To think State education is really poor?

They have all the at DC state school including the small classes. It also gets better results than the local private schools.

Guess it depends where you live.

No and I didn’t say they did. I was agreeing with “not wanting a well educated population” comment as was pretty clear. Educated enough to carry out the donkey work but not educated enough to organise and throw off the status quo. Didn’t you understand that?

@BethDuttonsTwin "Well educated enough to work in factories and join the forces but that’s about it."

So 93% of the population work in factories or are in the forces? Interesting.

Well educated enough to work in factories and join the forces but that’s about it.

@Christmasaaarrrggghhh add to that an innovative and engaging curriculum that broadens thinking and values learning for the sake of learning instead of the current Gove exam factory one.

I think it needs to be decided what a basic state education should provide.

In my mind:

Kids should be allowed to study what they want at A-level. Schools should accommodate this regardless of timetabling issues.

No child should be allowed to physically assault other pupils or disrupt classes on an ongoing basis and remain in the school. A different provision is needed.

Teachers and other school staff should have a decent pay (that ensures teaching positions are filled) and time ought to be put aside for their development / marking etc.

There should be a specialist subject teacher teaching each subject.

School buildings should be safe and adequately equipped with text books, science equipment etc.

The above basics are not currently being met in the state sector and that is totally unacceptable. A truly basic education is not being provided. That’s why people feel the need to go to private school.

The UK national curriculum is designed the way it is so children access it in a spiral, planting seeds then revisiting them to nurture them until they grow into massive trees of understanding.

Whilst I’d love to believe this, I just don’t see how anyone could?! The people who design these things are the same people who came up with Year 6 SATS!

On a different note, no self-respecting private school would tell prospective parents that the state schools were ‘two years behind’! What dreadful nonsense that would be in any case.

I do think, though, that comparing results is sometimes a waste of time. Many bright kids will do well at private or state. It may not make a marked difference. In addition, there’s no reason to believe that the actual teaching is any better in private. What’s different is the class sizes, which means far less disruption, and the ability to remove students who don’t toe the line. For those things alone, I think private equals a nicer experience for pupils and one that I’d be willing to pay for.

Well for a start private schools aren't bound by the national curriculum which gives them a lot more freedom to offer niche subjects. DD in Yr 7 does French, Latin and Classics. In Yr 8 she can add either Spanish or German. In Yr 9 she then can choose 2 of either French, German or Spanish for GCSE plus either classics or Latin.
No restriction on science, triple is
Music twice a week plus singing once a week. Fully stocked rehearsal rooms and option of 2-3 instruments per child over Yrs 7-9.
Drama studio + small theatre, 3 drama lessons per week.
Sports are on rotation basis with 4 double games lessons a week ( for girls): hockey, football, netball, running, cricket, athletics, gymnastics and swimming. All children encouraged to find "their" sport but all represent the school frequently in either A,B or C teams no matter their ability.
Can choose up to 11 GCSEs and no limit of eg either History OR geography.
All of the above taught by qualified specialist teachers.
There are then 2 sessions of compulsory activity time per week where they do something they are interested in eg chess club, gardening, baking, cooking, debating, politics, environment etc.

As I said before, for us it isn't about results at the end, it us about the journey and giving her chance to find what she is interested in before the next stage in life.

The '2 years behind' is BS and intended to sell you the private school. My DD joined private in year 7 and had no issues keeping up with her peers who came from the prep.

@BonjourCrisette as a point of information-you talk about the "ridiculous eBacc." Which subject from English lang and lit, a science, a language and one of History or Geography do you think is ridiculous?

The Finnish system has some great features such as the focus on high quality early years, not starting formal school till 7 etc., but my understanding is that they are facing quite a few issues now including in secondary.

The ability to study at university at little cost is also great. I’ve brown people to use their three year maternity leave with low cost child care ☺️ to study and retrain so they can return to the work force in a stronger position. Unfathomable as a option here for most people I think…

Private school is a business, so will look very shiny.

I know a few private schools have closed due to their size and the kids are sent all the place.

I'm all for a choice us education but I think we would better going down the Finnish route no private schools and better overall state facilities

I should start by saying I’m not originally British and my only direct experience of U.K. schools are private (my own education and my children’s).

As many have said whether it’s worth it to any one person depends on their personal circumstances. I pay private because it’s what I think is best suited and because of the rounded education it offers of sport, drama, art etc. in an atmosphere that is generally conducive to and values education. I don’t have the time to find all these opportunities separately. And I value them. Could they do just as well in the local state primary academically? Maybe. I can see no obvious difference with the children of my friends in local states. I don’t know if there will be a more obvious difference in secondary school.

That said there are clearly some private schools with tough exams that teach just very smart kids (Westminster, St Paul’s etc) and I’m sure work at a pace and level that would not be easily recognised in most other schools private or state.

Potential downsides - yes some private school children can have a bad attitude or sense of superiority. I would hate that and crush it immediately if I see any signs of this. But it applies not just to schools but holidays, shoes - anything material. Social mix - I think it can depend. You do lose that but I’m
also not sure if ever missed that in my own life. Social mix at private school can be broad even if not economically. I like that international outlook. Concerns about kids being envious of others more extravagant lifestyles? Well that’s life and it’s a good chance to learn what’s important.

Final point - I work in what might be called an ‘elite’ job (‘elite’ as views may differ 😬) but I really generally have little idea who was a private school or not apart from the odd obvious person. I do suspect most went to private, grammars, top comprehensives, which is surely where the real divide lies.

@Charlie2121
I'm not sure why your reading skills are lacking, schools and house prices were not a factor in where I live.
After several life changing events I actually moved quite hurriedly and tbf impulsively, a roof over my children's heads was my priority, not league tables, at the time I didn't own a house!

For me it really depends on the teachers. A good teacher and a curious mind - that combination will start a fire every time.

Whether intentional or not that is exactly what you’ve done.

Many more parents pay money to move to better catchment areas than pay for private education. I don’t really see the difference. Both are paying to provide a better education for their children.

OK OP I have worked in a private school and I have also educated my children at both state and private schools.

Firstly, this - The private school reckon DS is 2 years behind their curriculum. is said to EVERY parent to make them think their child is a cut above. It’s very rarely true. But it’s always ‘2 years behind’.

I was wowed by the private school taster day too and immediately enrolled DD for reception. We moved when she hit year 5 and sent her to state school.

My genuine experience of both working and educating in private school:

1. unless you’re the local millionaire with a few massive companies he’s under your belt (so the ‘development office’ can tap them up to pay for a sports hall) in time you will be ignored - as will your child. The head will be the best pal of people they can Lee h more money out of at the expense of other parents.
2. children of teachers get a whopping discount. The teachers also heavily control who captains things, who has the biggest speaking parts, who has the lead in the plays - 95% of the time it’s children of staff.
3. Private schools wish to turn out well disciplined little robots which leaves very little room or individual personalities to flourish. Fall in line is the order of the day, every day.
4. Heaven forbid you have a child who isn a total gobshite. If you haven’t got a precocious prodigy, they won’t get a look in because they’re all about winning and if you’re not winner (and most kids aren’t) you are no good to them. My ‘quiet’ child was consistently criticised for being quiet. When actually saying things when they matter rather than verbal diarrhoea is a strong quality
5. Teachers NEVER leave - until their kids leave and the discount is no longer an incentive to stay. Meaning you get a lot of staff scared of change and if you get a horrible teacher you can guarantee your second child will have to suffer them.
6. Again unless you’re a millionaire, your child’s peers will always have better than they have - which bothers children immensely. To be surrounded by friends who have pools and 4 holidays a year when you don’t have anything like that can be unpleasant.

I could think of a hundred more reasons why private school is all fur coat and no knickers.

The private schools my DD went to did it identify the learning needs she has in maths. I did - but her schools dismissed my concerns and didn’t send her for learning support. The state school picked it up immediately and she has come on leaps and bounds.

I also think now she is in a state school she has a better mix of friends - it doesn’t kill children to realise that sometimes other people struggle in life or don’t have 2 shiny cars per household. Her friends now are MUCH nicer than her private schools friends who were mostly vile.

One point I will concede on is private schools have better facilities. That’s undeniable. But for £3k a month for 2 kids, I’m not sure an on-site pool is much better than having to go to the local pool for lessons

But which actually mirrors real life most? Not many workplaces are like this. I can't afford private for 2 so mine are at a great local comp. I do genuinely think it teaches a lot of life lessons and resilience

No, I haven't chosen to pay to live in a catchment area, I moved here for family reasons, no thought for schools whatsoever.
I don't actually know anyone who doesn't go to their catchment school.
I believe any child can succeed if they have the ability and work hard. Education should never be limited to the wealthy.

It sounds like you have paid to live in a decent state school catchment area. Where I live the state provision is poor which impacts house prices despite it being a very nice semi rural area.

If I wanted to mover to a better catchment area it would cost around £150k more for a similar house without the open field views we currently have and it would be located in a far more urban built up area.

Staying put in a home and area we really like and funding private education rather than moving house makes economic sense for us.

@Christmasaaarrrggghhh
2 years behind in maths by year 5 is what my friend a maths teacher reckons when she gets kids from state school.
That would suggest state school kids won't be able to pass GCSEs/ Highers at the relevant age then, wouldn't it? Think your pal exaggerates a wee bit.

Here in Scotland you go to your catchment school, none of this nonsense of applying, it levels the field.
I've never seen the obsession for schools be it outstanding/private and I live in a fairly affluent area, maybe it's an English thing along with the endless threads about class.
Youngest DD (state high school) just started at uni, her halls have kids who went to £40k pa schools, didn't buy them anywhere better than the state school kids did it?

She would have hated extra sport, btw, and I would not have sent her to any school where this was prioritised!

I'm not who you asked but I sent my daughter to a selective private school after her average state primary for (in part) this reason.

At 10/11 of course we don't necessarily know where our children's future interests will lie and we can't be sure how well they will do in the future. But mine was interested in languages at the time. There was no comprehensive in my local area (all are rated at least good) which offered more than one or two languages and at several of them you didn't even get to pick which one. At the school she ended up at, she could have taken any of six modern foreign languages and also Ancient Greek and Latin. She's studied German, French, Russian, Mandarin and Latin at different times and could also have chosen to study Italian, Spanish and Ancient Greek.

It was a given that she would do triple science (there isn't an option to do anything else).

She could have picked loads of creative subjects at GCSE had she wished to (she picked one, but I wanted her to have the choice of what she really liked rather than being constrained by option blocks). I don't see why a child who is that way inclined shouldn't do Art and Music and Drama if they want to and can cope with the workload. That isn't an option at any of our local comprehensives.

And she was able to choose subjects in full confidence that they would run whatever - like other things I have mentioned this is a funding issue. I know of kids at state schools who haven't been able to do the A Levels they wanted because there weren't enough children choosing that subject. But DD could do Russian with only four students in the class because the money was there to make it possible.

She did twelve GCSEs. This obviously would not suit everyone but actually it's great for children who are academically competent because during that time her preferences for subjects changed as they got a bit harder and more in depth. And the depth she was able to go to was absolutely enhanced because everyone was working at the same high level. Having more subjects for longer meant she was able to make a more informed choice when it came to A Levels.

DD has been able to choose what she wanted to study with very few limits. This would not have been the same in a state school (obviously not because they wouldn't like to but because they are limited by the ridiculous eBacc thing and by funding).

Private schools aren't all the same, any more than state schools are all the same, of course. But the one I picked was definitely able to offer more than any of our local good comprehensives.

It varies a lot, some private schools are excellent but not all, plus having a lot more funding is how they have smaller classes. Selective admissions mean the kids are brighter plus the parents are more involved in the sense they are paying for education so obviously care a lot.

My DD's would have hated being forced outside in the rain and one hated sport... kids vary too!