Bizarre notion: private good for boys, girls will do well anywhere

[duchesse]

Has anybody else encountered this weird logic that private school is good or even desirable for boys, but that their sisters will do well anywhere so can go to the local state school? It was this bizarre statement from my MIL that ensured that I went back to work so that my daughters could go to the same fee-paying schools that their brother was attending.

Is it a generational thing? And is it utterly sexist or on the contrary, a compliment of girls' ability to knuckle down and perform regardless of what's going on around them (which obviously is not the case for many girls). My feeling is that it's an antiquated utterly sexist thing- that there's no point educating girls as much as boys as they'll just leave education and get pregnant. What do you think?

My son was utterly failing in state primary (completely disengaged in classes of 36) by the age of 6, so we took the hard decision to send him to prep school from year 3. Hard because I was dead set against private school back then. I just did not want to see my bright bright boy unhappy and failing for ten more years.

My MIL offered to pay his fees, which bless her she has done ever since then. But she maintained that state education was fine for girls because "girls do well anywhere". I could not accept that classes of 30-35 and no sports or clubs or extra-curricular stuff was fine for the girls but not fine for the boy, vs the 15 in a class, individual attention, 8 hours a week of physical activity and multitude of extra-curriculars offered at our son's mixed prep. Having endured the same situation in my own family I was buggered if I would allow it to be repeated, so I was propelled back into work when my daughters were 4 and 2, which has been overwhelmingly a good thing. I just wanted to be in a position to pay my daughters' fees, which I have done ever since.

They are doing extremely well where they are (very good selective academic schools with wide range of extra-curricular stuff) and I absolutely do not believe that they would be doing as well had they gone to the local state schools. For a start they would not have been able to do triple science, Latin, Greek and play in the orchestras and music ensembles they have access to. There is only one grammar school around here and even that does not offer them these opportunities (apart from the triple science). The lure of not having to spend any money on them would have been quite appealing had it not been for the huge and unfair divide it would have created between my children. Either I would have had to let my son fail in the state system (seriously he nearly "failed" his KS1 SATs aged 6, or would have if we hadn't withdrawn him from school. now don't get me wrong, I didn't give a shit about SATs and was not about to put pressure on him to perform in them, but I did not want him to feel like an academic failure at the age of 6).

So what do you: sexist or based on fact?

BlessingsGalore, I fear you are right. Both my DCs (boy and girl) are at private schools, though I would be perfectly happy for DD to "waste" her education, marry someone wealthy, have four children, and never work. This option might not be open to her if she were at the local Special Measures comp.

I do find the idea of boys going private and girls not, utterly bizarre. That said, DS is hoping for a scholarship to Eton, and I would be more than happy for him to go - but I would prefer DD to stay at a day school.

mamatomany, now we are talking. :) i think it might be a great idea re summer school, but not for us now. Too early, you might even create aversion to the entire concept of boarding.

At the moment I could not dream of getting 820k for the two kids to go there for 7 years (better get off mumsnet), but i do think that grammar till GCSEs and Int Bac at Le Rosey for 16-18, is not such a stupid idea. :) The best of two worlds (someone will surely call me "a tourist" again :) ).

Blessings... i fully agree on English Education System for the boys... its the best, but I remain unconvinced about the girls equivalents being mentionned here.

I want my DDs to be independent, with a career, outgoing, international, aggressive, but knowing limits of course. I want them to know the good manners, but know how to break them. I want them to listen and play classical music, but know how to party when Rhianna's "I'm the only gorl in the world" comes on. Finding a place that will teach this is just very very difficult I think. I swear that boys seem to have it so much easier in life. Five shirts, two suits, one pair of good shoes, and endless apetite for fun.

Happiness is priceless.

Gosh isnt the world full of suprises,people still taking what Kris says at face value,rather than as some might think the ramblings of a fantasist

Propatria is back with her smart insults, a sign that once again i have recently spent too much time on this site.

Shame I was just starting to enjoy this.

What's your problem with Kris, Propatria?

Have a look at the "state child got into Eton" thread among others.
A time waster in my ever so humble opinion.

Kris just to clarify, I did also say: "This is, of course, only true if you regard going to a fee paying school as offering a better education/environment than a state school and I'm very aware that this is not always the case."

BelleDame, Sakura, I agree with you.

We are on the same page here. My order for schools is...

a) top private
b) state grammar
c) other private
d) other state

Now many people will turn around b) and c), and most will have different way of saying what is a "top private" school. I am very selective on this, perhaps only Eton / Wesminster / St Paul and Winchester making my criteria of the top school, but i recognise that for others it could be different.

I do maintain however, that I struggle to find schools in catergory a) for girls, especially as i am very keen for them to attend a co-ed place - what is not a traditional forte of English Education System. Hence if I hence feel that Sevenoaks for boys is in category c), why should I put seveoaks for girls in category a)?

I got a lot of people lost on this, but it makes no difference now anyway, as thanks to Propatria's arogant comments, i will simply once again drop off mumsnet for sometime, and get on with working on making that cash for Le Rosey for my two DDs.

Here is my order of top schools (not in order):

Eton
Radley
Westminster
Harrow
Winchester
Sevenoaks
CLC
WA
Benenden
Marlborough
Rugby
Oundle

Top does not mean top academically as not everyone has an academic child. Radley is known as the No.1 most popular school in the country and is certainly not C list. There are many other schools that fall into an A list and a C list independent school would be a local private school or lesser private school. There are some schools that I would never consider such as Wellington but that does not make it a C list. Even Stowe, which is known to be for thickos offers an elite education to rival Eton and Win but the cohort are not as bright.

Kris I'm interested to know why you'd prefer co-ed for your girls. I'm not even at Primary stage with DD but I'd prefer her to go to a girls' school. Apologies if you've answered further up thread - it's been a long, hard day.

BDSM (strange initials - are they deliberate?),

I prefer co-ed for girls from the age of 16 +, as I think that emotionally they need to be introduced to the world of men earlier than 18-19 at the university halls.

Age of 16- 19 is very important for girls in their overall development and future man/woman relationships (healthy, on equal basis). In the BDSM language, a 15 year old girl feels no physical fear (if anything often supremacy) over 15 year old boy, and it is the way she should feel. In many countries, being 19 means that you are married and with kids.

To be honest, I think I would even prefer co-ed education from 16+ for my DS (and actually Wesminster does offer this), but the reality is that the best schools in England are still single-sex, as they were for last 500 years (what is frankly not in tune with the 21st century way of thinking). However, on the other hand I think that while boys can easily catch up this period, and in many ways will even benefit from later developing greater respect for Ladies, this time lost for girls is very important indeed.

I never attended single sex school so I could be wrong here, but please do share your views on this website. Thats what it is for. 21st century coffee shop of 17inch screens.

Kris - initials NOT deliberate and (not that I've led a particularly sheltered life) I'd never even seen them used before I joined this site. I'd decided on the name and then found out, etc. I don't want to change it and it does amuse me in a very immature way!

I think you're right about the 16-19 age range being mixed. I was thinking of primary school to GCSE really. I also didn't go to a single sex school which is probably why I want DD to. I am certain that I would have been more academically focussed from around 13 if there had been fewer distractions and/or competition for the attention of the "cool" boys.

kris123 Forgive me, but I think you are worrying unnecessarily. We are, after all, all different. I know I posted you earlier that my DD is in a single sex superselective and very shy with boys, but, honestly, there are lots of other factors that come into play;

I was always/still am shy with the opposite sex but that has more to do with my upbringing than having gone to an all-girls grammar. I grew up with brothers who were older and chauvinistic and that probably had far more to do with it than the fact that I wasn't exposed to boys at school.

Also, when I started dating, all those moons ago, men found it very attractive that I was shy and, unfortunately, it didn't take me long to gain lots of confidence!

I'm surprised that all your lists of top schools don't include Withington in Manchester. It is pretty much (officially) the top girls school in the country yet seems to be overlooked all the time.

I wouldn't send my DDs there but that's because a) I prefer co-ed and b) We live the other end of the country now.

to the OP (because I haven't read all of the rest) I think it is sexist/old fashioned - it's an extension of the attitude which sent boys away to school while girls stayed at home with a governess / went to a local school to learn how to sew and host dinner parties because academic education is not important for girls.

Of course ideal school choice (for those who have the luxury of choice) depends on the individual child - but there is no gender divide in that, IMO.

The list above doesn't appear to include any of the top academic girls schools.

That's what I thought, Carrots. That's why I mentioned Withington. Didn't see any mention of NLCS either. I'm fairly sure that on academics alone, NLCS and Withington are the top two in the country

BlessingsGalore Here is my order of top schools (not in order):

Eton
Radley
Westminster
Harrow
Winchester
Sevenoaks
CLC
WA
Benenden
Marlborough
Rugby
Oundle

Rugby may be more clever
Harrow may make more row


Steady from stroke to bow
And nothing in life shall sever
The chain that is round us now

I think your mother in law is right.

However, it seems unfair to only send one child to private school.

Gym Bunny. Interesting viewpoint that your DH has.

If you had known me about 4 years ago (I was mid 30s), he would have said the same about me. I was privately educated, degree, law school and a solicitor....and a SAHM for 3.5 years. Am now working again, and love it.

Fwiw, I think you need to treat the DCs equally. My DH and his brother went state, his DSis to a v good private school. DH and brother have done well (in life), but the DSis has been exceptionally successful. He is convinced of the benefits of private education if only for the opportunities and the confidence that it often bestows.

Top private girls schools that reularly top the league tables include

Wycombe Abbey
St Pauls Girls
Lady Eleanor Holles

And probably lots more that I have missed.

The girls schools tend to do better than the boys schools in fact.

Are they only classed as 'top' if they are boarding then?

Certainly the two I mentioned are day schools but both have phenominally high results.

We used to live in the NW and all the top schools such as Withington and Manchester Grammar as obviously day schools. This suited us fine as personally, I would never consider boarding before 6th form. However, now that we're back in the SE (home counties so not london) the day schools are nowhere near the standard of the two schools mentioned above. To get that level, you need to board. Though we've only been back a few months and I'd be delighted if I was wrong.

Only the first in my list is a boarding school.

Though they are all in SE as that is the region I know.

I don't agree with you about day schools in the SE.

Well, the other two are London based so a bit impractical for us as a day school.

Perhaps it is different where you are but the schools I have looked at in Herts do not match either Withington or NLCS for results.

I'm certainly open to suggestions...

And the reason I mentioned Withington is that having lived up there I know it to be one of the top independent girls schools in the country. It just surprises me that it is never mentioned in lists of top girls schools-if measuring academic results.