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.

Our local primary school sold off its sports field years ago leaving the kids with nothing more than one playground for infants and juniors to share.
They have no designated sports teacher...the class teacher ( some of whom are well inot their fifties) takes them outside.
It is absolutely not fair for those kids.
And it's not on to suggest they should 'do it all outside of school'. A lot of their parents can't afford it or don't have transport.
These children deserve more and getting all defensive about state education isn't going to improve matters for them.

Well, I don't know where in East Sheen he went to school (probably not actually in Sheen, as he didn't get into the school she wanted), but my DCs' primary school is nothing like the one she describes. They have houses, all the houses compete at sports day, there is a mixture of group and competitive activities at sports day, children frequently get awards for good work, merits and house points are awarded for effort and achievement, academic ability is rated, they learn about Jesus etc, there are loads of after school clubs in everything from chess to drama....

MrsGofG, did you see my thread with your name on? DS1 has just got an offer from the school I think your DS1 is at - have noticed you before on Sheen education threads. Was wondering if he was enjoying it!

ooh - a thread with my name on??? did not see - will look for it instantly!

(SG - have answered you on other thread )

It sounds to me like the school her son is a is particularly "PC". My son's teacher is certainly open about where he is in the class (mind you, her children attend private schools so maybe she has a different view on what parents should be told anyway). I don't know what they're like about sports' days because we haven't had one yet.

I have to say I can't imagine someone like Ms Lamb sending her only son to a state school in London - maybe if she lived somewhere like Buckinghamshire with the grammar schools she would. I'm sure she made her decision about secondary education a long time ago - this is just a chance to earn a bit more money for those fees!

And I found sport at school horrible as I wasn't very good at it. If they have stopped kids picking teams for normal lessons then I don't mind a bit less competition. I would object if a school didn't pick the best for inter-school events though, but that should be the teachers selecting, not the kids.

I think the problem is that it varies so much, it really can be a lottery. A lot of state schools are outstanding and don't subscribe to this non competitive business, or manage themselves in such a way that they can be competitive without it being a problem with the less sporty types.

A lot if independent schools put too much emphasis on teams/achievement which can be just as damaging, and it can be disheartening to child and parent if it's always the same children in the team, getting the prizes, etc etc.

You just have to use your judgement as best you can, hope and pray that your local primary is a good one and don't assume that an independent one is always better (although, sadly it does seem to be more often than not).

This is the problem with education as I see it, despite all the targets, reviews, etc they still can't consistently provide a good, balanced education for the children - and it shouldn't matter what your catchment is, all children should have the same chances, irrelevant of their background. Cloud cuckoo land for a while to come yet, sadly.

bump for Xenia

Children are naturally competitive anyway. I hope state schools aren't as bad as she paints. I understand they have sets for some subjects when you're older. I don't believe they have the same culture of wanting to be the best you can, a very high bar, being told you could do better as much as in the private system but I may be wrong and they probably differ between schools anyway.

I was looking at the web site of our local comp in walking distance with 20% AC GCSE and its standards at just about everything, music, sport etc is almost laughable.

Ms Lamb has chosen to live where she is. It's a decision you take if you want to damage your children in terms of living in London and using state schools. It's a selfish decision so most parent move or pick work that earns them enough educate their children properly where they are able to.

Don'#t agree with the comments above about that man who did badly at a comp - yes he may ultimately do okay but a whole generation with liberal parents who went to Londo comps in the 60s and 70s where all their famiklies had always had the best education money can buy were sacrificed - yes a very few, just as now in comps, managed to make it through like the lone runner who wins a race but the vast mass were irretrievably damages by the selfishness of their parents' socialist principles.

Totally agree with MrsGuy that if you live in Sheen/Barnes and aren't aware of the notorious secondary then you are living in a very strange bubble indeed. IMO, it's absurdly hypocritical to move to Sheen expressly to win a place for your dc at Shene Mount (surely the school she means which didn't work out) and then criticise people for choosing the private route.

Xenia, I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say the "vast majority" of people who went to Acland Burghley and Camden School for Girls in the 60s and 70s were "irretrievably damaged." I know lots of people who went to both who are very happy and very successful. If none of JM's siblings got any qualifications then something must have been very wrong at home because none of my friends had any problems at all.

Seems odd to me that you'd move across London for primary school without also considering secondary school options. Having said that her husband is Portuguese and they spend a lot of time in Portugal (or used to from what she writes) so I wonder if they planned to move there before their son reached secondary school age.

Agree strongly with frogs- a terribly bad article full of cliched rubbish. She should stick to war correspondence. I hate it when journalists quote their children as well. Invariably sounds nauseating and self serving and one can't help suspecting that the child's miraculously pertinent comments have been honed and exaggerated in order to fit the very thin storyline designed by their parent.

I think Jonathan Miller's children would have done badly anywhere, by the sound of things. They clearly just weren't academic- or were extremely lazy plus not academic- they went to very good schools where plenty of people of their generation did brilliantly.

Agree, Riven.

I've just reread the Jonathan Miller article.

I'd forgotten he went to Pimlico Comp. It's ludicrous to say he couldn't keep up at Bedales. I know someone who went to Pimlico up to GCSE, then moved to Westminster for sixth form which is about as academic as it gets. She didn't have any trouble with the transition, went on to Oxford and is now in a very good job indeed. Total self-pitying hype.

The whole non-competitive thing sounds very exaggerated to me.

She obviously isn't confident to send her kid to state school and feels the need to justify it.

All the talk about state schools rewarding mediocrity did make me smile in the light of all the recent stuff in the media about bankers' bonuses. If ever there were a case of prizes being heaped on the most undeserving.... and I'm damn sure a good proportion of those inept, high earning bankers aren't state school educated!

What's also worth bearing mind is that the article is only half the story. She was probably asked to whip something up about her change from state to private and this is what she came up with. An entertaining opinion piece, nothing more. Her reasons may have been very much more complex than she had word count for and, of course, there's editing to take into consideration.

And it's perfectly possible to have sports day that is highly comprtitive yet inclusive. You just need loads of activities and the children separated into ability sets - exactly like you would do with any other subject. Not one child is left out of our sports day, yet there is still room for the kids to break school records etc. Not rocket science.
And as for it being exagerated, I can only comment on our local state primary school where I volunteer and it is exactly as described.
Worse still, throughout the year the school does almost no sport.They have no specialist teachers so the form teachers just take them outside to the playground a couple of times a week. No football, no netball, no rounders. No field. So not fair to those children.

DS2 said the other day "It's not the winning that's important - it's the taking part"

I thought it was a sweet thing to say at the time. Maybe though I should whisk him out of his state school and put sentd him private to make him more competative.

At our school sports day (independent), everyone has to sign up for 2 or 3 events. No one is left out. Everyone is expected to do their best for their house.

We have trophies for the best (ie fastest, furthest, highest) participant in each year group, and an overall house trophy. It is very competitive and taken seriously.

I did my teaching practice at a non-competitive school and their sports day was just plain weird. There was absolutely no enthusiasm among either the students or the staff. What a waste of a day.

Lynette - of course the taking part is important and winning is not everything, in fact learning to lose, dust yourself off and laugh is an essential life skill. But how are you going to do that if no-one is allowed to win or lose?

Litchick I agree.

I'm just getting fed up of everyone around me banging on about how they can't possibly send their child to a state school for this reason or that reason.

I know I'm lucky to be abole to send my DC's to "outstanding" state schools, and I don't happen to like the private schools near us.

As frogs said; Sun 15-Feb-09 08:37:32

"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."

I am struggling to see how a sports day can be anything but competitive. Without hobbling the good runners and giving the poor ones a head start . Races are by their nature competitive aren't they? And there are always children that are poor at sport and very slow runners who will lose. The learn to deal with that, same as the erm... pulchritudinally challenged and the less than academic have to do.

Our state primary has the usual mix of sporty children who look forward to sports day and do well and those who dread it and do badly. But everyone yells at the top of their lungs for their house to win the races. Our school won the local athletics cup 10 yrs in a row (not this year...the shame ) and when I went there was no holding back at all.

I think it's just weird to hold non-competitive races.

Our local state schools all have competitive sports days too. I found the article highly exaggerated - as someone else said, she'd obviously been asked to whip off a piece and quite frankly a lot of us could write something better in our lunchhours!

oh am SO SO glad someone talked about this. I think her ideas of education are SO SO ilinformed and she has no conept of" life long learning" or htat some kids in schools are NOT emotionally equiped to be in lessons at all and some ( even gasp M/c ones) are SO needing basic emotional literacy issues she would be startled.

ALSO her obsession abotu where her kid is in the class is SO odd. Why does it matter what his attainment is if his achivement is good?

Because if he's being a lazy so and so and slumped to the bottom he might do a lot better if the bar is raised very high and he's made to reach up to that level. If you're in a school where most parents share that view and 5 children have competed for every place at 5 like the academic private schools then you can buy that advantage. If you're not into that then of course the state system is fine and let's not forge the private system educates 6% of children many not in academic private schools but those for fairly thick rich children too and even so 50% of those who get into Oxbridge come from that 6% and a many more MPs, leading directors and the like are from that 6% too so right through life you are advantaged too. But only if women (and men) earn enough to pay fees so the best thing women can do is pursue proper careers so they get the power and status and fun of earning their own money in jobs which enable them to pay school fees. If they become journalists like Ms Lamb then it will always be a struggle.