Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I taught at the same school that my 3 children

> attended, and it was fine. It helped that it was

> quite a large school so that I never had to teach

> a class that they were in(!) - I certainly

> wouldn't fancy that.



I don't think any responsible school (provided it's large enough, maybe v rural schools are an exception in the UK?) would have a parent as a child's teacher at school. It's a conflict of interest, surely?!

LOL I think you will find that one of the main attractions for many teachers/ancillary staff at private schools is that a main part of their package is substantially reduced school fees.

Eg half fees at Dulwich college for a full time lab technician- ?7k per child- 3 boys= ?21k mm

or at least it was 5 years ago when my friend did it.

Our children experienced both and the 'privileged' schools won hands down. They flourished, were nurtured and benefited in innumerable ways. Your children's impression is also so positive - go with that. In any school there is the chance that they will be picked on at some stage - some children can be cruel. In fact, our daughter was dreadfully bullied at the local school and not at the 'privileged' one that had a holistic approach to education and the welfare of each child was truly their paramount consideration, and not just hype. Btw, our children still have friends from both schools they attended. Imho, grab the opportunity.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It's called The Restorative Place. Also, the Fired Earth storefront is under offer too, apparently. How exciting...!
    • Perhaps the view is that there are fewer people needing social housing in London, going forward, or to cap it as it is rather than increasing it. We already see the demographic changing.
    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...