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.

and of course Lunctime wine means that my typing and spelling are attrocious sorry.

They're not flush, they just need to make it go less far, its not quite the same thing!

Ipads won't come out of the standard budget though, there will be a pot of money that they have bid to access for that.

We have txtbooks that are worn out too, but not enough for one each, one each is fairly luxury even if its worn out.

But most of the country don't even have access to grammars, so all those top set comp students should be achieving the same university etc outcomes. And again the reason they don't is because comps like yours aren't the general standard throughout the country.

Thats my original point, the state providing a comp like yours, or a top grammar etc for some children, by dint of postcode, while others get mediocre or shite like my local is a bigger injustice than private schools.

Top set comp students usually do achieve the same as grammar and private students, its the ones lower down that don't. Sorry to burst your bubble. That or the top sets (because of the existence of local grammars, religious, or private schools) doesn't have quite as many kids of that level of academic ability.

We get 74% 5 A*-C inc maths and English in non selective, something like 90 % get their 5 but miss one of maths or English. I think we do great.

Anyway, all the data shows that its parental interest and involvement, not the school that makes most of the difference. You actively stand on here and say your child isn't going there as they are too bright, they would be one of the kids that is a success!

Oh and BTW behaviour and bullying are just as rife in private schools, class A drugs are much more common in the older years too.

Most schools will be challenging their upper ability cohort though, can't believe a school has had that pointed out for 5 OSTEDs and noting else has happened.

Are you saying a school has had 5 requires improvement OFSTEDs and nothing has happened?

I don't believe you.

Ok. Name and shame the school then.

I think you're out of order their bert, sorry.

I've said stuff about my school and no one has asked me to name it, and I certainly wouldn't be goaded into it.

Longtime- you said things about your school which are extreme but credible. I do not believe that nothing at all would happen if a school had 5 successive RI OFSTED reports. And if it is true, something needs to be done about it because it's somehow fallen through the gaps. So it seems to me entirely reasonable to ask for more information.

She said they merged schools, I imagine that is what happened.

You're right no school could fail 5 ofsteds.

Also, the "schools are shit in my area" is often used to excuse get away with some of the stigma about sending your kids to private schools. Friends of ours (well former friends) used it regarding schools round here, and no they are not shit. Funnily my kids did better than theirs at the private schools that theirs went to.

Don't disagree sending your kids private if the other options are awful either, but a lot of the snobbery regarding comps here is just waaaay ott.

Is it just me or is mumsnet rather right wing privilleged or am I a loon in thinking this?

longtime the numbers gaining entry to Oxbridge etc from state schools don't represent the fact only a tiny minority of grammars exist. And I'm not prepared to think pupils from fully comprehensive areas are less able naturally.
There's too many comps to research every single one via Google right now, but I also suspect if you looked at every comp in England, the numbers getting into rg unis etc would show discrepancies that aren't explained by background/ ability alone. Especially if you started looking at the likely outcome for similar children at different schools, good, average, not too bad and shit.

To an extent, the most able will still get top gcse grades. But again they can't get them in subjects that aren't offered. And final results aren't the be all and end all. However the group just below the top most able, those that could get a*s with a good school are also being failed at some schools. They're the ones getting b's thinking an a-level will be beyond them.
Dual science is a prime example. Dd could get away with doing it and still getting top grades doing all 3 at a-level. And assuming every child that able comes from a parent like me who'll persuade them not to lose their interest in science after 5 boring years. But there's a lot of kids perfectly capable of getting good a-levels in them that struggle because they're playing catch up from the first day of y12. Even latin, why is it mainly only grammars that offer it in the state section? You can make as many allowances at a-level or Oxbridge as you like, that's a hell of a lot of catching up to do for a child that's never learnt it before, and unfair they should have to.

You can't honestly think someone like Dds friend at our local hole will have the same chance of a place at a good uni as she would at a comp like yours. Even at the crap for high achievers but nicer atmosphere one further away she still wouldn't have the same outcome as at our nearest decent schools.

What stigma?

Well HighHo, some people, not all, feel a bit embarrased by it as they have often been progressives in other areas. There is a little stigma attatched to it.

As previously said, I'm not bothered, pay for your education.

I just hate the sweeping statements about state schools , (again lurked really?) about lack of subjects, crap teaching (boring science? Dual is fine btw for A level or even med school) about state schools and the assumptions that all the little Tarquin's and Jocasta's are just so much more talented and deserving of their privilige than those in state schools.

Private schools often, not always, but often hide a multitude of sins, slightly out of date teaching, kids that would do quite well anyway, some kids left to their own devices. Lots are first rate, SOME are poor, just like SOME state schools are.