tell me about a 'privileged' education

[Frostycake]

If you attended a grammar or private school or if you teach in one (or taught in one), tell me what I may have missed by having a comprehensive education in the 1980s.

I sometimes see glimpses of the education I could have had if circumstances had been different for my parents (the recent TV series on Harrow, meeting and working with people who went to Oxford, Cambridge, Malvern College etc.) and I often wonder what it is I missed out on apart from the obvious opportunities and overflowing confidence and maturity this type of education seems to instill in pupils.

Come and talk to me about the detail as I'm bursting with curiosity.

shambling reluctantly to an institution which confines them till home time whereas their peers at the posh school down our road are bouncing in agog and alive with Commitment and Zeal.

(actually all teenagers shamble, IME, regardless of education...)

I went to a girls' grammar school in the 8 ' and have taught in state and private schools. It is hard to generalise because there is such variation between individual schools of each type.

The benefits I got from being at a grammar school were really the high academic expectations and being surrounded by bright, motivated peers. Private school, in my experience, adds another layer of benefit to that (if it's a good private school) - a level of confidence and privilege.

Teaching is probably much much better nowadays even in poor comprehensives than it was in my grammar school, simply because educational ideas have moved on so much and so so much more is expected of teachers. But the sad fact is that bright, motivated kids will do well even with mediocre teaching, but great teachers can only teach well in the right environment - if the kids' behaviour is bad and not dealt with really well by management, then good learning isn't going to happen.

The private school I taught in was a million times better than any of the state schools I've taught in (even so - called outstanding ones) and also much better than the grammar school I went to.

I've read it too. It's the old "private or throw to the wolves" argument again. It's offensive and it stinks.

Ah, I see now, mother.

We'll agree to disagree.

I genuinely think there is something to the idea that you have a privileged educating, if you perceive it to be so. The student's effort and engagement matter as much as facilities, teachers and techniques. If you believe you have chosen to be someplace and it has chosen you, then you are more likely to value your place there. This is why grammar and faith schools are often seen as privileged as well as fee paying schools.

MN you see, I totally missed the point.

I understand completely how it came to be. Birth situation and opportunities available in that environment and expectation of parents. At the time, my school was seen as reasonably good because it was in a village setting, a faith school and quite small (800 pupils I think). It didn't have the social problems which were evident in the nearest high school.

My best friend who lived in the same street however, was sent to the fee-paying school in the city and then went to college and finally became a chef in the Royal Navy. They moved away to a 'naice' area shortly after the switch to high school and I never saw them again. She met and married an officer and now lives a charmed life.

I don't think it is offensive, at all. I think it brings an aspect into this debate that is often ignored. Letting parents and children feel they are making an active choice for something that they value rather than taking what they are given and being treated like a lumpen mass is in no way offensive to me.

It also goes a long way towards explaining why committed state school teachers sometimes send their own children to independent schools.

Holmes Yes, I agree, it is probably much better now than it used to be. My old school is rated as outstanding now.

weegiemum - I am entirely with you on the massive privilege of bilingual education! My DD has been at a bilingual school (French-English) since nursery (now Y6) and it is a fabulous, and unusual, opportunity to have two fully functioning mother tongues. Love it!

The question this thread poses and the responses are really interesting (much credit to the quality of the question).

Many threads like this descend into the private/state show down, but this one isn't.

The "active choice" nuance is a very good one. Springisontheway

It side steps the divisive politics of wealth (1% club etc) and focuses on parent and student "engagement" with the process of choice. Choices will be made for a variety of reasons, most of them "exclusive" or "privileged" in some way (ability, gender, faith, catchment, etc).

Another Life of Brian moment springs to mind

"You're all individuals" - Brian

"I'm not" - member of crowd

Sorry - silly mood today.

Yes, MN I think it's a new facet to look at. I just don't know what you can do with it. How can we create more opportunity for real choices that don't rest on IQ, faith or pocket book. I am not sure...

(I use "IQ" loosely for brevity. I am well aware that the 11+ is a far from perfect instrument for measuring children's intellectual ability and potential.)

"How can we create more opportunity for real choices that don't rest on IQ, faith or pocket book?"

Bilingual education is a real choice that is a massive worldwide movement. Lots is going on in London right now in the French community, with two new schools that will offer bilingual French-English education opening in September 2015.

Still not convinced that choice in education is a good thing. I am in favour of a lottery, personally.

The fact that I am the only one on this thread, who was educated in a 'secondary modern' tells you all you need to know. This also should make those posters playing down their grammar and private educations, be very grateful for their educations. I know Hakluyt has lot to say about the cons of grammar schools, but I suspect she probably was educated in one herself.

The truth is anybody educated in a private school 7% or a grammar school/pseudo grammar 5% of the population have had privileged educations unavailable to 88% of schoolchildren.

The way people play down their qualifications and educations on here, is very condescending and disrespectful to the 88% of school children who have not benefited from such schools. It is also very mean to the 90% of over 40 year old's who are not University educated.

Education has changed so much since the school days of even the youngest of us that comparisons are useless.

"Still not convinced that choice in education is a good thing."

Commie, are you?

WTF is a 'pseudo grammar'? My daughters' school isn't one. Are you referring to comps in posh catchment areas? Again, my daughters' school isn't one.

Plenty of us are opposed to selection at 11 precisely because we don't think secondary moderns overall are a very good choice, educationally (though you'll also find people who think they do provide a more appropriate education for less academically achieving kids. I'm not one of them, for the record).

I also btw would like decent education for kids whose parents do not give a toss about education.

Good Lord- do people still actually say "Commie"? [ grin]

"I also btw would like decent education for kids whose parents do not give a toss about education"

Old Trot, are you?

I'm sitting on the train and there is an article in the paper reporting some research (Fischer Family Trust) that 'higher' grammar failures do better in their school than borderline passes at the grammar school. Suggests that grammar is not always the better school for that middle range of ability (if I can believe the article).

summerends - I have also read research that suggests that the best school for your child (the one where he/she will max out and achieve to potential) is the one where he/she is comfortably in the top 25% (sometimes top 33%) of the intake.

This is of course somewhat challenging to achieve at national level, as policy...

Neither of my parents did university. In fact one left school at 16. They decided that education was paramount and did everything to choose what they thought was the best for me. I am now doing the same for my kids.

I think choice is not only a fundamental part of western democracy but also have never seen any real evidence that taking choice away (lottery) would enhance opportunity and success overall. It would leave many people feeling powerless whilst also increasing the burden on the school (and transport) system.

What's interesting is the choices that people make and the justification used.

I can think of parents at our state primary who are very against private schools. Just this week (national offer day) reveals they have chosen grammar, faith and single sex schools. They are happy to exclude less able kids, muslims or boys but have a problem with excluding the middle classes that can't get a bursary.

Often the objections to choices other people have is driven by the fact that that choice isn't available to the objector. It's dressed up with politics, prejudice etc, but it's just plain self interest at heart.

I did wonder if it was rehashed old data Bonsoir.

It's such an interesting question - I think that's why I always pay attention to even snippets of information about it. Intuitively it sounds so right - so much more valuable for the ego to be at the top of the school/class than somewhere at the bottom, even if the school is "better" (= more able pupils, higher exam grades).

"Often the objections to choices other people have is driven by the fact that that choice isn't available to the objector. It's dressed up with politics, prejudice etc, but it's just plain self interest at heart."

Yup. I can't have it so I will stop you having it too, by hook or by crook!