‘Posher’ versus ‘poorer’ school – what’s the real difference?

[stickygotstuck]

A bit long, sorry.

Please feel free to be very candid about this, I am being! I am forrin and my perception/hang ups about class/social advantage are different to DH's (or the majority of the population for that matter).

My DD will start primary school next September. So far, we have seen two state schools. Both are in our catchment, although one of them is very small and oversubscribed (we are talking 70 vs. 170-ish pupils) The larger school has a Good Ofsted, so does the small school. The larger school is in our relatively 'poor' (if you like more 'working class') village, whereas the small school is in the more affluent village next door. When I have spoken to parents asking for advice I can't shake the feeling that there is a certain snobbery towards the larger, 'poorer' school, and I am not sure that it's actually a better school.

We like both schools, but they are totally different and we can't decide our order of preference.

I guess my question is, would we be missing a trick by not pushing for the small school? Is there some sort of 'social advantage' to be gained for DD? (also could it even influence whether she gets a place in the oversubscribed local state grammar later on?). We are not the type to engage in convoluted social dilly-dallying for personal gain, but we are not so naive that we think it does not exist (we are just useless at it!) and we are aware that it's not all about numbers and academic ability.

A very interesting perspective Xenia, that it doesn't matter to whom the power goes. And clearly not one you hold yourself, so why ask the question?

Of course, it's the people who hold the power who have the most say over what is valued and in what way. And as APMF has pointed out, not everyone can be a good cleaner or nanny - in fact, I would go so far as to say that hardly any nannies would be good enough for my children, so far as I'm concerned. On the basis of what is actually important, you could say that many men or women should stay at home to look after their own children if one income is sufficient to sustain them, because only a tiny minority could actually afford to pay someone a sufficient amount of money actually to attract a GOOD nanny for their children (and even among those who have the money, it appears they have to sack countless examples before they find anyone competent, which can't be good for their children...).

As for tube drivers and pay - it just proves my point that what people get paid is more to do with power than merit, which kind of blows Xenia's "free market" argument out of the water. If and when we ever have a "free" market, it will be interesting to see what that looks like, but it certainly isn't "free" at the moment, it's based on the convenience of those with the power.

DS1 is in a smaller school with more middle class children, to be frank. We walk past a larger school (1/3 children with FSM) to get to it (10 minutes further walk). I thank heaven most days that we got DS1 into the smaller school - it has such a lovely community (not cliquey, just friendly). The larger school has recently had a terrible ofsted and DS1's school have had a good ofsted - so that has been also validation for our choice. When your child is invited to a playdate you know they are going to be treated nicely - the amount of smoking, swearing and aggression seen outside the larger school has me shocked, jaw on the floor most weeks. The other day a child from the larger school was outside our house, swearing at his mum, throwing things about, running into parked cars and the mum didn't do anything. I don't want DS1 in a class with a child like that, simple as that. You do feel ever so middle class, but in the end, they are your children, and their friends are going to have more and more of an influence as they get older, so you need to choose who else influences your child as much as is possible!

However this is not cut and dry - if you are not too concerned about the behaviour at the larger school, and you feel like it is a community that both you and your child will feel at home in, then go for it.

Well, yes, not all large schools attract children and parents who behave badly... and a small school with a little brat in your very own child's class is a nightmare - you just can't get away from the nasty little so and so. Schools with more than 1-form entry at least enable children who have difficulties with each other to be kept separate. Maybe both schools are too small.

Can we have "I'm from the 92%" as a new MN class shorthand?

I am also applying for primary schools. I live on the edge of a council estate of semis/terraces/flats which borders a leafy £1m+ all-detached suburb. We are closer by far to the leafy suburb school, intake of 60, ofsted outstanding, vertically grouped (by KS) classes, lots of clubs which they call wrap around childcare. They do weekly visit times for prospective parents and it was very clear that all the classes were well briefed to be on sparkling form as the visitors came by. By last year's last admitted distance we are likely to get in.

Our second nearest school is in the middle of the council estate. It has 47% of kids bringing pupil premium money in, which translates to £48k this year, up significantly from the year before because the eligibility criteria changed to having been on fsm within the last 6yrs, not just now. That money will go up again next year by 50% - the per head value jumping from £600->900. The school is a 45 intake ofsted good, I got a personal tour from the Head (it sounded as if it was unusual for prospective parents to bother to visit) and she filled me with confidence in many ways, not least the way she was going to use the PP money in ways that targeted the ones who needed it but had knock-on benefits for those who had relatively more privileged backgrounds. The teachers take the extra-curricular clubs, one of which is homework club where kids who don't have a computer at home can log on to their individual profile and get their projects done. We are outside the rule 5 distance for this school but inside the rule 6 measure, and they also had a handful of Non Ranked Applications placed on last year's intake. The stats belie the feel of the school and Ia
am very glad I visited.

Having said all that, I will be placing the leafy school first on my application because it is walking distance and on the way to the tube station and one of the places I work. But the visit has made me a lot happier about my second option.

92% origin, top 3 university by the way.

The size is a misnomer, surely it's about catchment families... class?

Many of the 92% do very well. 50% at Oxbridge come from the 92% although a good few of those are from state grammars. However if you want to and as a woman earn enough to pay fees putting your child into the 8% is quite fun too and I recommend it. 50% of parents would pay fees if they could afford it studies have shown.

I don't agree that those in power decide what is valued. If we think power is bringing up a child at home as a housewife then surely power is with women who don't work? I don't take that view either but it is one people could put forward. Tube drivers - we don't have free markets very much although more than in some countries.

@rabbit - The job 'market' is probably at its free-est ever.

I agree that some workers are overpaid by virtue of the fact that it is a closed shop and their union have negotiated a renumeration package that is out of step with the skills required. But these workers are a relatively small percentage of the work force (thank you Mrs Thatcher). I work with highly paid City folks who are invariably ex Oxbridge but beyond that I see no obvious barriers to entry.

@rabbit - The job 'market' is probably at its free-est ever.

I agree that some workers are overpaid by virtue of the fact that it is a closed shop and their union have negotiated a renumeration package that is out of step with the skills required. But these workers are a relatively small percentage of the work force (thank you Mrs Thatcher). I work with highly paid City folks who are invariably ex Oxbridge but beyond that I see no obvious barriers to entry.

Xenia - your point of view is much more appealing when you focus on your belief that women can have fun, rather than being outrageously rude about anyone who doesn't think it is fun!

I actually think that a lot of women have failed to see how much power and central importance they have if they are the ones controlling the household finances and deciding on the upbringing of their children...

APMF, the financial world is like a massive closed shop when it comes to its behaviour and pay. Nobody outside that world appears to have any control over how it behaves, to everyone's detriment. I really don't see a small number of powerful groups deciding for themselves what they think they are worth as a good thing or a free market, it's just an abuse of power and influence.

No, not keen on being power behind the throne. Better to earn and keep the money and also influence your children. That is the more fun power to have. Also children have two parents so it shoudl never just be the housewife at home deciding on their upbringing.

Those thinking others are too highly paid can always have a go at doing those things themselves and earning that if they think they can. Plenty of us work for ourselves and eat what we kill and find that more fun than being an employee.

Xenia - Being my own boss certainly appeals and is something I am working towards! There is not much history of my family making good employees - we have all tended to go our own way and set up our own businesses. I've tried doing the highly paid thing, because I could (really, it isn't actually difficult work...), and didn't think much of it at all. I was still being asked to do things I found either boring or frankly unpalatable. I don't like to feel controlled by an employer any more than by anyone else.

As a matter of interest, as you are no longer married to your dh and presumably therefore don't live with him, how do you share out the upbringing of your children so that you both have an equal say, because you make it sound as though you do and decide everything?....

The finance sector is one big closed shop??? Let me guess. You didn't get the promotion and you are of the opinion that it was because you weren't posh enough? Am I close?

I'm not exactly on the fast track for CEO but I'm doing OK (working class and red brick grad). My boss is a working class guy with a first degree from Birmingham and a Msc from Oxford. His boss, the head of European operations is a American redneck albeit a redness with a Harvard MBA.

The senior execs with the million pound bonuses are invariably Oxbridge and Ivy League so yes it is a closed in that respect but if you look at their social backgrounds they are a diverse lot.

The City's materialism is, at the same time, its redeeming feature. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, posh or working class. What matters is your ability to make money for the bank.

I think that you are locked into the days where the City was based on the Old Boys Network nearly 30 years ago

No, I don't mean it's a closed shop in terms of it only letting people from a certain type of background in.... I mean it abuses its power and influence. Anyone can do that once they have power and influence, they don't have to be from Oxbridge or a public school, that's pretty irrelevant to whether it is in your personality to behave in that way. And no, I didn't fail to get a promotion, I committed the cardinal sins of not wanting to work there when I had children and of approving less and less of the sort of work that was done in the City - ie of what I was doing myself. I started out thinking that pretty much any sort of work was OK, because everyone has their role to play in society and all these institutions are of value, but realised eventually that this is naive, you have to have a personal belief that what you are doing is OK and a reasonable way of earning money. After a while, I didn't. I didn't like the way things were done and didn't want to be part of something of which I no longer felt much approval. Maybe if I hadn't got my degree at Oxford, they would have been more questioning in the interviews as to whether I was really interested in the way the City makes its money... I have nothing against people who do feel what they are doing is worthwhile, or interesting, I just don't feel comfortable with it myself and would be an awful hypocrite to keep working there on that basis, just for the money.

The finance sector is one of our triumphs and does God's work as they say. The fact the masses seem to have it in for bankers at present is neither here nor there. The masses are usually wrong about things and they take whatever line is fed to them in the press.

I'm quite certain that behaviour in the finance sector in general is no worse than anywhere else and I'm still friends with a lot of people who work in the City, it's just that what goes on in the City has a colossal impact on everyone else.

If the masses have it in for all bankers, then they are wrong - one banker is not like another, there are many different roles and many different activities going on, and a large proportion of them aren't performed by "bankers" anyway. However, to have it in for some of the activities which go on in the financial sector is not wrong in my opinion.

Big Oil, pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, mining companies, defence companies etc all wield great economic power and great political influence, power which it sometimes abuses. To me the City is no better and no worse than any other set of powerful of institutions.

And they also do a lot of good. What troubles me is if women say - that is men's things, that power money stuff - we will opt ouf ot it and stay at home and our influence will be in bringing up children perhaps because we don't agree with capitalism or it's not feminine or it is dull and thus women never get anywhere; whereas in fact if you were the female CEO of Glaxo you could have quite a wonderful life.

Lots of people in the City work for big oil, insurance companies, etc - they are all working for and with each other.

I don't see why you have to translate everything into it being "men's things," Xenia. I see plenty of women behaving in a way I dislike, too, whether in the workplace or in the home or in the street. I agree, though, it has a lot to do with power and how or if you choose to wield it. Women have, in my opinion, not shown themselves to be any better at wielding power when they get it than men have and I'm afraid I have little expectation of the world improving if more women become CEOs of gigantic corporations, so when it comes down to it, there's no point aiming for it unless you like the power it gives you over other people and the wealth it brings you and therefore think being a CEO equates to a "wonderful life."

Besides which, Xenia, haven't you somewhat let the side down by choosing not to expand your business massively and employ teams of people to do your bidding??? It's a very typically womanly thing to do, to set up a business that suits you working from home and not to expand to become a massive global empire... Wouldn't that be lots of fun and a "wonderful life?"

OP - I'm not sure if you are still here since your thread has been hijacked, but I sent my child to the local 'good' school on the council estate, rather than the outstanding one, which is a further 5mins walk.

She is in reception and has heard a boy say 'fuck off'
Different boy bit a child in Y1
Boy has been stabbed on hand with scissors (blood was drawn)

She hasn't even been there a term and I wish I could do something to make it all go away, but realistically she is stuck with them for another 7 years, and that's a really long time.

In another thread I recounted the story of a fellow primary school mum that chose the secondary school that was 5 min walk from her house. This was despite the fact that everyone else was avoiding that school. Her reasoning? It was close and her mate's kids went there. Well, she transferred her kid out of there before the end of Year 7.

When it comes to my kids I am not going to take any chances. I rather take the risk of DCs being not invited to Stroppy Poppy's sweet 16 than being picked on for being 'posh' by Son Of Rottweiler Dad.

I grew up in a relatively poor area. I went to a large poor school. There is no nobility in being poor.

No doubt I will be called names by left learning MC parents who constantly rave about what a diverse range of children they have at their school and by working class parents who no doubt see me as a snob. Nice to have come full circle to my youth eh? :)

Best always to go with what you are comfortable with. All schools genuinely are different. Some I would be happy to send my children to, some OK and some I would move hell and high water to avoid. And there is always the undeniable fact that you could have an unlucky year - ie there you are, thinking you've got your child into the "right" school, but it just so happens that in that particular year, there are a couple of children who are very disruptive and who happen to have taken a particular dislike to your child. That can happen anywhere - you can't completely control who ends up in a class with your child. In fact, talking of parents who know parents who have done things... I know a parent who moved their child from the "highly desirable" CofE school because their child was miserable and bullied there. I haven't heard anyone else complain of bullying at that school (just harrassment from the PTA ). So you never know...

I still think take the list of the 20 top schools in the country in all sectors for A level results or top 50 if you have to and try to ensure you get a child into one of those and you don't go far wrong.

Not a good way of choosing a primary school!