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

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnne neither myself or family members would be happy with being dictated to regarding the choice to spend net income on whatever we choose, including education.

No matter how excellent state schools are/become, individual choice is paramount for some.

Neither would I GG13. I wouldn't be happy with you being dictated to either. But apparently, some would. Being a centrist can be uncomfortable sometimes

Galaxy

And who decides that daisyanne, who decides what is clear and cant be misinterpreted. But thanks for the advice.

Goodness. Clarity is, I suppose, decided by the outcome, i.e. does someone understand it? For example, Maybee is upset because I misunderstood her post many pages ago.

However, she wrote along the lines of "That's lovely to hear". The post she was referring to had two parts. She didn't say what was "lovely to hear". I chose the wrong part. I thought she was referring to the part that suggested we shouldn't have high aspirations for people with dyslexia. I did go on to write a post about why I would be upset by that.

This sort of error tells us that the post was less than clear. Personally, I try to clarify by quoting what I am referring to or referring to "my last sentence" or similar.

It doesn't matter if people are not clear; we all write as we write. However, if something lacks clarity posters cannot expect people to read their minds. That was why I queried what "it" referred to in your post. Better to get it right than upset people by making an unintended error.

Again, not meant as advice but just conversation. Perhaps we are used to different types of conversation

Paragraph 1: yes it does.

Paragraph 2: me too.

volver

^No matter how excellent state schools are/become, individual choice is paramount for some.^

And a fair go is paramount for others.

Someone’s choice to spend their income on private education does not in anyway invalidate anyone else’s fair go

You can object till the cows come home volver but this is one subject that I am 100% unmovable on.

You're all still ignoring the funding factor. State schools will never become universally 'good' unless they are given the funding, and so are the services which support children and families.

But the other factor that few have touched on, is the social aspect of keeping these children in a bubble of the wealthy and privileged. They should be getting an idea of how the less wealthy and privileged live. They should be mixing with children who don't have all their advantages and they should be doing this at an age where children are far more accepting of 'differences' than they are when they hit secondary school. A few years in a state primary wouldn't do them any harm and enable them to see a rather less sanitised world than the one they usually do.

No matter how excellent state schools are/become, individual choice is paramount for some.

And a fair go is paramount for others.

DaisyAnne neither myself or family members would be happy with being dictated to regarding the choice to spend net income on whatever we choose, including education.

No matter how excellent state schools are/become, individual choice is paramount for some.

Terribull unfortunately discipline is not that great in some secondary state schools.

We have had an ongoing situation with one of our GC, it escalated to the point where the police were involved. Both school and police have said that the family involved are known to the police, they are criminals with out of control children and it’s best if the problem is just forgotten…

This was not acceptable to our family, and other options are now being looked at.

I know this is anecdotal but I also know this is not an isolated case.

volver

knspol

GrandtanteJE65 - Sounds to me that your father was a real man of principle, if only there were more like him around today.

Sorry to say this GrandetanteJE65 but your fathers views are ante-diluvian.

In the prehistoric age, nomads used to leave old or injured people on the steppes to die if they couldn't keep up. We've kind of moved on from that now.

Also, can't speak for England, but in Scotland education was instituted to be universal, not just for those who couldn't afford it themselves.

So we return to the question I have been asking throughout this thread. How do you stop those who have the money from investing it in their children's future? Whatever you do needs to be workable and democratic, or it will not happen.

In Scotland, education was instituted to be universal, not just for those who couldn't afford it themselves, but Scotland still has a choice of state schools or private schools for those who can afford it.

And who decides that daisyanne, who decides what is clear and cant be misinterpreted. But thanks for the advice.

Some have posted, and I can quite understand their point of view, that they resorted to private education as a last resort, their child/ren being bullied, ignored, not flourishing at the state school they were in. There is such a disparity between state schools, up thread I mentioned highly rated catholic schools in West London that I had knowledge of. From what I understood of those schools they were at the time I knew pupils going through them, had zero toleration of any sort of disruptive behaviour, I imagine that is part of their success, but I also perceive that some may frown upon what could be regarded as a draconian approach to dealing with dissenting pupils. I also said that my own children went to what would be regarded as a good comprehensive in a leafy London suburb. well above the national average in exam results, but certainly not on a par with the aforementioned catholic schools. However, imo what their school lacked was an effective way of dealing with low level disruption and as one of my sons now realises in comparison to his girlfriend's private education, hours of teaching time were lost to time wasting trivia, not having the right equipment for the lesson, constant irrelevant interruptions. Such pupils could have been brought into line if some sort of meaningful pressure was brought to bear. Detentions were par for the course for this sort of behaviour but those sort of punishments have little effect. This is the difference between a school doing okay and one that it is excellent and of course that excellence is what many parents are prepared to sharp elbow their way into via the exceptional state schools or pay for through the private sector

In the worst of state schools I imagine the task of teachers, who have hardly any mechanisms at their disposal to deal with increasing social problems in pupils' backgrounds and a whole spectrum of problematic behaviours as a consequence, violent disorder in some cases, reduces their job to that of crowd control with very little in the way of teaching time, it's easy to see why so many leave the profession. If such a school was the only choice open to your child, why you as a parent might make extraordinary sacrifices to send them through the private sector.

William and Kate went to St Andrews University. They didn't pay more in fees than any other English student, they didn't get different teaching. I know for a fact that for at least part of the time William stayed in a very secure cottage off-campus. Seems that the education for the masses was OK for them then. Seems too that taking up a place at University that could have gone to a less well off person didn't occur to them then.

There's a Scots saying. Jam and butter on both sides of your loaf.

Galaxy

Your comments about gossip etc.
I dont really see how any comments about the royal family arent gossip, look how lovely Catherine looks in that dress, Prince Charles gives his grandson a cuddle, it's all gossip, therefore people cant complain when people ask questions or offer a critique.

So you thought my comment about gossip being out of place on an Education thread was trying to "control" what people are saying?

That comment is no more controlling, possibly less so than "people can't complain". We are both expressing opinions. You don't seem to like me doing that - just as I abhor gossip and, as I described, like to be able to avoid it.

I think the best thing is not to read our own prejudice into someone else's posts and to write as clearly as possible so they can't be misinterpreted. That, of course, is just an opinion.

knspol

GrandtanteJE65 - Sounds to me that your father was a real man of principle, if only there were more like him around today.

Sorry to say this GrandetanteJE65 but your fathers views are ante-diluvian.

In the prehistoric age, nomads used to leave old or injured people on the steppes to die if they couldn't keep up. We've kind of moved on from that now.

Also, can't speak for England, but in Scotland education was instituted to be universal, not just for those who couldn't afford it themselves.

this is not a thing in Germany, very few would consider such an option we all have faith in the state system
Except that a very basic Google search reveals that Germany does indeed have private schools.
m.dw.com/en/private-schools-why-does-germany-allow-them/a-46775899.

The first paragraph of this link says,
Germany taxpayers subsidize thousands of private schools despite the existence of many times more public schools.
Further on in the article about Germany it says,
Private schools have two main sources of funds: state subsidies and parents.

According to GOV.UK, in the UK, Private schools charge fees to attend instead of being funded by the government.

Re Germany, I then read. The Basic Law says private schools may not be a means to segregate children from wealthier or poorer households. That means they must be affordable.
This sounds really good, but can anyone explain how that works? What does “affordable” mean?

I agree that all children in the UK deserve to have the best education possible. Would sending the royals to a state school make state schools the best option? Or would it mean there would be more popular and less popular state schools as it does now?
I doubt the better off parents would agree to paying even more in taxes because they are saving on school fees by sending their children to state schools.

GrandtanteJE65 - Sounds to me that your father was a real man of principle, if only there were more like him around today.

DaisyAnne

Lucca

Sorry meant to say not discuss anything that doesn’t affect us ??
H and M for example…..what celebrities do say or wear ?

It would be wonderfully peaceful if people did stop discussing such things on GN. In "real life" we can avoid such people. On GN, if it goes under "Chat", we can also chose not to read it. Under "Education", it becomes a general discussion on Education; in this case whether choices should be limited by law - they can't be limited in any other way.

I really expect to see a discussion one day about, say, Christmas Cakes, with someone feeling the need to drop in the comment that "all our Christmas Cakes would be okay if we got rid of the Royals".

It's intensely boring, but gossip, including nasty, spiteful gossip, is part of life, it seems.

I don’t understand your post sorry.
My point was that saying “it doesn’t affect us” would limit the discussion topics, which is silly

Your comments about gossip etc.
I dont really see how any comments about the royal family arent gossip, look how lovely Catherine looks in that dress, Prince Charles gives his grandson a cuddle, it's all gossip, therefore people cant complain when people ask questions or offer a critique.

Galaxy

I read it as someone who was trying to control discussion and who found different views difficult.

What is "it" in this context Galaxy?

Before I had children, back in the day,I was very opposed to the idea of private education. When you have children you get a big wake up call and realise that each child is an individual and different sorts of schools suit different sorts of children. Most of us want what is best for our children, grandchildren and ,for some of us, great grandchildren. Those royal kids just would not fit in or like the average state school, certainly not at secondary level. Can you imagine how they would cop it ? Life would be a nightmare for them.

I read it as someone who was trying to control discussion and who found different views difficult.

Galaxy

My view that the royals help re inforce a class system is not spiteful gossip. I view the royals pretty much as a giant soap opera, I have no idea how else to view them. It's one of the reasons why I think a royal family is not a good idea as I dont think it does the people within that family any good either.

But this was about the education of children who happen to be part of the royal family Galaxy - under "education". So it is reasonable to think we are discussing "education", in this case, what we think of choosing to pay for something others cannot afford. Others may see a broader discussion than that.

I didn't say all or even any of the comments were spiteful gossip, just that gossip* can go in that direction. It does help if you don't join in prepared to feel insulted and then read insults into what others say where they don't exist.

*gossip: idle talk or rumour, especially about the personal or private affairs of others.

TerriBull

volver

happycatholicwife1

My children went to public and private schools for different reasons at different times. My grandchildren went to public schools and two of them all the way from Kindergarten through Senior High School in private school. Private schools which they attended were Catholic. Sorry, Volver, but I disagree with you. I don't see a thing wrong with sending your children to private school if it meets your values and needs for your children. Some people respond generously here on this issue, and a few people seem mainly to be jealous.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree with me. You don't have to apologise for it.

You are not entitled to call people who fundamentally disagree with your values "jealous". That demonstrates a rather undeveloped understanding of people's motivations.

I absolutely agree with Volve's second paragraph. Having read the thread, there haven't been any statements on it in relation to the choice of private education that I would have baulked at, except the attestation that a few people mainly seem to be jealous of that option, which comes across as just smug and rather shocking!

As far as the subject matter up for discussion turning into a long thread, I think the OP has posed a fair question, why not?

I remember at one of the post natal groups I went to many years ago, I got friendly with a German girl, she was having her second baby, I my first, she was a bit further down the line with child related subjects that were thrown up at the sort of get togethers one goes to at those times in our lives. I remember she said this "why are so many in this country so fixated on private schools" something I was to discover further down the line, she went on to say "this is not a thing in Germany, very few would consider such an option we all have faith in the state system" Well of course something like only 7 per cent of pupils go through the private system, but because when they come out the other end they make up 50 per cent, I think I read, of top positions across the professions, I think anyone could be forgiven for perceiving that statistically those people represent far more than a meagre 7 per cent. I think what most people wish for is a system that is far more egalitarian that my German companion spoke about.

When we have a comment that suggests those who disagreed with the poster don't have a moral compass and that disagreement is "rude", etc., it does tend to set a low standard.

People have generally just given their opinion with which anyone can agree or disagree. Sometimes their posts are not clear and appear more insulting than was intended. Sometimes they give unthought-through suggestions. On those occasions, it's reasonable to question that post. Otherwise, you could put the thread under "chat", as those posts are generally just a list of people's unchallenged opinions.

this is not a thing in Germany, very few would consider such an option we all have faith in the state system. This comment, to me, sums up the real problem. First, improve the offer. If you keep improving it, people will not want to pay for their children's education other than through taxes. But we all know this will not happen under this government. Sadly, it may also not be possible under any other government. So much has been stripped out of the state without regard for the consequences.

My view that the royals help re inforce a class system is not spiteful gossip. I view the royals pretty much as a giant soap opera, I have no idea how else to view them. It's one of the reasons why I think a royal family is not a good idea as I dont think it does the people within that family any good either.