Why do British royal children not go to state schools like the Scandanavian royals?

Grammaretto

Be good if the Royal children became doctors, nurses, teachers and the like.
Prince William once did a work placement as a porter at the Royal Marsden hospital and was very happy there, seemingly.

Don’t forget he was also an air ambulance pilot.

Grammaretto

Be good if the Royal children became doctors, nurses, teachers and the like.
Prince William once did a work placement as a porter at the Royal Marsden hospital and was very happy there, seemingly.

He was also in the RAF working as a Search and Rescue helicopter pilot.

volver

Antonia

volver

I do really understand why people - even left wing hypocritical loonies - feel they have to send their children to fee-paying schools because the education they would get elsewhere may not be up-to-scratch. But up-to-scratch education should be available to anybody who would benefit from it. And as long as we have the attitude in this country that money can buy you education, the state schools will never be good enough.

I agree that good education should be available for all, but that's not the case in the UK. There are some good state schools, but if you watched the 'Educating' series ('Educating Essex, Educating Yorkshire etc) you would see that the difference between those schools and private schools is enormous.
I realize that the 'Educating' series was a bit sensational but it showed me why people choose private education if they can afford it.

Some people take the approach that education is bad so we have to pay for it ourselves.

Some take the approach that we should make it better for everyone.

I think you can guess which side I sit on.

I think most of us think all children deserve the best education possible, whether that be privately or state funded.

Lady Louise Windsor has had a holiday job in a garden centre, minimum wage, but attracted criticism from certain quarters for depriving other young people of employment.

They can’t win.

I know that merlotgran but being an air ambulance pilot is a rather rarefied profession. on average £50k to become a pilot
I was thinking of his, literally, more down to earth experience which would perhaps inspire his DC to follow suit.

I read that about Lady Louise Windsor Calendargirl, Good for her were my thoughts. I remember Paul McCartney recounting in an interview how he told his children when they were growing up "you aren't too good to wait on tables" I do know people who thought that their children were far too good to get a job during A levels/University breaks and it was up to the parents to fully finance them for whatever

Grammaretto

I know that merlotgran but being an air ambulance pilot is a rather rarefied profession. on average £50k to become a pilot
I was thinking of his, literally, more down to earth experience which would perhaps inspire his DC to follow suit.

The RAF is very selective and trains their own pilots.

Oh dear, I suppose he deprived someone else of getting free training.
Can't win, can they ?

TerriBull

I read that about Lady Louise Windsor Calendargirl, Good for her were my thoughts. I remember Paul McCartney recounting in an interview how he told his children when they were growing up "you aren't too good to wait on tables" I do know people who thought that their children were far too good to get a job during A levels/University breaks and it was up to the parents to fully finance them for whatever

I remember a poster on here a few years ago who was quite indignant that her DC should ever get their hands dirty in the university holidays doing a 'menial job'.

I wish all children could receive the type of value added that private schools offer. I am, however, always careful not to say that the actual teaching is better than in many state schools.

The reasons why parents choose an independent school are numerous and difficult to determine. Only they know why their child would be better suited to these settings. As a poster said earlier, it is difficult to understand unless you have been in the situation where you have listened to their outpourings. It is not for us to judge.

Independent prep schools can afford to be very child centered and work in very close partnership with parents, (the customers).

I think it is a matter of choice. If the Duke and Duchess want to send their children to a fee paying school so be it. If anyone here prefers a state school that’s ok too.

I went to a private school, my son to a grammar school and my grandsons go to a state school. I think it is good that we have a variety of educational establishments.

The royal children could go to Marlborough, Kate’s old school. It’s co-ed now, though it was all boys when I was young - and much loathed by some of its ex-pupils. I think it’s quite different now.

I wasn’t allowed to have a paid job during university ‘holidays’. The vacations were for catching up with the vast amount of reading we had.

When my son was at Cambridge in the early ‘90s, the authorities didn’t allow jobs during term time. I don’t know of that was a university rule or just his college.

It did occur to me that William and Catherine might have chosen the school because it offers boarding facilities as and when required. So if they are away working for a couple of nights they can make use of this service. (Isn't the royal nanny going to be stepped down when they move?)
I can't think that any state primary could offer this for them.

Our children cleaned toilets, scrubbed trailers, swept offices/trade counters/loaded vans, washed vans inside and out and washed down yards. If they didn’t want to on any of their work days then they didn’t get paid.

It’s all relative, work = pay, education = qualifications which + opportunities.

i believe it was margaret thatcher who signed the order to end grammar schools in the state sector.
it certainly was not barbara castle.
i can remember m/c parents outside the tory town hall with placards: implement plan c now; we want plan c.
c being comprehensive. that was late 1960s. plan c came in shortly after.

welbeck

i believe it was margaret thatcher who signed the order to end grammar schools in the state sector.
it certainly was not barbara castle.
i can remember m/c parents outside the tory town hall with placards: implement plan c now; we want plan c.
c being comprehensive. that was late 1960s. plan c came in shortly after.

I thought it was Shirley Williams.

from British Educational Research Association,Thatcher’s term of office was marked by proposals for more local education authorities to close grammar schools and to adopt comprehensive secondary education. Although she was committed to a tiered secondary modern-grammar school system of education and was determined to preserve grammar schools, during her tenure as Education Secretary she turned down only 326 of 3,612 proposals for schools to become comprehensives; the proportion of pupils attending comprehensive schools consequently rose from 32 per cent to 62 per cent (from Wikipedia)
www.bera.ac.uk/timeline-object/margaret-thatcher-secretary-of-state-for-education-and-science

MayBee70

I benefitted by going to a good grammar school. However, back then children that didn’t pass the 11 plus were branded as failures. And I only remembered this recently but although I was in a class at primary school where many of us went on to pass the 11plus there was another class where all the no hopers were put. I bet they were children that were on the spectrum or dyslexic. Possibly eye or hearing problems.

I'm not sure what time you are talking about MayBee but in the early 60s numbers going to Grammar Schools went from 25% to 20%.

Are you suggesting that the other 75% to 80% were all in some way "on the spectrum", dyslexic or physically disabled?

Yammy

M0nica

So what you want Yammy is a reduction to the lowest common denominator so all suffer equally.

I prefer a system where we do our best to make sure none suffer, and if that means that on the way to attaining it some suffer but it gets gradually fewer, it seems to me, not a perfect, but certainably a preferable scheme.

You are deliberately being provocative.
I did not say I want every child to be at the lowest common denominator. I said I want all children to be given an equal chance. Some will benefit from the chance others will not there should then be provision for them to at least aim at the goal and achieve what their ability allows.Though where funding will come from is another matter.
Like Barbara Castle thought getting rid of Grammar schools would for the over 11's
Now argue with yourself.

I have no idea if you were being provocative M0nica. It didn't read like that to me. It just seemed like a different point of view.

Does insulting others, especially those unable to reply, show a social conscience? Doesn't suggesting that only people who agree with one particular view have a "social conscience" seem to be stretching that description beyond credulity? Isn't it just bigotry?

Some people have very strong and sincerely held opinions about wanting society to have greater equality of opportunity. However, they may not think demanding an immediate deprivation of choice while leaving only a starved education system to offer in exchange is likely to do anything other than build opposition.

I wonder why some believe that abuse of those with differing views of how to obtain the same aim will help take us to the outcome they want.

DaisyAnne

MayBee70

I benefitted by going to a good grammar school. However, back then children that didn’t pass the 11 plus were branded as failures. And I only remembered this recently but although I was in a class at primary school where many of us went on to pass the 11plus there was another class where all the no hopers were put. I bet they were children that were on the spectrum or dyslexic. Possibly eye or hearing problems.

I'm not sure what time you are talking about MayBee but in the early 60s numbers going to Grammar Schools went from 25% to 20%.

Are you suggesting that the other 75% to 80% were all in some way "on the spectrum", dyslexic or physically disabled?

No. I’m not suggesting that. I’m saying that children that had problems that would now have recognisable problems such as dyslexia ended up in a different class and I don’t think they were helped in the way that they should have been. But that, at the time I wasn’t aware of it. It’s only looking back now that I’ve realised that we were streamed in some way. By the ay, do you have a problem with me? You seem to be picking up on everything I write. Are you deliberately misinterpreting everything I write?

I don't think dyslexia was even recognised. It certainly wasn't at my school.

If you select only what you consider to be the top 20/25%, often biased to boys, you will miss some perfectly able people.

Dyslexia was only recognised as a disability in 2010.

Sitting my 11+ at the age of 10, having recently arrived from NZ in 1958, was terrifying for me. I can vividly remember butterflies in my tummy.
Some children swotted up and had to do test papers at home for months beforehand.
The divide was palpable between those at the grammar school and those who had to go to the secondary modern.
Even twins were divided.
I am so glad my own DC never suffered like that.
My DGD receives her GCSE results today. At least she is 16 and not 10 and is already assured a place at 6th form college.

I certainly di£ not regard myself as a failure when I failed the 11+ and it very quickly became clear that I could not have coped with the amount of homework the grammar school pupils had. I went into the “A” stream of the local secondary with hindsight the lowest streams had a lot with “learning difficulties” many with dyslexia. It didn’t seem to be recognized nor any particular action taken, they simply finished school and went into manual labouring, cleaning, production line work. From my memory they all found work, their aspirations were never more than that.