Are the majority of classes in state schools as disruptive as the class on Jamie Oliver's Dream School?

[mummynoo]

After watching Jamie Oliver's dream school, I am wondering if all state school classes are as rude and disruptive as the class featured in this programme. Since my daughter is due to start infants school this September?

Can any teachers who might be reading this give me their opinion. Is it impossible to teach because the pupils are constantly talking over you?

How did a discussion on state schools turn into internecine warfare between working and SAHM's?

Can't we all just agree that Xenia is a naughty stirrer with her 'if you don't send your child to a private school they will be a failurer and you a selfish, lazy and ultimately miserable cow' shtick?

Surely no-one with half a brain cell - except those whose kids failed to get into grammars, say, and who have been bitter ever since? - could really hold this view?

Debate is interesting.

Bisty's point is interesting too - to what extent do you spend on your children or save and spend on yourself. I think with children 4/5 I took a conscious choice - I would love more than just about anythingo n this planet to have more children, mor than buying a ski chalet, yacht etc and indeed the cost of the two with a full time nanny for 5 years and then school fees of say £25k a year and univesrity and if the older ones are how the youngers wil be post grad too and supporting them all alone is consideraable - say £30k for the two x 22 years = 660,000 gross up at about 40% as from out of taxed income is about a round £1m.

So have the last two children or have an extra £1m for myself. Much rather have the children. Never mind the income you lose through spending time with them of course which is perhaps even higher - you tend not to work 24/7 if you have children you love and want to be with.

It's a classic issue for parents. Mothers in hsitory have often starved to death because they give food to their chidlren instead of to themselves.

Is a mother wrong or selfish if she chooses not to pay school fees or not to buy the best schools for the child's foot or buys the caged eggs and Tesco value chickens I buy rather than spending more on the child etc.

Of course

Xenia please get a grip on your spelling and language ('hsitory' 'buy the best schools for the child's foot') even if you can't do the same with reality.

The penultimate paragraph means what?

So don't you pay tax if you spend income on yourself?

I could do with your second long paragraph re-worked too.

Personally I'm on the chicken's side..

Ultimately there's nothing I'd rather spend money on than my children's happiness and long-term security. Which for our family means a comfortable house in a nice area, private school, all the extra-curricular they want, university savings and dp and I looking after ourselves so we're not a burden and increasingly less frequently, holidays. But all of this stuff is more important than, for example,nice cars, constant house improvements, facials, clothes etc. We pay more on school fees than we do on our mortgage and certainly it would be nice if we could have paid off our mortgage or retired early but I can't ever see me regretting spending money on our kids. With 2 only 2 years apart it is a finite even if long period of time. Would be different if we had more kids with bigger gaps.

Youc an indeed get pension sharing orders on divorce but most people don't have big enough pensions to make the costs of getting one (£2k+) worth while and many foolish women want cash in exchange but only get about 1 fifth the pension fund value whihc of cours reflects it - you don't get pound per pound.

Pension sharing is just part of the wider financial provision made on divorce, it doesn't cost a set sum of £2k or any other set sum as far as I know.

The pension thing is a smokescreen introduced to the thread to paper over some thin arguments about SAHM's being morally bankrupt etc. and failing to a) earn school fees and b) lend succour to their own gender.

I can't see why women should support women in general any more than they should support men: all these women for women arguments are inherently divisive.

The main discord on this thread is attributable to your denigration of women who for whatever reason stay at home and don't think much of your suggestion that they should be out earning school fees. Several have defended their position robustly (they're happy, their partners are happy, their kids are happy, they've got more kids than they could otherwise have, they've got plenty of money, they've got less money with the status quo but prefer that to working and having more, they're not going to get uptight about pensions, they've got great schools in the state sector and great results from those schools etc. etc.). Not one sounded like a put upon shrinking lily dependent on a man and in need of advice.

Xenia, what about those who afford school fees on just one income so don't need to go to work to earn them?

I'm not sure how forfeiting an extra £1m million leads to needing to buy from the budget range at Tesco .

I think I'd rather that my children have the sort of mother who has serious qualms about the ethics of consuming Tesco value chicken & caged eggs. And if having some standards about the example I set means I get to have fewer children, then so be it.

I think spending money on a child's education when you can have it for free is a complete waste of money. But it's hard to be motivated about paying for private education when you have done well in the state sector (both my dh and I did very well in rural comps. and then at good universities.) Plus the private schools round us aren't inspiring and have some poor behaviour.

And, that money we're not having to earn to pay school fees gives us free time to enjoy our children and watch them play.

However, I wouldn't ever buy a value chicken...

I have mixed feelings about SAHMs...when work is hard I envy them. When work is interesting I don't.

Would it be ridiculous of me to ask wtf buying Tesco value chicken has to do with disruptive pupils?

Just for the record not everyone shares the same views on the organic food scams or animal rights but that's a side issue.

If people can afford school fees on one salary that's fine as long as it's the man at home in the rubber gloves and pinny (until we get more than 50% of women in positions of power) and then I will let up and allow the men out of the unpaid domestic roles.

(Pension sharing orders require an expert valuation be obtained. Often that is quite expensive in terms of the fees paid for it and most couples have very very little in a pension anyway - that was all I was saying about pension sharing orders on divorce)

The much more interesting point is where our obligations as parents of either gender stands. To what extent do you sacrifice your life for your children in terms of life or death not a choice most of us face but less extreme than that how you balance spending on yourself and your life against that on your children in all kinds of areas and also the balance with that of happy parent can mean happy child. Even on holiday the children know I need a few hours alone. That mights seem incredibly selfish - going away and then needing total silence but I know in year 26 as a mother that I need that to be okay the rest of the time so I take that time and it makes the rest of the time better.

Mother as martyr is a big issue and perhaps should be a different thread. The child wants the happ parents not the moaners and a lot do moan so so much that their children would be betetr off if the mother had gone off to the sauna for 2 hours and left the washing undone but been more jolly after school.

Hi Xenia. Touch of megalomania seems to have cut in today: not convinced it's in your gift to 'allow the men out of the unpaid domestic roles'.

I'm quite intrigued to know what your own job is?

I'm guessing it must be one where you don't need to listen to or understand the views of other people. It seems to me that you are being told repeatedly that it's perfectly possible to be a mother without being a martyr and to be happy and fulfilled without working outside the home.

For my part it never occurs to me to think consciously about what I should spend on the children as opposed to what I should spend on myself, but that could be because we only have enough for the basics. And as for the happiness calculation, it's inextricably linked with the children's happiness: if things are going well for them, I'm happy and vice-versa. That's natural surely, not martyrish.

Btw. third daughter's just rung to say she's got 120/120 in her English A level - and from a state school!!!!

And Xenia, Year 12 son has just phoned to say he's got full marks too in seven out of eight AS papers -from a state school!!!!

Oh, Rosebud, tsk tsk, how completely unreasonable of you to fail to make the connection .

Well done to your DC Yellowstone.

My DD has had AS level results today too, and is also at a state school.
She has texted to say "You will be so proud of me." But won't tell me until she gets home!

She says she wants to keep me in suspense

Yellowstone, that's great for your DCs, but you're being a bit smug. Yes, many children do really well in comprehensives (as I did), but there may be others who don't do as well as they might because of disruption, poor teaching, limited opportunities (e.g. to take separate sciences) or other issues: there are plenty such tales on mumsnet.

It is also lovely to hear the success stories-of which there are many! (so many people seem to think that comprehensive = second best).

My exeperiences of private and state education are completely at odds with most peoples and they colour completely my views.

Simply put, many of the people I know who are hideously successful and went to top universities are state educated and three people I know who went to tiop public schools are complete and utter wasters, two more went to average poly's and one is an alcoholic.

I just can't get beyond that, sorry.

I find the school they went to has no relevance-I know quite a few private school drop outs-the only difference is they they generally have connections to find work.

Wow, well done Yellowstone - you must be v proud.

I agree with Shirleywhirly. I know someone who went to a private school and he has ginger hair and bad teeth, and another friend of mine who educated her children privately says they turned out rubbish. Therefore, why waste money on private schools if all it gets you is ginger hair and bad teeth, and your children are rubbish?

Those rich people must be complete idiots to believe all that talk of "going beyond the curriculum" and "teaching the individual" that those rubbish private schools spout, and falling for all those fake GCSEs they must print up. Everyone knows all privately educated children end up with the rubbish Universities and boring jobs.

Not that I ever generalise or make stories up just to back up my prejudices.

Fantastic blog post here.

behaviourguru.blogspot.com/2011/03/jamies-dream-school-in-special-measures.html

Try again!

behaviourguru.blogspot.com/2011/03/jamies-dream-school-in-special-measures.html