AIBU to say private school children are much sportier & better musicians?

[Denimrevival]

Just on the back of comparing with friends & family with dc in private schools. The kids & their families are all naturally sporty & outdoorsy anyways but the school provides a vast range of sports with it's own pool & swim team.
Musically their kids all play 2 or three instruments all at least grade 4 or 5..
How do these private schools do the academics, music & sports to such a high standard? Do they also have a very good base if the kids are having sport & music reinforced outside school through their families lifestyles?

She might!

You know nothing about me or my children yet you make blind, sweeping statements based on extreme prejudice and blasé stereotypes.
Your posts reek of inverse snobbery and you seem to think that every state school contains knives and has extreme deprivation and that only kids from these types of schools can truly be creative. You realise that you are peddling stereotypes of state schools when the majority of them are nothing like this? Or are you saying that only inner city kids who experience extreme deprivation can be useful in the creative sphere?
Honestly, read some of your own posts back.

This is why I called troll, because you seem to live in a very black or white world which the majority of people don't live in. You seem unable to accept anything between either extreme privilege or abject poverty. You constantly change your story, deny words that you have written and twist the words of other posters.

I went to a top sports' school. I am the least sporty person in the world. It did not make me more sporty. I have no idea what my parents were thinking!💁

Lovely. Those children will have access to lots of the advantages that the private school kids do because their parents can and want to provide them. That’s amazing.
Doesn’t change the fact that not all do. It’s why I said sometimes. And those children won’t get any support either through school or home. Doesn’t change the fact that loads of state schools have no money for basics like glue sticks either. Let alone specialised instrumental music teachers.

All I am saying is that private school children do have those opportunities, whether or not they are talented to begin with, and what a massive shame that not all kids can access these things even if they were just as talented at the start.

Whilst Music is a National Curriculum subject, many schools do not deliver anything like the hour per week that students are meant to receive. IMO, this is at least partially to do with the fact that Music/Art are not part of the EBacc. As schools are judged on results, the number of people achieving the EBacc is something they want to enhance, and by dropping Music/Art etc. more time can be devoted to EBacc subjects
I think this is a very important point @Malbecfan and something I was discussing on another thread recently in fact. I'm a scientist myself so I do agree that better teaching of STEM subjects is very important, but it shouldn't be at the cost of other subjects and I think the EBacc is hugely detrimental to "none core" subjects.
At my DC's school it is more or less compulsory to take the EBacc qualifying subjects at GCSE and to do 3 separate sciences which leaves only one completely free choice of subject. A pupil who wants to do both history and geography, or 2 MFLs therefore has no slot left for a creative/practical subject at all and others have only one. My younger son would have liked to do both drama and PE but had to choose between them. This is leading to very small class sizes in some subjects. My elder DS was one of, if I recall rightly, 7 out of about 180 pupils in his year who did music. For them it was brilliant - and probably enjoyable for the teacher too to be honest. I think they all got either an 8 or 9 and they had a great time doing so. But it's not sustainable is it? The financial pressures on schools will not allow them to keep on a plethora of teachers taking tiny classes. If this trend keeps up it in inevitable that subjects will be dropped at GCSE and A level, with ever less people from the state sector going on to study and work in these fields. And if you aren't entering pupils for public exams in say music or drama where is the incentive to have specialist teachers for them lower down the school? And indeed would a music teacher even want a job where their highest class was year 9? It is a slippery slope.
The general concept of the EBacc is not a bad idea but the actual practical application of it is appalling in my opinion. But whilst it continues to be used as a performance indicator, schools are going to keep doing it and I feel it narrows, rather than broadens the options for many.

That's the outlook to have @greenmarsupial , it's all that can be done. Nothings going to change to benefit state school kids at present & if it does the current generation will be too old .

Realistically if you want your child to do “the extras” such as music and sport you have to be proactive and pay for it yourself either by sending them to private school or sourcing extra curriculars yourself and paying for them. Yes it’s unfair on children from low income homes or who have parents who can’t or won’t support them but taxpayers will not want to step in and pay for this for everyone.

My oldest is in a long established very well run sports club so trains once a week and has weekend matches etc. The vast majority of other attendees are from the private schools which I find baffling as if you are a state parent it’s an ideal way to supplement the (admittedly limited) state school sport. Parents are on their own here unless they pay for private which many state parents don’t seem to realise.

I haven't even referenced 'inner city kids', I've simply suggested that when you go to school you are influenced by your environment and it shapes who you are, the relative affluence or poverty around you determines both your life experiences and your outcomes- those are not the same in a private and state school setting. The idea being spouted by some on here is that private schools are offering a separate education but it is equal but that just isn't true, even if you are middleclass. It stretches credulity that parents that send their children to private school don't see some greater value in the experience than sending them to the local middle class school that is bursting at the seams with privilege beyond that ever seen by the 7% of children that go to private school.

Where have I changed my story? Where have I denied words that I have written? I have reread my posts and can't see where that has happened?

There are some posters on here that really seem to equate the child's deservingness for decent amenities and opportunities at school, access to music lessons with their parents' efforts to bring this about. So essentially, some children deserve a lower standard of education because their parents don't have money for fees. I think that is pretty awful tbh and how you can argue that perpetuating inequalities is a good thing is beyond me

Parental support also plays a big part, particularly for the more technical sports like cricket. That may also perpetuate private school privilege down the generations to some extent.

My husband has spent hours coaching our children at rugby and cricket (and helped to run club rugby and football teams so not just for selfish reasons). If you're trying to play fly half, for example, it's a definite advantage having a parent who can give you one-on-one kicking sessions. That possibly favours the kids with private school parents, or at least those with keen, sporty parents.

Often the parents may be good at these things and had a similar background

There will be a piano in the house for example

I haven’t seen any posters saying that private and state schools are equal. There are plenty of posts saying the opposite - that privately educated children are often more sporty and musical purely because of the additional opportunities. Is it fair? No of course it isn’t, but no one is pretending it is. No one is saying that some children “deserve” a lower standard of education.

Inequality runs far deeper than education in the UK. What about the better diets, living in areas with low crime rates, more spacious and separate bedrooms, tuition, selective state education, caring and encouraging parents etc which more privileged, but state educated, children enjoy? Surely any parent who tries to do their best and give their children the best start with whatever resources they have are “perpetuating inequality”. There are plenty of state schools rammed full of children from privileged backgrounds, often more privileged than some pupils in the private sector.

I don’t understand why these posts always turn into an attack on private school parents.

Politics of envy and my Dc didn't go to private school

Plus it frees up places for those who go to state schools

Today I saw a family who had obviously taken their kids out of school for an early summer British holiday. The ‘dad’ said to one of the kids who was probably about 10 come over here you silly fucker and help me build this sandcastle.

there is no hope!

so tbh if you’re engaged and not swearing at your kids. They’ll be fine,

Today I saw a family who had obviously taken their kids out of school for an early summer British holiday
Notthe point of your post I know, but you do realise that school holidays have already started in some parts of the UK? Not every family you see out and about at present have taken their children out of school early firca cheap holiday.

I’m shocked by how few students at dcs’ school play an instrument. The orchestra is very small. I was at a state school and the orchestra was always big.

The private school my DC went to did not have entrance exams - academic or otherwise. No child was asked to leave if they didn't meet standards - I worked there and it just didn't happen.

I think it’s down to what you want and can afford for your DC. The people who send their DC to private schools are also paying for the state schools. Therefore it would follow that as a parent of a state-educated child, and therefore not paying large fees for school, you would, if you had the resources for a more narrow experience than the private schools, but wider than the opportunities offered in state schools, try to give them every opportunity to try out new sports, music Etc. yourself.

Once you have pinpointed what they are good at, you encourage and pay for that tuition, or support them in their sports activities. Plenty of parents of state-educated DC that I know dedicate a lot of time taking them to dance, swimming or athletics clubs, and a lot of the children do very well. The difference is that one set of parents chucks money willy-nilly at their DC’s education, while another set support them in pursuit of any talent that they’ve shown an aptitude for, without spending out on all the other “stuff” that may or may not be useful later on.

Of course there will always be families who use state schools but can’t provide extra-curricular activities, so there are an awful lot of free activities for underprivileged that can be accessed - if the parents have the time, capacity and inclination to seek it out. If they simply can’t, and their DC has a genuine talent, they will find a way later in life.

Private have;

Longer days so fit extra curricular activities into school day.
Have access to specialist senior teachers for the younger ones so they get lots of exposure to music and sports.
Have the equipment and space - e.g. younger ones go to lessons in the senior music rooms etc.
Engage in lots of competitions, match days, concerts etc. and have the specialist staff to do this.

If they're from England and already on holiday they could be private school kids anyway 😆

Don't think so, some us have different politics and different principles. I went to private school until I was 12, what do you think people are envious of exactly?

But of a nihilistic perspective on inequalities, I mean yes, of course it runs deeper than education but it is a good place to start🙄

I've watched a lot of club rugby. My son's team are all from local State Schools and every year they play against two teams who recruit most of their players from Private Schools. Up to the age of about 12 we would win most of these matches - our players, on average were taller, stronger and faster. Some of the opposition were quite weedy by comparison and not that brave.
However, the tables have turned and those teams are now winning and playing some great rugby. I guess they play more at school and have great coaches. We still have some of the best individuals with the most potential, but the other teams play the better rugby.

By suggesting that that are plenty of schools rammed with privileged children that are more privileged than private schools you really are stretching the credulity to its limits with that remark and you are suggesting that exact thing you say you are not which is that state schools can be separate but equal if they contain 'middle class' folk which is just disingenuous.

They will play more at school plus have loads of inter school competitions, probably two a week for part of the term, so have a lot more game experience.