conflicting thoughts
Sep. 8th, 2015 02:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aryanhwyYesterday I brought Gwen into nursery and was confronted with a poster on the door: "STARTING SCHOOL: Will your child be 5 on or between 1 September 2016 and 31 August 2017?"
First of all, how on earth are we at a stage where the answer to this is "yes"?!
Second of all, it's really confusing trying to navigate all the different flavors of schools you get in a country that you didn't grow up in. For example, what is the difference between a Voluntary-Aided school and a Voluntary-Controlled school? Thank goodness for FB and friends who are willing to tag friends with experience who will share lots of useful info.
There are three schools that Gwen is in the cachement area of (i.e., within a 1 mile radius), St. Oswald's, St. Margaret's, and the Cathedral Chorister school. The Chorister school is a fee-paying school (i.e., like a US private school). St. Oswald's is a Church-of-England-aided school while St. Margaret's is a C-of-E-controlled school. In principle, it seems like the difference is negligible.
St. Margaret's is 1/2 mile away from where we live, goes all the way up to age 11 (at which point she'd head to secondary school, almost certainly at Durham Johnston, which seems to be The One for bright young things planning to go to university), and is rated Outstanding by Ofsted, whereas St. Oswald's is further away, and only goes up to age 7, so then she'd have to transfer for a few years before secondary school, probably to St. Margaret's, so why not just start there from the beginning? I think there's very little reason to think we won't be putting St. M's down as our first choice when we fill out the application form, so today I spent some time reading about school policies, etc.
They, like many British schools, have a uniform but it's relatively relaxed:
* Navy blue, grey or black, trousers or skirt
* Navy blue, red or white polo shirt
* Red sweatshirt or cardigan
* Blue or red check dresses and navy blue, grey or black shorts may also be worn in summer.
In principle, I like the idea of a uniform. It makes it easier to get kids dressed and out the door in the morning, hoards of British school children in uniform are SO ADORABLE, and uniforms tend to mask some economic inequalities, in that you don't have children showing up in clearly significantly more expensive clothes than others. There is also provision where some clothing can be supplied by the school for those who need assistance.
On the other hand.
I LOVE watching Gwen choose her outfits. I love her outrageous skirts that she loves to perform in. I love it when she gets out her favorite yellow dress and tells me that today she is "Belle", and that if the ladies at nursery call her "Gwen" she'll correct them and tell them that she's Belle instead. I love that she is utterly unselfconscious about what she wears and I want to encourage that as long as I can.
The school has a policy that nail varnish is only allowed on party days. Gwen derives such pure, innnocent joy from having her nails done up, often coaxing me into doing mine to match. (The very first time we painted nails, she raced downstairs and asked, "Daddy, daddy, daddy! Do you want YOUR nails varnished TOO??" and she couldn't understand why he didn't.) I've got a feeling that Friday-afternoon-nail-polishing might end up becoming a thing.
Hair dye is also not allowed, except on party days -- which basically means, nothing permanent. Seeing as I am considering finally doing what I always said I'd do once I got a permanent job -- dye my hair purple -- I may end up in the position of having to explain that Mommy is allowed to wear colored hair to school but Gweni isn't. And while I can understand the no-jewelry policy (worry about injury or it getting lost, or the aforementioned ostentatious displays of economic disparity), I have a harder time seeing what the basis for refusing hair dye is OTHER than a policy of uniformity for uninformity's sake, and that weighs heavily on the other hand.
I'm delighting in the individual that Gwen is growing up to be, and I want to continue to nurture this. While I'm sure that something as minor as dressing like everyone else, eschewing nail varnish and hair dye, is unlikely to squash her individuality, I'm still not entirely sure I like it.
On the third hand, it's not like any of the other schools we are/would be considering are going to have substantially different policies. I guess this isn't a complaint against St. Margaret's in particular but rather a complaint against a world which privileges uniformity and may not always have space for an amazing person who intends to be a butterfly (a REAL butterfly, mommy) when she grows up.
[I try to tell her no one knows how to turn people into butterflies yet, so she should become a scientist instead, and learn how to turn people into butterflies and THEN she can be a butterfly, a real butterfly, yes, Gwen, when she grows up.]
First of all, how on earth are we at a stage where the answer to this is "yes"?!
Second of all, it's really confusing trying to navigate all the different flavors of schools you get in a country that you didn't grow up in. For example, what is the difference between a Voluntary-Aided school and a Voluntary-Controlled school? Thank goodness for FB and friends who are willing to tag friends with experience who will share lots of useful info.
There are three schools that Gwen is in the cachement area of (i.e., within a 1 mile radius), St. Oswald's, St. Margaret's, and the Cathedral Chorister school. The Chorister school is a fee-paying school (i.e., like a US private school). St. Oswald's is a Church-of-England-aided school while St. Margaret's is a C-of-E-controlled school. In principle, it seems like the difference is negligible.
St. Margaret's is 1/2 mile away from where we live, goes all the way up to age 11 (at which point she'd head to secondary school, almost certainly at Durham Johnston, which seems to be The One for bright young things planning to go to university), and is rated Outstanding by Ofsted, whereas St. Oswald's is further away, and only goes up to age 7, so then she'd have to transfer for a few years before secondary school, probably to St. Margaret's, so why not just start there from the beginning? I think there's very little reason to think we won't be putting St. M's down as our first choice when we fill out the application form, so today I spent some time reading about school policies, etc.
They, like many British schools, have a uniform but it's relatively relaxed:
* Navy blue, grey or black, trousers or skirt
* Navy blue, red or white polo shirt
* Red sweatshirt or cardigan
* Blue or red check dresses and navy blue, grey or black shorts may also be worn in summer.
In principle, I like the idea of a uniform. It makes it easier to get kids dressed and out the door in the morning, hoards of British school children in uniform are SO ADORABLE, and uniforms tend to mask some economic inequalities, in that you don't have children showing up in clearly significantly more expensive clothes than others. There is also provision where some clothing can be supplied by the school for those who need assistance.
On the other hand.
I LOVE watching Gwen choose her outfits. I love her outrageous skirts that she loves to perform in. I love it when she gets out her favorite yellow dress and tells me that today she is "Belle", and that if the ladies at nursery call her "Gwen" she'll correct them and tell them that she's Belle instead. I love that she is utterly unselfconscious about what she wears and I want to encourage that as long as I can.
The school has a policy that nail varnish is only allowed on party days. Gwen derives such pure, innnocent joy from having her nails done up, often coaxing me into doing mine to match. (The very first time we painted nails, she raced downstairs and asked, "Daddy, daddy, daddy! Do you want YOUR nails varnished TOO??" and she couldn't understand why he didn't.) I've got a feeling that Friday-afternoon-nail-polishing might end up becoming a thing.
Hair dye is also not allowed, except on party days -- which basically means, nothing permanent. Seeing as I am considering finally doing what I always said I'd do once I got a permanent job -- dye my hair purple -- I may end up in the position of having to explain that Mommy is allowed to wear colored hair to school but Gweni isn't. And while I can understand the no-jewelry policy (worry about injury or it getting lost, or the aforementioned ostentatious displays of economic disparity), I have a harder time seeing what the basis for refusing hair dye is OTHER than a policy of uniformity for uninformity's sake, and that weighs heavily on the other hand.
I'm delighting in the individual that Gwen is growing up to be, and I want to continue to nurture this. While I'm sure that something as minor as dressing like everyone else, eschewing nail varnish and hair dye, is unlikely to squash her individuality, I'm still not entirely sure I like it.
On the third hand, it's not like any of the other schools we are/would be considering are going to have substantially different policies. I guess this isn't a complaint against St. Margaret's in particular but rather a complaint against a world which privileges uniformity and may not always have space for an amazing person who intends to be a butterfly (a REAL butterfly, mommy) when she grows up.
[I try to tell her no one knows how to turn people into butterflies yet, so she should become a scientist instead, and learn how to turn people into butterflies and THEN she can be a butterfly, a real butterfly, yes, Gwen, when she grows up.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-09-08 07:54 pm (UTC)The wealth gaps here are ghastly and uniforms help bridge that. The children compete on so many metrics, why add clothes to that?
re "real butterfly": A couple of years ago (my girls aged 4 and 6? 5 and 7? not sure), the elder wanted to be a veterinarian, the younger "a flying horse". Sounds good to me! (Currently vet and pop star, I think. I preferred flying horse)
no subject
Date: 2015-09-09 08:07 am (UTC)