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

Also very interested to read today that the percentage of 7-9 grades at GCSE has taken the biggest dive in independent schools, if you compare the actual exam results of this year with the teacher assessment of the covid years.

looking at the different comments from security to actual standards of education.my thoughts?:
why do they need grilling of education anyway? it's not as if they're going to have to get a real job now is it?
heir to the throne? really, there's a spare! joking apart they're kids and ALL deserve good security at school .
i am sure there are less expensive excellent schools that could do the job of the 3 Rs saving a fortune.any other stuff is learned from the royal household staff who will indoctrinate them in the arts of being seemingly nice whilst lording it over us for no other reason than being born into a family of german inbreds who's ancestors were more savage than the opposition.

I don't think there is evidence that the quality of teaching is higher in independent schools overall. Undoubtedly some of the most expensive and sought after schools will be able to employ effective teachers for their intake, but the same teachers might fail miserably when faced with a challenging mixed-ability class.
If you dig down into the progress data for grammar schools then you will often see poorer progress for the less able children in the cohort than in a comprehensive school.
I think it is likely that the same will be true of some independent schools.

Life isn't fair? In the sense of "sorry pleb you're poor. No education for you son. Off to the bin lorry for you. You think you might be capable of being a rocket scientist? Tough cheese

That's just an emotive and untrue statement.

You think you might be capable of being a rocket scientist? Tough cheese
My state-educated DN knows the moon isn't made of cheese because he managed to obtain a degree in astro-physics. He didn't go to a private school, but what might be termed a bog-standard comp.

In fact, I know a lot of people who achieved having gone to comprehensive schools.

It has more to do with parental input, support and expectations. Although high-achieving parents having too high expectations for their children can result in the opposite effect, as we ourselves have witnessed.

I think on the grounds of security the Cambridges are taking the best of their options.

I would imagine that the level of security needed would put a very big demand on the staff and pupils at a state school and would cause a good deal of disruption

DD 1 went to private school for a number of years with a lot of other children from military families due to posting being so disruptive to their education, not because of any elitist ideals.

While DD was a Prep School a Nigerian girl from a wealthy family joined the school. All the parents had to fill in a security questionnaire and she always had a female security person with her. It was nothing like the level of security needed for 3 Royals but the staff and children had a fair number of adaptations to make.

Those security measures were strange enough at her prep school and I really don't think they would have been possible even in the state school 6th form that DD went to and that was in a lovely rural school so I can understand their choice.

Have you found someone else to follow around and criticise DaisyAnne?

If I had their money (and nothing to do with titles) I would have educated my son privately without a shadow of a doubt. I didn’t and I’m sure his life has taken a different path because of it. Lucky Cambridge children.

volver

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

How rude.

Do you realise how unbelievable it is that you are saying that!

Amazing.

I forgot to say, you could, you know, turn this discussion all the way round and say, as my father did, that parents who can afford to pay private school fees HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO EXPECT TAX PAYERS TO PAY FOR THEIR CHILDREN TO GO TO SCHOOL.

In his considered opinion state funded schools to which he contributed through the taxes he paid were for the benefit of children who would otherwise be deprived of schooling.
They had never, he held, been intended to pay for the education of children whose parents had the means to pay themselves.

He felt rightly that no-one except my mother had asked him to bring children into the world, and having done so, it was his business to give us the best upbringing possible and assuredly not the reponsibilty of the state.

He also felt that those who had the means should pay for things like walking sticks, wheel-chairs, dentures or glasses if they needed them, leaving the NHS to supply those who could not afford these aids.

Perhaps it is worth our while to look at his extremely old-fashioned views - they were that even when I was a child, so sixty years farther on they most be positively prehistoric- before condemning royalty or other well-to-do people for sending their children to fee-paying schools.

Grammaretto

Something being said on this thread is that the teaching is better in private schools. I don't think it should be because teachers have the same training don't they?
I guess the classes can be smaller.
Anyway, my DGD has just heard she has passed all her 9 GCSEs with merit. She goes to a state school. Bring on the prosecco!
Do posh people have champagne?

Nah, they charter a yacht for the weekend Grammaretto.
Congratulations to your GD.
⛵ ⛵

DH was educated at a posh Oxford boarding school and he hated every second! He has no time for public schools. He did a Doctorate in education and loved all his years of teaching in large comprehensive schools in large towns. DDs attended the school where DH taught as did majority of the other children of teachers. He ended his career Inspecting Local Authority Schools. It is a pity state schools have to cope with large class sizes due mainly to underfunding.

No one should tell me how to spend my money.

Don't you believe in paying taxes Candelle?

Something being said on this thread is that the teaching is better in private schools. I don't think it should be because teachers have the same training don't they?
I guess the classes can be smaller.
Anyway, my DGD has just heard she has passed all her 9 GCSEs with merit. She goes to a state school. Bring on the prosecco!
Do posh people have champagne?

Callistemon. ?

So Getting rid of the monarchy will result in no private education, the parents who send their children to private schools only do so because the royal family do so

Emily Thornberry was not speaking the truth when asked
why she sent her children to private schools ‘every parent wants to best for their children’ she really meant ‘because the
Royal family do’

The title of this thread is a little misleading.
Let me clarify conditions in Denmark,

Prince Christian and Princess Isabella the two eldest of Crown Prince and Crown Princess' children are both at secondary schools and it is correct that the school Prince Christian goes to is not a fee-paying school, but is government funded, except for such activities as school trips abroad and the like, where parents have to contribute to the costs involved.

Princess Isabella is at a private secondary school where parents pay 1700 D. kr. monthly is fees. This at today's rate of exchange is £192, 92.

It is correct that their younger brother and sister are at a state school, just as the two elder children were for primary school.

Their father and grandmother were educated at home for part or most of their primary education, then sent to private schools in Denmark and later in France for Crown Prince Frederik and his brother, while their mother , the present queen, went to a private school in Copenhagen, a boarding school in England and later to university.

So the transition towards educating royal children here in ordinary schools started sligthly before it did in Britain.

A factor that should also be mentioned is that Denmark has relatively few private schools and most of them receive very much larger amounts in state funding than any private school I have ever heard of in the UK, so school fees are much lower here for that reason. The few private schools that have no funding, do not qualify for it because they infringe ministry of education guidelines in some minor way. Major infractions would be grounds for closing a school here.

For instance, a private school cannot use coporal punishment as this is illegal in Denmark, but a private school could insist on segregating boys and girls, or require girls to wear hijab - but will not qualify for state funding.

Likewise a Christian private school that insists on teaching that the earth is flat, or that Darwin's theory of evolution is blasphemous might be allowed to continue so doing, but not for the tax-payers money.

These days, unfortunately, the royal children here too have to be accompanied by security details. This is inconvenient for them and the school, but is no greater incovenience in a state school than a private one.

Prince Joachim's children have likewise alternated between state schools and private schools.

I know that the supporters of private education will not be dissuaded, but that doesn't stop me having a go.

There is a world of difference between being able to shop at Waitrose and being able to buy you children unfair advantages in life just because you are a bit better off. Ignoring how unfair that is for the individual children, look what it does to society. It supports the idea that opportunities in life depend on you having money and it risks the exclusion of valuable people from roles in society that would benefit all of us.

I don't have children or grandchildren, and was personally educated in a very large state school that recognised good students and brought them on. I count myself lucky because my parents could never have afforded private schools. Yet a proper education system made sure I reached my potential, without recourse to money or charity. So the jealousy idea is just so much rubbish, sorry.

Life isn't fair? In the sense of "sorry pleb you're poor. No education for you son. Off to the bin lorry for you. You think you might be capable of being a rocket scientist? Tough cheese"

Private schools exist and of course parents are free to choose that option if that is what they want and they can afford it. My big gripe is that private schools still maintain charitable status which allows them to take advantage of tax concessions. These schools have come a long way from the days when they were philanthropic institutions to educate the poor but for some reason they are still able to call themselves charities and hang on to the tax perks.

I'm not saying we were at all rich or even well-off but perhaps we did without things some others might take for granted to try to ensure the DC had a better future.

And there you have it Callistemon. You could abolish private schools, but most richer parents will opt for private tuition. They might also band together to pay for extra curricular clubs and activities. They have the money and the choice to do so. The result would be just the same as now, indicating that the schools themselves may not really be the issue.

Anniebach

The headlines -

‘Charlotte refused invitation to a sleepover with my daughter’

‘William and Kate didn’t come to the parents evening’

‘George let in 2 goals when he was chosen to be goal keeper’

Even the children of Royal princes go to parties at Pizza Express although they may not remember them.

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 have no personal knowledge of independent schools at primary level so am not qualified to comment although many posters here think they are
I am more than happy to comment Candelle on certain school issues, but not politics, and to explain how it works, as I was Headmistress at a prep school for many years, and still do the occasional supply work. DH regularly inspects independent schools, so we are both up to date.

As an aside, I l went to a rough inner London comprehensive myself. I can see both sides.

Anniebach ?

To remove first rate schools because parents can afford them is ludicrous. Should we ban Harrods and Waitrose too?
No
Waitrose always has special offers. Some independent schools offer bursaries and scholarships to those whose parents might not be able to afford the fees.

Our local comprehensive was like the curate's egg. Because of poor teaching, even in some top sets, we paid for private tuition after school for our DC in certain subjects which proved to be money well spent.
Not everyone can do that but should we have decided it wasn't the right thing to do because others couldn't afford it?

^Re behaviour and manners, I have no idea about Royal children, but certainly the number of parental objections to their children being reprimanded for bad behaviour and manners has increased.
Is that the same in private schools do you know?^

That's an interesting comment Mollygo and full of issues because different parents have different ideas and standards about behaviour themselves.
In the independent sector, and in my experience, the parents and children usually agree to conform to a common ethos and on the whole, discipline is such that parental objections to teachers reprimanding their children are less common. You're more likely to get parents complaining that teachers aren't giving enough homework or objections that they are not selecting their child for the swimming gala! I guess it's just a different type of priorities and demands.
Bad behaviour in private schools can often be more easily nipped in the bud, but believe me there are some parents who need telling straight that their child isn't all sweetness and light!

Anniebach ???