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

Katie59

The one overriding fault with state schools in the UK is that reasonable standards of behavior are not enforced, many (most) other nations including the third world do.

It’s very hard to learn, even harder to teach when discipline is ignored, it’s nothing to do with deprivation, it’s because nobody cares.

I wouldn’t say that nobody cares - it’s just that some are too wet to enforce any discipline.

At a time when maths teachers were in short supply (maybe still are) a relative of mine, who’s certainly robust enough, finally resigned from teaching when a particularly wet and spineless head refused to exclude a boy whose disruptive behaviour culminated in actually throwing a dart at him in the classroom. And by that I mean a dartboard dart, not a paper thing.

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.

So what you want Yammy is a reduction to the lowest common denominator so all suffer equally.

I prefer a system where we do our best to make sure none suffer, and if that means that on the way to attaining it some suffer but it gets gradually fewer, it seems to me, not a perfect, but certainably a preferable scheme.

Yammy

Glorianny

Yammy

Galaxy

Yet Bridgewater in Scotswood is one of the best schools I have experienced in my professional capacity

That is now, you should have been in the area 40 years ago.
Convicted paedophile Deputy Head now in Durham Goal.
All Staff screened at N/C General for T.B.as one member was found to have it.
Rampant Shigella/dysentery that half the children caught and members of staff who still have health issues today brought in by children who had visited grandparents abroad and not been examined on return.
Psychologists visit every week.
Teachers threatened to be stabbed by Afghan children who were disturbed with what they had encountered.
Prevention of clubs from integrating of all Races and cultures by local prostitutes who threatened to tell.
A house was burned down by a family playing with matches.
Police visited reception classes to find children who were stealing money out of supermarket trolleys.
Yes, I could really see the Royal children in that environment.
I used it as an example and actually if you note did not name the school, I might add it all happened within two terms.
I'm really glad if things have improved for the staff and especially the children Bridgewater did not exist when I was there.

Heaven forbid the royal children should encounter any of the realities of living in an area of poor housing and inadequate services. That's only for those at the bottom of the pile.
The single mum fleeing domestic violence for example. Why should her children get a decent education?
Actually schools in that area have struggled for years providing for children whose life chances are limited through one factor or another, The staff working in them are amongst the most dedicated and committed people in the education sector. A lack of proper funding makes their job even harder.

To suggest that the people now paying for education wouldn't make a huge difference to the education of all children in this country is to ignore the obvious. If you are vocal, demanding and knowledgable about something you generally demand you are provided with the very best. If you know little, and have so many problems your life is difficult anyway, you accept what you are given, because it's easier that way. Add to this the fact that those better off parents will be paying more of a contribution through their taxes, so will naturally demand more is spent educating their children. Both of those would improve education in this country

I'm not saying that children from poor families should have to suffer these situations and I think the dedicated staff deserve the praise they very rarely get. I am saying thank goodness things have changed in SOME schools, though some poor children still have inadequate resources. Education should be equal for all but who is going to pay for it?
Barbara Castle tried to make equal opportunities for all when she got rid of Grammar schools. I wonder how many grans benefitted before she changed all. Teachers who work in these kinds of schools are worth their weight in gold.

Barbara Castle was never Education minister. Anthony Crossland introduced a requirement for a comprehensive system to be brought in. Although the first comprehensive was much earlier -1946.
I went to a grammar school, but I know there were many girls who had the ability but not the opportunity because of the 11+ system.

M0nica

So what you want Yammy is a reduction to the lowest common denominator so all suffer equally.

I prefer a system where we do our best to make sure none suffer, and if that means that on the way to attaining it some suffer but it gets gradually fewer, it seems to me, not a perfect, but certainably a preferable scheme.

You are deliberately being provocative.
I did not say I want every child to be at the lowest common denominator. I said I want all children to be given an equal chance. Some will benefit from the chance others will not there should then be provision for them to at least aim at the goal and achieve what their ability allows.Though where funding will come from is another matter.
Like Barbara Castle thought getting rid of Grammar schools would for the over 11's
Now argue with yourself.

Scotswood still faces many of the same challenges today and perhaps I am a communist ( which will be a surprise to some of those on the left who call me a pretend tory) as I think Billy in Scotswood is no different to the royal children.

Galaxy

Scotswood still faces many of the same challenges today and perhaps I am a communist ( which will be a surprise to some of those on the left who call me a pretend tory) as I think Billy in Scotswood is no different to the royal children.

I agree and I say hats off to teachers who work there both with the children and the parents. I do think all children be given an equal chance. Achieving it in any inner city area is difficult. I mentioned Scotswood because I had first-hand experience . I also worked in the special school where the children went when they could not cope with main stream.
Billy does need an equal chance with the Royal children he might be far brighter than them. I'm not a Communist but I do believe in a meritocracy.

MayBee70

There is an opinion in this country that our health care and education systems are world beating and it’s difficult to shake peoples belief in that. No matter how bad they both get people still think they’re good. House prices in the village where my daughter lives are very high because it’s in the catchment area of what used to be a very highly rated school. But recently it’s been making the news for all of the wrong reasons and is regarded as sub standard. Thankfully my daughter is an ex teacher and can bring my grandsons education back up to standard but not all parents can do that.

I have to hold my hands up, and say that I drove my son 14 miles each way to school every day (on my way to and from work) because our local comp is poor. He went to a different state school, which has an excellent reputation, and did very well there resulting in him being able to go to university which would never have happened if he had gone to the local school. Even in a totally state system i do think equality of education is a pipe dream unfortunately, because some schools will have more middle class catchment areas, will attract very good teachers, will have motivated parents who put their own time into both supporting their children’s education and to the school’s funds and extra-curricular activities. I’m as guilty as the next parent of wanting the best for my children and I don’t regret it, even though I know it’s not fair - it’s very hard to be altruistic when it would disadvantage your own children if you were.

It may be unrealistic to suggest that the Cambridges send their children to a state school, possibly there would be security problems.

However if it were possible it seems to me there would be two advantages.

Firstly these very privileged children would have the opportunity to meet normal children and see how the other half lives.

Secondly the people who look to the royal family for a lead might suddenly decide that they too could send their children to state schools and might exert political pressure to better fund the education system that most of our children and grandchildren are offered.

I agree with RichmondPark

I think education is such an emotive subject because we only get one chance. Maybe if schools could be more flexible with more mature pupils able to go back to school when they needed to rather than expecting everyone to go through the same system at the same age , there would be more satisfaction and less misery.
Where will the Royal children go after this Windsor private school? Eton I guess.

Casdon what you say sadly highlights what would continue to happen, even with a totally state system. We have no private primary schools near us, but the fight to get into the more successful primaries all with the same admission rules, involves moving house for some parents.

it’s very hard to be altruistic when it would disadvantage your own children if you were.
I don’t think there are many on here who would disagree with that.

I just feel sad that I brought my children up properly and to be kind and empathetic and be able to mix with a wide range of people and then they have to work with privately educated, insular people who don't have a clue and wont listen to anyone because of their own privilege. Something the Cambridge's proved when they went swimming in the sea Barbados in front of a crowd of protestors!

From the age of 3, until I was 11, I went to a private school, and from 11 until 18 to a state High School having passed the “scholarship” as the 11+ was known. I went to the former because as an only child with no children living near, my mother wanted me to make friends, and I could not start at a state school until I was five. There were boarders at both schools. As soon as I was old enough I walked to school by myself. Each morning I had to walk through a throng of boys heading for the secondary school and was jostled, called ‘posh’ and ‘snob’, etc, as was a friend who had to catch a bus with girls who went to the girls’ secondary school. The boarders at both schools suffered similarly as they walked to church on Sundays.

Unfortunately even then there was the culture of ‘them’ and ‘us’ whatever the reason for it. In an ideal world every child would have equal opportunities and receive a first class education in a school with reasonably priced uniforms, excellent sports facilities and pastoral care, but we are a long way away from Egalitarianism, so until that day comes I not only support the right of any parent to select the type of education their children should receive, but surely all parents want what is best for their child, so equally I support the right to pay for that education if that is their decision.

it’s very hard to be altruistic when it would disadvantage your own children if you were
Well said.

Parents paying for a private education also pay tax of all kinds which helps fund education for other children although they do not benefit themselves and yes, it does release a place at a state school for another child. It's not a case of just turning up at a state school and expecting your child to get a place even if it's the nearest school.

There is a certain conformity in state education which does not suit all children. If all children have to be educated by law in this system then some may fail whereas they may flourish in a more flexible type of school.

Where will the Royal children go after this Windsor private school? Eton I guess.
Even Charlotte?

JaneJudge

I just feel sad that I brought my children up properly and to be kind and empathetic and be able to mix with a wide range of people and then they have to work with privately educated, insular people who don't have a clue and wont listen to anyone because of their own privilege. Something the Cambridge's proved when they went swimming in the sea Barbados in front of a crowd of protestors!

I don't think you can generalise.

Not all privately educated people are insular, aloof, don't have a clue and don't listen.

Not all state educated people are kind, empathetic and able to mix with others.

I brought my children up properly
There's the key

Cheltenham Ladies’ College, Wycombe Abbey possible Callistemon. I have an idea that they did accept a few girls in the 70s/80s, but don’t know what happened to that!

volver

I do really understand why people - even left wing hypocritical loonies - feel they have to send their children to fee-paying schools because the education they would get elsewhere may not be up-to-scratch. But up-to-scratch education should be available to anybody who would benefit from it. And as long as we have the attitude in this country that money can buy you education, the state schools will never be good enough.

I agree that good education should be available for all, but that's not the case in the UK. There are some good state schools, but if you watched the 'Educating' series ('Educating Essex, Educating Yorkshire etc) you would see that the difference between those schools and private schools is enormous.
I realize that the 'Educating' series was a bit sensational but it showed me why people choose private education if they can afford it.

But up-to-scratch education should be available to anybody who would benefit from it

I agree but still think that I'm glad to live in a country where we have choice.

And as long as we have the attitude in this country that money can buy you education, the state schools will never be good enough.

Some state schools are good enough but I don't know if the attitude that money can buy you education is the reason.

Everything is underfunded, including education.

Callistemon21

^Where will the Royal children go after this Windsor private school? Eton I guess^.
Even Charlotte?

I'm not a betting person, but I don't think it will be Eton for several reasons.

The Cambridges are not interested in the poshest, snobbish school money can buy. Lambrook School's fees are actually cheaper than Thomas's where they have been attending for five years.
If their children are sporty, as it seems, there are far better options than Eton.
And yes, I think they will probably choose a mixed school in order to keep the siblings together.

privately educated, insular people who don't have a clue and wont listen to anyone because of their own privilege
Maybe those from Eton, but that is not true of hundreds of others I know.

If their children are sporty, as it seems, there are far better options than Eton

Millfield perhaps or Wellington College?

Be good if the Royal children became doctors, nurses, teachers and the like.
Prince William once did a work placement as a porter at the Royal Marsden hospital and was very happy there, seemingly.

Antonia

volver

I do really understand why people - even left wing hypocritical loonies - feel they have to send their children to fee-paying schools because the education they would get elsewhere may not be up-to-scratch. But up-to-scratch education should be available to anybody who would benefit from it. And as long as we have the attitude in this country that money can buy you education, the state schools will never be good enough.

I agree that good education should be available for all, but that's not the case in the UK. There are some good state schools, but if you watched the 'Educating' series ('Educating Essex, Educating Yorkshire etc) you would see that the difference between those schools and private schools is enormous.
I realize that the 'Educating' series was a bit sensational but it showed me why people choose private education if they can afford it.

Some people take the approach that education is bad so we have to pay for it ourselves.

Some take the approach that we should make it better for everyone.

I think you can guess which side I sit on.

Some people take the approach that state education should be excellent for all, but also think that the choice to go private should remain.

I find the remarks regarding the privately educated being insular and aloof as a generalisation which is out dated, off the mark and insulting.