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?

This is interesting, can't find anything similar on any of the other schools websites. LEH are telling parents upfront on the website that they will have to sign a parental contract that is a little more than the terms and conditions we signed in the past. Not quite no snowploughing but Clause 7c pretty much says no neglect www.lehs.org.uk/parental-contract/66.html

"In order to fulfill our obligations, we need your co-operation, including in particular by: fulfilling your own obligations under these terms and conditions; encouraging your daughter in her studies, and giving appropriate support at home; keeping the School informed of matters which affect your daughter; maintaining a courteous and constructive relationship with School staff; providing cooperation and assistance to the School to ensure (so far as reasonable and in appropriate and/or necessary circumstances) that your child can participate and benefit from the School's provision of education to your child in accordance with the terms of this agreement, including where the School wishes to provide such education remotely; and attending meetings and otherwise keeping in touch with the School where your daughter's interests so require."

And this clause is interesting too

"The main categories of misconduct which may result in expulsion or removal are:
(i) Supply/possession/use of certain drugs and solvents or their paraphernalia, or substances intended to resemble them, and alcohol,
(ii) Theft, blackmail, threatened or actual physical violence, possession or use of unauthorised weapons, intimidation, racism and bullying,
(iii) Misconduct of a sexual nature; supply and possession of pornography,
(iv) Vandalism, computer hacking, other misuse of ICT.
(v) Cheating in school or public examinations or coursework.
(vi) Truancy.
(vii) Persistent attitudes or behaviour inconsistent with the School's aims and ethos,
(viii) Other serious misconduct towards a member of the School community or which brings the School into disrepute on or off School premises"

No going off and moaning at conferences, the rules of engagement are right here

Is this done by all the private schools for new parents?

PWL

I like the spirit of the LEH clause you found (good digging BTW). However, the parents that "clear the way" for their children and don't "allow them to fail" whilst having little regard for others would be able to comply with that clause very easily wouldn't they? In fact, their "over-compliance" with the clause is the problem identified isn't it?

Someone mentioned bursaries for the really "underprivileged" in this thread.

There are children from very low income homes whose families have been struck by death, physical or mental disability, alcoholism... Many help out with younger siblings and sometimes family businesses such as shops etc. Some feel safer in the streets than at home. However bright they may be, everything in their lives seems to be working against school attendance, intellectual nourishment and space to discover interests or talents. They're just too busy coping and so are their parents.

DS attends a London private school and I honestly doubt that a child from a background similar to what I describe above would be able to cope with the demands and please I don't mean intellectual. I mean amount of homework, resources, parents taking and picking up from Saturday matches, late rehearsals for music and drama, strict attendance...etc. Doesn't the nature of what is required and expected in these schools exclude a large percentage of bright children with no support whatsoever from their families? You just have to read the above quote from LEHS and what is expected from parents to understand what I mean. It's not fair, but I think that's the honest reality.

MN164 I did say it didn't address snowploughing, and it probably doesn't really address affluent neglect. IME these parents think they are wonderfully involved parents, their DDs best friends in fact, that or actually intimidated by them, saves having to behave like a grown up parent.

However this does give a school something to clobber them with.....

makemelaugh I am involved with a mentoring organisation, believe me London's schools are packed with bright pupils who are willing to put in the work but are held back by poverty, peer pressure and a lack of parental aspiration. Just giving them mentors who can open their eyes to the possibilities , and exposing them via workshops with business and universities to what most private school pupils take for granted has amazing results. When they get to Oxbridge or RG unis they get firsts. And it isn't about a shortage of suitable pupils to help, it is about a shortage of mentors. And some of them are indeed carers, or face some of the difficulties you mention but they are also determined. Impossible to generalise like that about the circumstances of all those the schools could target. Universities are really keen to facilitate and recruit these pupils, why not schools. As I have already pointed out some are going into primaries to deliver similar eye opening mentoring and G&T sessions and find those most deserving of the opportunity. You say that some prefer to be on the street, well how much better to be in an environment where they can be bright and be children. You already have pupils from affluent backgrounds there for whom school is a refuge where they can be happy, and who get no real support, practical or emotional, from home.

I am also involved in a school that helps street children in Asia, takes them from working on rubbish tips and supports their families to catch up and get them into mainstream education. Again many more they can help than they have resources so they have to filter on the ones they feel have the families who are most likely to stick with it . Better to make a difference one child at a time than to give up in the face of The enormity of what these children face. .

Poison absolutely agree with everything you say. I was just posting it as a question. As you say, mentoring at a personal level can make a huge difference and more should be available.
Good of you to be involved in this.

PWL

That mentoring role sounds very interesting. Is their a national website or is it a Local Authority lead thing?

.... there .... (not going to mentor anyone on spelling)

mn it is an charitable organisation started by people from ethic minorities and disadvantaged backgrounds who have succeeded in their careers. The mentors come from all sorts of backgrounds but have in common that they can provide a role model to those who follow. I used to work with some of the founders.