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.

SheGot- that certainly is not me!

Im marking a place here to read this later (after I have been to Aldi)

I wonder if this thread is actually a very clever reverse...
I've always been of the opinion that both state and private have their advantages and disadvantages and have been quite open-minded to how my DCs will be educated when the time comes.
However this thread has been the biggest PR job for private education I've seen to date..! I've spent all morning working out how to afford the fees for Rugby or Millfield...

Charis - polo is not a water sport.

From Wikipedia:

^"Polo is a team sport played on horseback. The objective is to score goals against an opposing team. Players score by driving a small white plastic or wooden ball into the opposing team's goal using a long-handled mallet. The traditional sport of polo is played at speed on a large grass field up to 300 yards (274 meters) long by 160 yards (146 meters) wide, and each polo team consists of four riders and their mounts. Field polo is played with a solid plastic sphere (ball) which has replaced the wooden version of the ball in much of the sport. In arena polo, only three players are required per team and the game usually involves more maneuvering and shorter plays at lower speeds due to space limitations of the arena. Arena polo is played with a small air-filled ball, similar to a small football."6

The keywords for you there are ON HORSEBACK. This cannot happen in a lake - it is played on a field or in an arena.

Therefore you did not attend a polo match.

Maybe you attended a WATER polo match, or, as a previous poster mentioned, a CANOE polo match. Not a polo match.

Is this really such a difficult concept?

Damn - italicisation fail.

"Polo is a team sport played on horseback. The objective is to score goals against an opposing team. Players score by driving a small white plastic or wooden ball into the opposing team's goal using a long-handled mallet. The traditional sport of polo is played at speed on a large grass field up to 300 yards (274 meters) long by 160 yards (146 meters) wide, and each polo team consists of four riders and their mounts. Field polo is played with a solid plastic sphere (ball) which has replaced the wooden version of the ball in much of the sport. In arena polo, only three players are required per team and the game usually involves more maneuvering and shorter plays at lower speeds due to space limitations of the arena. Arena polo is played with a small air-filled ball, similar to a small football."

Twisted It has occurred to me to help dd with the fact that she feels different! I'm not completely stupid!

And I'm not "just removing her". If we go for private at secondary by then she will have spent 8 years in the state system (she started in FS1 - the nursery). She'd spend 5 years in private. 2 years at 6th form wherever she likes. (Which would happen even if she went state as the catchment comp doesn't have a 6th form.)

I'm also not scared of comprehensives - I went to one. They did the best they could with me. Not great fun academically or socially in the GCSE years but I survived, had friends and got decent results. Had a great time in sixth form - snogged a lot of lads, got into Cambridge - what more can I ask?

Bertrand I was a bright child in a comprehensive. A much better comprehensive than our catchment one. And (according to my parents) less bright than dd appears to be. I was still very different. The sheer joy of arriving at Cambridge and discovering that everyone was just like me was enormous. I also don't think that it is good for you to be effortlessly more academic than everyone else. It gives you a very inflated idea of your own ability. It was squashed out of me in my first week at Cambridge but I know others that never had the necessary "squashing".

We have lots of time before we have to make a decision. And Dd's abilities may change. Plus we have Ds to think about. (Who is very different.) But I am a planner. So I am planning.

STDG
Perhaps she did mean polo after all.
Anything's possible.

SDTG. Sorry.

I really do find this puzzling. My ds is at a school where there are only 7% high achievers. And he is, by all accounts pretty high up that 7%. But he doesn't feel "different". He knows he's clever, and some lessons would certainly be more fun if there were more higher ability kids in them. But surely academics are only one part of their lives? He plays sports where others are much better than him. He has friends who can draw, or know about stuff he doesn't know about. They have good discussions in mixed ability classes like RE. I just don't get this "clever children need to be educated only with other clever children" thing. As I said- more to life than academics.

I'm really not suggesting that you're stupid. I just think it's an important part of us all somehow rubbing along together - to learn about how to manage these sorts of feelings. She won't be the only one who feels that way.
I genuinely don't think that private schools are better for childrens overall development than state schools are- in fact often the opposite. I also think all schools (that I have come across- and that is many of different kinds) could be better in helping children to develop.
But like I said, for me it was a moral choice as well as a personal choice- so that made the decision process simpler.

" getting a degree level maths teacher for one to one twice a week is beyond impressive "

beyond impressive? Don't all teachers have degrees?

I know people who felt a similar relief when they reached oxbridge, despite having been to academically top private schools. There was more breathing room, and a chance to find a new peer group.

I don't think all clever children need to be educated separately. But a cohort is nice, because it means practically they can be served more. 7% isn't a cohort my dd had at primary. She was a cohort of one. Her catchment state wouldn offer a cohort of 7% either. In terms of general social stuff that wasn't an issue at all at primary. It's only now I can see the difference in the pleasure she's getting from friendly rivalry and being addressed in a teaching sense as part of the class in core subjects, something she's not had for years. And she's relishing the fact that her literacy is only on a par with slightly less able children from prep schools. Behind those of equal ability from the prep schools, and further behind those whose gift is English rather than maths like hers. She's actually got something to aim for, rather than just being the best. Ditto other things that are new to her.

That also doesn't take into account that for different personalities, being an outlier can be socially tough.

You could be right, LeChien - that would be sub-equa-ine, I assume!

lisbeth I meant a maths degree, which no, of course all primary teachers don't have them as standard.

Lisbeth AFAIK very few primary teachers have a maths degree.

Lisbeth - I assume it is the one-to-one tuition, once or twice a week, rather than the qualification level of the teacher, that is impressive.

Mumoftwo - I was the studious child at a comprehensive school too - I enjoyed reading, worked hard, was towards the top of the top sets, and was the child of two teachers - and I did not fit in at all. I was consistently excluded and bullied throughout all five years at the school, and was having suicidal thoughts by the time I was 14. I remember reading boarding school stories, and wishing my parents would send me to boarding school - I had this idea that everyone worked hard, and bullying was never allowed, so I thought I would be safe there.

Sadly, even though my singing teacher suggested I should be put forward to see if I could get a scholarship to Chethams in Manchester, my parents refused to consider it.

I look at myself and dh - I think we have pretty similar levels of intelligence, and we both got pretty near identical O levels, A levels and degree, and both have a professional qualification - and the only real difference I can see is at he went to private school, and this has given him much more self-confidence than I have.

Apologies, Lurked - I misinterpreted your meaning.

" Sadly, even though my singing teacher suggested I should be put forward to see if I could get a scholarship to Chethams in Manchester, my parents refused to consider it."

You should be grateful to your parents to be honest..

SDT I'm sorry you were bullied. I know plenty who were bullied in private schools too. And kids who felt they did not fit in. It is horrible wherever it happens.

Not at all sdt the one to one aspect was impressive too.

In light of recent news stories, you are probably right, Lisbeth!

Twisted - I am sure you are right about bullying at private schools - as I said, my idea of them came from school stories - clearly it was rosy and unrealistic, and I did know this - but at that point, anything seemed better than where I was. I thought, at least I wouldn't be bullied for being a swot.

TBH a lot of the state v private debate is rather fallacious. In reality the two categories are:

1. Private schools (most) and the best state schools

l l HUGE GREAT GULF l l

1. The rest

The difference is 'my dc have done brilliantly at our local (top) state school' is usually commended. 'My dc have done brilliantly at their independent' and any achievement is scorned as being handed to them on a plate, and elitism and snobbery is banded about. Quite often by those accessing the best state schools.

The problem is that "my children have done brilliantly at our local, run of the mill normal state school" is just not believed -the narrative of knuckle dragging chair throwers is so deeply entrenched.