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.

Heighho, I'm really sorry but its true. Not all parents, I think the vast majority have a good idea of what their child is capable of, there are however a small minority who have the most fantastic expectations that are just not going to be realised and wouldn't be no matter where they were educated.

They are no more segregated than chidlren in a posh surrey comp where house prices cost a fortune or Cameron's Kensington C of E primary or a state grammar. As I said above plenty of private school pupils mix with all types of children.

For me children benefit more from being in academically selective private schools than they would from having a child in care in their class. So if it were a toss up between the benefits of the former and the latter I plump for the latter. Of course being probably better educated than some state school children they will understand and know more about all those types of children mentioned (and of course some poor children are in private schools on bursaries).

The bottom line is we all make choices in life.

(My A level German- that was quite a long time ago. I cannot remember the books now. I hvae a case a present for German clients although it was my fellow student who made the most use - she lives in Germany and until sixth form her children went to school there).

I certainly agree that exam results are not the only issue at all. If I were only after exam results the children could be in state grammars

"For me children benefit more from being in academically selective private schools than they would from having a child in care in their class. So if it were a toss up between the benefits of the former and the latter I plump for the latter. Of course being probably better educated than some state school children they will understand and know more about all those types of children mentioned (and of course some poor children are in private schools on bursaries).

The bottom line is we all make choices in life."

Oh dear. I hope your children turn out to be better educated more outward looking, less rigid and more imaginative than you. Somehow I doubt it.

^^
Yes, that's definitely a downside.

BUT - it does depend very much on a) the school and b) the area.

Our prep school has no refugees, only a small number of children with true learning disabilities (lots of learning difficulties) and none who are truly poor. But neither does their other choice - the 100% white middle class C of E village primary school and the 95% white middle class C of E larger village secondary school. And our prep school does have around 15% ethnic minority (not high I know but it is for the rural South East), a small number of looked after children and children from a range of different countries/religions/cultures, speaking a range of different languages, some at the early stages. They would not experience that diversity in the state options. My older 2 girls are mixed race and kind of bilingual so I do value that they aren't the only ones.

My children are also heavily involved in dance, drama, gymnastics and church outside of school -though, apart from church, those activities also tend to be rather homogenously British middle class.

In many ways, my children and I are the class diversity at our school - I'm a single parent of 3 children from 2 different fathers, neither of whom are around, and I work full time as a teacher. We are probably exactly the kind of family some people think private parents are paying to get away from! - I don't think that by the way, almost all our parents are absolutely lovely and very inclusive.

sorry, that was to twisted - thread moved fast!

I feel I pay to enable the children and their teachers to use their imagination and be exposed to many ideas. I am happy with my choices and others with theirs. I certainly find in life private school educated people tend to be a bit better at getting on with all kinds of other people, speaking to a crowd, meeting new people etc than state schoolers so I am not sure the private schools get this wrong.

Parents pick the schools they choose and we are all happy. I am never sure why people are concerned about others who choose something different. Some will want home education, others fundamentist Christian or Muslim, others free and easy Summerhill and others regimented or whatever. We each pick and that's fine.

Right bed time as I'll be working part of tomorrow to fund school fees.

Grazia: "'For me children benefit more from being in academically selective private schools than they would from having a child in care in their class. So if it were a toss up between the benefits of the former and the latter I plump for the latter. Of course being probably better educated than some state school children they will understand and know more about all those types of children mentioned (and of course some poor children are in private schools on bursaries). '
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Twisted I think you are being somewhat disingenuous about the range of people children may meet at school. In leafy suburbs often house prices determine school places even more than the 11plus ever did.

LittleBear some of us don't live in leafy suburbs or in 11 plus areas

And that is not even about an area not being rich. Or meaning that we want 11 plus areas.

"Of course being probably better educated than some state school children they will understand and know more about all those types of children mentioned (and of course some poor children are in private schools on bursaries). '"

There just are no words are there.

In manhy of my experiences I find that privilleged people are often very ignorant of their privilege and it means that they do actually not get on better with folk, your outstanding arrogance certainly marks you down as one of these.

I'm finishing my wine, and eeking out my Saturday rather than going to bed, cause Saturday is my one full day off a week, I'll be working tomorrow, trip forms, marking, etc etc, a good full 8 hour day ahead, on top of the domestics of family life.

That's not the point though is it.

I recently moved from central London, so not the leafy suburbs. There was a local outstanding primary school nearby that you pretty much had to live within two minutes walk to get into. This was reflected in the prices of the houses in that zone. And even then with the sibling rule nothing was guaranteed as 30 children could have had siblings already attending.

You can complain about money buying privilege at independent schools but it buys places at state schools as well. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

I agree Little bear.

I guess I just get a little upset that the opportunities aren't freely available..my own children's comp has lots of them and is vastly mixed. Sadly it won't be for much longer, the area is gentrifying fast and the number of children from the social housing is dwindling.

Yes but some of us then go for the less well rating state schools.

Because they are are local schools.

As I say I do have misgivings about the lack of poorer children amongst tether cohort.

But a. I do not keep my DC in a cellar outside school hours.

B. I feel that the sort of education we can access outweighs my misgivings.

C . 93% are educated alongside everyone else and I don't se that this has resulted in a society without prejudice do clearly the issue is more nuanced than where a child is educated.

I agree with everything she and heigh said. I haven't got a clue what dd will want to do at 18. But if it turns out to be something like a maths degree, or medicine etc, what I don't want is her going to uni with no idea how to work or learn and the assumption she won't need to try for top results because she never has. Or worse still thinking like me at 18, that uni would be more of the same mind numbing boring crap and not bothering till she's older like I did.

longtime it doesn't matter how good you or your local schools deal with the academically able. mine doesn't. Nor have I ever been deluded about my childs ability, unless you count underestimating it. It's been her far from leafy or posh state primary who convinced me otherwise.

I also think you are wrong about most comprehensives providing well for the most able. You only need to look at things like the Oxbridge figures to realise that isn't the case.

"what I don't want is her going to uni with no idea how to work or learn and the assumption she won't need to try for top results because she never has."

You seem to be saying here that if she went to a state school she'd get top grades without needing to try- but at a private school she would have to work hard- but I must be misunderstanding you, surely?

And as to the entry to Oxbridge. That's not about grades. There are kids in all schools (even ds's - at GCSE at least) who get Oxbridge grades. It's about knowledge and cultural capital and what's been expected of you since birth. As I said, the kids who most need the "stuff" good private schools give them who are the least likely to get it. And most private school kids get it from school and home. Privilege attracts privilege.

No, if she went to her state option she wouldn't need to try. And no matter who or where taught those same subjects she wouldn't need to work hard to get a top grade. The difference is at her independent, same as some state schools, she has other subjects she does need to work and concentrate in. And even in the areas she can still coast to a top grade, they still offer challenge and improvements. Just like her primary knew she'd have no issues getting l6 in all but reading, they still found other stuff to stretch her. Maths being her strong point they didn't teach her at a speed or with the sole aim of l6 in the sats being the most they'd provide, as that was a foregone conclusion just like a single gcse a* is. Something my state secondary won't do.

As to Oxbridge, culture only explains the deprived not applying. And that doesn't account for the massive discrepancy between independent and state. Especially if you look at the state grammar pupils, compared to comprehensive numbers. Across the country state grammars are few so it's not like in every area that's because the brightest/ most supported/ aspirational are creamed off into grammars.

As to privilege preventing the most deprived accessing that privilege, I think the state system commits more injustice than the independent one. Dds equally bright but nervous on exam day friend who just missed out on a funded place at an independent is at the local shithole. The Independent school should have been the means to advantage, not the single possibility for an adequate education. The state system should still be providing that. It's not. And being less confident socially than dd, a few weeks into secondary her ability is causing her big social problems. She hates school. Because naturally finishing l4 'consolidation' in your mixed ability form maths lesson means you are a cunt, your dad is gay etc. And she isn't a child to have even been drawing attention to herself, shouting out answers etc. It's just the atmosphere at the school. Fuck knows what will happen if she shares even her interests let alone her aspirations. Dd doesn't fit the most deprived category, but we are more disadvantaged than all those nice double income homes hoovering up the good state places and preventing the most deprived accessing them.

Well, OK, if we're talking about a child who doesn't have to work at all to get 10 A* at GCSE then I have to bow out- I don't know any children like that. Obviously some sort of special provision needs to be made for exceptional children like that. In the same way that special provision needs to be made for children at the far left of the bell curve. Who, incidentally, are much more likely to be bullied for being thick as the "far right" kids are for being clever.

I think a good school, be it private or state, will teach beyond and around the syllabus. DD2, who is in year 10, is currently using an A level text book for French grammar, and is encouraged to read easy novels in French. So when she comes to do her GCSE, she should find it relatively easy, as she will (hopefully) have gone beyond what is required.

Where did I mention 10 a*? I didn't. But the bare minimum of academic subjects on offer there, with fuck all outside what is on the future gcse requirements won't require much effort. Its not unusual to find able children who get them at gcse in whichever area they shine in without much effort, it's not only the super exceptional. And tbh I don't think dd is anywhere near the genius category. And again Dds below average on paper, although brilliant in reality primary managed to provide across a massive range of ability, so I fail to see why they all can't.

As for the other side of the bell curve, no argument that can be awful socially too, but as a blanket rule I wouldn't say in every school it's always worse to be one or the other. Being an academic low achiever blessed in every other way in a low achieving cohort isn't going to approach the isolation of eg a high achiever with asd in that same cohort. Likewise swop the asd or even personalities round and put both into a high achieving cohort and yes the former will have it worse. Knowing that in another school/s the lowest achievers are being bullied doesn't make it any less unpleasant for an able child being picked on. And both are the fault of the state system, not the priviledge of the independent sector.

Besides, I genuinely think someone like Dds friend, or a child who has all the same deprivations and not even the loving parents she does, is the kind of person who needs to have their potential reached if we want social change. The few from poorer backgrounds on bursaries or getting into state schools who provide for high ability properly are such a tiny minority they aren't going to make much difference to society.

Tbh I think the state system should also provide an alternative route for the most academically able same as for some other talents. Not the 11+ system, some form of super selective with foolproof entrance requirements so it's ability, not postcode and pushy parents that obtain places.

"You only need to look at things like the Oxbridge figures to realise that isn't the case."

More than half of the kids at Oxbridge come from state backgrounds, 18 % of children over 16 are at private schools, something like 39% of students at Cambridge are Private schools, 44 % at Oxford.

Ok thats a large difference, not large enough for the funding difference though, the average independent school child has had £300,000 spent on their fees by the time they leave. State schools are harder to work out but lets say an average £4,000 a year (lower at 6th form for sure) multiply that by 13 and you get £48 k. With that level of disparity ALL the places at Oxford and Cambridge should be taken by private school students.

Also the cultural capital mentioned above really does make a difference, I know excellent students with all the right grades who haven't been offered a place at Oxford, but cake walked it into UCL/Imperial etc etc. Reasons? Their extra curricular stuff doesn't match up, being a top competitive skateboarder isn't the kind of thing they look for, or just being a kid who hasn't been pushed and ferried around at home.

And then we have the fact that high performing state school students out perform private school students at these universities so your remarks about that they won't learn how to study are erroneous.

YOUR local comp might be terrible, the vast majority are not, stop tarring it all with the same brush.

I've said it before, send your child to private school by all means, fine, you must do what works with you. But please stop kicking the state system as reasons for justtifying, many many state schools are outstanding.

My state secondary may be the extreme, but there's plenty of others that don't adequately cater to the most able either. My only other possible state option actually has a good atmosphere and does do its best for most abilities. But it's provision for the most able is again non existent. A third is ok but hardly most people's first choice for able kids. But just as unobtainable for me as the good schools in the area. your state school might provide but don't tar them all with the same brush. As I've said more than once, Dds state primary was brilliant, and yet I'm perfectly aware it's not representative of others in my area or across the country.

Afaik Oxbridge makes allowance for state education/ background, so that doesn't explain the discrepancy either. Logically even if you take those without family aspiration out of it, the sheer number of able kids in the state system must be larger than those in the private sector. As for how children do once at university, again iirc it's the high performing students from state schools whose a-levels don't reflect their ability who out perform the same grade private pupils. Not that of two academically equal pupils the state child out performs the private one at degree level. And how do you explain the discrepancy between grammar pupils and comprehensive ones? Self explanatory for somewhere like Kent perhaps, but most people don't have access to grammars so for Oxbridge or any other outcome at or above a-level the comprehensive and grammar pupil numbers should be roughly representative of the number of comp/ grammar pupils. They aren't though are they?

I disagree re able provision in the state sector. For kids within the top 15% yes I believe it's often quite good. For the top 2% there is none, except where individual schools or teachers choose to provide it, however there isn't even anything in policies etc to aknowledge it, let alone offer actual guidelines. Even the last joke g&t guidelines is gone. And the top 10% practice just demonstrates how ability is not acknowledged. That is one big fuck off gap in ability.