. She is very happy and whilst she may be at the top of her classes she has students who push her. No one has ever picked on her for being aspiration or academic.

My third child has no interest at all in the grammar school , having seen how happy her sister is. I suspect she would be grammar material .

There are good and bad schools in both private and state sector.

I know some someone who pulled her kids from local and well thourght of prep rated oustanding by ofsted to another private school. she did visit the nearest community state school and said it was better than the 1st private school yet this community primary is everyones 3rd choice or non choice here.

I believe childcare was issue for her choice.

We all seem to assume we have a choice?

we cant all afford private even if we wanted to.

we dont all have good state comps on our doorstep

majority of counties in uk dont have grammer system.

There are not enough school places some areas with people not getting any of their 3choices.

I actually think theres a place for grammer schools as think its fairer to select on ability more so than postcode or faith.

I mean when i read some horror stories about ho much property is near a oversubscribed primaries I think blimey be cheaper to go private.

My nearest prep is £1400 a term so £4200 a year.
If i just had 1 child would have considered it as was cheapr than monthly nursery fees and offered hols places,

Schools are complex.

libelulle And by the by, I spent a number of years doing university admissions interviews. It was an enlightening insight into how well the best comprehensive schools educate their pupils. I genuinely think that if a child is seriously bright, they'll end up more creative and self-directed learners if they go to the local comp than those pressed through the academic treadmill of grammar or public school. The statistics bear it out, in that for a given set of A-level results, comprehensive kids tend to get a better class of degree than their privately educated counterparts.

My dd is at a top uni and went to the local comp. she's in her 3rd year and doing very well. She's had some pretty incredulous looks when revealing which school she went to, especially in her first year.

I don't know what a lot of kids at private and grammar schools are told about comps, but they seem to have the impression you do not stand a chance of every achieving anything if you go there. She's even been asked what A level results she got, as people thought she'd been "let in" To fulfil a quota. She's actually got exactly the same grades as other students.

I used to wonder where these children got their ideas from about comps, and blamed the schools but since joining MN I think I've found the answer!!

There is such generalised rubbish on this thread about comps. It a bit comical.

"There are downsides to comprehensives too. They are not the magical solution to the countries education problems that some people seem to think they are. "

Of course there are downsides to comprehensives. There are downsides to every system. You just have to pick the system which has the least number of downsides. And the grammar school system has so few upsides and those that it has apply to such a small number of people that I find it impossible to believe that anyone thinks they are a good idea.

Caveat. I could be persuaded that there might be a place for the very very super selective taking the super bright top 2%-3%. This would have no real impact on the rest of the cohort.