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.

Thank you

their DC got scholarships because, well it kind of eliviates the stigma a bit

Mine got scholarships . They worked hard to get them and our whole family is very proud of them. One is worth 25 percent and one is worth 50. They are larger than normal as they are very talented at a particular sport. None of us have any stigma about private school whatsoever. It would take the shine off a wholly positive experience if we felt ashamed of it

bobo ego protection is deeply human, no? Especially when it comes to ones children.

I agree that demanding change is often a fool's errand. In the face of long held ideologies, parents may feel it's too big a task.

But not buying into destructive paradigms would be a reasonable start...

I'm not sure that parental ego protection at the expense of one's DC's education is "normal". Selfish and shortsighted, perhaps.

I have an academically "top 2% child." Her presence at our very good state primary did nothing to elevate or improve the school experience for her peers. Teachers were not effectively able to differentiate for her. She was bored, and progressively more miserable as the years went by, they all got older and the gap widened. Nothing I could do or say changed the fact that the school was not catering to her needs. I completely accept that it made sense for them to focus on the middle and that she was not more important than any other student. But, nor was she less important.

This is why she is now at a selective, private day school and my user name is "back to work I go."

She said to me the other day. I wasn't happy at primary, I was a misfit, now I have lots of friends and everyone is like me.

She doesn't have a scholarship or bursary (we are too "rich" for a bursary, but it feels like a real stretch for us.) We live in neighbourhood that is "leafy." Most of our friends and neighbours are sending their children to the local comp. They feel that they cannot afford private school. They live in nicer homes, they have million plus property portfolios (out of a circle of 7 friends, only 2 of us "only" own our own residence,) better cars, holidays, etc. They reckon that property investment will outstrip education investment. They are probably right.

But it was our choice to make. I am glad I live in a free society where I am allowed to make that choice for my child. I find it hard to understand why investing in education is something to be ashamed of, while investing in buy-to-let to set your children up is considered virtuous. It's a strange world.

Dyslexia is a learning difficulty not a learning disability. At least according to uk medical diagnosis. A learning disability is defined by low iq- these children could never get in to highly academic schools. Children with some specific learning difficulties could.
Elite academic private schools push children to thinking that below A is a failure. They also work (already able) children so that they are likely to get the highest grades.
I don't see this as an advantage apart from in the narrowest sense. It's a bit like trying to teach children to read and write very early. They all (if they can) get there in the end anyway but those pushed in these areas can miss out on the essential learning (emotional, social and intellectual) that they could be getting through play instead.

There is nothing better you can give a child than a good education (other than the basics like love) in my view and it is the one thing no future government, war, tax system etc can take away from your child.

Someone mentioned scholarships above - usually schools call those big discounts bursaries these days and they are based on financial need. So if your child is superb at sport but you earn what I do it would not get a big discount off fees. It might win a financiall nominal scholarship instead. Whereas if your income was fairly low then you might have a 25% or whatever academic, music or sport bursary.

"I think parents like to say that school doesn't matter because no one wants to accede that other DC are getting something better than theirs.

As a parent, especially a middle class one, that stings."

You would have to be a fool or the OP or both to deny that there are loads of things private schools provide that state schools don't.

The private/state debate shouldn't really be about exam results. Bright supported children (which are the sort of children in selective schools-regardless of selection criteria) will do well academically practically anywhere. The issue is that private schools have loads of time and money to provide lots of other good "stuff. The sort of "stuff" that state school parents who want to have to provide outside school. Private school parents often seem surprised that state schools can't do all this- completely forgetting how much they are paying for it!.

It's the cultural capital that's the issue really. Our absurdly privileged children have it in shedloads. If our absurdly privileged children also go to a good private school they get double shedloads. While the children who most need it are those most unlikely to get it. And so the social divide remains. That's where to problem lies.

"If wanting my academic child to have an academic range of subjects to study, rather than the dross on offer at my catchment state makes me a snob so be it."

This sort of statement is usually shorthand for "doesn't do Latin"
If that's not what you mean- well, what do you mean? Does your catchment school not do English, Maths, History.......?

twisted as a dyslexic, I can assure you it often feels like a disability!

As for being pushed to achieve to your potential, well there is no reason for this to stunt emotional growth etc. Why would there be?

There are many kind people who also have fabulous qualifications . And there are many horrible people with very average grades.

I see it as part of my moral duty as a parent to cheer lead my DC and push them to be the very best they can be in all areas. And I want a school with the same ideology.

I also lead from the front and push myself. My life has been based on over achieving .

bertrand the school I am next due to visit does not offer Latin.

Nor does it offer GCSE music, triple science or any other MFL than French. One option must be taken up by a vocational subject...

Grazia mine definitely have scholarships not bursaries. We've never given the school ant financial information. We do know the difference.

Yes, why would helping children achieve their academic potential stunt them emotionally. It's like people who say selective academic private (or state grammar) schools have miserable children. It's just instead jealous parents of children who are not bright enough to get in conning themselves. Like saying everyone rich is miserable.

I like the fact that in England though you can push your own ethos - you can home educate, pick a boarding prep, state boarding, day grammar, comp, a religious school or whatever and that we tolerate a broad range so parents can make informed choices.

I don't think my sons' school says below an A is a failure at all. Some boys are not as bright as others and a B is good. One of my sons nearly stopped French a year ago as his teacher thought he'd get an E. Instead he pushed on and got a B this summer and I regard that B in French (his worst grade) as one of the greatest achievements and he learned that if you sit down and do a lot of hard work in life including with French you can do well.

(It's just a words but many do make that scholarship/bursary distinction).

1. Not all private parents can just suck up a large fee increase

Agreed. But I suspect most would

2)I didn't argue for or against charity status, I'm just pointing out the practicalities.

Where there's a will there's a way

3. No, near me a no frills private is usually cheaper than moving.
   Fair enough- I suppose all areas are different. But "no frills private schools"can be pretty dire, inmy experience

4. I've yet to read a post from anyone asking the entire education system to be geared towards the top 2%. Just the right for their childs needs not to be ignored on the basis they'll do ok in GCSEs anyway.

The majority- if not all- posters on threads like this always seem to have high achieving children. They object particularly strongly to schools where the main focus is the middle and lower end of the ability curve- complaining, for example about BTecs and so on. It seems reasonable to assume that they want a system geared more to their children than to the majority. Forgetting that how our society is is determined to a great extent to how well educated and engaged the majority is.

My husband and I are decently educated, but we do not have loads of useful connections. I suspect that there are children that DD1 goes to school with now who do have the sort of connections that can be monetised, but I'd be very surprised if their connections suddenly become her connections. The children at elite schools come out connected because they went in already connected.

Three things stimulated us to make this financial sacrifice:

1.TEACHERS
The teachers are fantastic. The children are interacting with articulate, clever adults asking them the right questions and framing the debate intelligently all day long.

1. CURRICULUM

The children are taught chemistry, physics and biology separately and thoroughly from the start of year 7. Our local comp just teaches "science" and offers some sort of GCSE where the kids take triple science and then get 2 GCSEs for it. DD1 will take 3 separate GCSEs. There is a choice of MFLs and the children start with 2 at year 7. (Our local comp starts with French and you can add Spanish in year 9 if you are top set.) And yes, there is Latin. But they don't have to take much and I am not fussed. I think it is a bit of window dressing.

1. EMOTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

In our opinion, being so out of step and different from her peer group was getting DD1 down. The older she got, the harder it became. We also didn't think being able to coast all the time was in her best interest. Effort beats talent every time and she deserves to be challenged so that she can develop a work ethic too.

The majority- if not all- posters on threads like this always seem to have high achieving children. They object particularly strongly to schools where the main focus is the middle and lower end of the ability curve- complaining, for example about BTecs and so on. It seems reasonable to assume that they want a system geared more to their children than to the majority. Forgetting that how our society is is determined to a great extent to how well educated and engaged the majority is.

I agree the majority is very important and needs to be focussed on. But why get hysterical about "creaming off" and all that when a small group of parents with able students try to go off and meet their own needs?

bertrand latin would have been nice but that alone wouldn't be a deal breaker. Iirc a couple of schools in the lea do it as an extra curricular none gcse thing, however as dd wouldn't have got a place at them anyway it was irrelevant. Maths was a pretty big one though. They offer one gcse in it, results and ofsted showing they don't provide much even there to the potential top grade kids. And nothing in the way of other mathematical stimulation, never mind additional GCSEs. So no, they wouldn't and don't offer anything in the way of maths to a child who'll easily get a C in y11, let alone able children. Science isn't offered triple. Most enthusiastic and good teachers seem to be short lived, who can blame them, so it's not unusual for subjects to be taught by a teacher who isn't really up to scratch in that subject. Options at ks4 depend on timetabling and availability so the chances of even getting all of their limited academic options are extremely small. Yeah they have to stick to the core subjects, but alongside that it's not suitable for anyone above average. And compared to what the good lea state schools aim to do with average or low achieving kids my catchment isn't meeting their needs either really. Still, as long as they can bandy about their a-c % they don't give a fuck. They just hope nobody notices that a-c rate is mainly c grades, has an easily missed reference to or equivalent and is nothing like the ebacc %.

Of course posters will talk about high ability DC.

First that is what this thread is about; a bright lad who got a scholarship.

Second, MN is peopled by highly educated women. Statistically our DC are going to be highly able.

Third, lots of private schools are selective so any debate about then is bound to consider those DC who could get in.

Heighhogh- I'd love to answer you point. But I don't engage with people who tell me I'm being hysterical. Sorry.

My loss then!

bertrand Dds primary was geared towards the majority, which in that cohort was the just below average group. So yes they didn't pitch all lessons and subjects for her needs. But they still made a damn good effort to accommodate her. Even when the easier option of sending her to an older year group for some core lessons ended during ks2. Yes she got nowhere near her potential because it wasn't practical, but she certainly wasn't bored or turned off school either. At primary age I was quite happy for dd to be doing her own work with a minimum of teacher input, for the majority of the time sat in a classroom alongside children at a much lower level. That doesn't compare to expecting her to spend 5 years at secondary doing that same lower level work alongside her classmates.

As for the btech/ vocational type GCSEs debate, I think it comes down to the schools that offer them to children who individually stand to benefit long term, rather than the way some schools use them as a way to avoid children impacting their league tables. I was incredibly impressed by one school who said the main priority for low achievers is getting basic maths and literacy skills, and if possible a basic qual in them even if it's not gcse. And if alongside that they do a vocational subject, either as a career choice or just for confidence etc that's fine. What they won't do is let that childs time and effort be focused on a load of vocational stuff so they leave with no maths and literacy skills/ quals and a clutch of qualifications in lesser subjects they won't ever use. That's not the philosophy of my catchment school. Hitting a 5 c grades % is their priority, which means any child who won't hit that anyway is ignored too. Getting d grades to c is the group they prioritise, regardless of how many are in it.

"Hitting a 5 c grades % is their priority, which means any child who won't hit that anyway is ignored too. Getting d grades to c is the group they prioritise, regardless of how many are in it."

What planet are you on? This might have been the case once, but certainly not now. EVERYONE matters.

BTEC (get it right its only been around since the 80's) is a fine qualification if run right, for the nay sayers a BTEC student of mine got a place at Warwick to do History this year. Distinction * in BTEC business and an A at History allowed her to do so.

You'd better inform my local catchment school nobody does that anymore, they don't seem to have aquired that knowledge.
And like I said some schools do use btechs for their intended purpose, for individuals that benefit.
Nobody said all state schools are crap, but knowing other people have access to good/ suitable ones is fuck all consolation if you don't.

I'll admit the independent education my dd gets through academic ability, rather than parental wealth, is an unfair advantage. And most fee paying parents admit the same. When will the majority of parents who have access to suitable schools for their dc start admitting they have an unfair advantage? Whether that's through being in the majority group at that school, the money/ luck to live in catchment for good schools, a place at a state grammar, religious belief resulting in a good school etc? Because in my experience most with the option of a suitable state school aren't happy to admit to their unfair advantage.

Oh yes I forgot, the only possible advantages a child can have are ability and private education, no others exist, so if you have either of those it's unfair. Bollocks, life and unfairness contains more than two factors.

"You'd better inform my local catchment school nobody does that anymore, they don't seem to have aquired that knowledge."

No need. OFSTED'll do it. Schools are judged on children making at least expected progress, so getting everyone to C is no use at all, unless it is a particularly ability cohort. Out of interest, what % of their high attainers make expected progress?

Reading back through the thread I'm a little shocked by the spend per child in the state sector and how very low it is. Here in our township in the US the spend per child is $23k and the private schools charge between $10k for the catholic school which is a subsidized rate to $30k. The local charter schools run their admittance via lottery not ability and get better results than the private schools. It's down to self selection as parents who value education apply for the lottery.

I've not known the gap in spending is as large as it is and I think it explains exactly why the state schools are just not getting the same grades. A good education isn't cheap to provide. I don't think the quality of teacher at my private school were any better but I do think their schedules were managed better. Also it doesn't take a genius to quickly see that the work involved in grading a class of 30 is more than double the work of grading a class of 12. Either the teacher works almost triple the time marking or sets less homework. Either way, the teacher is being overstretched at the state school if their schedule isn't managed accordingly.