Mumsnet in Sunday Times

[Xenia]

I cannot link because of the firewall but saw a reference to mumsnet - article about left wing people who send children to private schools.

one couple they referred to broke up their marriage because they could not agree on state or private schooling.

(When is it right to put family ahead of principle?

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/focus/article1101910.ece )

Xenia: "They will only have been in schools where children behave. They will have very strict attendance expectations. They will have really high academic standards as they came from leading indepenent schools which only take the brightest. So expectations all round will be really high compared with a teacher who went to her local comp and thinks her BEd from Middlesex Poly is some kind of an achievement.

They will favour competition, be prepared to mark things as wrong, give lots of tests and they will have an accent that employers can understand. They will make the children stand up when the teachers enters the room. teachers will be called sir. There are just a tiny part of the stuff you take for granted in good schools and indeed may well be the case in state schools."

Xenia, with respect, this is bonkers. The problem in difficult inner-city comps is not the teachers, it's the kids. You may well go in with high expectations but the harsh reality is that there will be troublesome kids who will make mincemeat of you. And you can't, as a teacher, just decide to "mark things as wrong" or "give lots of tests" make the kids call you "sir": do you have any idea at all how much of what teachers do is controlled by Ofsted and senior management? If you don't have recent experience of the state system, then I guess you don't. But you can't just decide what you're going to teach, or how you're going to teach, it's all monitored very closely, and Ofsted will fail a lesson if it's not "inclusive", interactive, full of small group work etc.

If I am wrong why have inner London schools been turned around in the last few years? I think they now do 6x as well as Hull.

Actually I thought top nurses got paid quite well now, in the £40-50k range (and rightly so). A friend of a friend of mine is a senior nurse at Great Ormond St and has masses of responsibility.

But the whole inner London schools thing is v. interesting - I read an article in the Guardian recently pointing out that, actually, inner London schools perform better than the UK average, and the worst-performing schools tend to be in poor seaside towns. Would be interesting to read a proper analysis of this.

Yes, but it's lal relative. I don't think I would want a child of mine in a career where the top pay was only £50k althoguh of course it's their choice and they coudl set up their own global nursing agency and sell it and make a lot so even then you can stll do well.

The inner London schools was in the FT.
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f432a740-dc95-11e1-bbdc-00144feab49a.html#axzz23jBjqmDY :-
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f432a740-dc95-11e1-bbdc-00144feab49a.html#ixzz23jBvWo4K

Comparing children like-for-like, the gap grows. The share of FSM-eligible children from London getting straight As or better in English, maths and three other subjects is double that of the other regions ? and triple that of Yorkshire and the Humber.

London has advantages. Its immigrant population boosts the schools: recent arrivals tend to be motivated and their children score highly on tests. The average scores of children from every significant ethnic minority group beat the average score of white British children at GCSEs.

Meanwhile, half of London?s working-age adults in the inner boroughs have a degree. Outside the M25, the figure is half that. Recruiting London teachers is relatively easy ? especially compared with the northern cities. "

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f432a740-dc95-11e1-bbdc-00144feab49a.html#ixzz23jC51JKC

He praised Teach First, a scheme to encourage high fliers into the classroom, which first emerged in the capital a decade ago and is still strongest there.

He noted that London?s weak schools were placed under new management ? the academy programme ? more aggressively than elsewhere.

The city has also benefited from the London Challenge, a programme of targeted interventions widely praised in English education but little noted outside it.

Xenia.I often see you on MN bigging yourself up.If you have to do it,I suppose you have a need to do it.
But I think you should be able to manage not to put other people down.And dont say you dont,or you dont mean to etc.Please take some care over it,as you do it often.
There are 2 examples on just this thread.
Post of Wed 21.43pm "I am more than happy though that others remain in their own mediocrity"
Post of Thurs 17.38pm.Wont repeat it,but the first paragraph is not actually very nice really,is it?

Thanks for the link, Xenia, that is v. useful.

To my mind, any career that offers rewarding work with the opportunity to keep learning and move up the ladder (whether as a medical specialist or in management) is a good one, and even in London one can have a perfectly decent standard of life on £30 or £40k. But I realise your outlook is more financially-orientated than that of most people on MN, and I think it's worth having that point of view represented even if most of us don't agree with it.

I've read that article now and it is really encouraging. Great that efforts to improve London schools have been so successful - it shows it can be done (and incidentally gives the lie to those who suggest that it's London's high ethnic minority population that causes the problems).

Indeed. In fact one reason SE schools do so much better in state and private sector is because anyone who moves from one country to another above all wants their children to succeed at school as they know it is the way to get on and most of those who move for economic reasons do so for better education and tend to be the get up and go kind of people from their home state rather than the lazier ones. As for what a human needs and what ambitions women should have plenty of women do not ask for enough pay and could do a lot better. We need to inspire them. Many girls lack role models.

These schools don't want local housewife Joan going in - work hard at school and you can wash shirts for 40 years. They want business leader Janet whose company is worth £50m, a year to go in there and inspire the inner London teenagers. See other thread on those who aim for £1000 a month and those who aim for £1000 a day.

"local housewife"
"business leader"

When people stop working like all of us will have to do one day,for one reason or another,it is best for people not to have their self worth totally wrapped up in their jobs.
fwiw,I could be described as both of the above,though our business is not worth £50m that is true.

I'm trying to work out what the point of this thread is, but I can't hear myself think over all the braying.

You are not the only one SuperBOF-I am still trying to work out the point too. The only thing that I have definitely agreed with is 'If we are encouraging our daughters to go into careers where they will earn a decent wage, we should be encouraging our sons too!'

I also don't see what is wrong with being a midwife and a nurse-if I was interested in a medical career I would find both more interesting than being a surgeon.

My view is that if you will go against it, it's not really a principle, it's just an uninformed romantic notion.

"My view is that if you will go against it, it's not really a principle, it's just an uninformed romantic notion."

Well - one definition of 'principle' is 'a basic truth or belief'.

I believe that a truly meritocratic society grows from an education system which tries to give all children an equal chance to succeed.

So in principle I am against private education because it makes a true meritocracy impossible. However, we currently have a system which perpetuates unfairness and inequality, and there is no political or social consensus that it should be changed. This is because those people in the UK with the loudest voices and the most power benefit from this unequal system: they have no incentive to change it.

While this unfair system exists those of us whose children are suffering unfairly because of it find it hard to stand by our principles and watch our children be disadvantaged by a system we are powerless to change.

I would always put my children before principles. If you get rid of private schools you still get unfairness and inequality.

So delighted, that in my NHS chosen career, that I was motivated in my youth, by picking a job, that required me to be bright, compassionate, and challenged, rather than motivated by money.....
I can safely say that not one of the dying patients I have been lucky to help have died,pleased by the amount of money or kudos they have made or achieved. I need money to pay the mortgage and eat, and look after my family, thankfully I can do this and have a wonderful career in which I can help people.
Boring and lacking achievement and importance for some on this thread, but truly rewarding for me!

Helped died ....no def not,,,helped when dying.......

The best of reasons for choosing a career,hotbot. Making money comes way after job satisfaction in my list.

hotbot very relieved you clarified that, tho not sure the keyboard will survive the spluttered coffee

Yes, but it is even more win win if your career is helping people, intellectually challenging, requires compassion and challenges you and is very very well paid. Surely that is just as good, much better even.

The deaths of many of us are determined by money these days. The poor are fat and die young. The rich can die up to 20 y ears later with better help and years of ace pricvate health care. The rich can choose to die at home with teams of carers and sadly where a lot of money might be inherited often closer famly members unto the end (money always talks). You have huge choice over type and place and nature of death if you are rich, even the choice to go to Dignitas if you choose which the poor do not. Do not con yourselves that deaths are equal. Money makes death better. Money also means you can buy time to be with those you love and have many more choices in life.

I always find it very odd that so many people (mostly women) assume that highly paid jobs are dull. There are lots and lots of ways to make great money and are hugely enjoyable.

I always find it odd too that people (again mostly women) seem to be in complete denial about just how much money our DC will need to have anyhting remotely like a comfortable existence. We've been lucky. They will have it much much harder.

Xenia, who has said that my job is not any of the things you mention?
Mrs guy, glad you didn't ruin your keyboard!
blush

A comfortable existence is somewhat subjective.
And for me,that is a big part of the issue here.
I suspect I and others reading this,are a lot more comfortable and content on half the income that it takes for other posters on here to feel comfortable and content.

WordFactory very, very true, It is worrying how little thought people give to that. If only people tried to make choices with more effort to consider the of the implications and consequences. Of couse it is impossible to predict the future precisely, but some things are probable - ie it is likely that most people will want to have DC, and likely that most people will get old. Both situations will require money - how are you going to finance that? As long as you factor in your earning potential to your aspirations for those and other likely events and match them - fine, no problem. But mostly people don't do this, and Xenia is pointing this out.
Pointless to choose a life as a street mime artist, and then bleat about the fact that you can't afford to have 5 DC in top indies, and a big house, and a comfortable retirement... Pointless to slave away getting top a levels, top law firm, top money, and then bleat that you never get to see your DC...
It always amazes me that poepl blunder into things and then complain about the (foreseaable) consequences. Obviously things do come out of left field and hit you when you caould not have predicted it, but it the obviousl consequences that people fail to consider that are depressingly common...

That's a fair point million.

I think at its most basic I would want DC to be able to be financially independent (of us and state), be able to afford a decent home of their own, to marry and have DC. I would want them to have sufficent money to remain healthy and happy. I would want them to have enough money to be able to retire at a reasonable age.

To do all these things will require more cash than it has for my generation that's for sure.

But then, I'm convinced that the middle in the UK is imploding and that there will soon be very few jobs in that space. There will be highly paid jobs and low paid jobs. Given the choice I certainly want the former for my DC as I see very little help for the later bieng available.