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?

Why thank you summer.

One of the mottoes I live by is that perfectionism is the enemy of achievement.

And I wonder too if lengthy home works are a result of perfectionism. DS is at an uber academic school but rarely does above an hour a day, usually less. Sometimes nowt at all!

His tasks often have no time limit, so it really is up to him. As I type, he is lounging on a bean bag watching re-runs of Two and A Half Men and isn't threatening to move in the direction of his books.

Obviously, revision is also a moveable feast. One does as much as one feels one needs to. For some that will be hours.

And obviously we have the dreaded Saturday school (boo, hiss) which means perhaps the pupils cover more than your average student?

Interestingly, DD (at a much less academic school) gets more homework! Or she certainly spends more time on it.

MN164. Yes. Dd was not at SPGS though as Poison suggests knows a lot who are. At times she may have envied the greater focus on academics, certainly she envied her brother's Westminster education. But never envied the underlying competitiveness and need to be top dog that she sensed amongst some of the Paulinas. The friendship group she had at her school was able to include girls across the ability range. (Some) Paulinas in contrast seemed much more aware and quick to judge those they perceived as less bright.

One episode perhaps illustrates. DD was doing a performance type activity in North London. Teacher asks me if she was having a problem with another child whose approach to the others appeared to be causing problems. Without thinking I reassured her. Dd was used to girls from SPGS and their competitive approach. I only really thought about it when the teacher then questioned why a behaviour was acceptable because a child went to a certain school, a school she had never heard of.

Now she is older DD can laugh about some of the competitive one-up manship she witnessed. But then the expectations on some of these girls was huge.

So no sense of failure on her part. But certainly a sense that others thought she was not as good as them.

Poisonwoodlife - I agree.

SPGS occupies a heritage top position in a market place. The market place is changing due to issues beyond the control of CF or the Governors. The market place is made up of parents but I am not sure that CF has the slightest influence on their behaviors, which themselves are subject to market forces...

poison interesting point.

There is definitely a sea change amongst who is using independent schools. The traditional middle classes are being priced out of the market.

There was an article last week by some head or other saying only oligarchs now went to independent schools. Or some such. Obviously a gross over statement, but it is true that in London, house prices plus fees requires big dosh!

No doubt the new generation of parents want and expect something different from the last. Plus they tend to be on the coal face of global competition so can't be doing with the whole head-in-the-sand middle class schtick.

Word. Another change perhaps is that there seems to be a greater assumption that money can buy things. So maybe a Statesmom (for those who remember the classic thread) can buy enough tutoring to get her son a place at Westminster. And may then assume that paying the fees is essentially buying an Ivy League admission. Different perhaps to those parents satisfied with an invitation to the Carol Concert followed by a glass of plonk in the House.

The rising cost of school fees (way beyond inflation) over the years has made them inaccessible to parents who were educated privately and who would like to purchase the type of education they themselves received for their children. The rise in cost of school fees is, in part, the reflection of the increasingly extensive infrastructure and facilities that schools have put into place and the wide range of co-curricular options. The cost discrepancy between no-fees state schools and fee-paying independent schools is massive and, IMO, unnecessary. It's like having a market of 2 hotels and 5 hotels and nothing in between.

I admire her comments paticularly this one Something that shocked me quite a lot, and I've seen it more in the last few years, is the naked impatience with the idea of putting other people first that you see coming from some parents.

I agree wholeheartedly. However this attitude is not confined to parents of children at expensive schools, in fact I see it more at my ds' state primary than at my dd's private secondary. The overriding reason I chose the school for dd was because of its values and sense of community. In my view, this is key to a child's education and upbringing.

sugarman - the refusal to put others first is a societal trend. It is not surprising if it is encountered in extreme forms among segments of society that live particularly high-stakes lives.

Bonsoir. You are saying there is gap in the market for a "travel lodge" type of private schools then! .

No, because I don't equate good schools with chains. I'm a boutique hotel sort of girl - but I like 3 and 4 a lot.

Competition has driven luxury facilities which has put up prices. Much of what good schools deliver doesn't require manicured lawns and deluxe music and sports facilities and I think plenty of parents would be happy to pay lower fees for great academics alone.

Bonsoir, I would not describe SPGS as having manicured lawns. Nor G&L, Putney or LU. Westminster may have Vincent Sq, but I have seen plenty of state secondaries with far larger playing fields.

Westminster though, has a nice Abbey attached!

In fairness Westminster's facilities have improved since they boasted the oldest, and worst, school gym in Britain, but a lot was paid for by Winnie the Pooh.

I don't get your argument. These schools are not competing for pupils. Pupils are competing for places. Whatever the facilities SPGS could fill their school 10 times over.

There was a small scrubby lawn when I was at SPGS, but shortly after I arrived they built a theatre on it. So then there were no lawns at all (apart from tennis courts etc).

Ah, no lawns, just a theatre and tennis courts. I'm impressed there are state schools IN LONDON with larger playing fields than Westminster. Where are these lucky London schools? And what constitutes a "gym"? Would that be a hall for running around in and having assemblies in, or something else? I think some people have got so used to taking their facilities for granted, they barely even notice them.

And does a bit of green space that is waterlogged for most of the year count as being better than a huge, multi-purpose sports hall?

Still, once you've spent hundreds of thousands on making your green fields useable for sport, they just look like reasonably maintained green fields, so it's probably hard to notice how much money is spent on them.

Then there are the staff. I'm sure parents at these schools want to ensure absolutely no expense is spared in getting the very best, supremely over-qualified to teach their children: specialists in every academic subject and extra-curricular activity...

But hey, they couldn't possibly be cheaper than they are.

On the outskirts in places like Teddington and Kingston. Tiffin girls for example. Or Nonsuch.

It may be in Paris that the private schools Bonsoir is talking about sell themselves on the quality of their facilities. However a lot of private schools in London are on really cramped sites and make a lot of use of public leisure centres and parks. Schools like Frances Holland are worse.

One can hardly do drama productions without a Theatre and Audio Visual department and a few visiting LAMDA teachers. Still, apparently St Paul's Girls School does not need to sell itself on the quality of its facilities, despite all this.

Why is the price going up faster than the rate of inflation? Anyone know if it's a certain cost.

Or just demand is higher.

I assume it must be the payroll. Presumably all these schools own the facilities outright. Of course there will be maintenance costs on the physical plant, but the big variable must be teacher salaries. In these expensive London schools the teachers have to be able to afford to live in London.

Ah, you see, MarshaBrady - it's a charity. Oh no, that doesn't explain it.

Ha rabbit! Maybe more teachers / specialisms.

NeedMoreSleep - Paris schools don't really have facilities (with two or three exceptions) and they don't cost much either.

I am talking about London and SE England schools, of which I have recently visited many.