Public school

DP had to move because of the Forces, M0nica - they had settled in one place before I arrived, so I did not have such an exciting childhood!

I think it could go either way jura, a child either becomes reserved and finds it very difficult to fit in or becomes more outgoing, determined to make friends and survive!

.. but the kids don't ! OH went to 6 different Primary schools- and socially, as well as educationally, it was so hard. How he managed to get into Grammar school and a top Medical school is amazing.

I agree Jalima it is not just forces children, but there is a difference between families where the moves come with the job (forces, diplomats, some employees in some big companies) and parents who choose to move frequently. The effect on the child is the same but in the second case the parents have the choice.

M0nica my DB went to seven primary schools before my DP decided to settle in one place (although DF was still in the Forces but was away as it was by then war-time). DB was then went to the local grammar school (but at that time fees had to be paid).

Let me say what a childhood as an army brat did to my education. 10 primary schools and 21 permanent addresses by my 21 birthday.

I only went to two secondary schools. because I went to boarding school at 12. If I hadn't I would have had three more changes of school in my secondary years including the final move in the Easter before I was due to take my A levels, where the chances of finding a school doing exactly the same syllabus as my previous school in the new area, would have been nil, assuming it was not too late to enter the exams. i could not stay in my previous school because it was in Malaysia, where I had no family or very close friends and my father was moving to Germany.

Boarding fees were available to all ranks and we had girls at school with me whose parents were not officers. The reason more children from the lower ranks did not go to boarding school was the result of their parents decision to keep them with the family.

I appreciate that much has changed but remember these rules were drawn up when people moved much more.

I taught children of army officers based in UK when they were in primary school. They went off to boarding school around about 9 even though their parents were still in the UK. This is a sweeping generalisation, a number do, but many do not.

When parents are looking ahead to a career of house moves, often at short notice. It makes sense to plan ahead for your children's education.

trisher

" I hope you all realise that the children of army officers have their school fees paid by the government when they have to board.

As for why people pay. Many realise their child is not the brightest and will sink in the large classes and overcrowded atmosphere of a state school."
--

If you read my posts trisher I have made on more than one occasion I have no issue with Private/Public Schools nor have I chastised anybody for sending / funding their children to Private/Public schools.

Other than making references to points I have not raised for the sake of arguing I do not follow what your personal post to me is about if I am being honest.

I have pointed out the hypocrisy of those who on one hand want to tell others how/where /why other parents should educate their children whilst they somehow do not include their own children, the ' Do as I say not do as I do' brigade.

trisher Tue 26-Mar-19 17:58:56

" Of course had you read the article properly POGS you would have realised that the writer was not advocating abolishing private schools, just of removing their charitable status and slanting university recruitment against them."
----

I Did read the article.

You have yet again made a statement about my posts that you have either falsified or at best twisted my words.

Can you point out out where I said the writer was advocating abolishing private schools.?

The army parents of the children I taught had never served abroad, had lived in the same place for a number of years and made no more moves during their children's education than many others and considerably less than some.

The downside of “freedom to choose” is when children who live within a short walking distance of an oversubscribed school cannot get in, when children living miles away can .

I have actually worked in a couple of open plan schools. One was extremely well run, had excellent results and was very popular. The other wasn't. The point is that any idea can work well if the will to make it work is there. Did I like open plan schools? no I didn't. But the one that worked well was a fantastic place to work and the children who attended it were very independent and capable.

So why was there a dash for Open Plan schools which did nothing for anyone?

'Or that their children are bright just deserve a wide ranging education'

agreed, totally. ALL children deserve this- and it should be a national priority- a clear choice.

We were denied the option to send ours to the nearby (but not catchment) state school because the Director of Education in our local area had a well known bias. We knew people who were allowed to swap but we were not - I suspect because we were perceived to be middle class.

I hope you all realise

Yes, teacher, we do.

'All schools will be open plan......'
kittylester my children were subjected to the disastrous open plan method of education but, luckily, there was another, more traditional primary school in the same area and they were able to transfer, despite not being in the catchment.
Laissez-faire open-plan resulted in chaos.

I hope you all realise that the children of army officers have their school fees paid by the government when they have to board.
Oh dear, that is what is known as twisting facts to fit political agenda.

All serving military personnel are entitled to apply for boarding school places for their children if they have to serve overseas and are moved from post to post. This is supposed to give the children some continuity in their education. They also used to provide schools in overseas locations where personnel were posted eg Germany. It does not just apply to the children of army officers. The children of other government officials serving overseas may get boarding school fees paid too. BA used to do the same for their personnel stationed abroad; I do not know if they still do.

I think that is totally fair if they have to serve abroad. Had no problem with that at all.
I agree with jura. Children should not have to have their education disrupted every two years or so because of their parents' careers.

Which is exactly why we helped with our elder grandsons school fees kittylester

jura2 I taught children of army officers based in UK when they were in primary school. They went off to boarding school around about 9 even though their parents were still in the UK.

At the State boarding school where I taught - I do believe the fees of all serving Forces children had their fees paid- and I think that is totally fair if they have to serve abroad. Had no problem with that at all.

But there are all sorts of reasons why parents choose private, but it is the fact that many we know who have done so, was because their child was not coping in larger classes. And I could not blame them - at all. I did have a lot more respect however for those who acknowledged that it was unfair and a real privilege- that they could opt out when other children could not.

But charity status should be taken away, for absolutely sure.

It is not widely known. It is actually a tax free benefit which few know about. Now if people want to pay for private Education that is up to them and arguably there was in the past a necessity for this because of the number of places the British army was stationed. Now it's just a perk and many of the people usng it work only in the UK and move no more than most people do.

And, of course we realise that the children of army officers have their fees paid by the government.

How patronising!

Or that their children are bright just deserve a wide ranging education and not whatever is on trend at the moment. See my earlier post.

'All schools will be open plan......'

Of course had you read the article properly POGS you would have realised that the writer was not advocating abolishing private schools, just of removing their charitable status and slanting university recruitment against them.
I hope you all realise that the children of army officers have their school fees paid by the government when they have to board.
As for why people pay. Many realise their child is not the brightest and will sink in the large classes and overcrowded atmosphere of a state school.

Jalima, yes of course I was talking about the UK since 1970 - but clarified that I myself did not grow up in a country where the 'Public School, private, state sector' did not apply- unless one was not very bright.

jura.

I made my position known on those points / questions in another post :-

" It is not the business of others to decide if a parent wishes to pay for their child's education as it is nobodies business if other people wish to pay for private health. Besides which some parents I have no doubt are not necessarily stinking rich as is supposed.

It does not follow that education makes a person a decent human being nor does it follow education makes you a shallow, uncaring person as the journalist eludes to, in my opinion. His own snobbery seems to elude him.

I find the journalist in the OP link to the Guardian is typical of those who cannot see beyond class warfare as it forms the basis of their political views. Class and Wealth are nothing more than a weapon to hit somebody over the head with in most cases. "