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?

She gets to choose the kids, and she'd like to encourage the ones with sensible parents to apply.

Sounds like a good strategy to me, but she needs to combine it with an entrance assessment that levels the playing field for bright girls who come from state primaries and haven't been tutored. And then publicise that entrance assessment beyond the hot house preps.

farewell whilst I wouldn't want to approach family life in the way you describe, I really don't understand the wringing of hands and collective sad faces it seems to garner.

It may be imperfect (which one of us is perfect?) but essentially, I suspect the child will be fine. More than fine .

The beady eye which likes to focus on the flawed but decent parenting of these types of parents, never alights on the parents with real challenges, or so it seems.

The parents whose parenting is hampered by poverty, unemployment, poor housing, ill health and disability.
The parents who both work every hour God sends, on NMW, without ever having a hope of 'taking a sabatical' or even opening the reading bag of their DC.

Why is hothousing children decent parenting?

Taking time off work to ensure they get into one of about three acceptable schools. What if they don't? Are they failures at 8 / 11 / 13?

Parenting involves many things and covers a lot of years.

Going a bit bonkers over entrance exams does not require a call to social services!

I didn't say it did . But focusing on the eleven plus to the extent you don't go to work is extreme and wgat happens when/if the child fails or there are 100 other applicants who are just better

I agree with you word factory in that obviously this sort of involvement is preferable to true neglect. I agree that these children will probably be absolutely fine (they have healthy, interested, educated and wealthy parents).

However, I do think it's a shame that entry to these sort of schools has become so (or perceived as so) challenging that it's necessary to send your children to private preps, tutor them and have an on-hand educated parent freed from all domestic and professional duties so as to be able to do an hour/two hours' extra prep a night.

It does mean that the head sorry high mistress of SPGS can't really complain that when they set incredibly challenging entry exams, they get only the very most prepared children. I know they say they're all about spotting potential, but why is that all that potential seems conveniently placed in Bute House?

Personally I'd be put off any school that consistently topped the league table. I know enough mad middle-aged women who went to SPGS decades ago.

And gah, 'sabbatical'?! Most of us just call it not working.

And if she didn't take any time off, she'd be criticised for not caring. Such is the lot of successful women .

That's crap. Is her husband taking time off too?

Or is this critical (not critical at all) exam just the wife's responsibility?

She's set her school up to be so selective in it's entrance exam and fees that I cannot see how even the brightest child from a state school would pass without intensive parental support, tutoring and pushy-parenting. Then she complains about the type of parents her policies attract. You can't have it both ways 'high mistress' so maybe it's best to re-think your selection criteria.

farewell cross with you.

I agree. And you know, it wouldn't be the way I'd handle it. But I've seen a lot of families facing a lot of problems and met a lot of children whose lives were really difficult, to find this middle class focus on the parenting imperfections of other middle class parents a bit, well, self indulgent.

code does have a point, the 'high mistress' is hardly referring to average or normal parents is she? and anyway I couldnt take a school seriously that had a 'high mistress'.

Good heavens, TheWordFactory, what news do you listen to?! There seems to be a beady eye constantly on the unemployed, poor, ill and disabled - usually attempting to justify making their lives harder and blaming them for their problems. What makes you think the dysfunctional wealthy should avoid similar contempt?! Are their children's eating disorders, anxiety disorders, drink and drug problems never contributed to by their dysfunctional parenting?

no rabbit stew they are rich and therefore 'good' parents by default.

"I would speculate that she knows SPGS has a reputation for attracting derangedly competitive parents, and that some families will be put off the school precisely because they are not that way inclined themselves and don't really want to engage in that particular bunfight."

This is a powerful hypothesis for Ms Farr's motivations behind her current communications campaign. I am currently in the market for a Year 7 place for my DD (fortunately in Paris, which is marginally less insane than London) and I have written off one particular school because of its insanely competitive style.

Decent but flawed apparently.

I am also very dubious about the outright dismissal of the "undeserving rich" teen. Pressure issues are rampant among the adolescents of London, New York, Paris etc and loopy parenting is the foremost cause.

The ridiculous thing, and many parents do not seem to realise it, is that there are plenty of other very good schools out there where a bright child would also do extremely well. If you have plenty of money, there is a huge choice if you can get yourself out of West London and consider boarding.

Clarissa Farr would know what normal parents look like from her previous Headship! She did not run a pressure cooker there and she undoubtedly encountered girls and parents who were well rounded human beings. This manic pursuit of glory by parents who feel they are defined by what school their DCs go to is extremely sad.

I doubt very much if Clarissa Farr is bothered about SPGS not being top of a league table this year. As for thinking her remarks have anything to do with this: complete rubbish! I would be fairly certain she and the Head of Wycombe Abbey know each other pretty well because top girls' school Heads talk to each other!!!! Even if parents think these schools compete, in reality the Heads would not see league tables, which are defined by such small margins and, in effect, one or two results, as being a major concern when your results are still stellar!

Of course it's ridiculously first-world of me (educated middle-class involved blah di blah) parent to be criticising or analysing the parenting style of another woman (educated middle-class involved blah di blah) when to outsiders we probably look identical.

But we are on mumsnet discussing SPGS aren't we, not, Benefits Street?

Given the fact we are constantly told how disproportionately the privately educated are represented in positions of power, I think we have every right to take a great deal of interest in their dysfunctionality, because they will only go inflicting their flawed ideals on the rest of us.

rabbitstew - I agree and it doesn't make me grin.

I think she is right to a certain extent.
But I think is is a reflection on society more than anything else. We are convinced that unless our children have high flying careers, earning lots of money they are unsuccessful. They won't or can't be happy.
I think escalating house prices and the widening gap between rich and poor is to partly to blame. There is little middle ground left. You can't just do OK and be happy, you need to succeed, to get to the very top, to be a top earner. And the way to ensure children achieve this is to get them into 'top' schools, universities etc. And lots of other parents have come to the same conclusion. (At one point it would have been a sounder financial investment to put that £30k a year into the bank for them to use to buy a house but now that won't cover the deposit of a 3 bed semi in parts of London)

Never mind if a child is truly academic - with enough coaching and tutoring etc, time and money thrown at them it is still possible. Agree with others about the 11+ frenzy seen on here.
Truly bright children at one point would sail through the 11+ and get a place at a decent school. But now they are competing against children who are having all the extras thrown at them. I don't believe any child would get through the 11+ today without some tutoring/coaching. Which misses the point somewhat.
Also exams have been made easier - so 10A alone isn't enough - it needs to be 10 (or more) As from a good school. Then degrees have been devalued, 'everyone' has one - it needs to be from Oxbridge or at least a RG and it needs to be a first.

I think we might be raising a generation with MH problems, who have been put under so much pressure to do 'better' than they are really capable of. And ones who would willingly push their colleague under a bus if it meant a promotion....

rabbit I think it's two sides of the same coin.

Blame, criticise, blame.

Blame the poor for their situation and consequent problems in parenting (thus don't do anything about it).
Criticise the rich for their parenting (thus causing endless paranoia and diversion and, of course, sell them thing ).

IMVHO the vast majority of parents are essentially flawed but decent. But some children are facing serious problems. Far bigger than if their parents over schedule their evenings, or put too much importance on entrance exams.

But some children are facing serious problems. Far bigger than if their parents over schedule their evenings, or put too much importance on entrance exams.

You must live such a sheltered life, TheWordFactory.

When 10 year olds are cutting themselves and 12 year olds are hanging out in nightclubs with other DC who have been in and out of psychiatric units for years, and these DC are the children of bankers/business people/lawyers in the "best" schools in the biggest Western cities, how can this not be a serious problem?

well I dont know bonsoir you are the one running around Paris trying to find the 'best' private school for your offspring. What point is it that you are trying to make?