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?

Good post, TOSM.

No, I wouldn't want Xenia to leave - she is very, very, very entertaining.

I always enjoy her posts even if I sometimesread them with my mouth half-open in a mixture of shock and horror.

@Bread I think you and I adopt very different models of motherhood. I'm sure yours is better though. But that having said, doing somebody else's organising for them is potentially storing up massive issues in later life. Speaking as a dyspraxic mum of dyspraxic kids. Honestly.

When I am asked if my success blinds me to the lack of attention given to my chidlren that's just wrong. As I amsuperwoman I am both great at earning money but also able to devote attention to the children too. Some people are good at everything and some at nothing. As I never lived in a sexist marriage we both put in as much effort in the children. We both rushed home from work ASAP to be with them for years and years. Imagine supervising homework and music practice (and for each child 2 instruments) where all the children were born within 4 years of each other - it's quite a big thing and I think we did it very well. It certainly was not really contracted out.

Also it depends on the age of the child. This week I've been dealing with possbile purchase of first property for one of ours who has just emailed me about a job interview she has coming up. So the type of input varies as they get older. Meanwhile the youngest break up from school in about 10 minutes for the summer so I'll be greeting them which is always rather nice and then back to work. However I have been more than happy to oursource their hair cuts tomorrow and the day after the entirety of their new school uniform will be bought hopefully entirely without my input and that's an exercise I am more than happy to have little involvement in.

As for how much a parent wants to be involved and should be every one differs. I never looked at single bit of GHCSE course work but we certainlyi always heard the children reading and spelling/tables as they were younger. I love playing the piano and singing so I accompany music practice most days but that for my pleasure now they're nearly grade 8 rather than just as duty. I don't accompany them on runs or playing football as I'm not into that. I certainlyi don't watch television with them or play computer games but we have such a bit busy household they always have someone around with whom to do things.

I have certainly been very lucky to spread 5 chidlren over so long (nearly 28 yeras with a lot more to come). It's lovely. To have a full time career you adore and makes a lot of money at the same time is brilliant. Women as much as men can have a lovely life with full time working, successful careers and a ncie large family. Anyone suggesting otherwise is just sexist.

Well, when you described yourself as a superwoman, Xenia, you were not wrong.

I'm certainly not so super and that's not sexist, just accurate.

I'm happy with the role I have - I honestly couldn't have chosen to do what you do as I view being able to be there for the kids, go to their assemblies/plays etc etc and spend time with them as more important and vastly more interesting than any job I could possibly have - but maybe your job really is that good or maybe what we find interesting is just rather different.

Not sure what you meant re sexism within marriage - it's not sexist for the parent who works shorter hours to do more of the children-related stuff, it's just a sensible allocation of limited time. In my home, I do more of the education stuff partly because that's my interest and my academics are better, but on the bits I can't do eg science, my dh fills in. Likewise, when I have a busy period at work, my dh does the lot. Sounds the same as you really.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you were 'blind to the lack of attention given to your children' - just to question your very definitely held and often-stated view that working long hours in order to pay for expensive education for your dcs was the best way to ensure your dcs were well-educated.

In fact, in your pot above, you have demolished your own theory - your dcs succeed not because you work every hour of the day and earn loads of dosh to pay for private schools. Your dcs succeed because, like me, you prioritise their education and devote time to them.

We are not so different after all, Xenia, despite your addiction to private schools. If truth be told, I'll admit to quite liking my dcs' teachers to be Oxbridge-educated too. As obviously she can get these in her state school.

in your poSt above

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.

And you think that Xenia doesn't?!

The thing that I admire about Xenia is that she is unshakable in her opinion she is right, so I doubt whether I upset her. (especially as I am the woman with half a brain). Education threads are my favourite and Xenia always turns up-I can assure you that I am not stalking her! It is a rather pointless exercise, but I am not going to let her go unchallenged.

@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

I can't believe that after all my posts you have entirely missed my point!!
My life was not destroyed by failing the 11+, in many ways it made me more determined to succeed-I just still resent being thrown on the scrap heap at such a young age. The sky was always the limit-I never changed my mind-my parents never changed their minds-I just got sick to death with people assuming that at 11yrs of age an exam should make people say 'really-can you still do it?' as if the pinnacle of my ambitions should be working in a shop!! I succeeded-I knew that I would. I could go much further now-if I wanted to.

I don't notice.

As for long hours. I have never said people should seek to work long hours ever. I've suggesting picking work where you can earn a fortune. In fact I recommend people won businesses, not work for others. It is something women are very good at.

Work smart, not necessarily long although if you love the work then you might well be so into it you work hard. I remember a period when the twins were breastfeeding and sometimes I'd wake them at mid night for a last feed, work to 3am, then sleep, feed them at 6 and the hourse 6 - 8am on a Saturday morning were working hours for me. Obviously I don't actively seek that and sleepless nights with babies are no fun and now I virtually always get 7 - 8 hours of sleep a night but sometimes it's necessary to work longer hours than at other times. Everyone picks their own norm.

If you go back 50 years most working people worked 5.5 days a week - Saturday mornings). Many worked 6 hours. Go back to Downton Abbey days and many people only got one half day off a week so were working 6.5 days a week and farmers have always worked 6 and the 7th day he / she resteth thing was to ensure religiously but also physically people had one day not working but that of course tended to be men and women being mere chattels were required to work 365 days a year. the most exploited class is housewives who neve get a day off married to some man who think he's wonderful and never touches anything domestic and plays golf half the weekend because he earns a lot and she earns nothing and is worth nothing so she worked 365 days a year and Mr wonderful sits around all weekends and never lifts a finger (see many mumsnet other threads). These housewives are economically reliant on a man so they have a whinge but they certainly cannot afford to upset the apple cart otherwise they will lose their financial milch cow.

There is no way that I would marry a man like that! I would most certainly upset the apple cart if I was expected to be subservient! As someone pointed out somewhere else you seem to make the assumption that women go to the marriage with nothing-I went with substantially more than DH-if you want to count, which we don't. We are a unit-luckily he is the one who is happy to work long hours and commute so I don't have to. I didn't have to get married-I was perfectly financially viable as a single parent. I did it because I wanted to.
I would hate to own my own business- it takes all hours to set it up.

I know a man now who was in a very important job-he has retired and he can't cope-his career was his life. Mine is a method of being able to live the way that I want to live. Retirement won't be the least problem to me-how to fit it all in will be the problem.

Mr wonderful sits around all weekends and never lifts a finger

You do have the choice! Live with him first. Make sure that you know his family, especially his parents. Put head first and simply don't marry if he can't sew his own buttons on, cook a meal and clean the bathroom! Have a calendar-if you get something down first it means that he has to organise a babysitter if he wants to go and play golf at the same time.

I must admit that I thought I was on a different thread-what has any of this got to do with OP?

I love it when people say how much further they could go if they wanted to

Me, I could be a trapeze artist. If I wanted to.

Who is to say what you could do if you set your mind to it?

Metabilis - wrote this earlier but it got wiped by computer - what did you mean by ' I think you and I adopt very different models of motherhood' - you don't seem that different to me but maybe I'm missing something or not explained myself very well?

Agree with you re organisation - but am hoping that organising is a skill that can be learned orat least improved - am aimingto teach the fundamentals and then leave well alone!

Xenia - if your ex was like the man you described I'm not surprised you're single! Sure some women are in relationships like that but I think in most couples where one parent is a SAHP, both sides can see both advantages and disadvantages to being the SAHP and the working parent - nice to have time with kids but also nice to have fulfillment through a career. Who falls into which role is usually by a mixture of mutual agreement and financial necessity. Dont think the 1950s sterotype of put-upon housewife forced to give up earning and power within the home, whilst alpha male calls the shots, really applies any more, or rarely.

Personally, I think part-time work is a pretty good compromise - think dh feels he drew the short straw having to work full-time.

@bread well, I'm inferring from your posts that you think you are essentially macro. Whereas it seems to me, from your posts, that you are rather micro. Not Higgs boson level micro, but way way more micro than I would either want or have the time to be. And we clearly don't find the same things interesting. But I expect my model will turn out disastrous in the end. Since my kids don't go to private school.

@exotic yes who knows one day I might actually achieve something

It is never too late! Many people become successful later in life. I don't come across all these down trodden women that Xenia gives as examples.I meet older women who have had the most amazing, interesting lives.(If you are just going to see it in the narrow confines of money, then I don't expect they are.)

Perhaps one day I will be successful and have an interesting life.

I am settling for interesting-I would call it successful- but that entirely depends on your definition of 'successful'.

I'm not sure I see myself as micro or micro - hah, confusing me with your scientific lingo! - just making it up as I go along. I am aware of a lot of the detail because no-one else is (my dh is hopeless with that and I have a pretty good memory for stuff) - quite possibly if I stopped doing that, everyone would sort themselves out. Or they wouldn't and my kids would go to school in dirty clothes, with no lunches, having done no homework and live off cake.

Maybe I'll try that experiment when they are a bit bigger - that is dangerously close to an accurate description of ds now. Certainly the cake bit.

micro or macro - my computer hates me. :(

Wouldn't wish to stop the meaningful detail though eg the 'quality time' (hideous phrase). As a teacher, it would be a bit weird to teach other people's kids and then ignore my own when they don't understand stuff. Plus sharing fun stuff. How cool is that.

To get back to OP, which I never replied to - having got sidetracked onto parenting, it doesn't necessarily follow. It depends entirely on the teacher - many of the best qualified do it because they want to make a difference and you will find them in state schools. There is also the fact that those with a first in a subject are not necessarily the best at teaching it. It also depends on the private school - some will undoubtedly attract the best but some won't.
You would hope that if you were paying the bills you would be paying for first class teaching.

I would expect that somewhere like Eton gets lots of competition for each teaching post and can pick the best - they are hardly going to have to readvertise! A sink school in the inner city is going to have a problem getting a physics teacher - unless they are very lucky. You also need a sixth form to attract the most highly qualified.

Do nt think the 1950s stereotype of put-upon housewife forced to give up earning and power within the home, whilst alpha male calls the shots, really applies any more, or rarely

I don?t think the stereotype applied in the 1950's either. I cannot recall it applying to anyone in my family, immediate or extended. Most of my father?s sisters worked because they wanted to. All the men worked because that is what men did and every home around me was the same.

Many more mothers stayed at home. I think many stayed by choice not force (some may have been forced to work). Nowadays many men stay at home not by choice but let?s just gloss that one.

Economics dictate mostly.

My DW wants to be at home. I do not make her. In fact it was she who put it to me that she no longer wanted to work and wanted to be a homemaker
(this was before DS was even on the horizon). Our "segregated roles" ( I stay out of her kitchen and away from her cleaning etc) was a condition of marriage by her. I do wonder how many more females would do the same if they really had a proper choice.

As I said before it seems that only British Feminism has had this effect you describe on females. In other countries being a homemaker is still valued and is a choice many ladies make ( sorry about that ladies). In Britain too, being a SAHP who does not have care responsibilities and is not working has many other issues attached which are not of their making or their working partners. For example NI, tax and state pension provisions. Whilst I hope to leave my DW well provided I do worry about those things for her because she chose not to work but to be as you so disparagingly call ?a housewife". But I doubt you realise that.

It seems some ladies just got the worst of everything because a few thought working was so much more important and the government played on it. You are the suckers really without knowing it - that?s my opinion.

Good night

Well there we are - who would have thought that I could be equally irritated by Xenia's views and jabed's views-it is a strange old world