To think State education is really poor?

It’s great that you’ve got such a good state school.

DD16 is doing 13 GCSEs at our local, very mixed ability, cross city comp.

This is not the norm though. In 2022, only 500 pupils (out of over 600,000) sat more than 12 GCSEs. There will always be exceptions, but the vast majority of state schools do not offer this opportunity. In fact, even at the most highly performing schools in our area, pupils take a maximum of 10.

This is absolute nonsense. It’s precisely why many parents choose the private sector; they can choose a school suited to their child. It’s not all about exam results. It’s about each child reaching their full potential; for some this won’t be high academic grades across the board.

Just in our local area, there are schools which are very selective and academic, schools which are “all rounders”, those which are more sporty, some are smaller and more suited to quirky children, some cater for those with learning difficulties where exam results are not the main priority.

@BonjourCrisette but the eBacc is 5 subjects. Kids have 4,5 or 6 other slots. One of the things people appear to like about private education is the "roundedness" of it. And what they don't like about state education is the "they all do media studies and "soft" subjects" The eBacc is an attempt to address that- and that's wrong too!

I don't think children who are bad at languages should be made to do a language when they might enjoy something else more and have more success in it. I don't think if you have a child who will get a good grade in an extra language but do poorly at history or geography that they should be doing the humanity instead of the language. I don't think children in general should be doing things they don't like or aren't good at when they could use that subject slot for something they are engaged with. Yes, the basics of English and Maths are important for everyone. But the lack of flexibility that the eBacc engenders isn't good for education, IMO.

The grammar school system gave working class children with academic abilities in the top 5% a chance of competing. It did fuck all for the 95% who didn't make the grade, some of whom missed out by a hair.
The remaining 95% were treated to underfunded, poorly administered 'education' because they weren't worth it. Let's not even go into the postcode bias that existed, with far fewer grammar school places available for rural areas than urban ones.
I didn't go through the grammar system, it had been phased out a couple of years before I started secondary, but the idea of giving the best to the ones at the top and not bothering with anyone else persisted. I was in the top set for one subject and the difference between the teaching quality there and what I got in my worst subject, for which I was in set 3 was palpable.
It struck me as odd that so little investment was given to pupils who struggled, that it wasn't considered 'worth' trying with us. I might have achieved more in that (very important) subject if I had had the teachers reserved for the best students.
Then, it wasn't so much of a problem. When I left school, you could still live on a low wage, you didn't have to be a professional to survive.
Today, I am sorry, but we need to be giving all our students access to quality education, not just the cherry picked handful deemed by an arbitrary test to 'deserve' it.

My kids private school has more kids with ASD than average. ASD does obviously range in severity, but chances are the most high achieving pupils in science / maths subjects do have ASD, and it’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Depends what area you live in. State schools in leafy (rich) middle class areas are as good for the clever kids as privates (which tend to be selective so also only have the clevwr kids). The extra curricular is better in privates though.

I have children in both. I don't pay for the academics, (my eldest is super bright and would get top grades in a state school too). I pay for the convenience, the extra curricular and the pleasant surroundings.

Schools with a more diverse level of parental input (not financial background) are a different kettle of fish. I'm from a working class background (my dad left school at 14) but my parents knew education was the way out of our circumstances and they prioritised that over everything. It is an attitude I see in many immigrant families (as mine was in part) . The biggest step up you can give a child is a supportive home. A private school is lovely but it won't get you better grades on its own.

Our local private school the reception/year 1 teacher has 10 kids in her class and a huge classroom/outdoor area. When speaking to her for a good hour (teacher to teacher), she used to be in state school and now she's more relaxed than she's ever been.
She also has a TA.

Nobody is knocking state school teachers. The fact remains that you shouldn't have to battle against chronic underfunding, lack of SEN support etc. Of course many state school teachers do an outstanding job but you should be able to do your job without all the other issues. Private school teachers simply don't have to deal with the issues you face on a daily basis and have much smaller classes so teaching can be more in depth, go off on tangents/discover links simply because there is the time to do so.
I wish state education was properly funded in order to allow every child those opportunities, sadly it isn't. I also haven't seen the political will from any party to improve state education (apart from the headline grabbing but ultimately risible and futile VAT rise).

Private schools have a market sector. Some only take pupils with SEN, some take mid performers, or target quirky children. They arent all focussed in high achievers. Also some SEN children are very high achievers. Particular presentations of asd for instance will be people who get all 8 and 9s as long as the classrooms are quiet and routine.

I would have thought private schools were more discouraging of taking SEN pupils lest it skews their results data.

It depends on the school. But also, you should educate yourself on the fact that some autistic people (for example) are highly intelligent and do very well in exams, especially when there is less noise and a smaller class size.

Please don't perpetuate a myth about people who are not NT being thick 🙄

I agree. I wasn't being snobby about her job. But I don't think you need to spend hundreds of thousands on an education to get it.

So fine if you want to spend that much to privately educate your child. But some people cripple themselves financially to do so and I just think that length of financial sacrifice is nonsensical

My DC always put waterproofs on and splashed around outside in state school so that’s just something particular to the state school your DS is at.

State education has the potential to be every bit as wonderful as private but sadly isn’t given the funding it deserves to flourish.

@Ballsbaill yes, it would seem this way.

Yes. Because nobody who is state educated makes anything of their lives. What bollocks.

I would have thought private schools were more discouraging of taking SEN pupils lest it skews their results data.

How well children do (according to research) is directly influenced by parental income, education and how well the children are supported at home.

I have experience of state and private schools and I would say that private school is only truly worth it if you won't miss the money.

I think it's a bit harsh to suggest that people in 'ordinary ' jobs who were privately educated have wasted their education or it was a waste of money.

My two kids currently are at a private school. We don't choose to send them there so they will get a good job. We sent them there because our eldest has SEN and the smaller class sizes appealed to us.

The facilities are lovely and the opportunities that they get both in and out of the classroom exceed those at our local schools.

Having said that recently the school have shown that they aren't that clued up on SEN and it is making us look elsewhere for options.

The snobbery on this thread is astounding. Why are people looking down on certain jobs? This is precisely what is wrong with the education system. There’s an obsession with everyone getting great academic results and going to university, rather than people valuing more vocational jobs and trying to find a job that suits each individual.

I mean she seems happy
Surely that’s a better definition of success than the size of your pay packet?

Both state educated and both rolling in it.

Many people don’t just measure achievement on salary though. Surely it’s more important to find a job you are suited to and which you enjoy?

Two of my closest friends went to private schools. One is a teacher

I don’t understand your point. Why would privately educated people be disappointed in becoming a teacher? Do you think the only reason to go to private school is to end up in a high paying job, that if you don’t it means that the money spent on education was wasted?

I know plenty of state educated people who are lawyers, doctors, barristers.

I’m state educated and ended up in that type of profession, but I can still see the advantages of a private education. You are also missing the point that state schools have changed dramatically over the last few years. Anyone qualified in those professions left school a fair few years ago. The state system is not what it was a generation ago.

And some private schools are great and others are awful

And we don't have to be dependent on school for everything.

Mine do lots of extra curriculars outside of school and we use tutors as needed plus of course spend time with them travelling, playing games, having conversations.

Agreed.

I wouldn't financially cripple myself to educate a child privately.

My nail technician had an expensive private education. (I mean she seems happy and does beautiful nails but I am not sure her education "set her up for life" as she still lives with her parents at 30)

My best friends include surgeons and barristers and bankers etc who were all educated in state schools.

“A child willing to learn will likely get the same results regardless of what school they attend”

This isn’t true. A school with mean or uninspiring teachers can take a bright eager child and turn them into someone who hates learning.

Anyway OP it’s a silly post because obviously some state schools are excellent and some are awful.

Some of the private schools near us get atrocious exam results so I wouldn't generalise about them academically.

I don't even know what that means: "a private education will set you up for life". In what sense? Career? Connections? Not necessarily. Two of my closest friends went to private schools. One is a teacher, the other works for a teaching union doing admin work. Both good jobs but no reason to spend £100,000 plus on their educations to achieve this. I don't think either have made lasting connections from school. One loved her school because she's very sporty. The other hated it and the "rich bitch" mentality (her words).
I know plenty of state educated people who are lawyers, doctors, barristers. A friend of mine is a barrister who married another barrister. Both state educated and both rolling in it. My state educated DH was one the youngest people to be a professor at one point.
We could just about afford private school but would have to make sacrifices. I've never wanted my children to go to private schools. I want them to mix with children from all backgrounds. That is part of their education. That gives them a greater understanding of the world and prepares them for the real world.