Do Jamie Oliver's children attend private schools?

[tryingtobemarypoppins2]

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

I don't know what a national average child looks like or what she/he can do - so that information would be useless to me. I was interested in how DS was doing in comparison with his cohort in his school - not for competition purposes but so that I could envisage what he was experiencing. Am I missing a point here?

Plenty of them with school age children sit on their bottoms all day on mumsnet when they might earn a set of school fees. of course some could never earn more than £6 an hour, but lots have degrees and could get at £30k a year job to pay two sets of school fees or set up a business. It's not impossible.

On the question of wanting to know how a children is doing relative to others in the class I bet 90% of parents on mumsnet would love to know and if state school teachers refuse to tell them that's a crying shame,. It doesn't hugely matter as any reasonably bright child can tell you Johnny is as thick as a plank and gets the worst marks in the class in tests and Brian is top of the class in everything but it's nice to have a rough feel for the child's position as against its peers.

Are we now hitting on part of the reason private schools (and I assume state grammars) produce children who do so much better at work than state pupils - because private onces aren't shielded from all competition and place compared to others (whcih is how the real world is too)?

When children come out of school, at either 16 or 18, we are interested in their grades - the number of As or Bs or whatever is far more useful (and relevent) than their place in their particular class at that particular school in that particular year. Any other "comparison" is unnecessary, and I do not believe anyone who claims that their interest in where their DC is compared to others in the class is for any reason other than parental competitiveness.

Xenia the state secondary that my children are at have no issue at all with straight talking, both about current performance and about potential. Where do you get that idea about state schools? And even if you've had a bad experience in the state system, that doesn't justify sweeping generalisations.

I really like the fact that our school's outcomes on all levels are easily as good as all except arguably a small handful of private schools but that we seem to lack this objectionable inter-parental competitiveness and still get results (including at university entrance level/ careers). Much pleasanter all round, including for the children.

smallwhitecat that's bad that you had to resort to legal action but I doubt it's because you're educated and middle class?

I was only asking. I think there are things the state sector can learn from the private sector.

I agree with ET that what counts is what are the grades like but I think most parents want to know how their children are doing compared with others in the class. It's not that strange to want a rough idea and at the end of the day I want them to be emotionally balanced, mentally healthy and happy and feel loved and over and above that lead useful lives in work they do whether that's a contemplative nun, surfing instructor or banker.

50% of parents would pay school fees if they could surveys show and it's not surprising JO and his wife choose to educate their girls privately.

Well there's an argument to be had about the utility of some or possibly all your three chosen jobs of course.

I think most parents would prefer to know how their children are doing on a less parochial measure. The better the school, the worse the averagely itelligent/ motivated child will be doing. It's fairly meaningless.

There may be some things that the private sector can learn from the state sector too.

Your didactic approach to the question of working mothers is verging on the offensive as is your presumption that those of us who send our children to state schools only do so because we can't afford to and/ or are to lazy to earn the required extra income. I'm a law graduate from a pretty pucker university (as Jamie would say) yet believe that I happen to do best by my own children by being at home. Each to their own.

can't afford to go private (last two words got eaten)

If people are secure in their choices then they shouldn't much mind if others disagree with their position. 94% of children go to state schools and plenty of those do fine and children most of all want happy parents. They do worse with parents who whinge all the time (whether the parent whinges about having to work or about being tied down at home doing housework although in my view there are a raft of other reasons why women shoudl work)

Our State primary school gives each child a target for the year. Generally the average for each year is made clear so parents know whether their child is below, about or above average and believe me the parents are only too happy to discuss with others to find out where their child is in the class. Also everybody knows what group their child is in for literacy and numeracy and alot of parents discuss what level reading books their child is on. The parents are highly competitive and because of this the school is high achieving as there are many that undertake private tuition to get their child above average and everybody knows what group their child is in for literacy and numeracy but then I know parents at the local prep who do exactly the same thing. Most of the parents at both schools are professionals. There is one crucial difference, the parents at the prep want their child into the neighbouring grammar school in the next LEA, many are foreign nationals who have had to work really hard in their own countries to get an education to get out in poverty. Ironically the ones at the state primary are generally second generation (including myself - second/thhird generation and believe in the truly comprehensive schools in our borough which are brilliant without the stress of the grammar exams. It could be a generational thing but the parents at my DCs school are still extremely competitive. There will be areas where the parents are not so involved and it has nothing to do with money. Some of the SAHMs (most work) are more competitive than the WOHMs. Having said all this I would say that Henry or Harry's parents were very involved with his education and he still dropped out. Therefore you cannot say for certainty that parental engagement is the most important factor, peer factor can be equally as important. But drugs are a bigger problem in the wealthier areas, grammar schools and private schools in my experience and this can also reduce the motivation of a teenager. Anecdotally the bigger dopeheads I knew at uni were from posh areas or private schools. I would not like to generalise though as is so often done.

I stand by my argument that position in class is totally dependent on cohort. It is a vehicle for parents of brighter children to congratulate themselves for having such bright offspring.

As regards 'national average': Levels and statements for the 'national average' can be found from the internet (DFE) and from teachers. It is accountable and measurable.

Bitsy also makes a good point that setting gives parents a clue where their children are.

I can afford to send my children to private school. I choose not to.

As for the "how are they doing against the rest of the class" thing, I don't know, where it comes to my own children, but they're in Yr R, so I'm not too fussed. From a teaching perspective, it seems a little irrevelent. Students in the top sets at the school I teach in would very likely be in middle sets at our local state grammar (or lower). However, there are still students achieving Level 7 in yr 8. Surely that's more important than the fact that they are top of their class?

stoatsrevenge - I totally agree with you about parents of brighter children being desperate to congratulate themselves by finding out where their child is in relation to their peers.

I agree ET. I wonder if Xenia would be so keen on it if her children had been at the bottom of the class!

To be honest I would rather know that my DC is bottom of the class as they may need extra help and that was the case with both of my DCs when they started school both summer babies. The teachers were really scared about telling me but I was keen to get them any extra help they could and it worked and it was good to see them start to fly. I personally think it is important. Finally I agree with Xenia on something.

bitsy, but don't you see that it's all to do with cohort? A child who is top of the class where I teach would not necessarily be top of the class in a different school. My DTDs are summer babies too, so I would rather know that they are Level 1b for reading, whilst the expectation for their age group is a 2c, than that they are "bottom of their class". In a different cohort, they could be 1b but near the top of the class. Either way, they're still lower than they shouldbe and therefore in need of extra help.

I agree ET. My bottom of the class point was more to do with being below average but in any cohort there would be a bottom, middle and top table and kids know this. It is reality.

You need to earn more than 10k gross to pay a set of 10k school fees net, just thought I'd point that out.

Ime of the private sector the ones who are really milking the system are the ones pretending to be exactly what Xenia hates: workshy single mothers, coining it in with bursaries and free private education for their children with wealthy boyfriends in the background. Damn my feminist principles!

SR, I'm sure I have said on MN before now that my oldest was not that high in the 5th of 5 sets for maths at Habs. She still got an A. I have never had a genius type child. They are all pretty laid back. She's doing fairly well because as we all know a mixture of factors determine future career/success and she's the oldest. The oldest tends to do best most studies show. Birth position etc, all kinds of things have an impact. Brain chemistry.

I don't think most private schools go on about position in class too much either but the information is there if you want it and I certainly don't think most children want any public listings of placings but they tend to have a fair idea of where they are.

Yes, you need more than £10k to earn one set of school fees but if you're a housewife your single persona allowance is about £7400 so there is not that much tax comiung off the first £10k and many women can earn |320k or even teh dizzy heights of £30k. Some even £200k or £3m. Just because you're female doesn't mean you have to earn a pittance.

preg, very very few parents do get bursaries though in my experience at the schools I've known anyway. I don't know the % and I know they are higher at some places like Manchester Grammar. I know the state assisted places scheme was very often abused however on the same sort of basis you described - usually married couples with a business with "zero" profits which of course weren't zero profits if you looked at the cars and houses they had.

Xenia my oldest did the worst so far - only 10A*'s. The three next down have all done better (11, 11 12).

Your suggestion that mothers should earn to pay school fees makes ridiculous assumptions. I'm as secure in my choice of school as I am about staying at home.

I assure you that even if I'd wanted to, I would not have been able to have the children I now have with the eight sets of maternity leave that I'd have needed and be in a job where I'd been promoted up to the level where my earnings could have paid for the school fees plus all the child care and domestic help that would have been required.

I assume you're in North London. That's another thing: we'd all much rather live here in our seaside cottage than London or any big city which would be the only place to have a reasonable chance of earning big money.

Please stop preaching, it's tedious.

Just to be accurate and realistic in budgetting:
Factor in NI as well as tax.
And holiday childcare for the very long independent school hols for the first couple of years.
Travel to work and work clothes.
Costs beyond fees of sending a child to a private school - extra travel costs if it is further from home and significant uniform costs.

Although some working parents find it suits them better because there tend to be more before and after school clubs activities, late school coaches home etc

It is certainly more affordable than some women think.

Just FTR Xenia.

I don't work, I neither need nor want to.

We can very, very comfortably afford school fees for all our children.

We CHOOSE not to at this stage because our local primary is so superb no one in their right mind would pay. In fact, no one I know does ( and most are big earners).

Secondary - we'll probably change but certainly not at primary level.

Hmm, I'm not sure what that info does for your prejudices assumptions about intelligent women who woudl rather stick pins in their eyes than work and wealthy bastards that use local schools.

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. JO and I live in London. It's a very different market for schools than elsewhere. It just depends on the place. I grew up very close to Cheryl Cole but in completely different worlds (she state I private school). In other bits of the country you're right. Although without doubt private schools do tend to produce many more successful people than state schools in the UK for a large number of reasons and that will not just be class and accent.

Xenia you're from the Toon?

But Xenia!

She is ( I'm guessing) considerably richer than yow and yet, and yet, she is from a gasp STATE school!!!!