How do you justify seding your child to boarding school?

[sunshine75]

I've read some pretty horrific things lately about boarding schools and the damage they can cause. See this article from the Guardian.

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/20/damage-boarding-school-sexual-abuse-children

However, I have no personal experience of one and have no close friends who went to one. Therefore, I don't want to be hasty in forming a negative opinion about them.

So, if you chose to send your child to a boarding school then I'm curious as to why you chose to? For example, why did you chose boarding over a really good day school? Is there anyone who chose a boarding school for a much younger child and was this a really hard thing to do?

I'm not surprised some don't feel it's worth it teacher because as I've said boarding or even the school (any school) doesn't suit all and we all what ever school we go too have different experiences. I met a friend from my old school recently she told me they were the happiest days of her life her memories of the whole thing weren't mine in fact I began to wonder if we went to the same school! I hated it like poison. Having said this we know 4 old Wykhamists all late 40's early 50's three have sent all their DS's, one was devastated when his DS didn't get a place. You cannot generalise about any school day or boarding.

This thread continues and gets more elitist by the post.

The reality is that a boarding school education at a big 'name' is only available to the richest 1 percent of families. The comments about the state sector not being able to challenge an able pupil are incorrect. Those comments are offensive to the many 'brilliant' teachers who inspire 'able' pupils each day in the state sector.

Kenlee has demonstrated on this and other posts, that she has a lack of understanding of how 95 percent of the United Kingdom Population live, yet continues to comment on them.

Kenlee and anyone who can sign a cheque each year for £30k+ are in no position, to criticise people doing what they need to do.

smoke I've been told on three separate occasions by teachers in the state school I've looked at, two were outstanding high achieving schools that they cannot sufficiently challenge the super able. Can you explain to me how a teacher with one super able child in a class in bright children as I descibed above provide the right level of stimulation and challenge and where does this super able child get a chance to work with and spark of others on a regular basis if statistically he'e the only one?
I certainly have never said a 35k pa education is open to many and fail to see what that has to do with this thread.

There are 'plenty' of state educated children who go to Oxford/Cambridge, some even go earlier than normal.

Children who go to Oxbridge from the lowest social circumstances and 'Shit' schools are by definition super able. The majority of those students have been stimulated by teaching from state schools.

Happygardening. I am not against 'Boarding' as I pointed out early in the thread . My 14 year old 2nd niece will be going back to lower 5th (yr 10) at a well known girls school in Berkshire. I am certainly not against boarding if it is in the child's best interest , what I am against though is the denigration of the state sector and the 90% of kids and parents who use it.

'For the record' my able first daughter (relative) has achieved ABB at A level, you may say that's ordinary ( not from a Modern school) especially when surrounded by DDE. That is because the teachers have been able to challenge and stimulate my DD . These teachers if given the 'raw' material you describe would I am sure be able to educate them.

happygardening - where does this super able child get a chance to work with and spark of others on a regular basis if statistically he'e the only one? Out of interest, how many "super bright" children are at your DCs boarding school? Not that I have any idea what the hell "super bright" actually means.

However, in answer to the question "How do you justify sending your child to boarding school?" simple, you don't. It's your child, you don't have to justify any of your decisions unless they are to the detriment to the welfare of the child and your are attending the associated court case.

I think smoke your not understanding what I'm saying about the child whose math ability makes him statistically proven to be 1 in 1000. I'm talking about children whose IQ has been formally tested and found to be is in excess of 140 who are true math (or any other area for that matter) geniuses. I'm not talking about children in deprived schools who make it into Oxbridge who I have a lot of respect for, in fact I'm not even taking about Oxbridge entry or any other Uni, or A level grades I'm talking about true geniuses who are only found in 1 in a 1000 or 1 in 2000 etc. these children don't think about math, or what ever, like those who are bright at math do. In a normal comprehensive (deprived/rubbish/MC/outstanding) they are likely to be the only one or maybe two, schools find it hard to meet their needs.
Mum In a report I once saw quite a number of years ago that 3/4 of my DS's school are in at least the top 3% of the population, on term of IQ score, they have quite a few boys who are genuine math geniuses. The school does not necessarily insist on all round ability. It's doesn't make you a better person or even mean your going to be more successful but it's just how some are.

happygardening Mum In a report I once saw quite a number of years ago that 3/4 of my DS's school are in at least the top 3% of the population, on term of IQ score, they have quite a few boys who are genuine math geniuses. The school does not necessarily insist on all round ability. It's doesn't make you a better person or even mean your going to be more successful but it's just how some are. Perhaps it's just me but this doesn't really answer my question which was prompted by you comment where does this super able child get a chance to work with and spark of others on a regular basis if statistically he'e the only one? which implies that your DC is working with and sparking off others on a regular basis in the school he is now at.

Out of interest would a super bright child perhaps be instrumental in developing a super computer that analyses the universe? If it does I know such a person who actually went to the same bog standard secondary school as I did. They are one of my brother's best friends. They never seemed to have a problem working with my brother who was in the same class as them.

Did your DC ever actually go to a such a school that enabled you to make the conclusion that they would not be able to work with and spark off others at that school?

I would be particularly interested in knowing why the school your DC attends feels it has to run tests (IQ) that are most certainly not standard amongst state schools, or at least not that I'm aware of as I've yet to come across a teacher that has given me an IQ score for my DS.

When you say "genuine math(s) geniuses" what exactly does that mean. Is there an official measurement for genius in primary or secondary school? My son is G&T in mental maths, this means nothing to me other than he is top of his class and is working the next level up from everyone else. I still wouldn't class him as a genius.

happygardening smoke I've been told on three separate occasions by teachers in the state school I've looked at, two were outstanding high achieving schools that they cannot sufficiently challenge the super able. Were these personal friends by any chance as I've yet to find a state school teacher that will tell a parent that they can't do their job (redundancy/sack anyone).

BTW I know four state school teachers that have never claimed that they would be unable to sufficiently challenge the "super able" (what ever "super able" is as I don't believe it's official academic terminology). PM me happygardening, I'll be happy to tell you what schools they are teaching at, bear in mind there are super selective state schools ;-)

Smoke what you seem to not grasp in your commenty is that if a child gets into a state school by foul means then its not the done thing. If all state schools were all as good as each other these things will not happen. I have not stated in any of my statements that state school are bad. I have only stated that with boarding you have a choice.

Now yes I can sign a 30K cheque or more for my daughter to school. It does not make me a bad person because I can. Im not partiularly bothered about sending my daughter to Oxford or Cambridge or even UCL where I met my husband. Im sure she will find her place in life. I want her to be happy. To be with liked minded people to have adventures. To discover the world. Im sure that can be done at state too. Yet my daughter is more than happy to be in boarding with her boarding friends. Its a choice we make.

On your State vs private boarding Im sure lots of kids get into elite university form state school. My husband is from state and he is the first to say before we had children that none of them will goto state school. He siad it was lonley and he always felt like he was left out. Opposed to his cousins who went private. He doesn't have friends from secondary school. He only has University friends So I suppose now that he is successful he is a product of a good state school education?

That is why he is adamant that if his daughter chooses private he will let her. We have now found that at the end of year 7. She has friends she is loved by ...Some are just friends and some dislike her. To my husband its all worth it for the friendship sge has made.

My husband words as he is from the North

" There is nowt worse than to wake up ta go ta school. Knowing you will be alone with your books. Teachers aren't any xxexpletivexxx use. xxexpletivexx bastards each and everyone of them..Hated them. They taught me xxexpletivexx all. "

He did scrape by a few good O levels...which lead to A levels...he did ok..and was accepted into UCL...Where he eventually flourished.

He still hates memories of his state school and any mention of it will get him going on how state schools are full of xxexpletivexx teachers.

I am sure State school have many good teachers but since everyone is giving isolated examples. I think I should too.

Mumtryingherbest this is of course going off topic this thread on a recent programme might interest you. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/education/2164172-Educators-on-R4-What-really-matters-in-education.
Generally I think those teachers who have the most experience of teaching the very able, (helped by the framework of a superselective school, freedom from the curriculum, time to prepare lessons and higher qualifications) are best qualified to do so, just as an eye specialist has more experience and is better qualified to treat eyes than a GP.

Kenlee interesting, I'm a northerner and can't relate to a single word your OH said, other than the expletives TBH. I imagine Cherie Blair and Kenny Everett agree with me as they went to the same state school as I did. OK not the most inspiring examples.

I wonder if every genius who existed went to private school, certainly reading MN threads it would suggest they did. HO HUM, never mind the rest of us will happily sweep the gutter.

summerends thanks for the link, will investigate tomorrow, much appreciated :-)

BTW Kenlee local private schools where I am now are a fall back option if children don't get a place in one of the selective state secondaries.

Kenlee can I ask which school this was. After all your exceptionally bright OH, who is now a wealthy businessman, must have been a top performer so if "He did scrape by a few good O levels" the other children at school with him must have come away with very few qualifications at all. I would be very interested in knowing if that school has got any better according to OFSTED ;-)

Mumtrying there are obviously many extremely bright children in the state system and some will do very well helped by some teachers, their parents and their own ambitions. However in either private or state, parents are going to be frustrated when they see their able DCs disengaged from learning and losing that spark.
I think that disengagement can also happen in state superselectives or some private schools which can equally suffer from patchy teaching. Certainly teaching a narrow curriculum aimed at the middle of the normal distribution curve is not going to help.
Selective schools, whatever the teaching quality, do have the advantage that a bright DC is less likely to overestimate their own ability as some top set comprehensive pupils do by comparing themselves to less academic DCs.

Mummy I will pm you the school...I would be intrested too..I dont think my other half would be though.

I think the ability to make lots of money is not related to academic ability. If your smart your smart. If your not you can work hard and still do well for yourself.

He would say he is a product of poverty ...racial abuse and discrimination.

'" There is nowt worse than to wake up ta go ta school. Knowing you will be alone with your books. Teachers aren't any xxexpletivexxx use. xxexpletivexx bastards each and everyone of them..Hated them. They taught me xxexpletivexx all. "

What a masterly exposition of the state system.

Briefly replying on very able mathematicians. One of the ex-pupils of Happy's son's schools I know very well is a mathematician. By any measure - Maths olympiad, PhD, publications, position in Cambridge Maths tripos, simple ability to 'do maths stuff' etc - he is exceptionally able. His son is, equally, a 1 in 10,000 type mathematician (won't bore you with the testing regime that got there), but attends an almost non-selective private day school and thrives, mathematically and otherwise.

Of course, it helps being 'second generation very able'. Family discussions can supplement school teaching. The family has a picture of what 'interesting maths' for each age group loooks like, a network of mathematician friends to draw on, and knows about things like the Olympiad that provide interesting challenge. The school is flexible and makes individual accommodation for able pupils. But the son is also, by virtue of a more 'balanced' education but without sacrificing his maths, also a much more 'balanced' individual than is dad was at the same age [pretty much the age at which I first met his dad, so I can make the direct comarison]. And that is a deliberate choice by his parents.

"BTW Kenlee local private schools where I am now are a fall back option if children don't get a place in one of the selective state secondaries."

Exactly the same here, with the addition that they are a fall back for parents if cildren don't get into the residual grammars OR the good comps - because the private school results (with a single, single sex exception) are lower that both selective AND good comprehensive schools round here. Which is why the comparison should always be made on a school by school, not sector by sector basis.

Hak....

I would say that sums up my DH in a nut shell.

Teacher....

Actually it is the same in HK..Where the selective state schools all out perform their private sector school. Although, competition in these schools are really fierce. Tutoring is rife and quite frankly expected. You are expected to be tutored from academic subjects through to extra curriculum subjects too. Pastoral care is zero. You swim or sink. If you sink then your out.

So I understand that if I just wanted my daughter to get good results. I could have let enroll in the state secondary that is a super selective. All go onto Ivy league or RG universities.

People say well isn't that the same as a private selective boarding school. Well know because they actually get taught at school. They get to understand. Thats saves time instead of just rote learning answers. They get to think.

Then when they board they get to play with their peers instead of being at some tutorial center. Trying to get an academic edge over your peers.

Hmm actually Im more sure of how right my choice is now. Than ever before.

I think it depends what you want for your DC.

I have a very able child and what I wanted more than anything was him to be one of many and have a like-ability peer group.

I did not want him to be the outlier. I wanted his ability normalised.

I believe that the experience of education should be collegiate and challenging and to get that you need a good chunk of people just like you, working at your level.

IMVHO the best way to provide this for my DC is a super-selective school. Fortunately, I have one I can access where he doesn't need to board. Everyone's a winner.

As an aside I also work at Oxbridge and obviously come across many able young people, including those who attended comps (though they are the minority). My view that able people are more satisfactorily challenged and happier in a like-ability envoronment has not been swayed. In fact, I would be hugely in favour of more state super selectives.

In twenty years studying/working at Oxbridge, I don't think I have ever seen a maths genius from happygardening's son's school. Admittedly I would reserve this term for a handful of maths students but most of the people I would call maths geniuses don't come from the well-known public schools. (There are exceptions - Fields medallist Tim Gowers, for example.)

I am very familiar with happygardening's son's school through family attending it and also through knowing one of the governors. I don't accept that it is miles ahead of other state and private selectives in maths and physics education - e.g. they extend physics in the sixth form but most of what they do is decades out of date and not relevant to modern physics. I also don't believe that the students there are massively better than those in other selective schools - whatever their own studies claim to show, it's hard to probe intelligence in a way that does not reflect background and education also. (Oxbridge students are selected not just for intelligence but also for achievement, which is enormously affected by background and education. The top 5 or 10% are very smart but many of those coming in from places like Winchester don't turn out to be in the top 5 or 10%.)

Finally, if one looks at the UK Maths Olympiad teams, which really are searching for maths geniuses, it is true that members often do come from some of the top private schools. This year's team included boys from St Paul's and Dulwich. Yet many of the team also come from state schools, sometimes regular comprehensives. (And of course many state schools and private schools don't enter the Olympiads at all - I was never entered but topped my year in Maths at Oxbridge.) See:

www.imo-register.org.uk

for the relatively few Winchester students - and note moreover that rather few of the Winchester students have gone on to become mathematicians.

This is not to say that I would exclude sending my DS to Winchester because I think the depth and breadth of their education is great. But I wouldn't send a DS there just because of maths and physics.

gauss I'm no mathmo, but it has always struck me that ability in maths is a bit of an exception. A one off if you like.

Many young mathmos seem to almost teach themselves irrespective of background.

It seems to be a very different way of looking at the world. My friend, for example, says 'numbers are freindly'. She sees them in streams, helping her to order her world, and always has. When she looks at a bridge, she sees the numbers that make it work, and always has.

Attending a comp in Hackney didn't affect this ability/way of seeing the world one iota.

I don't know if I'm making sense here...just musing.

I suppose what I'm saying is that for pure maths ability at that level, I think education at school level is almost by-the-by, whatever the sector, whichever school.

I think what I say also applies to most of science and engineering, probably economics too, but I cannot back up my opinions with facts apart from in maths and physics. But in any case I just don't agree with happygardening that Winchester is the place to be if you're great at maths.