Christina Lamb on state v private

[MollieO]

here

One of my favourite journalists. Knowing her previously published views I was interested, although not surprised, to read what she chose and why.

Silly article imo. My ds's state school is not remotely squeamish about competition, they have squads for swimming etc and send selected dc to sports extension days at the local sports college (=rough secondary school with great PE facilities). They do cross-country heats, and yes my ds was majorly pee'd off that he didn't get through because he is a summer-born Y5 competing against Y6. But he's biding his time for next year. And they congratulate successful dc in the newletters and assemblies, yadda yadda.

If you really want them to play competitive cricket or rugby, or swim competitively or do gymnastics it really isn't that hard to provide it outside school.

And to run a sports day on the basis of mixed-ability teams seems to be the only way you could organise it so that everybody can have a go and achieve something. Obviously you could have a sports day in which only the talented athletes are in with a chance and all the dyspraxic/fat/ tiny/disabled kids sit on the side and watch the superstars competing amongst themselves, but I can't see on what planet that's a better arrangement.

I do wish people wouldn't write these post-hoc justifications of 'why I really had no option but to send my child private'. You had the means, you made a choice. Get over it, and don't expect the rest of the world to emmpathise with you.

Frogs - "And to run a sports day on the basis of mixed-ability teams seems to be the only way you could organise it so that everybody can have a go and achieve something." This sums up what's wrong. Why does everyone need to achieve something on sports day? Not everyone is good at sport just like not everyone is good at singing.

I never imagined I would end up paying for my children's education. DS1 spent two years at a state comprehensive and it was disappointing, anti competitive and really didn't help him grow as a person.

His current school is brilliant. The feedback is brutally honest and informative and helps you and your child establish what are their strengths and weaknesses. This is something that everyone will need to do eventually.

MollieO - Thanks for linking the article.

Because sports day is a whole-school event. There's nothing wrong with letting the top runners compete among themselves for first place, as long as there's also a chance for the less co-ordinated kids, the disabled kids, the ones who'd really like to run but aren't actually that great at it to have a go.

Do you really think that a dyspraxic or overweight kids should have to spend the whole of sports day sitting on the side watching the talented athletes do their stuff? What message does that send? 'Don't bother trying unless you're naturally talented?'

I completely agree there's a place for competition, and have no issue with them taking the top swimmers out for extra training so that they can have a successful swimming squad. But there is also a place for celebrating the efforts and achievements less-gifted children, however 'pc gone mad' you may consider that. I think it's great that my actually quite talented son and his cricket-playing mates can spontaneously applaud their disabled classmate actually managing to run in vaguely the right direction and not get run out (more by luck than judgement). That doesn't mean they can't also be in their local (roughish) colts cricket squad and take a fiendish delight in wiping the floor with the local prep-school team.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

DD's (independent) primary school ran sports days where everyone got involved but it was hugely competitive.

In the run up during PE lessons they did time trials so the children were divided into races competing at similar standard and field events too.

They competed in houses and every point won went towards the house total.

frogs - I think what you are describing sounds more appropriate for primary school. At secondary school age you really need to get to know who you are, including your strengths and weaknesses. The vast vast majority of people aren't good at everything.

SueW that is what they did at my state primary. Seems perfectly normal to me. We also had that at grammar school and I went from being the fastest in the school at primary to being the third or fourth.

I agree that not everyone can be good at everything but I think that having the opportunity to compete is important as that is what you do in life. My ds will never be in the first choice of any sporting squad but despite that I want him to know that there is competition in life. He will grow up knowing that taking part and having a go is important, it isn't all about winning.

Should also add that his prep school every boy has a chance to play competitive matches against other schools no matter how rubbish they are.

Mmm, but (moving entirely away from state/private) sport (or at least exercise) is one thing that everyone ought to be doing. If you're no good at singing and stop singing altogether it isn't going to knock years of your life. You aren't going to get medical advice in later life to start conjugating Latin verbs several times a week. Somehow schools need to succeed in enthusing children over sport even if they aren't good at it. And that's something that schools in my day, for example, signally failed to do.

That is why I think it is appalling that so many school playing fields were sold off for housing. At the school the writer's son attends there are no playing fields. I can't imagine sending my child to a school like that although maybe the difference is we don't live in London. That alone would be enough for me to consider alternatives. Everyone is different. My dn is a very talented sportsman, plays county level in both rugby and cricket but his parents have chosen to send him to a school without playing fields which makes playing sport at school harder.

Yes, I was talking about primary.

But actually, I'd appreciate it if my non-sporty 14yo was encouraged to do more sport. As it is, things don't seem to have moved on since I was her age in the 1980s and we swiftly realised that the PE staff were only interested in people who were going to be on the teams. The rest of us could bunk off all year, and spend PE sessions hanging out behind the 6th form block with a packet of John Player Special, and know that the teachers would never even notice we weren't there.

My dd isn't the one in the naughty corner with the JPS, I'm relieved to report, but I know she gets a bit depressed about having so little chance to participate, and would appreciate the opportunity to do more non-competitive physical activity like Pilates and yoga. Instead we've encouraged her to do these kinds of things outside school, but I'm sure lots of kids just give up on physical activity at this stage.

"At a carol service I realised he didn?t know the words of the Lord?s Prayer and he asked: ?Remind me, who is Jesus?? "

if this was something that was important to her then why on earth hadn't she been saying prayers at home with him?

Well precisely, coppertop. And the same with the sports thing.

She's reminding me mildly of those self-serving articles by the son of Jonathan Miller claiming that he couldn't have succeeded in life because his dad sent him to rubbish schools. Conveniently ignoring the fact that all the three schools he cites produced several people of the same age who did v. well academically. There were loads of people from Camden Girls at Oxford, and Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon) must have been at Acland Burghley around the same time.

Fine, get angry with the things you don't like about schools. But don't make out that it's not about your own choices in the end.

My sons' inependent school makes everyone paricipate in sport (for the exercise) even if they are rubbish at it. In fact, if the sports master thinks any boy is unfit he contacts the parents and after establishing that there is no medical reason for lack of fitness, he becomes their personal trainer and they MUST attend extra after school gym sessions until they reach a reasonble level of fitness. But if a boy does not want to compete at rugby and attend loads of voluntary after school training sessions but would prefer to do after school orchestra, drama, choir or whatever then that is completely accepted. They completely understand children's diverse interests and talents.

It wasn't until I left school that I learned to enjoy sport for fun - I went from doing v little/avoiding it to being first to volunteer when there was something on - from an inter-office netball match to softball on Hyde Park as an after-work social activity.

Mind you in the meantime I'd got contact lenses so I could actually see the ball when I played ball sports.... bit of an impediment I'd never previously realised....

DD's (senior) school offers the usual (hockey, netball, tennis, gym, etc) and as they get older there's a gym (rowers, treadmills, etc), Pilates, yoga, aerobics, golf. And they do Adventure in ??six week blocks - canoeing, mountain biking, etc.

To be fair, Miller Jnr isn't claiming that he couldn't have succeeded in life because he was sent to rubbish schools. He makes a point of ssying how well he's done in life, and that life was OK in the top sets, and that parents need to be involved in their children's education. I think really he's angry with his parents for not noticing how unhappy their children were at school and for being overly laid-back and not getting involved.

I did love "My sister, as far as my parents knew, went to Camden School For Girls - though later it transpired she was managing a cafe in Kentish Town."...

I can't bear these articles - and why do they always have the compulsory "slagging off uber-mummies" part?

I just never meet anyone like this: everyone at my DD's (state) school is just nice

Maybe everyone in Islington is just ghastly

MP - 'just nice' sounds awful. Blood-thirsty, judgy, so competetitive that their nostrils are permenantly flared, is so much more interesting.

AtticWoman, what points are you actually trying to make in this thread, apart from putting other posters down and pointing out how superior your own choice and opinions are?

It's this kind of pointless one-upmanship that puts me off MN more and more. Maybe you need to cut back on that competitive spirit a bit? It's okay to have a discussion without always wanting to win, you know.

frogs - Sorry I was only joking. I am the least competitive person in the UK, possibly in the world.

But the state school my DCs attend(ed) does competitive sport, rugby tours, has houses, house points, CCF, debating soc etc.

And Jonathan Miller's son has done ok despite having 'no qualifications' or how does he pay his children's private school fees? hmmmm

Sorry to spoil the story.

But the state school my DCs attend(ed) does competitive sport, rugby tours, has houses, house points, CCF, debating soc etc.

And Jonathan Miller's son has done ok despite having 'no qualifications' or how does he pay his children's private school fees? hmmmm

Sorry to spoil the story.

My sons' state secondary also promotes competitive sport, rugby tours, has houses, house points, CCF, debating soc etc. They are running several trips this year - Ecuador jungle, Honduras amongst them. Next year it's the biannual sports tour of South Africa.

A friend's state comprehensive-educated son was England's top student at GCSE with 14 A* grades.

And they get lots of Oxbridge offers....

I think the article refers to primary school experience, not secondary. From what I've read, her experience of her son's primary school has put her off staying in the state system for secondary. Of course unless we live in East Sheen we don't know what is on offer at secondary level to be able to judge her decision to any informed degree. If I was faced with the choice of a secondary school as she has described her son's primary school then I'd be looking for alternatives too.

Nearly fell off my perch when I read this article yesterday, because I live in East Sheen and it very rarely makes the national press Just surprising it took her until her son was in y5 to figure our the local state secondary is rubbish - this is apparent to every other parent from the moment they give a big sigh of relief at getting their kis into one of the amny outstanding local primaries, and the realise - aaaaagh there is a cliff edge @ the end of y6.... Our school has a big playing field tho' - she obviously should have paid more & bought or rented a house nearer our school...
I thought I would be viscerally opposed to the 'non-competitive sports day, but actually it was MUCH more fun then the usual endless running races - the children were randomly distributed in 'colour' teams and so every participant could contribute something to the team effort, and parents walked round from one event to the other (so also avoiding that awful 'front row parent with video camera' syndrome we used to get..
So I am now a big fan of that.
Conversely, nmy elder son goes to an indie where sport is taken seriously BUT, there is a team for every child, so all can take part at any level, and even those who are not naurally talented get to play children from otehr schol who are at their level, and is much better than just opting out completely.