The best Independent schools generally take the highest qualified teachers?

[Hamishbear]

It might be obvious to many that the most academic schools insist that their teachers have an outstanding degree from one of the best universities but it wasn't to me.

For example if you want a job in Maths at Guildford High school allegedly you need a first in Maths from a well regarded university. You obviously need to be an outstanding teacher in the fullest sense too.

So do the elite schools usually have the best teachers? I suppose it stands to reason that there is more competition for jobs at schools that have a fantastic reputation?

B&B

The research all shows that the educational attainment of the mother appears to have the most influence on the outcome for DC. One would imagine this is because the mother tends to spend more time with her DC than her DP. Thus the more time she spends with her DC, the greater the impact.

I suspect in those families where the father is the primary carer, his education level may be the biggest driver.

After that, the second biggest factor is good old fashioned cash. The DC of the rich are more likely to become rich. The DC of the poor are more likely to be poor.

Having now observed my DC and their peers throughout prep school, I have thought long and hard about which factors are having the most positive effect upon these children. What is it that makes their outcomes so damn positive?

Is it the school? Is it the parents? Is it the cash?

Over the years I've chopped and changed my mind, but I think I've come to the conclusion that it is a slippery mixture of everyhting. A melting pot of advantage that cannot be beaten or emulated wihtout all the vital elements...

Are you stuck in 1950s Xenia. I may have been at home, I have never been a housewife- I am not married to a house!
I am certainly not a servant in the home!!! You spout such rubbish.

You tease, Xenia - 'housewives' - maybe we should set up an MN dating site as you and Jabed would clearly get on like a house on fire, 50s attitudes towards women and all... Obviously, Jabed's wife might object. Or she might not, this being the 2000s and all....

Anyway, I digress.

I am very glad that you live in the happy world where women get to 'have it all'. Indeed, Xenia, I do admire you as I could not do what you have done, and brought up is it 5 kids on my own and had a successful career to boot. But I'd be reluctant to assume that all mothers, single or otherwise, have your physical energy levels - which you must have in abundance to do what you have done. My reality is that when I am working long hours, i simply do not have the time AND energy to devote to my kids in the same way I do when my workload is lighter (sadly, I do not have the financial resources to be a full-time 'housewife' as you put it).

In my house, as the one who works less hours, yes, I am definitely the first go-to point when it comes to homework help, music practice audience (I'm not musical enough to be anything more than that, and admit to not being very patient even with that limited role), etc. The fact is for normal people ie clearly not you Xenia, there are a finite number of hours in the day and the brain can only be engaged on a limited number of activities at one time. if my head is full of the latest piece of interesting work, then I do not have the brain space to also do much in the way of stimulating, fun stuff with my kids. Maybe I'm a particularly crap, dreamy parent. But i suspect I'm not that unusual in this respect.

The stuff I do when i have the energy is more akin to Metabilis' list, which made me - obviously not science related in my case, as I know think my 6 year old knows more about science than I do. But I do the same with regard to my passions. Plus tutor them in more obviously academic 'school' stuff when I feel inspired or we go off on a tangent... again, I know here that in a quarter of an hour with me, they can grasp something that has entirely eluded them in a year's worth of teaching in a class of 30 children. (Has happened many times.)

So I have really seen the difference that 1-1 teaching has meant - and the crucial thing is knowing your own dcs intimately, what they do and don't know, how they think. I know unequivocally that no tutor or private school teacher - Oxbridge-educated or not - could possibly replicate that effect with the same economy of time (not to say money).

In educational terms, I do feel certain that the input I can give my own dcs is far superior to that that any paid-for tutor or private school could give, so it would be a false economy in my case at least to work longer hours just to spend the cash on an ultimately inferior teacher. Not that, unlike jabed, I would wish to tutor full-time, as I know (a) I lack the subject-specific knowledge in lots of areas and (b) I think the social side of school is at least as important as the academic side and that I couldn't provide and also (c) I need to work at least part-time or we can affford few of life's comforts. Plus I love my dcs dearly but 24/7 suspect we would get on each other's nerves!

But assuming that you are yourself an educated and intelligent woman, Xenia, I wonder if your career success and success in financial terms (along with your inherent philosophy, I suspect, that the best things in life are expensive!) have blinded you to the effects you could have on your dcs if you devoted more time to them directly, rather than used your time to earn money to buy what you see as the best 'products' for them?

wordfactory - you may be right re the impact of mothers v fathers - I am not sufficiently intimate with the (varied) research on this to know whether they allowed for house-husbands or whether it largely pre-dates the concept. I do know (dh worked in this area a couple of years back, hence my knowledge) that there is a large body of research that confirms the significance of the mother's educational attainment specifically.

My mother and my grandmother are my role models - both at home with small children but both very strong, independent, intelligent, capable women. My grandmother was born in the late 19th century and I know that she would laugh like a drain to hear that she was a drudge and subservient! She was neither.

B&B I suspect (don't know for certain) that the research predates the current trend for SAHDs.

It would be very interesting to see the impact they had no?

Vis a vis private schools and the impact they have upon DC...well it's clear that the privately educated are ridiculously over represented at the best universities, and in the best paid and most influential jobs.

However, is this due to the school itself? Or are the DC who attend the school already set up for advantage as a. the mothers tend to be well educated. b. the parents tend be hugely supportive and c. these families are rich!

As I say, I think it's a slippery mixture. One cannot discount the school's impact. But equally one cannot discount the impact of the parents and their wealth.

Don't let Xenia wind you up - she's only hitting back - not unreasonably - at my attack on her status quo. And resorting to rather dated sterotypes to do so.

I shall put my pinny on to reply to her next post.

exotic do you have anyhting to add about education or are you just stalking xenia?

Agreed, wordfactory - clearly it is complex.

I don't think it's the wealth per se that can make the difference - banknotes do not = brains.

I wonder if research has been done that narrows down the reasons for that impact? eg more can afford SAHMs, better-educated parents tending to be richer in the first place, better health leading to better educational outcomes etc etc - before schooling even comes into it. Hard to disentangle causes and effects here.

Re SAHDs, I wonder how differently (if at all) they parent. Assuming the difference in impact isn't genetic but is down to differing roles, i wonder if SAHDs would approach being the 'main' parent in the same way?

I have no idea - interesting.

I always love it when you post a lot and then someone comes along and asks you, in a patronising way, why you are posting. MN is often like the worst of the school playground!

I end up on the same threads as Xenia because the same ones obviously interest us. I suspect that we parent in a similar way - just from a totally different perspective and belief system.
It makes me wonder what Xenia's mother was like when she is so down on anyone who isn't interested in power, money and status?
I was brought up with brothers - and there was never any difference - the sky was the limit - if you wanted it. I don't.

It just seems exotic that you come onto threads where she is and make personal comments that have very little to do with the thread.

Word I don't think that's very fair, actually. Xenia turns up on every thread like this, as do you, and as do I, and many others. When she says things like I suppose working parents are just all round better how are people going to react other than personally? It's so unsubstantiated and judgmental and unreasonable, that nobody can respond with hard facts to such a sweeping generalisation, so of course they get personal back!

B&B

I know quite a few SAHDs and they do seem to approach it differently. Far more relaxed. Far less analytical of parenting. And nearly all do some free lancing too.This may be to do with the industry they come from and type of people they are, rather than their gender though.

That's rather unfair, wordfactory. Xenia deliberately set out to offend with her 'housewife' comment. exoticfruits was duly offended.

I suspect Xenia would have been rather disappointed if she hadn't annoyed someone with that post. Or she would just have referred to the rather less emotive SAHMs.

Xenia is very limited is she actually believes what she says. I tend to think that she does believe what she says.

@exotic I thought your life was destroyed by not passing the 11+? You certainly haven't given the impression in other threads that you thought the sky was the limit.

@bread NONE of those examples was science! they were all culture (well. Pop culture possibly ;) )

The important thing I give my kids is cultural capital. FSV of culture. I was however delighted the other day when DS started telling me stuff I didn't know he knew about The Tempest, then relating it to stuff I did know he knew, ranging from 12th night to the Xmas Invasion. The fact that my kids go to drama group, see a lot of plays, Watch a wide range of films and telly not just sci fi and never soaps is due to my influence and ability to afford stuff but ultimately I just provide options it's up to them to chose what they are interested in and run with it. I'm a firm believer in the fact that I can't do it for them. And those parents who try? They are Wrong. Capitalisation intended (1066 and all that stylee)

I have disagreed vehemently with Xenia on this thread. I have never felt the need to pass comment on some fantasy version of her mother that I've concocted in my head. That goes well beyond unacceptable in my view. Well beyond.

Metabilis - is the polarity of the neutron flow not science? (well, it's gobbledygook to me, but I assume it's science to others).

Where their towels are is probably not science, but clearly you have done well there. I am the only person in my house who ever knows where anything is (even when I don't.)

Have no idea what your 'bridge out of pearium and swans' refers to - was assuming it was assuming but if it was cultural then i profes my utter ignorance. But happy to be enlightened. Rather fancy building a bridge out of swans - very Art Nouveau.

Anyway, do agree with you 100% about cultural capital. Big reason why I'd never wish to delegate my time with kids to a paid tutor - because sharing my favourite Stuff with my favourite People is glorious. And works the other way. My dd's favourite band is now one of mine - luckily she has excellent taste. :)

aargh - was assuming it was SCIENCE.

theoriginal of course many of us have our favourite types of thread, so that's where we tend to see one another ^waves at meta^.

But I think the attacks on xenia go way beyond that.
Certain posters follow her around the boards with no interest in the thread other than to respond to her. Often the responses are highly personal, attacking her life, her DC , her ex husband. I've seen several times when posters have outed her.

It seems that a certain contingent of posters wish to hound her off MN.

Now whilst I often disagree with her, I would be very sad to see xenia leave. She adds a rich and much needed texture to MN. Who else will be the female voice saying you can have an uber successful career and a happy family life?

MN is already over populated by SAHMs (presumably because they have most ready access to a PC) and those of us who work from home. But we surely don't want that to be the full story? A monotone culture would be not only dull but highly unrepresentative of modern parents.

B&B as for the nasty issue of money, I agree with you that rich doesn't equal clever. I would say that given I was poor and clever .

However, what I would say is that many opportunities in life cost a hell of a lot. And that no amount of parental time and interest can make up for them. I think this becomes more true, the older the DC get.

If one had to choose between giving ones DC time and working to pay for those specific opportunities...

yep, not in favour of that (monotone) at all, and I haven't been here as long as you, I don't think, so I haven't seen what you describe - and actually neither do I really notice who turns up first, Xenia or her antagonists. I imagine though that given the chronological context of her having started a very vehemently anti-SAHM thread, responses to her are going to be a tad on the personal and irritated side right now.

And yes, a voice saying you can have a good career and a family is fine, but I tend to read what she is saying as 'if you don't have a good career you are stupid/wrong/educationally subnormal/inferior' and I find her definition of a happy family life somewhat narrow and circumscribed (ie., equates to living in North London and having lots of children in private school).

I don't think it can be any real surprise that people become defensive and personal when there are comments like 'WOHM are just better' in the mix - as Xenia remarked, the personal is political - and the political is personal, too.

Don't really think that what you or I are describing is 'doing it for them', though - not sure what you mean by this, Metabilis.

Not sure how anyone can think for anyone else. I can show them new ideas and explain how stuff (NOT science stuff) works. But what they do with those ideas/knowledge is up to them.

I have been doing a certain amount of 'rescue mission' with dd1 this year because she is not the world's most organised person, so am helping her get to grips with secondary school homework timetables etc. But am not planning to do that long term. And she does the homework, not me!

I have helped in the past with 11+ preparation - specifically, I taught her the year 6 maths curriculum. But I don't think to have just left her with a book and said go on, teach yourself maths concepts you've never learnt before would have been quite fair. That's the only bit of 'formal' tutoring I've done, where I suppose you could say I 'did it' for her ie structured it - she had to do the actual work.

When I refer to the benefits that parents can give their dcs that formal education can't, at least not as well, I mean beyond the academic ie your wider cultural capital - though the formally academic can also be tackled much quicker/better by parents in passing. eg my dd2 wrote a lovely story with dreadful punctuation. I taught her apostrophes - she'd never 'got' them before - in about 2 mins. I don't see that as helicopter parenting in some way, as is implied, although it's certainly standard 'academic' stuff. 'Doing it for them' to me would imply adding in commas for her each time she writes, not teaching her how to do it for herself.

Or have I missed your point here?