WorkingMummy

I had my eldest two in private school for their first 7 and 4 terms of primary school life respectively. Looking back, I was silly to fall for the hype. I moved them to our local primary for non-financial reasons. We were coming up to 7+ Prep school exams for my eldest and the talk in the playground amongst parents (and from the staff, trying to guide me as to where my SIX year old?s academic talents were) made me want to run for the hills. When I realised parents at this private school (which was actually lovely in some ways, and not major league) were ALSO paying for additional tutoring outside of school to get their six year olds through the 7+, I was out of there. The pressure, competition and expectation on children in the private is sector is, IMO, unhealthy. When I moved the children to state, I have to say, the quality of their education improved. The curriculum was the same. State schools often have better class sizes. (Classes can be too small as well as too big.) We found a better mix of friendly, diverse families. And: we found better teaching; a broader, more creative approach to learning topics. As for secondary state schools, the ?outstanding? ED state schools are so oversubscribed and the catchment areas/chances in ballot so tiny, that my eldest now commutes to a ?needs improvement? school in Lewisham. She loves it. She?s doing very well. She has, for example, completely fallen under the spell of her dynamic English teacher (whose hair cut, never mind her politics, would probably exclude her from ever being considered for a post at a private school), and is now talking (aged 12) of wanting to do a degree in the subject. I would say, as long as a secondary school streams (not all do), you are most likely wasting your money going private. Don?t be fooled by exam results as so much of that depends on the ?standard? of intake, not the quality of the teaching or what your child, with their abilities, will achieve. If there are extra activities (music theory, oil painting, Ancient Greek) your kids are up for, it?s way cheaper (and possibly more inspiring to them) to pay for these outside of school. Clubs abound around here. And. Lockdown and zoom has made the prospect of top-up tuition even more affordable as many out of London tutors now advertise for London pupils from as little as ?20 per hour.) In my view, the whole private system is a wheeze: they ruthlessly select not only the kids that will do ?well? - but the kids you can already be sure will do ?well? by 11 - which is a tiny subset of kids. And then they cash in on the achievement of those ?dead-cert? children to sell themselves to incoming parents. My kids are bright, and quite demanding in terms of what they themselves want from school. I came to the conclusion I would not put them through the ringer of ruthless selection processes, just for the ?privilege? of paying a school to take the credit for (bright, interested) children?s results at 16 and 18. I?d also say, if you do go private your children will miss out on the absolutely priceless experience of learning and growing in an environment that truly reflects the society/country they are actually living in. It?s a very narrow strata at selective and fee paying schools.

I went to state school in the 80s. My three are now all at state. The quality of pastoral care at our local community primary school is outstanding. Far surpasses anything I had. The teachers are all very creative, clever people and their approach to mental health is well informed and sensitive. I personally would not opt into private education. I put my eldest child into a small friendly pre-prep. All very lovely. Until the run up to 7+ (which I never even knew existed) started and then I found that the chat at the school gates (between parents, about tutors and outcomes and hopes for university etc) became bad for my mental health. I believe children at a decent state school can find their own natural level - where they perform academically. I think the pressure of expectation and the ever earlier process of selection is...not fun for kids.

You too! Thanks Monkey!

School allocations are out today. Is anyone able to tell me quickly, if I need to do anything to get onto the waiting list for our first choice school? (We?ve been allocated our sixth choice.) Many thanks. WM

Thanks Bumpkin. Pretty sure I couldn?t forget about all this myself .... Agh.

Hi. Can any one tell me why the ED Charter recommends parents to submit their Southwark LA applications before this Friday? When the deadline is 31st?

Does anyone know if the water is on at Myatts today?

Picking holes in BLM, saying it suits America more than the UK, or critiquing the agenda - to me, it just 100% misses the point. Speaking as a privileged white woman, I consider myself to have zero right, zero place, to tell any minority group, or person, how to express their identity, or to vocalise their sense of injustice and oppression. Which is real. White people already dictate everything about the prevailing culture. We are represented by all the norms. We do not get to tell minorities how to express their own reaction to that. And as a woman - I have a lot to say about women's lives mattering. And just because women are a bit better represented in positions of influence and power, less likely to be raped, less likely to be forced into marriage, less likely to suffer FGM in this country than say....Saudi Arabia, I'll be damned if I'm going to speak out less whenever I confront sexism or male domination here at home. Which is daily. And if I started a movement here called - I don't know - female sexuality matters - and people criticised me for aping Saudi women's plight, I'd tell them, hell, to ....

Not bashing anyone. But I totally understand the BLM slogan and would not change it for a moment. White lives already matter. That is a given. The way the murder, mistreatment of white lives is reported in the media - already comes from a place where white lives matter. There is not huge institutional racism against white people, as there is against black. The context of the slogan is that white people are in the majority, and are the biggest influencer over cultural norms and standards of acceptability. (A woman's hour piece about black women who seriously have to debate with themselves - should I straighten/relax my hair, should I try to change my voice - ahead of a job interview, to look/sound more conventional - more white - spoke so loudly of this.) That is the context of the slogan. And if you are white (like me - I 100% include myself in this) you spend your time completely unaware of this. Because it doesn't shove itself in your face the whole time. It is not your immediate problem (or mine). Black lives matter. Black lives matter. We should all be saying it, with no fear at all that it diminishes the value of white lives. It doesn't!

The irony, when a thread about joy becomes an argument about petty theft. So, what Louisa describes is theft. No question. There's case law on it. First offence, you'd probably be let off with a fine. If you pleaded guilty.

When your dog can't find his ball in the long grass, and he springs up and down for it, tail wagging like mad.

Jonathan Sumption's new biography of Edward III is manageably small and great for taking the long view of the tension between England v Scotland v continental Europe.

Yes, PennyDreadful posted this link near the beginning of this thread. You can report anonymously, if you feel better that way. http://www.report-it.org.uk/report_a_hate_crime

she is awful. I bet the Tory party membership love her

Don't be daft. Democracy is no excuse for lunacy or abrogation of responsibility. Democracy would bring back hanging if given the choice. Democracy is mob rule, at its most extreme. And the Tories had way less than 50% of the actual vote at the last GE. They have a mandate to leave. They have no mandate at all as to what leave means.