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?

Have to add that we are currently renting. DH needs to get into Town but we would happily move Surrey/Hampshire way for the right school if the commute was reasonable.

LEH isn't London based but I agree is too far away from Herts.

Trouble is SE is a large region. In our part lots of high quality day schools. Sorry don't know anything about Herts day schools.

Sorry missed your last post.

LEH has pupils from wide area from East Surrey down towards Guildford who use the school coaches.

We are in north Surrey.

Other good girls schools are Guildford High, Surbiton.

I would agree SPGS is not a school to consider if you live very far from central London. We discounted it on that basis.

kris123

Have a look at Rugby

Thanks Carrots! We will have a closer look that side for buying. We did live in Sandhurst a few years ago and whilst the preps around the Berks/Surrey/Hants border were very good, there seemed little choice at 13! I was not impressed by Bearwood at all. The only other option seemed Wellington and whilst I think AS is a fantastic HT (as he was at Brighton!), it really was not a school I'd consider not least because there are so few day pupils.

A top school is not determind by it's position in a league table. If that's all that interested me and I was so narrow minded then I would be paying for the cheap day school a couple of miles away!

Peterneras, not sure Rugby is that clever but I certainly enjoyed your clip!

I am one of those who went to CLC but would not send a daughter there.

It's not a sexist thing, if I have the money I'll likely send DS and (potential DD) private, just not to the school to which I went.

We also looked at Downe House for me, and my mother said no, as the headmistress at the time told her that the girls really had no time for extracurricular activities, as they were too busy with academic study.

I have encountered the sentiments that the OP is talking about before, though.

I went out with someone for years who was one of 4. He and his 2 brothers all went to Winchester, his sister struggled in the local school. His mother was the most unbelievably misogynistic person I've ever met.

Well it's not top of my list either but I just wondered how you defined 'top'.

Personally, I'm paying for the journey rather than the destination so breadth of education was top of my list. Otherwise, when my eldest started school and we lived in Cheshire, I would have sent him to my local state primary which had ridiculously high SATS results (3rd nationally at the time).

I have a DS and 2 DDs. If I could only send one it would be DS. Not because he's a boy but simply because he needs the small classes and extra input. Both my DDs are very bright, very confident girls. I would never want to deprive them of their wonderful education but I know they would do well wherever-Not as well, but still very well. DS would sink in a class of 30 and I shudder at the thought of him in an enormous comp.

Read this arguement for schooling in Tatler magazine last year. I think it's an excuse for parents who can't afford to send all their kids to fee paying schools. The gels will do fine but it's little what's his name who needs a kick in the right direction. Of course imho it's total rubbish and unfair to give more one to child based on gender rather than actual need. Depends where you live as well.

Is Downe House considered to be 'inferior' of CLC/WA? What basis would you use in classifying which schools are the 'top' schools, and which are not?

OK Blessings keep yer knickers on!

Sorry iof the "cheap day school down the road" isn't good enough for you but we can't afford swingeingly expensive boarding fees.

Plus I would let my kids board over my dead body.

Plus my DD loves her "cheap day school" and is actually doing very well there.

You are right, league table results alone don't determine school choice.

verity - I would define "top" as being the school that best suits your Dc.

Sod what anyone else thinks.

Coming in to this late, I'm awakening the zombie here, according MN!
DS going to one of this top all boys all boarding and we haven't a clue where to send DD!!
Granted, we have 13y of insider info on DS's school so know how utterly brilliant it is ... BUT we don't want all girls for DD. Not because they're not great (we know a couple of those from the inside too and for the right girls they are exceptional and have fully committed teachers) but because it won't suit her to be in an all girl 'pressure cooker' ... She needs the more laid back boys' approach to study to keep her level headed.
So (as posted on other threads) we are currently looking into a range of south/midlands/west of M25 co-eds to find one as thrusting, confidence-instilling, well-rounded as DS's school. Or the local state grammar, should she get in. Which she might well do ...

I think you might get more helpful replies if you start a new thread about your DD, as views in this one are four years old and about girls going to state schools when their brothers are in private schools.

Thanks yes, I do have another thread but was interested to engage some of the posters here who seemed to have some useful insights.

Friends had two boys (at Eton) and a younger boyish very bright DD they looked at girls equivalents to Eton and couldn't see there DD there, they eventually sent her to Kings Canterbury which they described as a boys school with girls. She's thrived and is doing really well about to go on like her brothers to a Oxford.

Hi 4happyhours,

You probably have done this already but have you looked through the directory of independent schools - presuming there is one?

Also, dare I say it - Tatler guide?! Good Schools Guide too?

It would probably be worth calling some of the well regarded girls schools - NLCS, Habs Girls and asking if any of their girls leave to board (surely some do) and where they go to? I'd call as many co-ed and girls prep schools as possible that are based in the same geographical location you're looking at and ask the same question.

Good luck.

Thanks both ... Kings CB would be on our list orbit wasn't so jolly far away!
As DD asked me this morning, what of hers and DS's exeats coincide? Hence we really need to look within an hour hour and a half max from Eton - probably west of London ...

Where abouts are you going to be living / working? Would private depend on teacher discounts (if you decided to teach there) or bursaries.
If you decide to go for grammar because it seems the best fit for her then she could have the option to move to private co-ed sixth forms or vica versa.

Currently M4 corridor. Will need to move her from DH's school at some point as it's too small a school to get away with being the Head's offspring, as we found with DS. Fine if you're a teacher somewhere but it's too big a burden in a small school to be saddled with being the son/daughter of the Head ...

TBH 4Haopy I remain to be convinced that any of the boarding co-ed private provide the standard of education you get from the outstanding boarding boys' schools or some of the well known London day schools and therefore for your DD it will be difficult to match up to her brother if she stays private. Sevenoaks might. I know that the Dragon school in Oxford, which probably feeds the most DC to all sorts of schools does rate St Edwards for providing the senior equivalent to what they do, (not just because it is local to them). If you want to stay private, any chance your DD could go to the Dragon if she has to move from your DH's prep? It provides a fantastic co ed education for girls who like being allowed to do the same as the boys and on equal terms. It also has a reputation for offering excellent senior school advice for the individual DC.

Thanks Summerends - we like the Dragon v much, but if she had to board anywhere we would plump for The Elms if we were to move her to board as DS has had a fantastic time there, and it's prepared him super-well for his 13+.
Teddies might well be worth a look for her though; we looked on their open day a couple if years ago with DS for an insurance should he not come good with his 1st choice, and were shown around by such an unimpressive, dull young shell that we wouldn't have been happy with DS being there. However, we thought the staff was exceptional ... So we will most probably look at it from a gorl's pov next time!

*girl's!

As I have a boy doing very well in a school categorised as "d)other state" by Kris 123, who does indeed " do triple science, Latin, Greek and play in the orchestras and music ensembles they have access to" I have a rather different take on this thread.

He has just thrashed a load of grammar and private school pupils in a maths challenge and his school beat the private schools at a recent University based science day competition.
Oh, and some members of the science team were girls.

Gender stereotyping sucks, ridiculous generalising about school sectors sucks, assumptions and prejudices suck.