Why would anyone consider going to Rugby school better than the mixed local comp?

[Charis2]

I read this article in the standard earleir, and just thought what is this headmaster on? Why is this scholarship presented as such a huge honour for the boy, when in fact it is a way of the school paying to improve its results by taking in some of the best sixth form students without fees.

What "lifechanging" opportunities does he expect he can offer, which Hassenbrook acadamy can't?

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/needs-pic-teenage-footballer-wins-70000-scholarship-to-boarding-school-that-invented-rugby-a2953791.html

Headmaster Peter Green said he hoped Michael and other Arnold Foundation scholars would have a “ripple effect” on their communities when they return home.

He said: “We might be able to be transformative and transform their lives. Then when they go to university, and after, they can start to transform their own local communities. It’s not about parachuting someone out of that. We want to keep their association with where they are from.”

What a snob. Does he think the staff at Hassenbrook only teach poor peoples maths and physics, and the maths at Rugby is somehow a better class of maths? perhaps he thinks the laws of physics perform better there too?

I hope this lad has fun, but I don't think for a moment his life is going to be in any way better because he spent two years mixing with rich snobs rather than normal people.

Any selective school will have better behaviour than a non selective one- regardless of the selection criteria.

I've always wanted to say this.

At my dd ss elite private school there are children with mixed behaviour as holmes describes. It certainly has it's share of the category 3 pupils as described.

Just yesterday my dd approached a girl she knew from class, a girl from a very good background, just to be friendly.
Girl said "Fuck off, I'm sick of your ugly face", charming.
DD said she did her best click and swipe hand and asked what her problem was "girlfriend".
It happens in all types of school, sorry.

Oh there is bad behaviour in private schools, for sure.

However, what they more easily keep under control is disruption in lessons.

And this can be a big problem in some schools. Indeed, when I visit schools this is usually the number one gripe of students who want to do well.

SheGot

Having experienced the worst school ever I can agree with you 100% there.
It was some time ago now as ds1 is 24, but his secondary school really wasn't worth attending. The teachers were afraid of the kids too

DD said at her school the rich ones who have been privately educated before attending the school are the ones who create the most fuss, can be hard work. Whereas those like dd who come from poorer backgrounds are just so happy to be there.
But this is just one snippet from one school.
She said the penalties for mis behaving are greater than at a state day school.

I've no doubt there are private schools with badly-behaved pupils, but if the school is a reasonably successful one it can be very selective about whom it takes and, crucially, about whom it keeps.
I worked at the girls' private school for nearly 10 years. In that time nobody swore at me (or at another pupil within earshot of me). I very rarely had to raise my voice. Many pupils said thank you for the lesson when they left the classroom. I gave only one detention (to a pupil who persistently flouted the uniform rules). Being on duty at break time involved wandering round and chatting with the pupils. There was no feeling of 'them and us'. There was an atmosphere of calm, cheerful, productive effort. It was so nice. But it wasn't boring because it was a genuine challenge teaching such bright kids.

holmes

I don't think the worst pupil in a good private school could be as bad as the school my ds1 attended.
My dh taught at a well known boarding school, years ago now but his pupils used to bow (the international ones) and thank him.
The British one's thanked him too, and the parents respected all the teachers as well which can be a huge difference.

In the private schools (generalisation I know), extreme disturbance is more likely to be shown in attacks against the self, or in more hidden externalising destructive behaviour- cruel insidious bullying etc Serious external acting out is more likely to lead to expulsion.
Not sure that makes it a better environment...
Troubled children of all kinds are still part of our society and I don't believe should be sent to an island (of only poor children).

This thread and the fencing claims has reminded me of a classic Fraiser episode when Martin is mocking the snobbish attitudes of Niles and Frasier and he says: "the poor kid worked his way out of the ghetto with only a foil and a prayer."

Twisted - I asked you a question up thread re the segregation of children at public schools:
Surely as soon as privately educated leave school then they will meet people from all backgrounds and incomes at university or the work place?
I think you said some privately educated students welcomed this opportunity to widen their horizon.

Dapple, sorry you misunderstood me. I said that I knew people who had been in highly academic private schools who still felt a sense of relief at meeting a new peer group at university. It wasn't a comment about diversity at uni- more the fact that in any school, people can feel stuck or unhappy in their group and welcome the opportunity of a new start.
I think by the time people are in work, often their social status and grouping is more set- and more limited. As a doctor you might meet a diverse group as patients, but less so as colleagues for example. This is very different to actually being in alongside in the way that school provides. By adulthood, issues of privilege and power create new divisions in terms of job status.

I also think that so much of how we see the world is influenced heavily by our early experiences so segregating children has a long term impact (on both sides). And this is completely unnecessary.

twisted I'm afraid those extreme behaviours happen in both state and private school. Silly to try to depict them as a feature of just one sector.

Fortunately, they are rare.

I visit a hell of a lot of schools and speak to a hell of a lot of pupils and it is clear that the number one problem (in terms of impact on studies) is low level disruption and it's almost constant presence in some lessons.

It is almost an accepted part of life in some schools, with teachers and pupils expected to be able to work through it. Teachers who do not have to work in those circumstances seen as somehow less able or lazy or having an easy time. Pupils who do not have to work in those circumstances seen as having 'an easy ride' or 'living in a bubble'... It as a paradigm that is very destructive.

SheGot it is absolutely not silly. Yes of course eating disorders etc happen anywhere but they are absolutely more prevalent in more pressured environments which encourage perfectionism.

Twisted is right: antisocial and dysfunctional behaviour takes less publicly visible forms in institutional settings that punish overtly disruptive or unpleasant behaviours. The more sophisticated the social setting, the more devious the bad behaviours.

Eating disorders yes, are more prevalent amongst girls in high pressure environments.

But a. not all independent schools are like that and b. they are still, thankfully, a relatively rare issue.

However, self harm, drug and alcohol abuse and bullying are no more prevalent.

BTW I do agree with you about segregation. My biggest misgiving about my DC's education is this aspect. I would, in an ideal world, wish them to be schooled alongside children whose parents are not all financially comfortable.

However, we do not live in an ideal world and I do not keep my DC locked in a cellar outside of school hours to ensure they never meet a poor person.

My desire to access the best educational day to day environment for my DC is greater than my misgiving about segregation. And the more state schools I visit, the stronger my desire becomes.

Of course I wish every child could have the same opportunities, but I have no power in that regard, so I must do what I think is right with the limited power I do have.

Eating disorders are increasingly recognised to be a manifestation of social rejection, which can be quite insidious.

As for social segregation in essence I feel the same as she.
Although in the context of the thread, those with generous funding from the school are broadening, rather than narrowing their social horizons.

Bursaries and awards allow children from poorer backgrounds to attend private and public schools. Some are more inclusive than the state schools that actively discourage applications from certain families and, by their geographical position, are able to ensure that poorer pupils cannot attend.

Most public schools do community service to their local areas, where senior children help out at primary schools and clubs. They certainly aren't cocooned from the big wide world.

'Helping out' is not at all the same as being part of.
Bursaries are not the same either. What about the poorer children who are not highly attaining?

Twisted - thank you for answering my question.

Bobo

I have only just started looking at eating disorders and self harm and can't agree with you more.
The children I have heard of in the state sector including my niece became involved in order to belong. At year 8/9 there seems a huge amount of peer pressure and of course choosing your identity in a group. Dn and her friends became Goths and saw self harm as part of the belonging.

The children I have heard of in private school did so because of pressure, endless competition and not being able to cope with the demands.

The result is the same, just the cause and the social status is different.

Do you think those poorer children are any better off in the state system? They are not. They are actively excluded because they're not bright enough to get into the state grammars (that are over-represented by tutored middle class children) and by living in poorer areas, away from schools with higher achieving pupils and better facilities.

At least bursaries and awards enable some of those poorer children to access a public school education: and not all of them are high achieving, either.

The world canoe polo championship will be held on a lake in London in 2016, cannot find any other polo played on a lake in London in the last 50 years Obviously looking in the wrong place, we attended it.

When, OP?

Charis is not going to come back and answer that, InimitableJeeves - because that would involve admitting she had made a mistake, by referring to polo when she actually means canoe or water polo - which are very different sports.

It would be very easy to come back and say - Ohh yes, I did mean X-polo, not polo - of course the horses couldn't play on a lake - silly me! - but that would mean admitting she had been wrong. Not going to happen, imo!

Are you really asking why a top public school is better than a comp?!?

Nah, all polo was played at charises local comp. Strings of polo ponies in the stables the majority of comps offer, water polo in the Olympic pool that comes as standard, canoeing on the schools private lake etc. Fsm kids given 1to1 training if their parents could only afford group riding lessons and so on to get them match ready. All state schools are like that naturally.