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?

And there is no 'despite' about it, many talented musicians are so because they have life experiences and material to draw upon that you would not have from living in a bubble!

I don’t think my kids deserve a ‘better’ education than any others.

as you are the only one who has your children best interest at heart and the only one who will push them, you should.

It's hardly selling out to give your own child the best opportunities, nothing stops you from improving the system and volunteering, fundraising and campaigning etc as well.

Not always. Depends where you live. London maybe. Here the drama, music and sport is far better than any local clubs.

I mean, none of its hugely relevant when they all leave and go to university anyway. The only thing that's really a lot better at our independent school is the encouragement and expectation that girls will do as much sport as the boys if they want to. That was non existent at our state school and the after school clubs constantly cancelled and barely any opportunity to compete for the school. The lunch break was so short that there was no time to do anything.

If you want your kid to be sporty and musical, sign them up with a sports club and get a music tutor. There's no secret that private school parents know that's not available to state school kids. The parents just have to be willing to dedicate their time to this.

My daughter's sport is equestrian show jumping, so on paper as elitist as you can get 😂 but you'd be surprised that vast majority of the kids in her team are in state education.

I think state schools could definitely take on the focus on sports from private schools. From what I've seen, they play one or two winter sports and then the same in summer with a competitive element. In state schools, there isn't the same focus on getting good at a sport.

My children are sporty and play 2-3 musical instruments each. They are on the local competitive swimming team and also play team sports. This is really deliberate though as we can't afford private school so are actively trying to give them the well-roundedness that comes from a private education.

I've just come back from the nsea championships. Not many state school teams there!

Could you be any more patronising! The implication being that somehow private school parents can be 'bothered' and state school parents are apathetic when it comes to their child's best interests. Anyway, I'll repeat the above, how many famously talented musicians went to private school?

Not to derail the thread but is tennis such an elite sport? My DS is very sporty and at a state school. He loves tennis particularly and I've encouraged him. It is only £40 annual membership for under 18's at our local tennis club. He is there regularly with his Dad or a friend. Is this something that is going to get more difficult and expensive for him to get involved with a higher level?

And where does the money go fund that come from?

Private schools tend to have smaller class sizes. If you have to wait for 30 children to do anything (get books out, queue up for lunch, get changed for PE, take a turn in a game, each read a line, talk about their day, deliver a roleplay skit etc) then more of the school day is lost. If there are only 12 in a class, you can whizz through the syllabus more quickly and then get time for the extracurricular stuff.

If you have more resources at a private school, everyone can play their own violin whereas at state schools with bigger classes, there might be one instrument between 2 or 3 children, so the amount of time you get to have a go is reduced and the amount of time messing around because you are paired with your mates is increased.

There are practically no posts on here to which "more money" is not the answer.

@Guiltridden12345 thats your choice of course but it’s not something I find easy to understand. I don’t see it as selling out.

So if your dc showed natural ability (like lots of dc do) in a certain area you wouldn’t encourage that by paying for extra tuition or whatever if you could easily afford it, because it won’t help others in the state sector or those who can’t afford it? Really? It’s important to care about all dc and important to put effort into closing the gap but it’s also completely natural to want your own dc to do the very best and have the very best you can afford, both through time and money.
You can do both, you can give your own dc a leg up while supporting those who have less opportunities. You can still support state education and send your dc to private. You can still send your dc to extra curricular activities and volunteer at the local free services.
Life is full of unfairness and inequality. I wont believe you if you tell me you never use your resources to make your own life better because it’s not fair on others.

But it is possible for state school kids to access sports and music. Most private school kids train outside of school anyway, unless it's a boarding school.

For SJ I wouldn't be surprised at the majority, or at least 50/50 split being state educated. I would be more surprised if you said the same for an evening team!

I agree with this.

It's money basically isn't it?
On average (and yes, I know it's not universal) children at independent schools come from more affluent backgrounds than those at state schools, so they can afford more extracurricular activities. These are often provided actually at independent schools who have longer days, often more space/better facilities etc, but if you look at state school pupils who excel in these fields they are also often from better off families- because a lot of sport, music and so on is bloody expensive.
Between lessons, equipment, travel etc a lot of extracurricular activities cost a lot of money. Some youngsters will be identified by talent programmes and attract external funding but unfortunately all too often it comes down to what the bank of Mum and Dad can afford, both in money and time. The more you do something, the better your coaching and your kit, the more likely you are to excel. More privileged children are more likely to get those opportunities.
And this is all assuming you get exposed to these activities in the first That's not just money of course, but it helps. On the whole, children from more affluent backgrounds seem to get introduced to more different hobbies etc. You're never going to become an Olympic skier if you never have ski lessons and a child from a well off family who has regular skiing holidays from an early age is obviously better placed to do that than one from an inner city estate who has never seen a ski slope. You're not likely to take up the violin if you don't ever hear anyone play one or become a great hockey player if your school doesn't have a pitch.
Not that I am saying any of this is right or fair, but it is unfortunately, reality.

I've taught in both. The hugest difference is the confidence levels between state and privately educated pupils. The latter are significantly more confident.

When I was a school the music tuition in the borough was free. It was the default for pretty much every child to at least try a musical instrument from a young age. When I was in the local youth orchestra there were some amazing musicians, some from huge families who could never have afforded private music tuition (plus instruments). With such a large pool, of course the standard was exceptional, with so many more talented children getting the opportunity to excel. Several went on to have careers in music.
Towards the end of my time in the orchestra lesson fees were introduced, albeit heavily subsidised, but a few years later you could see the decline in quality. Funding = opportunity.

I don't know about across the board of course, but the majority of the kids at our club are at state schools (many are at grammar schools though). Don't get me wrong, the parents have money as you must of course for SJ (😞) but their kids are not at private schools. They train outside of school hours. I don't actually know any secondary schools (even those with horse facilities) who train to a very high level, except for an equestrian college.

It is partially money, but partially prioritising. Private schools prioritise sport and music. Particularly prep schools.

Also let's not forget football is the highest paid sport in this country and there aren't many privately educated footballers.

NSEA is dominated by private schools.

It is simply not true that private educated equates to 'better musicians' though if it was true, many of the famous musicians would have been privately educated and they have not been. Do private schools encourage children to play a classical instrument yes they do but this a limited view of what a musician is! Equally, all this goes out the window in year 9/10 where if you are not good enough, you are encouraged to drop your violin lessons and concentrate on achieving your 8s and 9s!

you sound so bitter lol

No I think the talented riders are more likely to compete individually outside of school teams due to qualifying events etc irrespective of whether they are state or privately educated. DDs school (private) has an equestrian team and they do NSEA but the team members swop and change regularly depending on what they want to qualify for independent of the school. Riders are more likely to want to get on pony club teams than the school team.