AIBU to think upper middle class professionals downplay how much they game education?

[MyCyanAnt]

I can’t be the only one who has noticed this. I went to genuinely average comprehensive schools and had parents who just dgaf like most in UK. I went to medical school where it seemed like this upbringing put you in a small minority, now an ultra high earner from own business but still do part time work as a GP. DC are 12 and 14.

Whenever the topic of education comes up with other doctors/professionals they will say stuff like it’s the child not the school who determines the outcome, we’re not pushing DC, we’re letting DC pick their school etc

However when it comes down to it none of them ever put their money where their mouth is. It won’t always be Eton but it will almost always be either a private, grammar or high performing comp in expensive catchment area instead of a genuinely average comp.

It’s a similar story with paying for tutors and other parents DC being interested in prestigious but completely unrelated careers e.g. Doctor or investment banking who have obviously been guided by parents.

I do the same but I feel like I’m an outlier in that I don’t lie about it, I’m obviously paying/gaming things so DC are much more likely to get a top job. I don’t see what’s wrong with admitting it yet it’s such a sensitive subject with some.

I am not upper middle class, though; I'm very much lower middle class, with half the family working class, so I'm not embarrassed about this stuff or money or wanting security.

You sound a bit silly for someone supposedly well educated. Sending a child to the nearest comprehensive school does not indicate that you care more or less about education than those who do not.

You’re just pulling figures out of the air. I doubt that 30-40% of the population have no interest in which school their children go to. Even if the choice is ultimately out of their control, most parents still care.

The biggest load of crock is that smart children will thrive anywhere.

Yes, that’s the great mantra that gets repeated over and over. God knows why, because it’s obvious shite. A bad school can hobble a bright child’s learning very easily.

I'm sorry to say I think a good proportion of parents don't care, not as many as 40%, probably more like 10-15% who are often fantastically undereducated themselves and don't see the point in it all, as the options aren't visible or real to them.

Surely as a GP you will be familiar with the lack of social mobility in deprived areas, and inter-generational factors that affect education, employment and general attainment? Add to this explosion of awareness of special educational needs, neurodiversity etc and access to the right education for the right kid is harder than ever.

if a parent sends their kid to the local comprehensive they don’t care, but if they get tutors or try to send to an alternative school then they are gaming the system? As ever; parents can’t win!

It’s going to largely depend on your background and the money available to you though. People will do what they can with the resources that they have and the knowledge that they have. Sometimes people’s worldview is limited by their own experiences and the world that they see around them. they may not see that uni is a possibility for their child or fully understand the income potential for them down the line. Their ambitions for their children will be based on their own life experiences.

I think being “pushy” is also different to trying to support your children to do well. I like to think I encourage and facilitate my children to do their best. I don’t forces extra study time but I’m there offering tutoring if I see them struggling with something.

Absolutely this. My eldest DD is Oxbridge material and on course for the top GCSEs next year, probably all 9s in every subject. But she certainly is thriving hugely at the private girls' school she goes to, with a bursary and scholarship, and I'm certain she's doing so much better there than at the local comprehensive or academy.

Obviously, she's privileged, but I'm grateful my parents pushed for her to apply there. She'd be ok at the local state schools, but I sure it might have been so much harder emotionally for her to get on well either with those who are less academic or don't want to learn. She struggled with being bored at primary school, as she was so far ahead, so i think it might have been the same at a state secondary.

Finding the most suitable education you can for your child is not "gaming the system". I love my ds so I looked around for where he would be happiest. Just a normal part of being a mum.

In my case, the only state place he was offered was at a comp Ofsted described as unsafe, with widespread bullying, risks of sexual assaults on younger pupils, and staff who had no idea who was on site.

So I put ds forward for a scholarship at a local independent, which he won. As a single mum, the half fees still meant substantial debt but I couldn't see another option.

I didn't "game the system". Anyone could have applied. DS had taster days at 6 schools and liked this one. I liked it because it was the best available for a small studious 11yo who had been bullied at primary. I nearly bankrupt myself in the. process. But ds' happiness means more to me than anything so it was worth it.

I'm sure someone smart enough to be a doctor is smart enough to work out that everyone's baseline for an acceptable standard of living (and parenting 'givens') is different, so I'm assuming this is just ragebait.

I don't pat myself on the back for being able to afford to pay my gas bill, nor for tutoring for the 11+. That doesn't mean I don't recognise that I have a level of societal privilege in order to be able to do so.

I think there’s a sense of security that comes with wealth/higher class. Of course those parents want their kids to succeed and have the big job and what not, but they also know that if their kid fucks up/fails/has to start over they have a safety net to fall back on. So it’s easy to “let them find their own way”, particularly if they live in a bubble where what’s familiar/all they know /the norm is professional jobs, careers, wealth etc. which makes that “way” fairly prescriptive to begin with.

On the recruitment, it doesn’t just work that way for so called middle class jobs, tradespeople often help their sons or the sons of friends, likewise firefighters, train / tube drivers etc.

A bad school can absolutely do that. That’s the main issue with a generalisation such as “anywhere”. However, there’s a big difference (and a lot of middle ground) between a bad school and super selective independent.

The biggest load of crock is that smart children will thrive anywhere

Absolutely agree. My very bright, diligent DD could do very well. But certainly not in our local large school where she’d be overwhelmed and nervous because of behavioural issues of some kids.

She wouldn’t do great in some highly pressured hot house either. She is far too introverted and sensitive for either of those types of situations. So I put a lot of thought and energy into finding somewhere I think she could be supported to thrive.

I think it’s hard to separate what’s the child’s interest vs what the parent encourages and it’s easy to underestimate how much cultural capital makes you feel a sense of belonging. I’ve recently been mentoring some of our new hires. The majority come from families with parents who worked in professional, relatively high earning jobs and who have had lots of exposure to things like regular theatre going, museum/gallery visits, travel, expensive sports (all the stuff that lumps under cultural capital really). Some will self describe as working class, most would say they didn’t know/care what class they were if asked. A very occasional person is someone that would be widely recognised as coming from a working class background or from a family where many people are long term unemployed. I had a girl I was mentoring last year whose family were from a local old mining town where there are genuinely limited opportunities and who was first generation to go to university. None of the cohort set out to exclude her but she nonetheless feels like an outsider. They will be discussing stuff like the best runs at various ski resorts or what they are going to see at the theatre or giving each other recommendations for great hotels and sights and clubs in various European cities. She feels like she can’t join in so she stays quiet and she was saying one day that she felt an idiot as they’d been discussing secondments and she didn’t realise what they meant as she’s only ever read it not heard it said and assumed it was pronounced “second meant”. It’s so easy to blithely think all those things (alongside which specific school you attend) are not that important when you’ve never experienced anything else.

*I just edited for grammar. Teach me to change the start of the sentence without checking the end 😂

I agree with this. My aim in life is to have enough money in our family that my children could have difficulties, a disability, drop out, drop back in, and still have a reasonably happy and cushioned life which isn't dependent either on the state, or on one large salary that, if lost, would scupper everything. It's what my parents, one of whom came from a poor background, gave to me through their own success (that one went to grammar school, his mum left school at 13)- I've always known that if something bad happens, I can return home for a period of time, that someone will always house me, lend me money, so I could get back out there again. I've done this, and I want my children to have the same level of security, if not more.

I know exactly what you mean. The advantages of wealth and super-wealth are enormous.
The poorer folk know it isnt a level playing field.
When you are struggling to feed and clothe the children you love, you have no option of sending your kids to fee paying school.
The rich are perfectly aware of their advantages but they downplay it.
I think they are embarrassed to admit that they can so easily have what they want and many seem to loose touch with everyday trials entirely.
I think this is the premise David Ike thought would generate traction for his "lizard people".
Sometimes the wealthy talk about poorer folk with absolute contempt.

From MN (and other online forums like WIWIKAU) I've seen that there are a lot of conflicting narratives around state vs private schools (which then becomes RG vs non RG), and a lot of these things have elements of truth but are certainly not universally true.

A smart child will probably do as well at an average or above comprehensive as an average private school, but there's massive variability around that and it also depends on how "doing just as well" is measured- often people mean A level results but when nearly 30% % of A levels are graded A* or A there's a lot of knowledge variability even within the offer ranges for a top Uni that might affect ability to hit the ground running at those places. As a comprehensive student who went to Cambridge, my massive disadvantage was that I'd been taught the A level syllabus whereas my peers at the top private schools had been taught much more broadly. which really helped them in the Cambridge system. On personal experience I'd also disagree that "state school students are better than private school students". The brightest and "least bright" (for want of a better word in the context that all these people were at Cambridge) were a mix of the two. Every year has their "wtf" people where you wonder how the hell they got in - they usually bumbled through and got a third - but generally, everyone was within a range and it was a mix of backgrounds at each degree class.

The only actual 'gaming' is where people claim to live in a catchment but don't, or rent for a year in catchment of an excellent state school knowing will move out of area after starts at school - which then deprived a child who should have that space from getting it.

Anything else is people just honestly trying their best.

But I do get what you say about people keeping their cards close to their chest/not being upfront about their intentions. Has been especially prominent this year as DD has just finished year 5 in a grammar area. Most parents are all 'we haven't really prepped, will just give it a go and see what happens', and the reality is they are spending several thousand in tutoring and pushing lots of home prep too.
I get it, people don't want others to see they are disappointed if their child doesn't pass.

Saying that, my daughter is doing it, burethought going through the process, we now aren't sure if grammar is best fit for her, and if she passes we will genuinely leave it to her to decide if she goes - I'm sure other parents would say I'm covering up my true feelings on it.

I paid for music lessons, sports and educational trips, as I think cultural capital is the way to encourage critical thinking and encourage them to see what's outside of their own milieu, and imagine six impossible things before breakfast. For a long time, I actually thought they were both a bit thick academically and was unperturbed. I knew they would find their own way to be successful.

But there's no way I would pay for a tutor. They both had access to a perfectly good bog-standard comprehensive education. They had internet and school textbooks, like everyone else. Education is the last bastion of equality here in the UK and I would make private schooling and teachers doing private tuition against the law. Or at the very least make A level private tutors declare it on a database, so that the unfair advanntage is made clear on UCAS forms

The one that went to Cambridge University could not believe how thick the private school students were: "Mum, they know how to sound smart, but when you actually ask them questions, they don't know anything". Loads of the syudents claiming to be working class went to selective grammars, or grammars in hideously expensive catchment areas. A lot were claiming to be state kids, but had had expensive private tutors and were also rinsing the university for bursaries, despite their parents owning multiple homes and businesses.

I’ve already referred on this thread to the Matthew Effect in education. I’d be interested to know if anyone knows of evidence that disproves it.

I am deeply, passionately against private education and wish we had the same education system as Finland.

While people can opt out of state education those in power are not incentivised to improve it so ALL children can access high quality education.

My very dyslexic daughter is at an inner city school which is very multicultural and has a high level of pupils on free school meals. I don’t say either of those as criticisms but to demonstrate it is very unlike a private school.

Now in 6th form, she’s predicted AAB at A level. The crucial thing about her school is it is all girls. I think the best thing you can do for a girl’s education is to send her to a single sex school.

Train drivers and firefighters are solid working class jobs.

We sent our kids to the best school possible which meant going to church for many years in spite of not being religious. I've never lied about that (even to the vicar!)
I didn't give a flying fuck if people thought we were hypocrites or whatever. Private wasn't an option so we did the next best thing we could to give them what we felt was an educational advantage at secondary school.
Will we ever know if its made a difference? I'm hoping that it did and I feel like it has but obviously I will never know for sure. For A-levels they have made their own choices and they chose not to stay (based on subjects available/not available to them).
Did we 'game' education? Yes I guess we did. I've not heard the term before. I'm not sure we downplayed it though. We just made that choice.

Oh yes, I agree with the same sex education for girls. My eldest DD is thriving at an all girls private school (sorry, I know this isn't quite what you agree with!😕)

I'd have probably done much better at the girls grammar school if I'd gone there instead of the mixed grammar. The boys were awful and disruptive. Hindsight is a great thing though....