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

I have no idea how royal children are treated in school, but the totally state educated children of an MP, also state educated, passed scholarships to attend local Grammar schools, where they are given a hard time about their parents' politics by some of the younger teachers.

Germanshepherdsmum

I didn’t have a private education. Nor did my son. I’m sure we would both have liked the advantages it undoubtedly gives. However it also seemed to give some people I worked with a rather unpleasant sense of superiority and entitlement.

I have nothing against choice but I greatly dislike the sense of superiority and entitlement. Of course by no means all fee-paying schools foster that, but some certainly do.

In the case of the Cambridge children I expect the need for tight security features heavily in the suitability of available schools. They are obvious targets and a state school wouldn’t be sufficiently safe.

I agree there are a couple of adults we know who have been privately educated, who display a lofty manner when discussing the whole state versus private school education issue and certainly stoke up divisions. I know one such person who in the past when our circle's children were embarking on school life " came out with this remark "if you send them to state school they'll be lucky to come out of it writing their own name" By contrast we also have good friends, both parents privately educated shunned that for their children sending them through the state sector from nursery to 18 and were adamant they would have never considered the alternative.

In a previous house we lived in, it was very near a prep school. When we first moved there a neighbour across the road came wandering over to introduce herself with the comment "I imagine you've moved here because of prep school up the road" where hers went. Our children were pre school age at the time. I responded with a "no have them down for x state infant/primary ". She practically shrank back as if I'd announced I had the Bubonic Plague. At the same time I was shocked by her assumption as I am by the judgements some make about what is a personal matter, as personal as religious beliefs imo, and who'd even ask about those in a challenging manner.

Germanshepherdsmum wrote that private education seems to give some a 'sense of superiority and entitlement.'

I was state school educated and I have noticed that too. It's a kind of innocent (or not so innocent) arrogance. I first noticed it when we were invited to the 'posh school' to play sport and have tea afterwards. We were very definitely made to feel like the Bash Street Kids. 'Townies' being handed crumbs from the table. We were at a disadvantage from day one.

Urmstongran said that there will always be plumbers and hairdressers and academics and she is right. The shame is that our system is set up to ensure that, in the main, the sons and daughters of plumbers become plumbers and the children of academics become academics.

Private education is out of reach for most people however much they long to make the very best choices for their children.

Our MPs demonstrate the terrible cost to this country of funnelling those who can afford it into senior positions via a system based entirely on financial means rather than ability.

This country could afford a better state education for all but chooses not to. That's a shame isn't it? The vast majority of those in power were privately educated and will privately educate their own children. Why should they care about the 90% of children whose parents have no choice?

The single most important thing that any government could do to improve the future of the nation would be to spend every penny available on education in order to release the potential of all children, not just those whose parents can afford it. What those children could achieve with the advantages currently only available to 10% of our kids. I am and have always been willing to pay more tax to enable this. I am south of the border so please don't think we were all the same Volver.

Why should the Cambridges break the mould and use their own children as an experiment?

I have friends whose children went through both systems, it’s just what suits each child, and obviously what you can afford.
I’ve never looked down on children who are in the state system, through activities out of school our children mixed with both, and there was nothing to differentiate between them.
I went to a state school, my grandchildren all go to state schools, but I’m glad we could give our children an education which best suited them.

merlotgran

Why should the Cambridges break the mould and use their own children as an experiment?

Thinking of royals past and present I wonder how well served they have been by their private schools in terms of academic success, emotional intelligence and happiness both during school days and in the long term.

Their likely 'place' in society is what differentiates them.

Prince Charles may have hated Gordonstoun but his life would have been even more hellish in a state school.

RichmondPark1

merlotgran

Why should the Cambridges break the mould and use their own children as an experiment?

Thinking of royals past and present I wonder how well served they have been by their private schools in terms of academic success, emotional intelligence and happiness both during school days and in the long term.

Perhaps some of that could be attributed to family circumstances rather than the schools they attended.

However, personality traits could be a large contributory factor two.

Too

Autocorrect is on the prowl.

Blooming No snobbery here just that at the time local senior school had a terrible reputation.

merlotgran

Prince Charles may have hated Gordonstoun but his life would have been even more hellish in a state school.

Hmm.

You've obviously not got a lot of information about what life is like at Gordonstoun.

volver

merlotgran

Prince Charles may have hated Gordonstoun but his life would have been even more hellish in a state school.

Hmm.

You've obviously not got a lot of information about what life is like at Gordonstoun.

I thought it was well-documented that Charles disliked his time at Gordonstoun?

It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the school, but perhaps it wasn't the right type of school for his personality.
His father loved his time there.

CoolCoco

I don't know why a state school couldn't be made as "safe" as a private one, presumably security could be employed, I'm guessing the taxpayer funds the royals bodyguards etc. Tony Blair's, and I believe Cameron and Gove's kid went to state schools in Westminster.

No, I don't understand it, either, CoolCoco.

Apart from a mention of 'undercover security' (what does this look like, I wonder?) no-one seems to have explained why schools ringed by security fences with controlled admission to visitors during school hours can't accommodate some extra security..

I'm getting cross about all the denigration of state schools. With funding cut, cut and cut again, over the past decade some of the shortcomings are not at all surprising. Exacerbated by cuts to other services, such as social work and mental health services. State schools are expected more and more to deal with deeply damaged children, with no outside support; even in school support has been severely cut back. State schools can't do anything about this. Private schools can just put up their fees...

Yes, there are not very good teachers in both the state and private sector, but most teachers in the state sector are trying to do their very best, in adverse circumstances, for the children they work with. I think that Teachers and ex teachers on GNet might well agree with me. Especially that things have got so much worse over the past 12 years...

volver

p.s. - we don't have academies in Scotland, at least not as you mean them. I don't think we have grammars or comprehensives either.

We just have "schools"

But some very expensive independent schools too!

I’m glad we could give our children an education which best suited them.

I'd be interested to know what it was that made private education more 'suitable' for some children? Can anyone explain further?

I’d be interested too.

Mollygo

You’re right about both those DaisyAnne.
I wonder if GN’s whose children or grandchildren went, or go to private schools could help out here.

For most of their primary years we were living abroad, so dds went to the only school available - the English Speaking School.

For their senior school we sent them to a highly academic selective independent school. I wouldn’t say we chose it exactly - rather the school chose its pupils via exam and interview.
One reason we applied was very good sports facilities, inc. an indoor swimming pool - by then dds had both been very good swimmers for years. But in the event, neither was interested in competitive school swimming.

In later years I did often think it’d have been better to send them to our local, excellent grammar school - they had both passed the 11 plus - but at the time, we thought we were doing our best for them.

They both did well at the independent (all girls) and dd1 was perfectly happy there, but sadly, dd2 wasn’t - there were some nasty little bullies in her year. She had also got a place at a slightly less academic mixed independent, and I’ve often thought she’d have been happier in a mixed school, but at the time she really wanted to follow her elder sister.

Like us, if they can afford it, presumably most people do what they think best for their children at the time.

I might add that given the increased cost of school fees, not to mention relatively much higher house prices now, very few of their old school friends send their own children to independent schools, and of those who do, most have help from grandparents. Our gdcs go to their local state primary - there’s never been a question of anything else.

There’s no need to ‘Hmm’ at me volver and you’re jumping to the wrong conclusion. I was referring to Prince Charles’ well documented unhappy time at Gordonstoun and I don’t need a lot of information about what life is like there. Princess Anne’s children speak very fondly of their time there.

That’ll do for me.

MayBee70

DaisyAnne

MayBee70

GrannyGravy13

volver if your local state school is falling down I suggest you complain to Ms. Sturgeon as education is devolved.

Whilst the U.K. has a choice of schools, Grammar, comprehensive, academy and private it’s down to parental choice. If they can afford school fees, I really don’t see why they cannot spend their money as they wish.

As for the Cambridge children, a prep school in Berkshire is preferable for their safety and privacy.

Because when people can send their children to private schools if they have the money they don’t care about the plight of children having to go to comprehensives. In Scandinavia, I believe, they don’t have private schools so it’s in everyone’s interest to make every school provide the best education as possible for every child, no matter what their background. My daughter left teaching because she was burnt out but also in despair at the lack of resources the school had.

Maybee, do you think that when people feed their children, they do not care about the plight of those who can't?

As has already been said, many families will use both systems for their family, aiming to find the best school for each child at different stages of education. It's also worth remembering that there are a proportion of parents who send their children to state schools who, once they are there, don't care about their input into the school or the system either directly or indirectly.

Scandinavia comprises Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland. Also, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and Åland. Each country runs their system of choice. They are not one political system. The system in Finland, which does not allow private schools, has been mentioned several times.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand the point you’re making. If a parent can’t afford to send their child to private school then the only choice they have is to go to a state school. And that child should receive as good an education as any education that can be paid for.

From the post I replied to, I'll take your last point first. You referred to Scandinavia as one country and extrapolated your argument based on this error. I was merely pointing out that "Scandinavia" is more than one country. Finland, which does not allow private schools, has a population slightly bigger than Scotland and a land mass about the size of Germany. Whilst it's an interesting example, it is a very different country. To the best of my knowledge (and this was your point, not mine) all the other countries you talked of, as if they were one, do allow private education.

In any discussion, not getting facts right makes the rest of the opinions offered suspect, that's all.

I can only speak for my family, two eldest went entirely through the state system, absolutely no complaints we are fortunate to have three very good state senior schools in the area.

Next child started in state primary, but wasn’t thriving, I do not blame the school. It was large three classes in each year and our child just got lost . When it came to fourth child starting school we had moved, next door but one is the local primary school and that was our choice (including moving number 3). On meeting the Headmistress and viewing the school DH was unconvinced and both went to private school (No. 3 absolutely flourished and No, 4 loved every second)

By the time No.5 was school age having been at a private Montessori nursery for three years we decided that the all girls private school which she was down for was not for her. We looked once more at the local (next door but one) primary and under a new Head the ethos of the school had changed and they went their. Extremely happy and successful for them.

Two of our GC now attend next door. Two also go to the school that No.3 initially attended and again under a different Head the school is unrecognisable from when they went, and GC are doing really well.

I would never knock state schools or teachers in this area.

I appreciate we were fortunate in that we could pay for our choices, and we will do the same for our grandchildren if it becomes necessary.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand the point you’re making. If a parent can’t afford to send their child to private school then the only choice they have is to go to a state school. And that child should receive as good an education as any education that can be paid for. MayBee

And that child should receive as good an education as any education that can be paid for.

Who says? I would agree that this is something I would want us to move towards, but I don't see why that should mean I must sneer at my neighbour if they use the system currently in place to give their child the best they can. Firstly, they may disagree with your view. Secondly, we have the system we have.

How does it enhance another child's education simply by any parent prejudicing their wish to provide what they consider the best they can provide for their child?

Fighting for a change of system is one thing. Fighting one another, whether it's the Royals, MPs or your neighbour, is pointless.

I hope that clarifies what I said. I'm sorry it wasn't clear the first time.

At least times have changed regarding the schooling of Royal children. The Queen and her sister did not go to school at all and Anne was 13 before she was sent to board. A governess was all that was required for them.
The British class system is so entrenched that it is inconceivable that Royal children would attend state schools.

I know in Norway there are no private schools so all levels have to send children to state schools therefore the highly enabled and privileged parents make sure they are up to scratch. If only we did the same instead of separating the successful/ wealthy/ privileged to ensure they get a better start and mix with other successful people. Shame. Ethical, honourable fair and impoverished people will send their children to the state school. Out of principle. Thst is why Liz Truss was sent to state school her parents could have afforded to send her to the local fee paying school but chose not to. The standards between the resources of the two schools was immense. Diane abbot sent her son to private school. Jeremy Corbyn went to private school. Liberty and Frances Truss go to a state grammar. A proper comprehensive system that hasn’t been creamed off is the Scandinavian model. And of course they are right.

I guess security is the main concern, it’s much easier to deal with that with smaller class sizes. I can’t think why you’d send your kids to a state school if you can afford to go private. State schools have stupidly big class sizes, that’s not good for anyone. You will absolutely receive a better education in a private school. State school teachers are in huge demand as their pay and conditions are awful. My 3 kids went to state schools and went on to uni but had they had the benefit of private education I’m sure they would have achieved more. My DG goes to a private school which is amazing, it’s brilliant but her Mum is a state school teacher and what those teachers have to put up with is shocking. Including having to have security guards. Dreadful.