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

GC number one has just had absolutely amazing GCSE results. I am so proud.

And yet, as she goes to a top private school, she has had full timetabled lessons throughout Covid (via Zoom), and then thorough help to revise and prepare for exams, from teachers, parents, grandparents who have top degrees in most subjects, access to a quiet room with a computer, books, and so much more. As every child should have had, EVERY single child. Not just my GC or some of yours.

This concept of grading for schools and school choice is unique to the UK- and yes, does lead to massive cheating. My sil and bil actually bought a property in a 'great school' area, so that their GD could go to that school. They spent a few night here and there at that address, to pretend they lived there.

volver

No. Twisting the words again Callistemon.

Although anybody who thinks its sensible to make little Johnny/Jeannie commute goodness knows how many miles on goodness knows how many buses just to get to a primary school isn't displaying great traits of normality.

The nearest primary school which could offer a place to my DGC and some if their friends was 6.1 miles away and needed 2 buses to get there. It wasn’t even because they lived in a rural setting, just that the nearest schools were full.
The benefits turned out to be immense-apart from the travel costs.

Totally agree Casdon moving into a good schools catchment area, renting a small flat within the catchment area even giving a relatives address who happens to be in the catchment area are common practice in U.K.

The schools admissions department have to become amateur sleuths these days.

I dont think it's an insurmountable argument with regard to private schools but yes its absolutely commonplace I am afraid. I think there are ways around that and I dont think the idea that a system has been in place for a long time is a valid reason against change.

volver

Firstly: I believe that the idea that everyone will rush to the areas with good schools is false, although I'm sure that someone will produce a report saying otherwise. If schools were properly funded is there a reason why one would be better than another? It seems not to be the case in Finland. And I'm afraid if parents want to move just so that Jeannie can join the pony club, I've got no sympathy.

Secondly: The idea that parents paying for Jeannie to get her lovely private education are helping those who can't afford it, is just laughable. Anybody who says that doesn't really understand the principles behind a welfare state.

People who have the option to send their children to better state schools definitely do it volver. House prices do go up near good schools, and their registers are full. It’s happened where I live, as I mentioned before. A school gets a bad reputation, and many parents have moved their children to two other schools, one of which is 10 miles away, the other 14 miles. We didn’t need to move house when my son went because the schools accept children from outside catchment until their register is full. The local school has been in ‘special measures’, but it doesn’t, and probably won’t, attract the same calibre of teachers, when they have their pick of jobs now, especially at secondary level. I’d be amazed if parents in Scotland don’t do the same and send their children to the best option available? I do agree with what you’re saying in principle, but achieving it is extremely difficult unless people have no choice at all.

Firstly: I believe that the idea that everyone will rush to the areas with good schools is false, although I'm sure that someone will produce a report saying otherwise. If schools were properly funded is there a reason why one would be better than another? It seems not to be the case in Finland. And I'm afraid if parents want to move just so that Jeannie can join the pony club, I've got no sympathy.

Secondly: The idea that parents paying for Jeannie to get her lovely private education are helping those who can't afford it, is just laughable. Anybody who says that doesn't really understand the principles behind a welfare state.

Parents who send their children to private schools still pay taxes (or should), thereby helping to fund state education.
In fact they pay twice over because they help to fund state schools but don't receive any benefit themselves.

If private schools were to be abolished the probable outcome would be that schools in wealthy areas will be full of children from that intake area, house prices will increase as folks scramble to live within the catchment of these schools.

The question I now ask is how on earth will this benefit schools/pupils who are not in a wealthy catchment area but live on a run down estate, or in temporary accommodation , or whose parents do not care about their offspring educationally or otherwise?

Depriving parental choice is no guarantee of a perfect education to those children who are the most needy.

Callistemon21

Just being facetious, volver!

?

volver

No. Twisting the words again Callistemon.

Although anybody who thinks its sensible to make little Johnny/Jeannie commute goodness knows how many miles on goodness knows how many buses just to get to a primary school isn't displaying great traits of normality.

That's why some of us took on the LA and won which didn't make us popular with the LA or HT.

Just being facetious, volver!

No. Twisting the words again Callistemon.

Although anybody who thinks its sensible to make little Johnny/Jeannie commute goodness knows how many miles on goodness knows how many buses just to get to a primary school isn't displaying great traits of normality.

Logically if we live in a caring society then children with the greatest need should get the most provision. So children from deprived backgrounds should be getting the things provided by private schools-smaller classes, extras like music lesson, longer school days, more sports, more special needs provision. After all they need the things they don't get at home
Children from privileged backgrounds receive much more support and have access to many other things anyway. So their schooling is simply adding to that.

I'm only being slightly facetious.

I did realise before you say anything.

And go to the school across the road from where they live, like normal people do
???

Are you saying that pupils who don't go to school across the road from where they live aren't normal?

Some LAs have very peculiar catchment areas.

Oh, and the financial input? Nationalise the private schools and take all the fees that parents are so willing to provide for the advancement of their little Johnny, and take in in tax.

I'm only being slightly facetious.

They could all move to Scotland.

And go to the school across the road from where they live, like normal people do.

Protestations of "it would never work here" are all a bit too "Yes Prime Minister" for me.

in that are
in that area

MayBee70

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?

The dividing line between those who "passed" the 11+ and those who "failed" (I use those terms because that was how it was known in the 1950s) varied a lot between different areas, depending on the provision of grammar schools in that are and in fact, there were often more grammar school places for boys than girls.

One of my close friends "failed" the 11+ and I remember her mother being very upset. However, our local secondary modern girls' school was very good and encouraged girls to reach their potential. My friend went on to become a nurse and eventually a matron. Some of the teachers at the grammar school I went to expected total obedience and conformity and some told us how stupid we were, scoffing at any ambition other than teaching.

Fleurpepper
A great idea!
If the children of the better off, the rich, the famous, the politicians, top financiers and business people, etc- go to the same schools as other children, the above make sure that classes remain small, education is of excellent quality, and equipment, facilities, etc, are top notch.
It sounds great, and certainly, a good theory that if they all had to go to the same schools, the better off would have good reason to care about class sizes, equipment, facilities etc.
If that were to happen, it would be amazing.

It would require tremendous extra financial input from whichever government is in power, because the rich and famous etc. etc. are already paying taxes, some of which goes to state education. If they take up places in state schools, would that not spread the money even more thinly?

I suspect that the same would happen as happens now though.
Having all attend state schools doesn’t mean the children of the better off would suddenly go to schools in what used to be called EPA.
They would go to what would become the ‘better’ primary or secondary schools. Other parents would then, as now, do whatever they could to get their children into such schools.

It is not the fault of the schools, nor of the parents nor of pupils that this is the way the system has been for centuries.

Whose fault is it then?

Nobody here is rushing forward to say this is the way it should be, that well off/powerful/well known people deserve better education. I think everybody is saying this is not ideal, every school should give pupils the best start in life possible.

But so many people who think that choice trumps fairness are saying that this is just the way it is. Now we're getting told this is the way that it's been for centuries, as though its a law of physics that we can never change.

As long as people shrug their shoulders and don't do anything about it, nothing will change. And people without sharp elbows will continue to miss out.

You are correct Fleurpepper that this type of education should be available to ALL children, but we cannot wave a magic wand. It is what it is.

I do object to the inference that independent schools sit there saying "tough luck" or " I'm alright Jack". Why do embittered people think they are uncaring and don't give a stuff about about others? It is not the fault of the schools, nor of the parents nor of pupils that this is the way the system has been for centuries.
I promise you that independent schools do not believe that some people matter less than others. Quite the opposite.

If the children of the better off, the rich, the famous, the politicians, top financiers and business people, etc- go to the same schools as other children, the above make sure that classes remain small, education is of excellent quality, and equipment, facilities, etc, are top notch. Children also don't grow up with stereotypes, them and us- as they know each other, play together, visit each other sometimes and it helps create a not so divided society.

So you are saying that if children have horrigic stories to tell, then if the parents can afford it, they can escape- but if not, tough luck?

ALL children should be getting a great education in excellent conditions, I believe. And this is what happens, mostly, in Northern Europe countries, which are definitely NOT communist either.

Katie59

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.

I am dyslexic in one of its many forms. Only diagnosed when one of our children was. It does not always lead to learning difficulties sometime just atrocious spelling and Grammar in others it affects their maths ability.
I was at a Co-ed Grammar school in the A stream got A levels and went on to further education.
Dyslexia is a wide and varied problem with many manifestations. I was advised to take my child out of mainstream education because the Local Education authority did not recognise it,the Authority in the city near where we lived did.
They went to a Coed private school that had exam entrance. Did very well took advice from teachers who pointed out that it can be a help in some fields and got a good degree in a subject that led to a highly regarded profession. They certainly are not in a manual job.
Also, it is believed that Einstein probably was Dyslexic in one of its forms and his theory still stands all these years later. Hope for all dyslexics? It all depends to what degree you have it and in what form. Also, teachers who understand it and help children to have faith in their abilities and push on regardless.