Do bright children do just as well in state school as private?

[Alelujah]

My friend's academically able DS has just started Private school (Year 10). They do 1 hour and forty minutes of homework every night and are assessed weekly in exam conditions to prepare them to deal with the stress of exams. The school has selective entry and teachers only have able students to cater for. There is no classroom disruption at all as the students and parents are heavily invested in the education process.

Meanwhile my DD in her Comp finds that many lessons disrupted by students who don't want to be there. They don't get much homework to support learning. Teachers probably don't ask them to do much as they know it wouldn't be done by a large number of students. They have to be realistic.

I can't help thinking that the commonly stated opinion that a bright child will do as well in any school is utter bollocks! It looks like children in private schools are massively advantaged.

Statistically public school kids do miles better. I'm sure there's children who can do as well, but yes they don't have the same advantage. Their achievements should be even more highly regarded IMO

Depends on the school
Some state schools are very good and bright kids can do well there, however it’s not always the case
My dd goes to a non selective Private Secondary and compared to the 2 local State schools expected standards of behaviour are much higher, classes are smaller and individual attention from teachers is better
Dd might have done as well at the State options but we didn’t want to risk it when we had an alternative

Following with interest - our DCs are in local village school, instead of the highly selective prep they had places at (mainly because we moved to a different part of the country). I really like the atmosphere and I think it is a lovely school, but I know they won’t be pushed academically in the same way.

Funnily enough I am less worried about the bright one, I do think he will be fine (maybe he’ll learn less but I think he will be happier in a less pressurised environment).

But the sportier one I think will get a rawer deal - there is much less sport, no matches, the facilities don’t begin to compare etc.

My DD'S state school is considered to be a good school locally. However, the exam results GCSE and A Level there are much lower than the private school friend's DC attends. It's not purely due to selective entry. It's all the other stuff like no classroom disruption etc which puts the private school in question leagues ahead.

I think it depends a) how bright the child and b) how good the state school. I do think a seriously clever child with immense academic interest - the sort who loves learning just for the sake of learning - will do well wherever. One of my DCs is proof of that. My more "averagely bright" DCs almost certainly would have had better results if they'd had that private school push.

I think it depends on personality too (and obviously the school as PPs have said).

At my old school you needed to be pretty tenacious, resilient and driven to get past the attitude of quite a few kids that learning was for losers If you're able to build those skills as well as the academics I think it ultimately makes you a more independent learner.

I understand there are studies showing that bright state school kids beat independent school kids at university (that was true for me too which was a big confidence booster) and I suspect independent learning has something to do with that. Need to find those studies...

Oh and I have worked with a lot of people who went to independent schools - my previous employer had a lot of people who'd been to very well-known public schools. They honestly weren't any brighter or better at their jobs than those who'd gone to state schools, but they were often more confident / better at not letting it show if they weren't sure about something.

Of course. That is why public school alumni are so overrepresented in top jobs from politics to legal 500 to banking to you name it. Only ten percent go to private schools. Most of them will end up in the top 10% of earners. It's not even just about the grades. These schools teach everything fro. How to dress yourself and how to talk to cultural knowledge about opera and the 'right' sports. You just have to look at Britain as a society to see that the dividing lines are drawn in polished black brouges and tailored suits.

Sadly I think it is rubbish to say that state schools provide just as good an education as private schools. Some bright and motivated children will do well, many will get lost in bigger class sizes and less resources.

The issue of heavily invested parents resulting in minimal disruption is a huge factor,

To some extent, it will depend on the school and the student. One advantage of an academically selective private school is that being intelligent and working hard is less likely to get you bullied, another big advantage is teachers with enough time to really know and push you.

Racecardriver is correct though, the time that can be put in on everything from elocution to networking skills is the glaring difference. Being taught how to put yourself forward, while at the same time learning to disguise/smooth out those traits which may be disadvantageous.

I also think that the aspirations that are instilled in pupils are different. If pupils are at a private school, the chances are that their parents are high earners to afford the fees and are therefore in the careers that the pupils will 'recognise' and aspire to replicate. This will go to most of their peer group and therefore the teachers at the school will be able to focus on the abilities that might lead them to that sort of career.
Whereas a state school teacher, with a huge range of parental careers, will be more careful about pushing individuals towards a particular set of subjects or university courses.

I've taught a couple of leafy comps, and now I teach at a non selective private.
When my dc are secondary age I will do everything I can to put them in private.
Bright children do extremely well because they have very very little disruption, smaller classes and all children are supported by their parents so children want to do well.

The teaching at the comps is just as good and sometimes better. The environment for learning, however, is streets ahead at private. The students also have the benefit of teachers who have manageable class sizes and less 'initiatives' to contend with all the time

I have taught in both the state and independent sectors. Believe me, the quality of teaching is often higher in state schools and the emphasis on all pupils making progress (from their starting point) means that state schools often add more value- I really do believe that. Teaching in independent schools is often lazy because it can be. But state schools can't compete with the smaller class sizes; the middle-class peer group where academic success is celebrated; parents who are highly aspirational for their children; limited behaviour issues in class that are dealt with swiftly when they occur; few if no SEND children taking time from the teacher; and an ability to focus on delivering their own curriculum without constant interference from the DfE. To sum up, I think bright children can do well anywhere and a good teacher in a state school will stretch them if they choose to take advantage of it. If they don't though- there won't be the resource to chase them- which there would be in in an independent.

Unlike tomhazard (cross-posted) I've chosen to keep my children in state school. The classroom environment is something I keep an eye on though. Disruption in class and a culture where it can be difficult to excel academically do concern me.

A bright child in a ‘good’ (ie very middle class catchment) school with engaged parents will do well. Especially if the school set for everything.

However there are very few state schools that can offer as much as a good private school. Smaller classes. Better facilities. Less disruption.

Is the teaching better? No. Is there as much added value? Probably not. But is it a nicer place for a bright and motivated child to spend their days? Absolutely.

Got to be the right school for the child as well.

Hullo! So this is notoriously difficult to measure, because you can never quite compare like for like as there are too many additional factors.
As others have said, it depends on the quality of the schools.

So several things (and summarising research appallingly):

1. Homework isn’t really that important. Parents always think it is, but aside from Maths and Languages, there are very few benefits shown. In fact, there is some suggestion that it serves to makes children less efficient (they need to read books though, and complete exam papers).
2. The home background and peer group of the students has been shown to have a much bigger impact in educational outcomes than their educational environment. If you’re paying for your child to be with other bright children with high aspirations then, yes, it’s worth it. But if they can get this in their state school, then there’s no need.
3. Children adjust their norm. This can lead to some bright children underachieving in high pressure, high-achieving environments, as they compare themselv3s negatively to others. Particularly true of girls. Ahem, this can be seen in grammar schools.
4. Difficult to measure (as OfSTED and ISI aren’t comparable), but teaching is not always as good in private schools. Certain private schools (including some quite prestigious ones) value PHDs and status of teachers over their teaching qualifications. This looks great for parents, but isn’t a guarantee that the teachers will be good at raising standards in lessons.

My children go to one of the top state schools in the country . They do as well there as they would at the local private schools.

I can’t compare with the top public schools as I don’t know enough about them. Many seem to cater for posh kids rather than just the brightest/ most academic . My children would learn some things there that they don’t at the local comp but I’m not sure that would necessarily be an advantage .

If we didn’t have such a wonderful state school on our doorstep I would have educated them at private day schools rather than send them to a mediocre comp. I acknowledge that I’m lucky to have the choice.

My children are at one of the top state schools in the country. There is no poor behaviour in the top sets whatsoever and the children are expected to finish their GCSE’s with all 7-9’s. All children in top and middle sets will do A levels and virtually all will move on to university with 80% of leavers going to RG unis.

Even the bottom sets the behaviour is generally pretty good. The children are motivated and are on the whole from middle class professional families who expect their children to reach their potential regardless of what that potential is.over 90% of the year will get at least 5 good GCSE passes.

Some of the classes are of 30 but others are 12-15 at GCSE.

My children aren’t getting the music or sport that they would get at a private school but given I’m saving myself around £22k a year in school fees I’m very happy that it’s a very good alternative so yes, totally happy that they’ll do just fine!

The disruption is a massive issue.

I personally don’t understand how kids can do as well without the disruption, extra homework and smaller classes.

Mine went to a leafy state school. Up to GCSE level it was a bit hit and miss, but by A level the disruptive elements had gone and A level teaching and pupil nurturing was excellent. Both girls went to RG universities with straight As and are now a doctor and specialist nurse.
However my DS1 was a lazy lad and definitely under performed because he could do just enough to stay under the radar... I think a private school with small classes would have been better for him.
I think bright, committed kids can do well wherever they go, but those who need a shove or are a little less academic, definitely shine with private school support.

Having said that a large number of DD2's med school cohort came from independent schools and struggled with having to learn by themselves as they had been spoon fed a fair bit!

When I was in secondary school (not that long ago - I'm late 20s), I was sent to a selective private day school. It was a school that attracted a lot of families making sacrifices, because the local state schools were universally crap at the start of the millennium, when decisions were being made about secondary education. Fast forward five years, and many of the local schools had got better, and there were always better options for sixth form anyway. About 40% of the year group transferred to state secondaries as a result.

While there was no difference in intelligence of those who stayed and went, there were significant differences in outcomes. Only one of those who stayed didn't go to university; several of those who left didn't go. A substantially higher proportion of those who stayed went to RG universities.

Having spent a lot of time in a wide variety of secondary schools due to my line of work, mainly working with sixth formers, let's just say that I'd like to send any child of mind to a private school - for sixth form if nothing else.

I think "bright child will do well anywhere" is an over generalisation. The op description of a school that doesn't bother setting homework because they know it won't be done doesn't sound great. That wouldn't happen in my children's state school - there's plenty of homework and consequences for not engaging.

It's undeniable that private schools will often (not always) provide a better environment for learning. For me, the question was whether that environment was worth the £25k per annum it would cost us around here. Since DD1 just got straight grade 9s at a state comprehensive, we're feeling glad we held onto the money.

I have one at a decent state comp and one at a highly regarded but not top flight academic pyruvate school.

There is definitely disruption in the lower sets at the private school - top two sets are fine. Very similar to the state.

The difference is that I could email the private school and say "dd is finding some of the girls disruptive in maths set 3 and prefers to concentrate in a quiet environment"

Suddenly set 3 teacher is swapped with a much stricter one and then dd is moved to set 2.

So my involvement

Dd2 has to work to get out of set 3 and into set 2,i have no involvement whatsoever

So dd2 probably more resilient!

I think a really bright, self-motivated child with supportive parents will do every bit as well in the state sector as they would in the private sector, especially in a school where setting is the norm as there tends to be very little disruption in the top sets. However, a child who is just fairly bright and somewhat lacking in self-motivation will probably do much better in a pushier private school. I think that's the level where private schools add value - not for the very brightest but for the kids who fall just below that.