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

I taught in state primary schools for over thirty-five years and both my children attended state schools. However, had we been able to afford it private schooling would have been our preferred option. Smaller class sizes, excellent extracurricular activities, etc. I have taught in some excellent state schools but I have also seen the flip side - poor discipline, large classes, poor resources, etc. When I look at the opportunities my late husband had at his very costly public school I wish we had been able to do that for our children. The royal family choose to send their children to public school because most well heeled parents do plus there would be security issues in a state school.

Cash is something William certainly isn't short of. Didn't he inherit millions from his mother? When the Queen dies he will become even richer, so £50k a year school fees is a drop in the ocean.

You need cash for for private school, limits choices if you don’t have it!

The Cambridges have the right to make decisions about their children. If they choose private school that is their right. In response to private v state comments I will say not all stare schools cone up to scratch. Since attending a very highly thought of state school my GS has exhibited signs of being bullied. DS and DIL have constantly challenged school about this. Their response always a No. GS seen child phychologist (privately) and she too diagnosed bullying. School still in denial. Now leaving primary and GS going to an independent school paid for by all the family. Report on any advice useful for staff at new school shows guess what - child? has been subjected to bullying! 7 years to get an admission of what was obvious but school just not wanting to acknowledge. That's why some people send a child to private education, nothing to do with snobbery, it's poor standards in some state schools no matter what their inspection reports say.

I think many of our primary schools are excellent, it’s not just about the academic side of things, it’s their relationships with their teachers and each other, the sense of community, the fact that they get involved in so many things locally.

They have sports teams, they manage to put on some wonderful plays, they have choirs, they hold numerous fund raisers, I think generally, they are an excellent start for any child.

But, in my experience at senior level, the independents win hands down, I wish it weren’t so, I would love my grandchildren to have the opportunities my children had, but they don’t.

It seems the best way to get through school is to keep your head down.

Before you all start yelling at me, that is only my own experience in the area I live in.

My daughter teaches in a local primary school in infants, yes manners matter in schools today as well as many other positive things !

What a silly question ?????

If we were anything like the Scandinavians I guess they would go to a state school! It’s just tradition !

volver

^I did so enjoy the week or so without the usual suspects posting their political views.^

How rude.

I did not mean to be rude! I do enjoy threads that tell us about other Grans lives. We do not agree all the time about politics. I am as fed up with the current government as many of you are but we will never agree. However, I cannot see any real reason to criticise the Royal children going to a private school near their new home. There is little interest nationally in the subject and we could easily see how are opinions are here.
Most citizens are worried about the cost of living crisis, about the excess number of deaths in people aged between 30-59 and medical scientists have been writing about it. Personally I am concerned about growing crime on the streets and the failure of the Police to curb it Most people in my home city of Liverpool are deeply upset about the murder of the 9 year old girl. I realise it will be sub judice from now on, but it does upset a lot of citizens. I think most of us are not too concerned about which school the Royal children attend. My two eldest children had no choice of which secondary school they attended. There was no Australian system of education in Papua New Guinea and the Government subsidised private school fees for the children. Then the youngest son could not attend the local comprehensive school because he had never studied languages and the curriculum was quite different than that he was used to. We were told he must go into the class of his age group and he was not happy as he was not up to the standard. In the end he attended a private school as a day student and enjoyed his education. We don’t all have a choice and I recognise that. After all, I was a teacher myself who spent most of my life overseas teaching English to students in high schools in PNG. Life was not easy but it was rewarding. I still believe in Grammar schools as that was how bright, working class children got a first
class education in my day

Well yes Callistemon21, but it doesn't really answer my question about evidence (as opposed to anecdote) and data. Academy data is in the public domain.

Mamie

Lucca I suspect that some of the opinions of state schools on these threads come from people who haven't set foot in one in a good many years. I never seem to get much response when I talk about evidence and data. ?

I think many posters may well have DC who went to state schools, DGC who attend them now and DC or other family who may teach in them.

Of course, in England many schools are now Academies.

But I did suggest what the poster might have really meant.

Lucca I suspect that some of the opinions of state schools on these threads come from people who haven't set foot in one in a good many years. I never seem to get much response when I talk about evidence and data. ?

Daftbag1

I seem to remember that Princess Anne's children attended a village school and George attended a state nursery for a while.

Few schools would be able to offer the heir to the throne and his siblings the education that is needed which includes time off during term time for royal duties. Behaviour and manners are very important for the royal children; not a high priority for state schools.

But the most important factor is choice. Parents have choices when deciding on how their children will be educated. Why would that choice be different for Royal children?

Here it is Lucca you might have guessed I remember everything! ?

Brain not working that well today …there was a post where somebody said manners were not considered important in state schools which shocked me, but I can’t find it now .

As a teacher rudeness was one thing I up with which I would not put (as my dad used to say)

I think my students realised being ill mannered in my classes was worse than not doing your homework !

Plus what a sweeping statement to make.

Because they are British Royals, not Scandinavian, and are doing as has always been done. Also, in all honesty? Scandinavia is safer and less class biased than Great Britain. Why shouldn't they send their children to public school if they can afford it?

My clever cousin was a librarian, just think, if she'd had supportive teachers she could have been a rocket scientist.

I would have quite liked to be a librarian...

Where would the world be without librarians?

It has more to do with parental input, support and expectations.

My parents were not academic at all. They expected me to be a teacher or a civil servant. They supported me in everything. Had I not gone to a good school and had teachers to support me, I would have been like that librarian character in "Its a Wonderful Life".

School saved me and it saved my DH. Both of us are sort of "Rocket Scientists", although I know you hate me boasting Callistemon ?

Closing schools to make others better is all cloud cuckoo land.
Yes, it's unrealistic and a pipe dream.

Take away private/independent schools and these children will join the ranks of the home schooled.
Or trying to get into over-crowded state schools.
State schools would need to offer some boarding facilities too.

Take away private/independent schools and these children will join the ranks of the home schooled.

oh! how bitter that sounds Gabrielle56 !

Eloethan

Well, it's hardly surprising is it. The whole ethos of a monarchy is to confer and reinforce the idea of superiority and enshrine unearned privilege so it is most unlikely that they will change the habits of a lifetime and send their children to the school down the road. Without the benefits that expensive private schooling confers (and I am not saying that the teaching is necessarily superior, but the facilities available most certainly are), they might run the risk of being seen as no more intelligent or able than any other child - and that would never do. Even with private education, past royals haven't exactly excelled on the academic front.

Everybody's children should "have the best" or at least a chance that they might have the best and one that is not predicated on how much money they can spend.

I hate disagreeing with you Eloethan, but I'm afraid I do on this. Not with Everybody's children should "have the best" but because I don't think closing independent schools would achieve that. Closing schools to make others better is all cloud cuckoo land.

How would you achieve everybody's children getting the best education? British taxpayers would not pay for it. We have difficulty getting them to agree to pay into a system to look after their health. If you do not achieve a better result by taking away this choice, those who can afford it will find another way. So, how do you get everyone to pay what any government will tell you it will cost?

It's no good having a social conscience if you have no practical way to bring your ideas about. All the ideas offered here will do is reduce all education to a lower level overall and that's just inverted snobbery and envy.

Well said DaisyAnn ! Every parent has the right to choose their children's schooling - without criticism! - their choice - No-one else's. . . . . . . . .

grandtanteJE65

I think your father spoke a lot of common sense.

There were, many years ago, Board Schools which were the earliest State schools. They ensured poorer children got an education up to the age of 13.
Better-off parents were supposed to pay for the education of their children, not rely on the State to do so.

We've moved on a great deal since then but I don't see why the state should remove the right of people to choose how to spend their net income.