Selective independants

[poppydoppy]

Do they look better on League tables because the standard of teaching is better or just because they select the children most likely to do well?

I wonder what makes some people think they are okay and others not. Are we just born like that? Obviously in some cases if you've had a parent telling you you are useless that can be the reason.

I suppose it may be happiness hormones or just the natural outlook on life with which people are were born. I am very much at one extreme. I remember one mumsnet thread in part about all the things that have gone wrong - so many of my attempts with worth things have not succeeded but it doesn't seem to matter as I know it will come good so I just bounce along like a rubber ball knowing things always work out well and get better and better.

(I am only using good academically as it's not for me to say if I'm morally good although I don't think I'm too bad at that nor at being a parent either).

I don't actually think that private schools or comps or any schools "make children happy" (even Wellington's attempts at happiness lessons cannot provide a cure all for that) although I do think some children are unhappy to be sent to boarding school and some children may end up in schools in any sector where they are bullied and best to leave. However sometimes the sport, uplifting music and fields/trees/lakes and architecture of some schools can help.

Xenia if only we knew exactly what makes children happy confident and secure. Of course we know what doesn't; what makes them dysfunctional and with significant mental health problems etc, but the absence of these things doesn't mean that they will happy go lucky successful well balanced individuals.
My GP believes that failing to meet a child's individual education needs, especially in teenagers, by schools where expectations are high curriculums are more complex, and pressure is on for good grades, uni entry etc is one of the reasons teenagers turn to drugs/alcohol/anti social behaviour etc and why they develop mental health problem: school refusal, OCD depression and physical problems IBS persistent migraines ME etc

Imo happiness and mental health are not necessarily as genetic as they appear. In my father's family there has been incredible depression (possibly manic in my father's case) for generations. In DH's family there was also depression down his father's side. Both DH and I are subject to depressive episodes (though thankfully nowhere near as badly as our fathers- my father still has new acquaintances' jaw dropping). I was depressed from the age of 6. Not one of our children is depressive- they all have sunny personalities and are able to bounce back from adversity. Of course they could just all have been genetically lucky and inherited their grandmothers' outlooks, but I do think that the efforts we've made as parents to create a positive environment for them has helped a lot in the positivity of their outlook.

We know some mental health conditions have an element of inheritance eg schizophrenia, another example is that if either of your parents were alcoholics you are more likely to be an alcoholic.
But there was a fascinating program n the radio. A US academic had been able to identify on a CT or MRI what a psychopaths brain looked like. But on scanning his own brain as part of the research he was upset and shocked to discover his brain also had the same structure but he was not a psychopath. The conclusion he came to that it nature and nurture that affects how we turn out.

That is probably true. My father, a psychiatrist, felt we were all probably 50% nature and nuture and that seems to be consistent with a lot of studies although adopted children are not always like the siblings of the family into which they are adopted and we are finding out more and more about genes and their interaction so it may be that genes are little higher than 50%.

Happiness is higher if you eat good foods and exercise and go outside so certainly parents can have an influence there.

I did see the recent articles about pressure on teenagers and 20 somethings. I am not a pressuring sort of parent

There is a lot of sense in this article, I am sure Yellowtip will enjoy the first paragraph www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9191514/We-need-to-recalibrate-what-we-think-of-as-success.html and I can certainly vouch for the fact that getting your child into an indie/ and / or Oxbridge in no way immunises them from the difficult job market they will encounter.

What I was actually looking for Xenia was the article about SPGS starting a parenting forum, a symptom of the fact that all the Heads at these independent schools are increasingly concerned about the welfare and behaviour of parts of their cohorts, and the way in which they feel some parents are contributing to the problem, as she says in this article, you can't parent by iphone. In the case of my DDs' school one Head of Year said that it had been getting worse all through her thirty year career but that DDs' year was by far the worst, and some of those girl's back stories would make you weep. In the end one third of the year left after GCSE because of the disruption and intimidation caused by the alpha group of girls, and that group of girls still sit at one end of the Sixth Form Common Room and hiss at anyone who dares to sit in "their" seats. Of course teenagers hate to be different and like to be in a group with shared norms but you have deliberately ignored my point that these are DCs who have not been equipped with sound moral values, and the security to live by them. Being secure is different to confidence, and is rooted in complete and unconditional parental love, something I know some of these girls do not feel they can rely on, hence the attention seeking behaviour. As my DD has commented she used to envy those girls whose parents never seemed to say no but then realised it didn't make them happy and in a way the fact that I did was reassuring, as well as obviously soooo annoying

An indie education is also not inoculation from the consequences of bad parenting, and the affluence and the fact it is perpetrated by clever girls actually can make it more damaging for others.

Presumably good parenting and good schools both help foster resilience by setting boundaries and finding the time to work on issues.

Indies have advantages here because they are better resourced and can select. (I suspect from a few odd 11+ decisions, that Prep Schools may tip off senior schools about bright but potentially challenging pupils.) More mixed comprehensives will inevitably need to prioritise those kids who are potentially in real trouble, eg in care or on the periphery of gangs.

CR, I agree. I was taking confidence to include security. A lot of bullies and nasty people go home and cry, are awful because they were never loved etc etc. However simple self confidence springing from being happy and perhaps a good school environment is a huge life asset.

As for schools with cliches I am not sure they are too different now from how they ever were in all schools ever or indeed any group of school gate mothers or men or women in an office. I imagine day schools are better because you can be yourself at home even if you feel under pressure at school.

I don't think bullying girls are those whose parents do not say no to them although damage at home of some kind probably does make those children more likely to be like that. A lot of children find social media really helpful - they can make friends on line who may be share their interests where that is stamp collecting or being a goth or whatever else kind of different from the prevailing norm is there at school. Also surely most schools have groups of different teenagers and most children find some sort of niche and indeed learning to live with people who can be awful to you is not that bad a life skill to develop as any of us with children moving from university work will know. The office is the school x 1000 worse and you need at school to have learned how to fit in or how to lead or follow or how to be different.

") More mixed comprehensives will inevitably need to prioritise those kids who are potentially in real trouble, eg in care or on the periphery of gangs."

Needmoresleep- you are aware, arent't you? that 93% of the nation's children go to state schools? And very fewnofnthem are "on the periphery of gangs". Whatever it says in the Daily Mail.

I certainly did Copthall, thanks :) I enjoyed the rest of it too.

Seeker, I was perhaps thinking more of the inner city choices we faced. Unless the debate is simply about why state schools in nice leafy suburbs don't do as well as private schools with similar demographics.

Our local school had 93% on free school dinners, and its positive Ofsted report was clear that it did well for some very troubled kids. Not just those flirting with criminality but plenty with other educational and social needs. One consistent concern of local parents both at primary and secondary is that as priority for resources was given to those who needed it most, their children's less pressing needs might be over-looked. Eg that it is not just private schools have more resources, but that the strains on those resources are not as great, so they have more scope to work on petty misbehaviour and low level bullying.

Gang culture and the pressures put on local teenagers is a big concern here in Sarf London. As much, indeed probably more, from parents with children at state schools, and certainly something that seems to worry parents of boys from those ethnic minorities most associated with gang culture.

Perhaps for teenagers you pay fees to buy a more preferable gang culture which may do them mroe long term good if the gang you pay for them to join is the well connected blonde thin clever Oxbridge girl gang or the CCF boy gang etc. or C of E or Catholic school gang. Perhaps it is all about gangs at the end of the day and being in the gang that gets you a job and a nice partner.

Thanks!

I had not meant to say anything controversial....or particularly Daily Mailish, though can't see why the odd Daily Mail view cant be thrown into the mix once in a while - if only to have Grauniad readers choke over their coffee. Or perhaps we could try to keep debate in the format of Sun headlines.

The fact is that some schools have a whole host of problems to deal with, and do deal with them admirably.

But, quite rightly, it does mean that little Johnnie's high ability in Latin is fairly low priority.

Whilst Mr Boffin the Science Teacher that everyone thinks is "super" is only at MN Posh School because he could not control his class in the state sector.

Wow- I don't think I've ever come across a school with 93% FSM!

It was a few years back at the stage we were considering our approach to education (move, cheat, find religion, hope our kids were clever, or pay). I did some voluntary mentoring when my kids were young and though teachers were impressive and individual kids super, the educational offer they received was unacceptable and disruption levels in the classroom high.

Things are better now, in part because the demographics are changing, but still not great. Hence those threads about renting in the Graveney catchment, etc.

Xenia I hope what I paid for is an education that would enable my DDs to see beyond stereotypes and the need to be part of any sort of tribe. That is certainly what the schools ethos is about "encourage self-confidence, self-esteem, adaptability and
independence of thought, and to support the girls' personal,
moral and spiritual development;" and I do not know of a teacher in state or private schools who would support your sad idea of what constitutes a successful approach to life. I wonder what on earth you do since in my business career what mattered most was the ability to network with people regardless of background.

I know plenty of thin blonde clever Oxbridge women who are a bit bitter and twisted because it did not bring instant career success, or a partner that was necessarily nice.............

Good grief presumable you would advocate assemblies on how to get thin, then perhaps more than two of DDs peers would have been in the Priory by the age of 14 with Anorexia.............

seeker: the highest is Lilian Baylis in Vauxhall

www.education.gov.uk/cgi-bin/schools/performance/school.pl?urn=100625

76% FSM, though 91% within past six years.

Ofsted Outstanding, FWIW, although I suspect it is outstanding by its many deprived children, and it would be a pretty 'committed' London middle class liberal that chose to send their child there.

Interesting point about self esteem.

I was not brought up with my father (a series of father figures and a stepdad but not the blood one) : a trendy view when I was starting work was that my assertiveness in work was because my father had not slapped me down.

On the other hand the fact that I was the school bully was never recognised as being because my relationship with my mother was grossly dysfunctional : something I've only resolved recently, hopefully in time to help my own kids.

I "under achieved" because I could not see the point as I never got praised. My sister has achieved fabulously and it reassures me that if I give my kids the support she got, they will do as well; even though my kids are at state school rather than boarding.

Happygardening I know you are pleased with what Winchester is achieving with your son, BUT as you have no way of testing the hypothesis that if you had not been rich, a state school could also have done excellent things with him, please do not dismiss all state schools on the basis of your perceptions of his needs and abilities. Only time will tell on the relative merits of the choices you have made for your two sons.

Sorry, have not read the whole thread, but WordFactory made a very interesting point earlier in the thread - ie that Common Entrance is more or less GCSE standard, and that GCSEs are just a minor hicccup/irritation in the process of educating the whole child. THAT is why we wanted our DC to go to a school where education, rather than exam-passing was the ethos. DS1 is in Y10, and the work he is doing is what our Y12s are covering at the maintained school I work in - serious physics/maths/etc that DC laps up. My Y8 DS is doing stuf that at my school is A GSCE, so likely they will all walk it in Y11. My school is not GS, but is outstandinging comp, where a class of Y11's have done their GCSE maths 6 months early, and all but 3 have acheived A.
Forget results - what we are paying for is the ride - the results are incidental.

Mrssalvo , is the work you do at the maintained school teaching or some other role?

MrsSalvoMontalbano
Your child will not "walk" GCSE in year 11, he'll be bored out of his tiny mind by then. Or will he do everything early? And then have to tread water until university? Or go there early and then have to tread water?
Or enter the world of work immature and unready?

DD is in year 10 at a comp. She is coasting a lot. She could get straight A / A* next week in her GCSEs
but instead she does DofE, music, dancing, learning about the world and teaching herself spare languages because she wants to
she has developed self motivation, so that when she hits University she'll be ready to stretch sideways in new ways while still planning her own time effectively

DS is still "work in progress" !

Yoni, you got it. Going back a bit further I think it got up to 93%. I had not however realised that it was such an outlier. However illustrates that state vs private is a difficult debate when there is such a range within the state system, and within the private sector.