Headmistress attacks parents in national press

[UpsetofWestLondon]

Done first ever name change for this as don't want to be identifiable!

I am really, really pissed off. The High Mistress of St Paul's Girls' School, where I am a parent, has been widely quoted in the national press this weekend criticising parents at SPGS. I fully realise she may have been quoted out of context, but the quotes seem to apply to all parents at her school and the one that cuts to the quick is where she accuses parents of "affluent neglect" by not paying enough attention to their daughters in the evening.

I should say my DD is very happy at the school, does lots of things well and lots of things not very well but enjoys them so that's great. I adore spending time with her and the only reason I don't spend as much as I would like in the evenings is because of the extraordinary volume of homework she gets set by the school (and obviously the time she needs to spend on Facebook etc!).

I am glad Ms Farr is pro-children, and this is not the first time she has criticised the parent body, but at some point, if you continuously publicly criticise your paying customers surely you have to understand you will upset them? I feel personally attacked and concerned I will be judged by others negatively for being part if this vile parent body she describes. I am cross.

I almost want to post this in AIBU...but am I?

Tiny class sizes do, indeed, drive wage costs upwards very fast indeed.

Where I live, the state grammar schools have about 3% free school meal children. I would love to know how St Pauls could recruit 33% of suitable girls using this criteria!! Absolutely impossible. Also, many Doctors are not middle income and obviously earn more than nurses. Why would the children of highly paid Doctors be more deserving than the children of ordinarily paid Civil Engineers for example? Where my DDs went to school, the day fees are more than St Pauls. In fact their fees looked reasonable by comparison!

It's not just the current level of fees that's crazy, it's the enormous increases that have happened in just the last few years.

Parents plan and save, decide they can just afford the fees on their net salaries, but by the time their DC has been at the school a couple of years, it's several thousand more pounds a year that's suddenly being demanded from them and that they've got to find from flat-lining incomes. So what was affordable at the start is no longer affordable. Dream turns to nightmare. The strain is terrible.

Some heads like Andrew Halls have twigged that this is a disaster but the solutions being offered are not realistic. Cut costs to cut the fees, that's got to be the answer.

MN164 all very well trusting those with direct experience at the school but as my experience demonstrates you can have entirely different experiences even three years apart, and plenty of girls will not tell their parents the half of what goes on. I had to sit there smiling sweetly to the mother telling me what nice friends her daughter had at 14 and what fun they had, knowing full well it involved drugs and sex, presumably she continued to think that right up until her DD dropped out of school, and involvement in a national sports squad, after AS. I know CF has direct experience of some of the families My DDs have encountered. Of course you hope, probably rightly if you are thinking at all deeply about it, that your parenting can prevent your own children becoming influenced but I certainly think it is an issue that CF should be addressing.......

Talkin in my experience these schools allow a lot more individuality, plenty of girls pursued arts, drama or, or even , AND music at GCSE, even to the extent they would in a state school not qualify for Ebacc because they did not keep on History or Geography, and even to A2, and then carried on with them at Uni, Art School or Drama School. In fact that flexibility to persue those subjects, or Classics or RS in preference to the rigid Ebacc is something that completely undermined Gove's assertion that he was providing the same opportunities as private schools. What they will not allow is girls racking up 15 GCSEs so they can include arts and music or keep on other subjects. For girls who are not aiming to specialise they recommend one art / drama / tech / music subject because it gives a chance to indulge their interest, but only one because the coursework load is so great. And my DD is a seriously committed Scientist heading for a career in research but in discussion with her teachers only studied double science precisely so she could keep up the breadth of 2 MFL and 2 Humanities and RMT (woodwork and metalwork in old money), alongside the guildhall Drama exams considered equivalent to an AS. They reasoned she would have 4 Science AS in the bag (as it happened all with 100 % UMS) by the time she applied to uni and the breadth would only help her application. Cambridge didn't mind one bit but would a state school have allowed her that individuality?

The thread moves on but just like to point out to Bonsoir that much of this debate on the wrongs or rights of Clarissa Farr's comments is not based on hard evidence except from a few posters. My 'insinuations' were continuing a line of reasoning from some anecdotal evidence from Needmoresleep. There are of course 'snowploughing' parents who both work but it is natural that those not working but still driven are able to focus more effort into managing their DC's lives. That may obviously be a benefit for their DCs but for some personalities less so, particularly if they gage their own achievements by how well their DCs are doing

I think she sounds quite sensible.

Going to SPGS is a 99% guarantee of learning all about coming second anyway - there will practically always be some precocious genius who's much more brilliant than you in all your subjects!

I suspect that her problem is not so much that all parents are pushy and unrealistic, but that those that are take up a disproportionate amount of her time.

Also, if you are restricted to parents who live in London and can afford those school fees and you are selective academically, you are unfortunately ruling out both the

"She's thick as 2 short planks, just keep her out of mischief between 9 and 3.30" parents and those who are able to let their children experience real hardship. You are also relatively handy for people working in the city.

Oh well, everyone has their cross to bear.

If the proportion of pushy and unrealistic parents in a school increases to 5% from 2.5% that will already have a horrendous impact on a Head's time (and nerves). And these things tend to snowball (no pun intended).

Poisonwoodlife

Absolutely, I acknowledge and agreed with your point some posts ago (this is turning into a long one isn't it?).

"Your post also illustrates how much is down to luck, rather than the school - the older daughter's peer group being somewhat different to the younger's."

I'd still find it useful to know which school that was, as would others given the clear West London readership likely for this thread. G&L, LU, St James, St Aug.?

That said, you point remains that there is a degree of "luck" wherever you go.

Class sizes

Ready to be corrected, but from my open day visit - Tutor groups are 11, but the classes are 22. Not sure they would save that much by doubling the tutor group size as that's a relatively small part of the day (I think). Increasing the class sizes would make them larger than other schools which charge less already.

Bursaries

I agree that taking 33% in from low income is likely to be totally unachievable, but what a great target that would be!

Private schools have about 10% of students on bursaries, often part not full fees. They need to do a much better job of opening up their intake to:

• survive the political mood,
• justify their charitable status,
• re-align themselves with their historical root (educating the poor) and
• to help to address Ms. Farr's issues with "snowploughs" and make some more snowballs.

Selecting families

There is plenty of scope to select families, not just students. The private sector can do what it likes, unlike grammar schools. Given the level of demand for this and other schools they will not suffer empty seats and, despite what many might think, not will the standard of their intake drop. There are many students whose parents can't afford the fees with or without help that are every bit as capable.

OP sorry for derailing this thread a bit. Shall I stop?

Bonsoir just answering your question about teaching hours, though I do see the focus of discussion is elsewhere. I imagine they are not long relative to other schools: my DD has to be in school 8.30-4pm, and in that time has 40 35-minute lessons. But that's no indication of what she actually spends at school as like many of the kids being discussed on this thread she does a lot of extra curricular activities. So she leaves school at 6pm 4 days a week normally. So with a shower (she's usually muddy or wet), family supper, 2 1/2 hours homework - its 10pm before she knows it.

And why the comment about affluent neglect really stung me...in the two weeks before this article appeared she spent a whole weekend day doing sport, spent most of another weekend day at school for the Christmas Fair, spent two more weekend days doing a play rehearsal, and was at school till past 9pm on 5 nights. In that time she had three GCSE coursework deliverables (all for the same day) and an out of school music exam, so she was too busy to even go and see the new Hunger Games movie (in previous years she has gone at midnight she is such a committed fan!). I am not complaining about all that by the way - this is her choice of activities and commitments and she loves it - but to be potentially criticised for not spending enough time with her when as you can see she had NO time to be at home which wasn't spent working - well it annoyed me!

MN164 not at all - derail away!! I have found it really interesting reading but on this thread I am steering away from debates about merits of London parents, private schools etc, as I plan to write and so am aware this thread could potentially be linked to my letter.

The split by profession etc wouldn't work, people wouldn't fund others to that extent.

And as fees increase parents probably do expect more so extra stress for the Head is a by product.

OP You and other parents need to get this message across to Ms Farr. It sounds like the school is providing all sorts of brilliant opportunities to your DD but that the head hasn't spent time finding out how family life is affected and how the silent majority of parents deals with it all. Nevertheless she feels able to hit out at some demanding parents whose complaints do reach her. In view of the huge fees the school receives from you, I'd call this "affluent neglect" on her part.

Yes, maybe she is paying too much attention to the squeaky wheels.

MN 164 If these schools are to return to their roots, they should cut the luxuries. 5* accommodation and every bit of sports equipment under the sun might be nice for the super rich who could afford them but they are absolutely not essential for the kind of education the founders of these schools envisaged.

There's plenty of scope for increasing class sizes. From 22 to 26 could make quite a difference to fees but would have negligible impact on the pupils.

Have all class sizes shrunk? When I was at a west london girl's day school we were taught in classes of 3 x 30 until o-level for everything except mfl and maths. Obviously that was decades ago...

DING
Lightbulb moment

At private schools - mine included - pupils do GCSEs well GCEs in my day in the subjects that matter and are free to attend classes in fluffy subjects without an exam at the end.
So the number of GCSEs is lower but the breadth of the curriculum taking place is probably wider.

At state schools, teachers have to prove what they are doing in moderated and tested evidence for every minute of every day or the DfE slams the school for wasting money.
So if a subject is on the timetable there has to be an exam at the end of it - hence the higher numbers of GCSEs and no unexamined subjects.

I did science A levels but remember spending much of my free time in the Art department.
State schools do not have the resources to leave that sort of space free.

So actually the head of SGPS is trying to get the parents to ease back and let the girls find out who they are
rather than the parents planning the whole of their lives out.

Still just wondering, why is St Paul's so much more expensive than other day schools? £21K/yr vs £15/yr at a more typical day school. What is driving the difference?

I have a DD in yr6 at a state primary. We are looking at private options. Of course, we've heard of SPGS. We googled it; saw the fees a third more than the other options and that no uniforms were worn and decided it was probably for people with means FAR beyond our own.

Yes, Toomanyhouseguests, the head must realise her school is racing ahead of others on the fees front. A question raised above is whether this financial pre-selection is a deliberate attempt to make the school more exclusive. If it isn't deliberate, it's literally careless. A 38% fee hike in 5 years must have been terrifying for ordinary salaried professional parents who signed up for the school 5 years ago, unaware this was going to hit them.

But people on other threads have said you should budget for around a 5% increase every year in any private school. That may not come to a 38% in 5 years, but it's still nearly a 28% increase. This is also an unaffordable speed of increase for most people. What's more, I've just looked on an "Independent School Fees Advice" website which says that private school fees have been increasing on average by 6% a year in recent years, which would make a fee hike of nearly 34% over 5 years... Making the fee hikes at St Pauls look only mildly extortionate. Apparently, this year, average increases in private schools' fees are "only" around 3%. Wouldn't it just be lovely to find a savings account that paid you that amount of interest?

ie compound interest is a real bugger.

Upset - 8:30 - 4:00 is indeed not excessive if coupled with 10h30 of homework. I quite understand that it is the extra-curricular stuff that eats into family time.

"Top Private Schools Slash Fees" would be a more welcome front page headline for everybody. In my view, that's what these heads should be concentrating on, not on the behaviour of a small number of parents amongst the increasingly tiny sliver of the population who can afford the fees.

As rabbitstew says, an increase of "only" 3% pa is still unrelated to any increase ordinary middle class families can expect to see in their own incomes. These schools are fast heading to a different planet. Or their doom. One or the other.

If only "leading" heads would lead their schools back to reality.

MN164 I have been as open as I have because of the anonymity, to out the school might also out the girls / families concerned. And I do not in any case think it fair to tarnish its reputation by highlighting one particular year group when so many girls, including my older daughter have an excellent experience there. As I have said before you can get a dysfunctional year group at any of these schools, and examples of both frenetic anxiety and affluent neglect at all, the more central, the more selective, the more likely. The irony was that I decided my younger one would not even apply for LU or G&L because I had heard of the exploits of some of the pupils but in the end her friends moved as refugees to the unusually lovely year groups in both schools. As you say just bad luck.

upset my DD is currently moaning that she has not been able to accompany any of her friends to the Hungergames movie because she has so much due in at the end of term. Unis are really really bad at back loading work in the terms /holidays, and there is certainly no planning between modules to make sure it is doable. It is an annual occurrence and last year it very nearly broke her and I was worried for her mental health, perhaps partly because, in spite of illness, she couldn't bear to let even one deadline or the standard of her work slip (perfectionism?). So maybe these crises are in a weird way preparation for the real world? Not that I am advocating it in either environment. However it does mean we are going together the week after next when this year's crisis is over.

And if you are worried about it, understand what she is up against and there when she needs you it is not affluent neglect. I am still neglected until things go wrong