11 stupidly expensive gifts for pampered preschoolers

Researchers say that raising a baby costs more than £180,000. We say, these people obviously don't know where to shop.

The dedicated parent can easily make their way through that sum in the first few years. Here, a starter list of some of the most fabulous baby bling around:

1. Silver Cross Balmoral - £895

After all, it's called the Bentley for Babies, with style that the brochure describes as "pure pram glam" - all chrome and leather with hand-sprung chassis and hand-spoked wheels. Spring for a black uniform with hat for your chauffeur (aka nanny) to complete the picture. At Harrods.

2. Armani baby bottle - £34.95

For your child to develop good taste, you must feed it to him from birth. If you just can't fathom buying a baby a bottle from Armani, pick up one from D&G or Dior instead. At Harrods.

3. Armani dummy - £22

Oh come on. You're just having a laugh, now. http://www.twfashion.co.uk/product_detail.aspx?s=011190331155

4. Tiffany feeding set - £320

Tiffany baby items range from the adorable (Tiffany Meadows 3-piece baby set in bone china, £90) to the elegantly luxe (Limoges alphabet boxes, £125; sterling silver bunny bank, £780; Paloma Picasso sterling silver porringer, £290). While the sterling silver Tiffany baby rattle used to be a traditional gift for infants in the US (£160), these days, why not pick up the Elsa Peretti Padova baby set to ensure that the silver spoon (along with fork and baby cup) are inserted into baby's mouth as early as possible? At Tiffany.com

Elsa Peretti Padova baby set

Baby rattle

5. Missoni mint and pink baby vest - £209

This impossibly stylish vest has the signature Missoni zig-zag stripe on the chest. Missoni lovers can also get a baby sling made from Missoni fabric from the US - or at least they could before the item sold out, from the Etsy website. Missoni vest, available from Harrods.

6. D&G baby moccasins with shearling lining - £87.95

Exquisite, butter soft and very fashionable footwear for someone who never walks. Available from Harrods.

7. Baby Dior pink snowsuit with silver buttons and fur-trimmed hood - £110

The only thing to wear in Val d'Isere. From TW Fashion

8. Corsican Paris Iron Canopy Baby Crib - $3,349

A cast iron canopied bed fit for the dribbling, non-speaking, incontinent princess. http://www.minitots.com/store/detail~Corsican-Corsican-Paris-Iron-Canopy-Baby-Crib_1253.htm

9. Bunny and butterfly chandelier for your baby's room - $465

Is a chandelier made with a bunny, butterflies and feathery white trim the height of sophistication? You decide. http://poshtots.com/catalog/Bunny-and-Butterfly-Chandelier//10547/product_detail.asp

10. Baby chic bassinet - $850

It takes a parent with a certain sense of drama and perhaps no bad associations with the bassinet from Rosemary's Baby to fully enjoy this item. http://poshtots.com/catalog/2364/Baby-Chic-Bassinet-with-Linens/2364/16458/product_detail.asp

11. Angel flight crib - $2,350

Hand painted "by talented artists" and featuring flying cherubs. Sweetly anachronistic or creepily twee? http://poshtots.com/catalog/121/Angel-Flight-Crib/121/14048/product_detail.asp

Comments

[Rachel]

I'm glad I'm not an alpha mummy. Reading these comments just shows how truly ignorant and incapable of independant thought you all really are, despite your obsession with education. Beneath all of your arguments is the basic assumption that going to university and earning a high salary are the only signs of success in life. (Woe betide SM's daughter if she falls in love with a plumber or somebody whose mother has had a bout of depression! She would be disowned.)
I'm so glad that my mother encouraged me to follow my vocation to train as a nurse (despite my 3 As at A level - from a comprehensive school in the countryside by the way) as I have met some wonderful people who are not obsessed with money, and have not had to spend my working life with narrow minded consumer drones like yourselves.

[supermother]

Yes, some of my children have done dull jobs and even the Caribbean one was hard work - looking after the beloved offspring of alphaparents.

On universities some people do courses with work placements too and don't have all the holidays. My daughter's friend who graduated and moved to a job on over £60k worked most holidays for the bank he's now at. Most law students are recruited from those who have worked at the firm's vacation schemes etc

Some say making your children have debts makes it more likely they will take the course seriously and get a proper job after it. I haven't gone down that and we have a deal that I pay if they graduate debt free but I don't support them after that.

I've never taught in a university (the pay is too dire) but I am sure they would argue that they need those months off to research and do the other parts of their roles, paid on the basis of numbers of reports published etc.

[Lisa]

Apologies Supmermother for misreading your post. Actually, though some of the places I worked were terriblly dull (retail can be mind-numbingly boring), some of them, despite terrible working conditions, were fabulous, and I made really good friends that I'm still in touch with. I think what's important is learning to make the best of all situations, and being able to learn from all situations.

[Jane]

I think they need SOME experience of macjobs, just not too much! Just enough to make them grateful they are at uni and to inspire them to work harder so they don't end up in macjobs all their lives.

I am unsure that spending three years at uni getting deeper into debt is the best thing to do, if you could do a first degree in a third less time. From what I can see students spend five months of the year not at uni - that's not very efficient to my mind. Yes, it depends how much vacation essays etc they have to write, but why not extend the term time and get them to do the work in term? I do suspect the whole five months 'off' business is more for the convenience of the uni-staff than for the students.

One good thing that does seem to be emerging from imposing fees is that students are now demanding that they get value for money from their fees, and not to be bummed off with, as I heard on the radio, nothing better than a library card! Maybe the quality of teaching will improve where it needs to. (Yes, I appreciate that not all university researchers make good teachers, nor vice versa!)

There does seem to be a lot of 'pot luck' when it comes to how well courses are taught and how good the teachers are, especially when it comes to tutors. (Though, again, yes, some students aren't worth decent tutors either, because they basically CBA to knuckle down to study)

[supermother]

I thought you were complaining about having to work all university holidays in dull places. I am sure my daughter had as much experience of different people working somewhere like the Caribbean as if she were in Macdonalds in London. I think it's good for them to work in university holidays (and the extent to which parents fund their children at university is a very interesting topic with no right or wrong answers to it) but if they don't have quite so much debt it does ease things a bit. I graduated without debts and I'm glad my work allows me to ensure my children will.

[Jane]

I certainly agree with the principle that all of us should spend some time doing a horrible low paid menial job, just so we realise how horrible doing them is, and not only be grateful to those stuck doing them, but also to inspire us not to get stuck doing them (though in a well ordered world we'd all take our 'fair share' of the necessary horrible jobs)

[Lisa]

Hm. Well, as lovely as swanning around the Caribbean would've been, I am actually very glad that I did spend my summers doing shift monkey work. For a start, I have learnt to deal with all manner of people, from screaming irrational chefs, to people who are just so lovely and polite, you want to take them home and keep them forever. As for the reasons why I worked was not because my mother was on her knees scrubbing the kitchen floor etc., but because I was unable to get a student loan because of technicalities involving my date of arrival in the UK.
However, because of having all those crap jobs and the skills I learnt from them, I now have a job that many would kill for, advanced to the next corporate level two years faster than normal, now have a more senior position than the Caribbean swanning individuals and earn more than them.

[supermother]

One way you can avoid your children working in macjobs all university holidays for low pay whilst jealous of their fellow students have been to exotic locations and are relatively rested (see post below) is to be an alpha mother, get off those knees scrubbing the kitchen floor, carve out a well paid career. In a sense there is that duty to our children and yes yo might get a bit of pleasure working in the local charity shop or just working out ready so you look good for your husband in true Stepford Wife fashion or whatever but if you have a proper alpha job as a woman not only will you be a lot happier but you can aid that university experience to the benefit of your own children when the time comes..... And I think mine who have gone abroad or worked abroad surely anyone of any class or education could do that. I don't think there were class qualifications for my daughter's job this summer in the Caribbean, just a lot of work, research, effort on her part to get that job.

[kieransmum]

Jeez I knew there were disadvantages to living in the North, but I didn't know they were so big. Supermother was right all along! Get me to South London now!

[Lisa]

KM, give it time. When I first moved over, you could only get your South African basics (rooibos tea, Mrs Balls Chutney) from specialist S'African or health shops. Now they're everywhere! Soon, boerewors will be everywhere, though biltong has already taken over south west London.

[Jane]

J, I agree. One good way 'in' though is to volunteer to help with something or other (schools always have 'something or other' they want parental help on!), even if it's nothing to do with what your own children are doing. Because that way, if you interact with staff in any way, or other pupils, you can find out a lot of what is going on, plus you become a more familiar face,including one that staff are more likely to 'like' because they know you are off your backside for the school!, plus you actually start to learn your way around the school. I help with a sixth form activity, nad it's been a very useful knowlege gaining exercise.

Plus of course it's a good way for parents to 'put something back in' and help support the school. Also makes you appreciate all the 'extra-curricular' work that staff put in, eg, going to events held in the evening simply to support their pupils and I very much doubt they are on time and a half for working unsocial hours!!!

The PA is another excellent way of 'getting in' though it can depend on who is 'running' the thing as to whether you feel you fit in. I don't much with mine, though I'm sure it's more a question of just 'those who run it' rather than the rank and file, but I tend to avoid it for cultural/class differences.

[J]

Can I add an extra element which is how much the parents participate?

At primary school it seems so easy to be part of the system. You normally take'n'drop and help with something. By secondary the kids do their own commuting. It seems much harder to make it work.

Point taken about the twinning system Lisa - that does make a big difference. To be fair the classes I saw in Khayalitsha and elsewhere were at the rough end of even township schooling. As for UK, I meant integrated classwise rather than racially, but I do take your point that you were in a privileged section of society here as well so that may make your comparison fair enough. Certainly English children are very much less grateful for opportunities here, mainly I think because they don't know any different and feel 'entitled', is that wrong or not? I don't know.
On your other point - yup, white South African mothers who worked have always had a hard time.
I have a South African friend of seventy, who worked as a teacher when her children were already school-age. The night before she was due to start work, her mother rang to tell her she kept having dreams about her grandchildren starving to death and it was a divine sign that she wasn't to start work!
On whingers: there are whingers in all nations, I am probably oversensitive to expat SA whinges because I hear them so often. But you know what you SHOULD be complaining about? The lack of decent boerowors and biltong except at exorbitant prices over here. Now that really is a scandal. We can get Polish sausage in the supermarkets now, so why not that?

[Lisa]

one further thing to add in defense of South Africans you encounter in the UK, if you think we're bad, you should meet our parents. One of the reasons I started reading the alphamummy blog was to find out what women's experiences are of having children, working, not working etc. after being told repeatedly while growing up (and now as well) that a woman's place is in the home with her children. And that's it. I can only think of a handful of woman my mother's age (grandmothers now) who worked at any point after having children. I also recently found out that my mother was fired (way back when) when she told her boss that she had fallen pregnant, and hence would be leaving in six months time. Shocking.

[Lisa]

Yip. You've spotted the white South African, and I do know that as a group we do whinge a lot. About everything.
I did leave a while ago, and I understand from other South Africans who have come over more recently that the school system has deteriorated somewhat in the old country. However, I did go at times to schools in townships (as my school had a twinning programme with one of them), and it may be looking at it with hindsight (and hence 20:20 rose tinted vision), but the children did seem to appreciate everything they had and were, on the whole, really lovely. As for my experience of schools in the UK, the sixth form college was in a predominantly white, middle class area. In fact, thinking back on it, I can't recall a single person who wasn't white, so I don't know if it's integrated schools at all.
I agree with Jane that maybe uni students here would benefit from more intense courses, or else (for many people I went to uni with) the reality of what a privilege they have been granted. Obviously, this does come from someone slightly bitter who spent their summers working shift monkey jobs for barely minimum wage while some of my fellow students went on exciting holidays to exotic locations, and came back rested and ready to face the new term.

[kieransmum]

That made me laugh out loud, WB, it is wonderful.
Lisa - just to add, having read through my post I wanted to reassure you that I am NOT accusing you of being racist, subconsciously racist, racist by default, culturally insensitive or any of those shibboleths, it is just that I have heard a lot of white South Africans complain about the same thing and I have tended to find they have little or no experience of township education. So my apologies if what I've written comes across as aggressive - it wasn't meant that way, but when I re-read it I thought it might.

[kieransmum]

That made me laugh out loud, WB, it is wonderful.
Lisa - just to add, having read through my post I wanted to reassure you that I am NOT accusing you of being racist, subconsciously racist, racist by default, culturally insensitive or any of those shibboleths, it is just that I have heard a lot of white South Africans complain about the same thing and I have tended to find they have little or no experience of township education. So my apologies if what I've written comes across as aggressive - it wasn't meant that way, but when I re-read it I thought it might.

[Wonderbra]

I just thought I'd rather pooterishly add that there is definitely natural selection in the world of Silver Cross prams; Someone gave us a very smart one with a crest. It hated being in the West Country where there are no pavements and my children loathed it, wailing and trying to get out from a very early age, evidently realising that they were way above their station. Not aiming high enough or just bumpy and uncomfortable, who knows? But they never slept in it and it was hardly ever used, until our dog suffered for a very long, sad time, finally dying of cancer. He loved going out in the pram, as being a tiny dog, he had never had such a privileged view of his surroundings and he could no longer walk. When he died, I couldn't bear to look at it, so I gave it away. Anyhow, those prams really do belong in Hyde Park with a uniformed member of staff.

[kieransmum]

Lisa - do you mean South Africa or South Asia or South Australia? If you meant any of the latter, apologies - I'm answering as though you were from South Africa.

Are you a white South African, and when did you leave? The reason I ask - as someone who has many South African friends and relatives, and has lived and worked there - is that white South Africans in the UK often complain about this country, the working-class attitude to education, behaviour in schools, etc. Did you spend time in South Africa in a black or coloured-majority school, in one of the formerly disadvantaged areas such as Soweto or Khayalitsha? I have, and I promise you, there are worse standards of behaviour amongst the students than anything I have ever seen in England. Sure, many black kids are desperate to be educated but in many schools just as here a minority of angry alienated youth are out to wreck the system and make life hell for everybody else.
Poor disempowered underachieving groups tend to produce impossible-to-manage classrooms, it doesn't matter where they are in the world. White South Africans in general were educated in a highly segregated educational system where they were only amongst a social elite (still are today, in many ways, with black middle class joining the white in some areas, rather than empowerment of the majority). Then they come to England and when they see an integrated school system they are puzzled as to why some students are less motivated than their friends were back home.
I just want to point out that you are not necessarily comparing like for like.

[supermother]

People might find the genetic elements repulsive but they are a fact that you can't get away from. When my sister was choosing the donor for her children all those kinds of things could be checked and people do subtlely or subconsciously do a good few checks when they're picking a partner too.

(Colyton Grammar school is 28 on the state and private school league tables, that's true, credit where credit's due - it's the 3rd best state school in the country behind Herietta Brnette and QE Barnet).

As for children not appreciating their university education that will be true for some. I have 3 there at the moment so I know huge numbers of all kinds. I do think the 3 years and long holidays are great though in terms of personal development. My daughters have done such life enhancing things, grown up so much through working abroad etc in university holidays.

[Jane]

I don't really think that starting school at four is particularly linked to students abusing their educational opportunities, more that they need a good slap and told to be grateful for living in the UK etc etc etc. Perhaps one good thing to come out of the uni-fees situation now is that finally maybe students will NOT take tertiary education for granted (pun intended!). Maybe now they realise they are going seriously into debt will wise them up as to the tough economic realities of life. (I speak as someone who did not so wise up - and have paid the consequences of being allowed to muck about at uni!!).

As to uni-fees, I wonder if it would help if uni courses were two years intensive rather than three years with five months holiday... what's the point of having all that holiday if you just earn rubbish Mac-wages??

As to starting school so early, I'd probably agree that school per se is not the right place for a child that young, but obviously they do need some kind of approrpirate education/mental and social stimulation - ideally a mix of good home care and part time nursery education should do it.

It angers me that if you want your child to be in a particular primary school you HAVE to start them in reception class - you can't just home ed them for a year and join them in in year 1 or 2.

[annamac]

Is there an inherited gene which governs trolling on blogs?

[Lisa]

I came over from SA when I was 17 into an excellent 6th form college, and noticed some key things. first of all, like the Pakistani and Indian immigrants that SM has spoken to, in general, British people do not appreciate the educational opportunities that are presented to them. Obviously, there are some appalling schools, but students are also provided with facilities and opportunities for free that children in other countries could only dream about. Even at sixth form level, and following on into a Russell Group University, many students just didn't care. At sixth form they would sit and text each other during class, not hand in work, talk over the teacher, and at University, they would much rather get drunk than attend lectures. There was a prevailing view that "first year doesn't count, so you don't have to do anything", which very often continued into subsequent years. One thing that has come up in various studies as to why British students are under-performing is because they start school so young. Four is not the sort of age a child (unless they have the inclination to do so) should be stuck in a classroom for hours at a time, being force fed reading and numbers. Countries like Germany, Scandinavian countries, France etc. only start school at 6/7 and kids consistently out-perform British children by the age of 11, despite the late start. I think this is for a variety of reasons: at an early age, you learn through play and being given the opportunity to explore, develop imagination etc. is much better for younger children. Secondly, having been stuck in school from the age of 4, by the time most children get to 16 they're totally fed up with school and can't wait to leave.

[margot]

Supermother - argh! Stepping away from this now, as I disagree so strongly with so much of this, I can't actually formulate a coherent sentence. This will teach me to keep my private life to myself in future - my gut instincts were right.

[j]

"(Depression is partly genetic as is schizophrenia and propensity to alcoholism etc ... which means picking the right genetic father for children is equally as important as schools. I would put it at 50% genes and 50% environment)."

or indeed, the right mother, SM.

Tell me, at what point did you have your fiances genetically screened? I find it so hard to introduce into general conversation..and then there's the pesky problem that they haven't cloned the schizophrenia gene yet, darn it, and people keep getting these spontaneous mutations...

[j]

"I think children brought up in the SE probably find things easier than those removed to rural Devon by parents seeking some idyll which might well suit them when they're getting on a bit in their 40s but isn't much fun for most teenagers when the only evening entertainment is glue in the bus shelter and most children go to the local comp and don't emerge with many exams and then there aren't many local jobs to go to."

Would that be the top-ranking Colyton grammar school you had in mind, SM, or Churston Ferrars? or maybe Torquay Boys grammar, or Torquay Girls grammar...

Oddly enough they are the same top-ranking state day schools that you referred to in your own post about how much better day education is than boarding.

Cant have it both ways, you know....

[supermother]

The feckless hapless poor were as much a part of England in 1500s as in 1850 as in 2007, surely. The difference now is it is easier to gain social mobility because of educational opportunities - it's better, not worse. May be for a short period some of the poor were radicalised enough to ensure we got our first labour Government and introduced the welfare state but not most of them.

(Depression is partly genetic as is schizophrenia and propensity to alcoholism etc ... which means picking the right genetic father for children is equally as important as schools. I would put it at 50% genes and 50% environment).

[Jane]

"Doesn't matter how rich the family or whatever if your parents verbally abuse or neglect you or you've inherited a propensity to depression or whatever you probably will find life tough."

Quite agree (apart from the depression comment - seems a bit negative thinking to say it's genetically inherited!).

I would point out that 'rural life' has changed enormously even in my generation. I was brought up in the country, and in my childhood the middle class children were educated privately (possibly at some of the 'not very good' private schools mentioned earlier!) and only the 'lower orders' went to the state schools. This doesn't happen nearly as much any more. Incomers have changed the very 'upstairs/downstairs' hierarchy an awful lot (and given locals somethign to unite against perhaps!)

"Strange, then, how I managed to get 4 excellent A levels (at my comprehensive school), a place at a top university, and subsequently a London University MA"

I would say the question to pose then is how 'unusual' or 'usual' you were amongst your contemporaries? I think the points made earlier about 'expectations' are very valid, and if a child is 'expected' to do well (or, negatively, badly) then they are more likely to perform accordingly.

I'd also say, again simply from the point of view of my own generation, that it is only in the current generation that we are seeing, I believe, the gross descent into 'underclassism' in this country. Up until about twenty years ago the working class was politically conscious, and therefore could be highly aspirational - either to become embourgioused (damn that spelling again!) or working towards the revolution. I think, post-Maggie, there's a lot, lot less of that around now, hence the growth of the underclass. However, this may all just be my middle class intellecutalised analysis!

[supermother]

But may be the Margo youth might have been easier if it weren't in that area was my point and yes people can succeed from all kinds of backgrounds. It's often interesting to see what they end up with though - sometimes they do well but then go back to where they are from and end up a housewife married to a plumber despite the good education or they decide to settle in the SE or abroad and do even better than their brilliant results suggested.

I have this gut feeling that if children go to a good school with high expectations then even if they don't do their best in exams or in the start of their life they tend to end up not doing too badly - people like Branson who went to a private school are coming to mind here. So even if they drop out later they seem to be able to get back on track, use their contacts, accent, abilities they learned at school which if they dropped out of the local sink comp isn't so easy. Or is that just money in the family which makes that possible?

[annamac]

I would agree that life in isolated villages with poor public transport links can be hellish for teenagers. However, as long as parents are prepared to taxi their offspring around to make sure that they do not lose out, it seems to work fine. I have to say that village life is not for me, but I do enjoy living in a small market town with good facilities. And living 7 minutes walk from all 3 of the schools my children attend/ will attend is pretty good too. Being 15 minutes drive from the beach is a joy. Wherever I lived, I would pretty much expect my children to go away to university (should they want to go / get a place). I would also expect them to want to broaden their horizons by wanting to live and work somewhere else.

[kieransmum]

I think the point about country life versus city life is more complex than this debate really has space for (although god knows, we're covering everything else). But I would suggest that rural Devon is not an idyll or a dead end any more than London is hell on earth or the bright lights. Teenagers are happy where they are, or unhappy where they are, depending on their personality.
Of course it is great to live in London and have the V and A down the road, but it is also great to be able to go for a nice walk. As a teenager, I appreciated the latter and was glad my parents were bringing me up in the sticks.

[margot]

Keiransmum wrote, to Supermother,
"Surely it is more the life chances in general that you provide for your children, by way of good education and upbringing however you choose to define it, than postcode or region, that define whether they end up on the dole or not."

I second that. Supermother, I don't normally refer to my own experiences in these sorts of arguments because I think that kind of anecdote is largely pointless, but I'm afraid you're pushing all my buttons here with your ill considered and snobbish remarks. I grew up the daughter of teachers in South Wales in the 70s and 80s. It wasn't a bundle of laughs. My holiday job was in a library on a council estate with 80% male unemployment. Strange, then, how I managed to get 4 excellent A levels (at my comprehensive school), a place at a top university, and subsequently a London University MA.

[supermother]

I have spoken to so many immigrants who came here from Indian and Pakistan principally so their children can take advantage of what to some of use appear to be poor state schools but for them are absolutely wonderous free education of a high standard so there is certainly something to be said for some people not appreciating what they have and some families not being into education at all, although we're making a judgment even over that in saying an educated type life is somehow better than a manual work / no books in the house life.

On life chances I would put at the top of my list children's genes and how they are loved and treated in their first 7 years. Doesn't matter how rich the family or whatever if your parents verbally abuse or neglect you or you've inherited a propensity to depression or whatever you probably will find life tough.

But assuming all things are equal I think children brought up in the SE probably find things easier than those removed to rural Devon by parents seeking some idyll which might well suit them when they're getting on a bit in their 40s but isn't much fun for most teenagers when the only evening entertainment is glue in the bus shelter and most children go to the local comp and don't emerge with many exams and then there aren't many local jobs to go to. There's just a higher expectation in general in all kinds of things in the SE. I suppose historically parents like that sent children to board but that can be damaging to their psyche.

If it were virtual poverty on a teacher's salary in London commuting for an hour to school ( we know many teachers supporting families in that fashion in London) or the better house, garden, nice out of London country town then you may be right and the children may be better off. But it is fascinating how many of those top 100 schools are in the SE. Is that because clever people live there or the teaching is better or the money is there? Or perhaps it's simply that London has more people living in it than the whole of Scotland.

[Jane]

KM - I think what you illustrate is that poverty/wealth per se is not the real metric, but rather 'family culture' for want of a better word. I know that even if we were dirt poor financially, my 'family culture' would still be'intellectual' and therefore my children's chances would be pretty good, because of that, whereas say, if I was a 'nouveau riche chav' and my 'family culture' consisted of non-intellectual pastimes/interests, then my children would not have much chance of becoming anything other than what I was myself. OK, it's a personal choice, but I suspect I'd rather be poor and 'intellectually rich' rather than rich and 'intellectually poor' (but not VERY poor, I have to say!!!!!)

What saddens me enormously is that we all KNOW that the easiest way out of the poverty trap is via education, and that the poor wretched 'derelict children' that we see 'causing trouble' are doomed to go on being the underclass because they don't seem to grasp that truth. In some respects it makes me very angry with them, as we have SO MUCH free education etc in this country, and to have it all there, and not take advantage of it, makes me lose all sympathy (yes, I know that their 'culture' is anti-educational, and so many of them suffer from the utmost emotional deprivation and neglect and abuse etc - but it's like watching someone starving to death in a room full of food that's on a table they won't help themselves from....)

[kieransmum]

Thanks for replying, Supermother, and I take your points. FWIW, I wasn't intending to imply that you were deliberately teaching your children to despise others, but that could be an unintended consequence. But I completely take your point that there is a difference between views expressed on a website and an atmosphere at home.
I won't pick you up on the SAHM issue because I think we've disagreed about that before at length.
On one area I would like to challenge you, though, that living in poorer areas of Britain damages children's life chances. I'm really not sure it does, especially if you are married to an 'impoverished academic,' for example! We are able to afford a mortgage on a large three-bedroomed house in a very respectable area on one junior academic salary (my parents helped us find the deposit but the mortgage responsiblity is wholly ours) and our children can go to an extremely high performing local state school. In London we could probably not pay the private rent for a flat in a sink estate. I am very aware that we have a completely different lifestyle than we could afford in the South. Surely it is more the life chances in general that you provide for your children, by way of good education and upbringing however you choose to define it, than postcode or region, that define whether they end up on the dole or not.

[supermother]

Well best to aim high, not low. Aspirations can be higher in the private sector. On pupil numbers the better academic private schools at secondary level would have 25 pupils or more but if you’re doing whole class teaching with clever children that’s very manageable. The teachers have higher qualifications on the whole in the private sector. More will have degrees from better universities. What is important is an ability to control a class plus children who tend more often to behave and usually you get that in the private sector.

I never said private is better per se. I am certainly against the ethos that you throw money at things like the NHS etc and you get things better. That does not always work. There are a lot of bad private schools set up in someone’s home where you would be an idiot to send a child. I say look at that list of the top 100 schools in the UK private and state (18 state schools are on the list) and choose from that – in the Sunday Times last weekend. That is as good a marker as anything and also they will have brilliant facilities, music, caring environment, good grounds, sports too in most cases so you get a great overall package.

Replying to the post below of kieransm.. Never would I teach my children to despise others less fortunate than they are. Why would anyone? We are not that kind of family. If my posts seem so then that is not how it is at home. However I do want them to be the best they can be, to use their talents where they choose to and that’s likely to be achieved by sending them to the best schools. I never sneer at others and they have gone to fairly mixed (socially, religiously and culturally) kinds of schools – the sort with lots of poor-ish people (in my terms) who struggle to meet the fees but are very clever sort of schools rather than the boarding school in the country type. So what they see I hope is acceptance of all their own differences and the choices they have at home and at school. I have bought them choice in a sense but I would never stop them doing what they want. I have given them the tools to do what they choose in life but then they are free to choose whether they become nuns or charity workers or impoverished academics or work in the City.

It is true that living in the South East will give children more chances. There is less chance of them ending up on the dole here. That does not mean I despise people who choose to live in poor parts of the UK but it is certainly the case that many parents move to mprove their chidlren’s opportunities – indeed many of our best achieving immigrant communities have moved entire continents to achieve the same benefit and good for them.

Finally there are some objective truths and I do not mind stating them, in all kinds of areas even if other cultures or groups in society accept them – from FMG being wrong to women kow towing in domestic subservience to men whilst not playing an active economic role in society. I am happy to keep repeating that that it does girls, adult women and other women no good if you opt out of work as women. It is disgusting and sooner we get neutrality over who will sacrifice their career on the altar of domestic subservience assuming either has to, the better. When the cabinet, all boards and all senior positions in the UK are well over 50% held by women then we might consider letting women choose to be housewives again but not before.

[J]

Lazy mummy, on the red ink thing..

Even at work a friend recently found someone got terribly angry when he gave feedback on her draft in red ink instread of a more non-aggressive colour. Apparently it reminded her of school. And people using "track changes" in Word often turn the colour of their inserted comments to pink, have you noticed? or purple, nice non-aggressive choice with a touch of emperor... in Excel a comment comes up blue..

Seems we never grow out of it!

[annamac]

There was an interesting article in the Economist a while back on research based on the PISA study (UK pupils are just not performing as well as they should when compared to how pupils in other education systems are doing). The researchers' policy recommendations are all to do with getting the best teachers - and this does not mean paying super-high (ahem, alpha?) salaries, because the countries where teachers get high salaries (Germany and Switzerland, to name two) don't do well in the tables either. It means raising the status of the professions by making to entrance requirements really tough, thereby recruiting from the cream of graduates - particularly at primary level. So, hooray for those "alphas" who don't say that earning a fat-cat salary is the be-all and end-all - and have a vocation to teach. (And hooray for all the parents who actually take proper responsibility for their children's behaviour.)

[J]

Do fee paying schools have to teach KS1 etc?

I only know one fee-paying school- the one I use for my eldest. There's no KS assessment and not much coursework either (separate science awards and IGCSE for maths).

The real point though is that they are lucky enough to be able to teach kids who learn for the fun of it, and exams are not the aim of the education. The last inspection says "pupils regret openly that the approach of public examinations might limit the pace of new learning..pupils frequently go beyond the limits of the syllabus and feel constrained by its formal requirements..here the pupils do indeed take pleasure in the life of ideas".

Partly this is possible because the boys are a small cross-section of the IQ range, so the school has the confidence to take top grades for granted. With a different cross-section of kids you can only get the same culture if the head has the confidence to let some kids miss their grades in the interests of a real education, and not force them through the hoops as efficiently as possible. But we, and the league tables, make it hard for them I think to have that confidence now.

So agree with Wonderbra, every kid deserves to be at annamac's school. The question might be, what could we do to help that along? voting doesnt seem to make any difference.

[Jane]

I agree that there is no point educating anyone if there is no feedback on their performance. Exactly how this is done can surely depend on the child itself. There's a huge difference between a child who has done badly because they CBA to do better, and one that has made an effort and done the best they can (at that time/stage). I'd be a harsh marker of a CBA child, but an encouraging marker of the latter, though there is no point giving 'false positives' either, as then they will only be disillusioned later. Far better surely to set 'individual goals' so to speak, and show that what you want to see is improvement from whatever they are already.

It's also crucial for children to appreciate that very few of them are good at everything, and ditto, very few are bad at everything - in fact, surely (for me at anyrate!) everyone is good at something, but that might not be a subject taught at school. I know my son is not much good at art - not rubbish, but hardly gifted, and ditto with music, so for him it's a question of making an effort and doing the best he can. But being good at art etc can be a godsend for those who are less good at say maths etc. It's crucial for our self esteem that we know that we are good at something.

I'd also say that children cotton on pretty damn fast as to which teachers are 'soft touches' when it comes to marking and which are 'toughies', and perform accordingly...

Perhaps, to me, one of the hardest things to get boys to do is to WRITE MORE ..... the number of parents I know with girls who just about have to take the pen out of their daughters' hands, compared with mums of boys who have to say 'JUST BECAUSE THE TEACHER SAID ONE PARAGRAPH WOULD DO DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WRITE MORE IF YOU KNOW IT.....'

[Jane]

I can, of course, only judge the hisotry teaching from the homework and written class work, but week after week it's just a hand out of photocopied source material - eg, an extract from Foxe's Book of Martyrs, or testimony of a mill hand/owner etc, which just seems so incredibly limiting. What annoys me is that, yes, as I say, I fully appreciate that children have to understand that there is no 'official' history (and never was, even if people thought there was!), and you have to look at the evidence remaining etc, to find out both WHAT happened and what you now think about what happened as to whether it was right or wrong (by our standards and, as much as possible, by those of the time studied). But, for example, with industrialisation and the condition of the poor, we can now, surely to god, take it as read that yes, the poor were very very very VERY badly treated, we really don't have to bang that drum endlessly and 'prove' that they were over and over and over again. What I don't like about all these 'cribbed sources' is that it endlessly means just bits of paper coming home and it's all bite sized and packaged up and you need do nothing more than read the bits of paper and answer what are essential English comprehension questions in comparing the sources. Like I say, this approach has its place, but it does now seem to be ALL that history teaching comprises.

However, I agree that the calibre of history teachers does seem to be good, but I do have a big fear that history is becoming a 'boring' subject in school, just when it desperately needs not to be. Guess at least one thing I can be grateful for at least so far as my son's school is concernced, they ARE teaching history in the 'right order' chronologically, so the children can see the sequence of events over the last millenium at least.

[Wonderbra]

Madmummy,
I think history is being badly taught at my daughter's school. It's a shame. I write social history books, so I know about methodology too. The real point I was making is that there was nothing in context for these children to understand. I said social engineering wryly, because I don't want to be humourless about it, however, I was disappointed. There was a ripple of laughter in the classroom when the video they were watching mentioned pawn shops. The teacher told the class of 10 and 11 year olds they had minds like sewers, but didn't tell them what pawn shops were. That's a missed opportunity! I cannot comment on other schools, nor did I actually say I was doing so.

[madmummy]

No homeschoolers don't have to follow the NC and in fact are rarely checked up, on in comparison to other countries. The NC is up for review as I write - with all schools being allocated an additional Inset day (joy for parents everywhere!)this academic year in which to start planning a different curriculum at KS3. Many many schools are already offering some sort of Learning to Learn programme in Year 7 - the first year of secondary education. WB and Jane please don't knock History teaching, it is being superbly taught in most schools (namely because the calibre of history teachers is very good) and as a historian I can tell you methodology is an essential skill AND will always be rooted in context, so the kids will learn about events and their causes etc. I think that people really do need to spend time in a school before making the sorts of judgements and sweeping generalisations which have peppered this thread (which actually I probably started!!). One of the major issues facing state schools is the break down of family structures and values and emerging problems such as new arrivals to this country. All the research done on the impact of these factors is very powerful. And for at least the former problem we all must take responsibilty - we are all part of this society, we have contributed to it and elected successive governments. We must become the solution. Crikey enough. Back to CBeebies and Rice Crispies.

[kieransmum]

LazyMummy, that made me snort out loud.
Mind you, some Steiner schools don't let children use the colour black...it's too depressive or something...
Or maybe that's just a nasty anti-Steiner myth.
I don't think homeschoolers have to follow the National Curriculum, but presumably Asilon can enlighten us on that one if she sees this thread?

[Lazy Mummy]

Couple of things to share:

1) Recently in the playground a mother of older children (10 & 6) got chatting to me & asked which schools we were putting our daughter's name down for (in our American city, there's no such thing as catchment area; you can apply to any school in the school district & may/not get lucky with your choice). She was pushing her own children's school v. hard as being a nice & accepting and making children feel good about themselves, unlike That Other School where all those pushy parents are focused on academic achievement. Two things struck me: 1) the way she wore this anti-academic-focus as a badge of pride and 2) why do these two things always seem to be either-or options? Why can't you have high teaching standards but still have a supportive, accepting environment? (I also wondered how she'd ID'd me as a wooly liberal parent, because while I'm definitely that for politics, I'll probably be rabidly academic when it comes to my child's education).

2) Friends over for dinner last night & the subject came round to schools. Apparently one of the elementary schools in our part of town recently passed an edict that teachers are only allowed to mark pupils' work in pastel colours because RED is TOO AGGRESSIVE and MIGHT MAKE CHILDREN FEEL BAD WHEN THEY GET THINGS WRONG. I know this is going to spark another huge debate about the merits of encouragement vs. achievement & effect on morale, but *I* believe that if my child is wrong about something, she needs to be taught that. Relativism is fine for A level history or theology but not for first grade spelling or sums or French grammar.

[Wonderbra]

Jane,
I so agree about teaching history. My younger daughter's perception of the Victorians is symptomatic of prime social engineering as well; All the sources they use are horror stories about fagins and exploitative mill owners forcing consumptive women expecting triplets into the path of out of control looms, sweeps forced into crime and then trying in vain to escape up chimneys with lit fires underneath...... No mention of any engineering triumphs, colonies or railways.
I thought all schools had to teach National Curriculum, but some opt out of different exams. Where this leaves Steiner Schools, home schooling or any other don't know.

[Jane]

Just wanted to add that the KEY factor in a good education is the discipline in the school. No teacher, however good, can teach anyone anything if the pupils are rioting - or a critical number of them are. Even in a 'good' academic state school like my son's, there still seems to be a ludicrous amount of bad behaviour tolerated, and teachers who just can't keep order (not blaming them in the slightest, but the school evidently tolerates that degree of disruption, and I just don't understand why!)

[Jane]

I don't actually know the answer to this, but are private schools allowed to not teach the national curriculum, and don't have to do key stages etc? This might make them a lure for those parents who don't like the NC/KS approach.

One aspect of modern teaching does depress me, and that's history - all they ever seem to do is be handed endless chunks of 'sources' and asked to compare and contrast blah blah blah. Ditto with science- they keep telling them to design experiments blah blah blah. OK, so children need to understand the methods of both history and science, but they don't have to keep on and on and on doing methodology. There is just SO much to learn in both history and science (obviously infinite subjects), and all this endless focus on methodology slows everything down so. With history in particular, this obsession with source comparisons really trivialises the subject as well - I can't believe history teachers aren't extremely frustrated by this approach to teaching.

[Wonderbra]

I think that's the point, isn't it J? I too would like to see the best education possible for every child. I had a wonderful state education at a direct grant school, but they don't exist any more. My children have had both fantastic and very average teaching at fee paying schools. Good teaching can produce excellent results even under a railway bridge, bad teaching produces problems of boredom, low self esteem, disaffection even if it's in a socially rarified environment. I'm sure if you have staff who know the Oxbridge system it helps. Pushy middle class mothers on committees often get things done because they work the system.

I'm glad I haven't had to change religion, move house or otherwise compromise my life, but I know how lucky we are. There are teachers I'd like to punch because you know they're only there for long, paid holidays or are waiting to retire and there are born and inspired ones who give their lives for children, like the ones who left my old school, because it was forced to go private by good old Shirley Williams in the 70s and they felt their principles were being compromised. Mostly Oxbridge, they taught because they loved their subjects and felt they were contributing. They probably were poorly paid even then, but who would do that now with those qualifications?

I had the most brilliant state primary school education and so did all my friends, because it was what people did then in my area of London. There were copies of The Little Red School Book and some hippy influences, but we all did rather well academically across the social spectrum and it was cool to know different sorts of families. Was it just a blip? Or am I being nostalgic and romanticising?

I don't know what it's like now. We live in a very rural area anyway. I don't want to go all Supermother here, because I'd like to believe in academies, but the one complaint I've heard from those teaching in them is about apathy from parents.

Anyway, I think it's a shame whoever's in government that we still can't produce excellent education for all. In fact, it really shocks me that we are no nearer to it.

[kieransmum]

Annamac, sounds like you'd be mad to go elsewhere.

[j]

I am still waiting for SM to post here- she is back on line I notice.

I do wonder if we will all see the best seller next year, Supermother, the great wind-up, where some gentle soul explains her year stirring up trouble on blogs and how people responded. Anyone else old enough to remember the Henry Root letters? god they were funny.

[j]

so come on Gordon brown, let's see every school moving towards Annamac's school.

[annamac]

Yes, we live near a good upper school (one of the top 20 comprehensives in the UK), but it is the entire pyramid of schools which contribute to the success of the upper school: all of the feeder schools work together to keep standards high. Communication is great. There is excellent provision for special needs. And 8 people got into Oxbridge last year. Lovely brand new facilities, great countryside views, hardworking staff with high expectations. Excellent relationship with the community. Am I going to consider shelling out to send my children to one of the local independent selective schools that did way worse in the league tables? Er....

[kieransmum]

sorry, just need to clarify bofore someone quite rightly jumps on my head, I am not saying that the state system is universally so, only that that was my personal experience as a teenager. In a very very good high achieving school which makes all the lists of brilliant state schools.

[kieransmum]

I would concur with the state system being defeatist and dismissive towards Oxbridge. That was my experience.

[Mumoftwo]

Although it's true that private schools don't always require a specific teaching qualification, research came out recently showing that the private teachers themselves had got much higher qualifications than in the state sector. I do wonder whether this contributes to the lower rates of comp pupils going to the top universities as the teachers themselves have not taken this route (unlike many in the private sector). In my comp, I was strongly discouraged from Oxbridge (it's an old boy network, you'll never get in, it's not for the likes of us type thing) and I do think there was an ethos of defeatism over academic achievement, we were all encouraged to aim lower rather than higher in case we got disappointed which seemed to be what many of the teachers had done themselves. That's not to say that all comps are like this, Annamac obviously is lucky enough to live near a great school and it would be crazy not to use it, but I'm talking about the 'bog-standard' comp which most are (half are classified as offering less than satisfactory teaching). I'm still persisting with the state system so far, but there are some endemic problems in it.

[annamac]

Well, I have taught classes of 12 (in N. London) and 14 (in the SW) - and yes, there were really just that many in those classes all year - and this was Yr 9, on both occasions. At my daughter's first school (they change schools after Yr 4 here), they generally had numbers around the mid-20s in every class. Guess it's just a post-code lottery, like many other things (cf. the birth experiences thread).

[Jane]

"I have seen some inspiring, energetic and amazing teaching in classes of 24 in state schools"

Gosh, a state school class with only 24 children in it! Fantastic. My son's has 31, and that is not exceptional. Plus it's an excellent school with academic children who can probably cope better than non-academic children with large class sizes. But I'd hardly say that having 30 children in any class is to be recommended.

[Jane]

"I disagree that smaller classes automatically equal a better quality education. The real determining factor is the quality of the teaching."

A good teacher will still teach better if s/he has fewer pupils in the class, so s/he can give more individual attention. All a large class does is place extra burdens and pressure on a teacher (eg, more books to mark). There are no advantages per se to having large class sizes from an educational point of view, though of course the key advantage of large class sizes for the government is they need to hire fewer teachers and fewer classrooms.

I agree there is a wide spectrum of excellence/non-excellence in private schools, just as there is in the state sector.

[margot]

Fantastic post, Keiransmum.

[Expatmum]

Exactly Kieransmum.

[annamac]

I disagree that smaller classes automatically equal a better quality education. The real determining factor is the quality of the teaching. Independent schools in the UK are quite at liberty to recruit people without a specific teaching qualification if they choose, unlike schools in the state sector. The facilities in some small private schools are also not as good as some of the state schools. Our local comprehensive is one of the best schools in the country and many people move their children from private schools to this comp. Yes, the seriously academic, highly selective, top public schools are a different ball-game - but I reckon the comp betters the run-of-the-mill, second-string, takes-anyone-who-has-the-cash private schools by miles. I have seen some inspiring, energetic and amazing teaching in classes of 24 in state schools and some duff, pedestrian lessons in classes of 15 in private schools. Private is not better per se.

[Jane]

KM - I've always assumed SM's views to be that of a deliberate persona on her part, though she also 'lapses' into her 'real self' as well here - depends on how much she wants to wind us up, I think!

[Jane]

"I have a problem with people insisting that private education is better per se"

Surely it has to be better per se in so far as the class sizes are always smaller (it's what parents pay for!), which means that every child gets more individual attention from the teacher. Surely class size is un unequivocal factor in determining the rating of the education received? (though I can appreciate there may be lower limits in so far as socialisation skills are concerned, but the ultimate 'minimal class size' of one-on-one teaching surely is the ultimate in rating teaching? It's certainly what adults pay a premium for when it comes to learning something themselves, no?)

Another 'clear differentiator' again surely has to be the facilities, and their condition, available to children? In no way would I say that a school with a lavishly equipped lab but a lousy teacher is better than the opposite, but if you can have both, then surely it's better to have better facilities AND good teaching?

[annamac]

Lazy Mummy,

Yes, we're in agreement. I have a problem with people insisting that private education is better per se, but I think the only person saying that is SM.

[Lazy Mummy]

Annamac -

So, we're agreed that private vs. state school is a lifestyle choice and not an issue of ethics or morality? That was the point I was disagreeing with initially as I *thought* I read that you were saying it was more morally sound to be MC & send your kids to state schools to raise the bar for others.

[annamac]

Mrs L, if that was a Marxist rant, I must be a Marxist too. Ha, that's hilarious! (Can hear dusty creaking sound of various relatives spinning in their graves.)

[annamac]

Yes, yes, yes, Kieransmum!

[j]

fantastic post, KM

[kieransmum]

Supermother, we all know you love a good argument and are not afraid of stirring us up. To be honest, I hesitated whether to answer you because I was not sure if it was worth arguing with you, since your mind seems so clearly made up, but some of your points do deserve a considered response I think. I think what saddens me is not that I disagree with your ideas about what is best for children - I am perfectly happy to believe that your life choices have worked out brilliantly for you and your family materially and otherwise, a hearty well done on that - but your scorn for those of us who do not live up to your blueprint of what a good mother ought to be.
If that scorn is something that you have taught your children to share, then frankly it doesn't matter how good an education you have bought them, in my view they have been educated badly because they have been/are being taught to despise those who are 'lesser' or 'not as good as' them. I would probably stick my neck out and say that teaching children to despise others is a form of neglect, albeit one that is all too common amongst affluent parents. It damages them just as much as too much TV.
Of course you can reply by saying that your children have loved and respected their nanny, so they know all kinds of people, and you've brought them up to be polite and respectful and know that they're very lucky, that may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that YOU'RE constantly publicly dismissive of others, poorer, stay-at-home, whatever. Your children will have heard that, and think that you think that's OK, that sneering at others is morally justifiable if you're rich. That, to me, equates impoverishing your children morally, however much you educate children it is not what you TELL them to do but what you DO yousrelf that they will copy, so in that sense your children could be argued to be deprived, and it doesn't matter how much care and luxury you lavish on them in other ways.
You talk a lot about wanting to give them the best. What about the intangible 'bests' in life, like love and friendship and humanity? Can these survive where compassion for the other, for the poorer, for the different, is absent? I don't believe they can. And compassion is not a lot of use without understanding, or at the very least trying to understand, those who are different or less 'fortunate' than us.
You talk a lot about freedom but where is the respect for freedom in telling us that we should be like you? And if you are genuinely telling your children you believe that the best thing is to live in the South-East and send their own children to private schools where is the freedom that you are giving them?

I would be just as shocked by anyone who from a left-wing perspective taught their kids to be scornful of those who sent their kids private, or were rich.

One other point. You talk about the capacity to do good. If you give lots of your hard-earned money away then well done you, most people don't, but does that change the obligation to respect others' choices to give the care or practical support that your money provides? If not, why give money to a hospice if you don't think the job they do is worthwhile?

I am genuinely puzzled because it seems to me that your theories are morally incoherent in these areas. Please feel free to respond and put me right...

[Expatmum]

SM yes it is difficult to generalise, but you seem to be able to do it well! With reference to your Nanny you declare she 'did more than most mothers at home would do with them'. I do wander what you mean by this do you mean general interacting with them, playing, singing, including them in daily drudgery of domestic bliss or are you referring to delivering them at various wonderful groups such as Mao Maths, Mini Mozarts and Mandarin for Toddlers? Either way you obviously choose to ignore the mountains of reseach often cited in this newspaper regarding a childs emotional wellbeing and development when one of there of their parents is the primary caregiver. You are right only 'some' stay at home mothers are 'depressed' and 'plonks child down and ignores it', of course they probably do not live in the south east! I just don't understand your argument really, mother working means private schools and the ability to talk well??? once again another great generalisations.

[Mrs L]

SM loves to deride anyone who is not "alpha" like her, but in fact, her alpha status actually depends on large swathes of the rest of us remaining non-alpha, which she is why she is so keen to maintain the massive class divide which is perpetuated by rich middle classes keeping their little darlings out of state-sector schools. Imagine if we were all alpha. Who would she employ to look after her brood of privileged children while she is out smashing her way through the glass ceiling? Who would she employ to do her ironing?

Sorry, marxist rant over!

The fact is that large numbers of "alpha" parents can't actually afford to privately educate their children because they are too busy pedalling to pay the enormous mortgages keeping the roofs over their heads. My husband and I both have careers which could be considered "alpha", and if you use the Liberal Democrats' definition of being rich as having household income in excess of £70,000, we are certainly that too, but I can tell you here and now that we can only afford an interest-only mortgage (we do not live in a palace or in the south-east) and we definitely are not expecting to be able to educate our children privately, even though we are both ourselves the products of private schools and top universities.

[annamac]

LazyMummy said:
"Personally, I think it's best if parents make appropriate choices based on what's best for their children - within the limits that they can control (obviously)." Absolutely, completely agree and I think most caring parents try to do just that, wherever they are. I strongly object to SM's view that unless we all live in the SE of England (near to all those jolly good private day schools which are sprinkled around those parts, apparently) and ensure that we work full-time and earn a great deal so as to be able to send our children to private schools rather than state schools, we are somehow depriving our children of decent opportunities. I think it's fine if people choose high-earning careers that suit them so as to put their children through the schools of their choice. I just think it's a lifestyle choice like any other and does not mean that other people who make other choices are necessarily doing their children out of an enjoyable and profitable time in education or a pleasant and enriching environment. Also, in my experience you can plan all you like for all manner of things, but sometimes life puts a spanner in the works (but SM would probably put that down to deficient planning or dodgy genes :-)). But then we all probably like to think we're doing our best, whatever our circumstances, don't we? And nobody really likes being told that their best is actually not very good at all - especially not by someone who is not in full possession of all the facts. The perils of trying to debate anything over the Internet...

[J]

SM says "In fact probably children are happier in lovely school environments in the private sector with peers who are like they are."

Anyone else got used to SM's arguing style yet? Take obvious truth, slip in unwarranted restriction, and pretend it only applies to you.

Well, yes, children like being in nice places with kids who are on their wavelength. We can all agree with that one. Moving to the assumption that such places only exist in the private school sector- sorry, no evidence, SM.

Cant decide if you are truly unaware that this might be true, or if you are deliberately arguing unfairly. Given that many of your comments suggest a legal training, I'd be surprised if you can't recognise an invalid assumption when you use one.

I have a child in each of all 3 sectors: state, fee paying and special needs, and in each case I went on the best environment for that child. And I respect all 3 schools, as well as the very good state primary that had all three of them until 11.

[evee]

I cannot get over the photo of the Armani dummy you have on your site. I mean really. How much would that cost? We are forever losing our little boys soothers and having to replace them ( though we don't like him sucking it all the time). how expensive would it be to continually replace Armani dummies. absolute waste of money......think of the things you could buy instead.

[supermother]

I am not a fan of day care. Our children had a nanny at home who came each day for the first 10 years who adored children and made them her life, who spoke to them and did more than most mothers at home would do with them. No problems with their speech development and indeed when you have all 5 of mine together you can hardly get a word in edgeways. But in some nurseries children are spoken to all day too and in some homes depressed stay at home mother plonks child down and ignores it. Hard to generalise. In some homes there is more TV on all day than in nurseries by the way.

Most children in the UK are not in nurseries when their parents work. Many have a grandparent or parent looking after them or nanny or child minder. Yes, some are in nurseries and most of those do fine for their speech.

What about speech and private schools too - mother working often means children can go to good schools where they are taught to speak properly rather than the garbled speech you often get in our worse comprehensive schools. Roll on the elocution - one of the best things you can give children in the UK after love and good genes is to speak clearly and well.

[expatmum]

SM you can't be for real, all this discussion about speech delay and its relationship with dummy use, and not a mention of Alpha mummy's little darlings out at day care from 6 weeks old from 7am - 7pm. How is their exposure to language monitored? How much time is spent just feeding, changing and popping them back in a cot because the staff have a dozen other babies to attend to. Not sure how much time is spent chatting to little Bruno at daycare in a day, any effect on speech development you think?

[supermother]

The interesting controversial point is what should parents do for their children - e.g is it okay to buy yourself a very expensive car but not pay school fees when children at private schools do so much better. Is it okay to give up work so your children have a load of your time but no money for school fees and the like? They are important issues all parents of any gender have to consider.

As for the suggestion we choose between alpha children who are sad and omega happy ones that is as silly as omega equals sad. Why not get them into alpha schools and have them happy too? In fact probably children are happier in lovely school environments in the private sector with peers who are like they are.

Happiness is not related to money once you get beyond a certain level. It does correlate to how you compare yourself to others however so anyone living in poverty probably won't be cheered up too much mixing with alpha parents with lots of money. The secret is to make sure you're slightly better off than those amongst whom you mix the studies tell us, leaving aside the more important issues of brain chemistry, depression and happiness which is as much to do with genes and diet etc as money issues.

[Lazy Mummy]

Annamac -

"Well, the idea that you are somehow a more moral or ethical member of the middle class if you send your children to the local private school is, frankly, narrow-minded and rather offensive. You can bat that one back and forth forever."

Agreed. You can. I think the difference is that I don't see school choice (private vs. state) as an issue of morality or ethics (don't confuse my comments with SM's wind-up) - as someone else earlier on this thread did when they implied that it is more moral to send your kids to state school. Personally, I think it's best if parents make appropriate choices based on what's best for their children - within the limits that they can control (obviously).

I & my siblings benefited from a private education, but weren't wholly privately educated. I actually started & ended in the state sector - was pulled out when the schools in our area were found wanting (by my parents) & went private until moving to the excellent state 6th form in our district. For my own children, given the sorry state of the school district we live in, I think we'll be paying for private schools, especially since there's no such concept as "catchment area" in the city I live in.

[tiredmum]

Annamac - agree with you completely, I'm probably a happy omega - I love my job (working for the NHS), and find it challenging and rewarding. I love that I can work part time, so that I get to spend lots of time with my girls. I would prioritise spending time with my girls over earning more money beacause I get a lot more enjoyment out of playing with them than I get out of spending money on stuff. My daughters go to the nearest state primary school and absolutely love it there.

SM - I don't know if you're for real or just trying to wind everyone up - but I don't understand why you feel the need to hold up your own lifestyle as the only good choice for your children and to suggest that other people's choices are irresponsible. If you enjoy your lifestyle, and feel that you are contributing well to society, then that's great - the thing I found upsetting in your original post was the suggestion that I was being selfish and irresponsible to make different choices from you.

[annamac]

Yes, Madmummy, I'm a bit suspicious too. Well, if it was meant as a wind-up, it worked...

[madmummy]

SM are you real? Or have Sarah, Jennifer, Caitlin and Eleanor made you up ?

[Lauren]

Another post on the dummy issue: they help if your baby has gastric reflux as mine did. At 19 months she still has a dummy at night and for insecure moments and it has not affected speech at all. When she wants to say something, she scoots it over to the corner of her mouth and looks like a tiny oligarch chomping on a cigar.

Of course, had I known that the dummy use marked me out as a second-rate chav mum, wouldn't have given it to her. To hell with the baby suffering from burning stomach acid, I would have put up with the screaming secure in the knowledge that no one thought I was a Poor Person.

Must go now: money to make and the oppressed masses to crush. Just doing my part for a healthy economy.

[kieransmum]

Supermother, as a comment on our society and its value-system I think that is just so sad.
(boo-hoo sad, I mean, not saddo in the colloquial sarcastic way)
If only life's problems could be soluble with a chequebook. We'd all be in the City if that was true.

[annamac]

Hmm, Supermother, I'd be quite interested to know what your definition of "alpha" is exactly. As for the rich having more to give to charitable projects than the poor, well yes, in theory. I know high earners who have less than no interest in giving to charity. I know people who earn very little who do essential jobs and enormous amounts of valuable work in their spare time. I would like my children to be well-rounded, kind individuals. I would like them to be happy. If I had to choose between happy omegas and miserable, driven alphas, I know which I'd go for any time. And by the way, you can run your own business from an office at home these days. I work, but on my terms.

[supermother]

Business keeps this country going and pays the wages of nurses and doctors. The rich has more money to give away and contribute more to this country than the poor. Thus if you work to put yourself into a position where you can make a real difference in terms of the charitable projects you support instead of working 10 hour shifts as a nursing assistant then I think you do better for this nation.

On the topic of schools if you live in or near London/SE then you have a wide range of good day private schools and whilst it might be quite nice for alpha mummy to enjoy herself on a Devon farm that is rarely the right decision for children in terms of good private day schools or job prospects. So live somewhere near good private schools and if you're alpha and earn alpha sums you will have that choice anyway.

[Emma]

Hi, I remember seeing a children's table in The Times (I think it was the style magazine) with clear hollow legs where you could insert the children's pictures. Does anyone happen to know where such a table could be found?

[claire]

OMG the dummy, who on earth? Wait, I see a rip off version on our local market stall £1 each....

[j]

well well a lot can happen while I am off earning evil cash and neglecting core parenting dutites such as blogging :)

Happy to go onto blog, KM, remind me of the url? and be warned it will have to be out of work hours so that makes it Thursday evening soonest.

OK now I am going to be annoying. Real speech impediments, of the kind that impair lives and/or are the sign of something much worse underneath, do not come from dummies. A "speech impediment" which is just a matter of catching up a bit because you spent a year chewing is not a big deal. Chewing is good for speech anyway.

Much more important, if your kid talks late, to check thay can hear and see OK. And get some sensible, non-hysterical advice.

If the kid is basically bright as a button then even if he is a bit deaf or something, once you find what it is and fix it, you will be fine. And it may be zip, he may just mature at that speed anyway.

KM hold your head high and tell these annoying wimmin that if they had a medical background they would know how to distinguish between trivia and significance when it comes to child development. Emily, I wish you luck and hope it turns out OK.

BTW I am a BIG fan of grommets...

[Lisa]

I have to strongly disagree with Supermothers contention that people like Bill Gates etc. do more good by giving some (some! not all!) of the money that they made than people like nurses, teachers, doctors, emergency service individuals. For a start, I work in an investment bank, and see how some people try to make lots of money, to the detriment of others. Admittedly, through the nature of my job I see the worst of proposed clients, who have committed horrific acts in order to make money, and then use hedge fund managers, investment bankers etc to make more money (for themselves and the bankers). Time after time, individuals and businesses are put forward that no-one in their right mind, who had thought about it for a minute, would consider going near. But, the desire for bigger bonuses suspends all moral considerations.

Though they are definitely on the milder side of dodginess (other members of the forbes list have unbelievably interesting backgrounds), Bill Gates and Microsoft make huge amounts of money out of rather dubious business practices (the best example being anti-competitive practices which they were fined for by the EU, but continued to do so regardless).

[annamac]

Ooops, I must be het up writing "countries" rather than "country's", 'scuse my typo (and my pedantry).

[annamac]

"The idea that you are somehow a more moral or ethical member of the middle class if you send your children to the local state school is, frankly, narrow-minded and rather offensive."
Well, the idea that you are somehow a more moral or ethical member of the middle class if you send your children to the local private school is, frankly, narrow-minded and rather offensive. You can bat that one back and forth forever. Don't the vast majority of parents just try and make the best decisions for their children as regards their schooling? There are lots of very average private schools and there are lots of exceptional state schools. You can be seriously ripped off in private education - and your child can go ingloriously off the rails at very expensive public schools, believe me. It is not always better - and there is a vast difference academically and socially between the very top public schools and your average local private school - and unless you are happy with your child being a boarder or live next door to St Paul's Girls School, you are quite often going to end up making a choice between mediocre schools in both sectors. My own education was a mixed bag of an exceptional state primary, an abysmally uninspiring and very drab state grammar and sixth form at one of the countries top public schools (never out of the top ten of the league tables). I can honestly say that my sixth form years were the most miserable. And put me off alpha-dom for life. Yes, I got the results, but I was extremely unhappy in that environment - and still occasionally have nightmares about it 25 years on. I've taught in state schools at the other end of the academic scale and yes, there are some that I wouldn't wish my children to attend. And so I have spent my money ensuring that we live somewhere with very good state schools. I no longer teach, I work from home, so I can live anywhere that suits my purposes. I'd be more "honest" in some way if I sent my children off to an expensive selective single sex boarding school, rather than ensuring that I live in a town with a solid state school, would I?

[Lazy Mummy]

As the product of a mostly private school education(after being pulled out of the local state school when my parents realised just how little I was learning there) I wholeheartedly agree with SM. Academically, I would probably have done as well in the state system, but I was far happier & better-adjusted once I was moved to a school where I wasn't picked on for being studious.

If you can afford to pay for your children to have a better education than they would in the state sector, why wouldn't you? Or to put it another way, why would you risk your child's education and future for a principle that is unlikely to make a significant difference anyway? The idea that you are somehow a more moral or ethical member of the middle class if you send your children to the local state school is, frankly, narrow-minded and rather offensive.

[supermother]

I think alpha mummies and daddies with children at good independent schools often have more of a social conscience and do more in that line than struggling middleclass parents with children at state comps. Surely it's better the parent makes any sacrifices they think are morally necessary for the good of the poor rather than putting their child into some kind of communist sacrifice position - of you have a bad life to ease my own conscience kind of thing.

Yes you can get opera and champagne without needing it at the school but why not put your child in a lovely physical environment like that at home rather than rooting them out sticking them into a building with graffiti, other children who don't want to learn and a drabness about it. Most children are fairly weak and follow the herd. If the herd is mostly off to
Oxbridge rather than prison or the local call centre then they will follow that herd.

Isn't it wrong to send your child to a state school when you could afford a private school? Say the parents buy a posh car and smart frocks instead - surely that's a worse moral choice because you're putting yourself above your child. All over this planet parents go without food either to feed or educate their children. It's naturally how most of us feel.

[madmummy]

Ah TiredMum you have put it so eloquently... I should have known better than to post my gripe when SM was still blogging. And champagne, pretty dresses, good orchestras - AlphaMummies can do that bit with or without the private school. The thing is that social responsibility and social conscience are what really makes the world go round and what churns out lovely caring human beings. Just read posts on this website...

[Emily]

Not sure if I'm allowed to post as I'm not a Mum (yet) but never mind...was just reading your posts re. delayed speech and it's such a relief to know there are other kids out there - my nephew (3 in April) still barely says a word though he' bright and funny and a beautiful boy in all other ways. He gets so frustrated that he can't communicate (although he knows some makaton now) so its good to know that most kids catch up in time. Thanks. End of random post from non-mother.

[supermother]

..keeping out of the dummies debate as never gave mine one and don't really like the idea of them .. but on schools mumof2's mother's experiment clearly made it hard for her. Secondly there is a huge difference between state comps in leafy suburbs where most parents can afford a house costing £600k to inner London but I don't think middle class flight from the state system is an issue. 6% of children go to private schools so it isn't a huge number. They are very well educated there something the state sector could learn from and I think even if you allow for competitive intake and other factors the value added is immense. You'd be far better spending your money on a school place than on the stupid consumer goods on this thread.

As for moral good isn't it better to earn more and then pay more to charity than just do good work? Surely our philanthropists do more good than the average nurse? In other words if your children can be the next hedge fund managers or Bill Gates I bet they do better good for this planet than if their days cleaning the feet of old people a the local hospice. They can always do that in their spare time anyway. SO equip them with the best thing you can buy for them - an education at one of the UK's top 20 or even top 100 schools.

If it's sink comprehensive but mummy at home all day or mummy at work and a route out of poverty to one of th better universities I think the mummy at work option is better for the child.

[Mrs L]

I think you have to have the hide of a rhino (and intellect to match, probably) if you go on about how brilliant your child is.

Of course, mine are geniuses... (speech impediments aside!)

[kieransmum]

That's awful My personal favourite on the insulting comments is the often-repeated
"My Jimbo talks so well, it's because he's intelligent."
Well, gee, thanks. Clearly he didn't get it from his parents if you think that is a sensitive thing to say to the mother of a speech-delayed child...
Now. Must stop ranting about minor speech delay and go and start that bloody sock hunt.

[Gipsy]

It is hard for the parent of a slow talker. My sister's eldest boy was a slow talker, and he was big for his age too so had to suffer from people expecting the behaviour of a much older child as well. One that she got quite freqently, was 'my son/daughter is such a great talker because I talk to them all the time'. I'm sure their intentions were good, but if they'd thought about what they were saying - that her son wasn't talking because, what? She didn't talk to him? What kind of mother doesn't talk to her child?! She went through a lot of mother and baby groups and toddler groups because each time she'd go to one, some other mother would start telling her that her child was autistic. Honestly - complete strangers felt compelled to make such pronouncements about her child, despite only having met him for five minutes and not having a child behaviour or psychology degree. Why say something so personal to someone you don't know? Did they really think that if they didn't say something, she wouldn't realise that her child needs help in some shape or form? All it did was make her feel judged (and found wanting - what mother wouldn't already have a pretty good idea of their child's needs unless they quite frankly didn't care?) and that made her feel even more isolated than she already did.

[IRISHMUM]

Also Kieransmum, the sock thief doesn't give up when they get older, oh no.....

[kieransmum]

If you can interpret then that means he is saying something, at least. If the mental building blocks are in place to form words and phrases then everyhing else is fixable.

[IRISHMUM]

I have four children, all of whom have had dummies, the youngest is 2 and still has hers for sleeping, for when she's feeling sad and for times when it's good to have a "plug", i.e church/airplane.All of them have been good talkers from early on, their teeth have been fine and they gave them up reasonably easily when they were old enough to understand the idea of leaving them for santa.I think that there is a lot of snobbery about the use of dummies - if it makes for a contented baby-and mother-why not?

Glad to hear your little boy is doing well now, Kierensmum. My boy (nearly 3) chats away all the time, it's just that nobody can understand him because his speech is so bad! Frustrating for him,