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?