Do Jamie Oliver's children attend private schools?

[tryingtobemarypoppins2]

Just been watching his C4 series and wondering.....

If the state schools Millar's children are at are worse than the private schools to which they might otherwise go then their parents are indeed putting politics above the good of their children. It's easier for me though as a capitalist free markets person as private provision of most things is a moral good and thus I don't have the same conflict.

As for single sex schools at primary level I very much support it and I pay in part to achieve that. I think it's wonderful that my chidlren's lessons can all be releavnt to "the boy". That boy isn't bad. That boy energy is the norm as everyone is indeed a boy there. That boys aren't too much prevented from doing "girl" things because there are girls around as there are no girls.

Dream School isn't about JO or the kids. Its about the teachers.

I couldn't give a flying fark where JO's kids go to school, its irrelevant. He's just a presenter.

For goodness sake, it's not about Fiona Millar (whom I don't warm to much either) dictating what's best for children other than her own. The vast majority of children in Britain will go through the state school system. It's going to be imperfect educationally, and sacrificed to politics to some extent. Why shouldn't she in particular have an opinion on that system and write a book about it? Look at the people we have running things now - hardly experts on living in poverty (times infinity), yet allowed to have any number of opinions and actual policies on the subject!

"Are you on a different thread, Xenia?"

Nah.

Xenia's on her usual private education crusade. The one that runs concurrently with her working mums are best crusade.

heheh- Ooid, I read your comment 'experts on living in poverty (times infinity) as some sort of newspaper supplement for the Super-rich!

It's a matter of time! Those super rich are only going to get richer.

Oh ok - I didn't read her book but did read reviews of it and didn't remember her saying private education is morally wrong.

That is a silly point.

Round our way, a tranche of society educates privately, despite there being excellent state schools practically next door in some cases. If they didn't, state school class sizes would be too big and quality might go down. So I just think 'hmm, silly people' but really they benefit me directly by removing themselves and lowering numbers.
I suppose what I'm saying is that if JO can afford it, taking 4 children out of a system that's flawed and stretched can only benefit that system, surely?

Ooid, I see it the other way around. If there were no independent sector, then state schools would need to be bigger/ more plentiful, and would tend to benefit from having the whole of society investing in them (both financially and in terms of parental engagement). I think quality would in fact improve (although clearly this wouldn't happen overnight).

Never gonna happen though.

But isn't that dangerously close to saying that the parents who educate privately are a bit better than the ones who use state schools?
Now I am a perfectly practical person, I can see that some parents are indeed far better in terms of quality than others, but I don't see it dividing along state/private sector lines. In fact, I know a fair few parents who've gone private, and my only thought is one of relief that they won't be getting their claws into the PTA and turning it into some gross monied lalala one-up-on-you extravaganza. I don't really want my children to be around the attitude that money talks. (Despite knowing that sadly it does, and in perpetuity.)
There are millions of good parents in the state sector, all contributing away. I don't see how getting 10% more who happen to be richer is going to practically raise standards.

(Figure of 10% plucked out of my arse there.)

But it's only 7% of children at fee paying schools anyway and they'd only go to the posh comps or state grammars or religious schools or be home educated or go abroad so I doubt if you had my 5 little reasonably bright darlings in a local state schools which presumably in our case would be one of the top state grammars in Bucks or somewhere I very much doubt any other chidlren in the state sector would massively benefit from rubbing against the magic dust in which my "exceptional" (ie very ordinary) children are coated. Nor do I supoose my children's accent/English and way of speaking would rub off and change the way some state school pupils speak

I don't believe any of it when celebs do this type of programme. It's all down to the programme makers, researchers, etc surely and the celeb just does the presentation bit with all the frustrated looks, tears of joy and sadness on cue, etc like the adverts where the celebs have wonderful hair and in the tiny print it states it is not their own hair.

Is any tv real? I mean 100%? possibly 50% real possibly.

I don't mean at all that the private sector gets the cream.

I do mean that the top 7% (using Xenia's figure) whose children attend private tend to get a lot of attention from whichever government is in power. If their children attended lessons in crumbling Portakabins, I'm sure they would be effective in making their indignation felt, for the benefit of all the children at the school.

"We're all in this together" rings hollow when an opt-out is available, but only to those with sufficient funds. Efforts like Jamie Oliver's look like Victorian patronage.

I see your point, Pendulum, but I also see the way schools are differentiated at the moment, much as Xenia set out in her post. I can't see it being different.

Ooid, I agree with you. Tinkering at the margins will not work. Education policy should be thinking big.

as a student or parent smallwhitecat ?

Nor do I supoose my children's accent/English and way of speaking would rub off and change the way some state school pupils speak

God, I hope not.

I'd far rather yah yah drawling was confined to the nice but dim public school crowd. Makes it so much easier to spot 'em when you can't see the turned up rugby collar.

• Mine speak beautifully but are able to do so without sounding like a low flying aeroplane.

you may be right about that SWC.

ALL the parents I have ever spoken to (of bright children and struggling ones) want more info on how their child is actually doing at school, ie how is my child doing in relation to the average, not just completely uncontextualisable info on what the child can do and what their learning goals are at the moment, but can we get that? no we bloody can't.

whereas private schools are quite happy to tell parents that IME.

seth, my DS's private school told us (in all reports)where he was placed in his class/set. No bollocks at all about learning goals or even what they had covered in the lessons. Very old-fashioned and I appreciated it.

I don't give a toss where people choose to educate their children. As long as that choice isn't permitted to buy advantage over and above that which a child would naturally accrue due to its own innate intelligence, motivation and graft.

Which isn't the case.

seth, good point. My children's very academic schools though try very very hard to ensure the children aren't comparing each other with each other as any overt competition comes from chidlren themselves not the schools. However you can usually ask how they are doing compared to others and some have a system of emailing the child's position that week in a test without your knowing what the marks of the other children are. Anyway most reasonably bright children can figure out who in the class is excellent and who isn't.

What intersted me rcently was one of mine saying they had no problem with others knowing what they got in their class (and I imagine it wasn't that great a mark) and why did others not want it known? I don't know - I imagine it's just just a personal view of that child.

Surely if you asked a state primary teacher what position your child was in class in a particular subject they would tell you?