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.

"I think there are big differences depending on whether the school puts kids in sets or not, and depending on how good the state school is."

This ^^
DD achieved a place at a private school, but we were refused a bursary so couldn't send her there. Instead she went to the local (excellent) comprehensive school.

It is difficult to say whether she would have done better at the private school because she excelled academically at the comprehensive (10 GCSEs, mostly A and A*, AAA at A level)

I would say that the only negative at the comprehensive was that they weren't very good at dealing with bullying, but there is no knowing how it would have been dealt with elsewhere anyway.

The problem is that certain environments aren't supportive. Theoretically this could include non-academic private schools where there's not much culture of making an effort at academic work I guess? But in reality more likely to be those particular state schools where there's a lot of disruption, high teaching turnover, lots of supply, no culture of working hard etc. There are some children who will respond to a poor environment by becoming angry and more determined, as one of my siblings did, and others who will simply not want or be able to cope and not achieve what they're capable of.

Dapplegrey

Neoliberalism tends to be used as a somewhat derisory description of those who support globalisation, free-market capitalism and small government with as little interference as possible (while acknowledging that government does have a role to play).

One if the things going against my DD'S state school performing better is that they can't easily exclude pupils who exhibit serious anti social behaviour. It has to be extreme before they can expel. Meanwhile, everyone's learning is disrupted because of them. Even if expelled eventually, they get sent to another school to reek havoc somewhere else. No way would a private school put up with some of the shit going on at some state schools.

Generalisations are a bit silly because of so many different variables. Its more about the particular school, parental interest/involvement but most importantly, the personality of said bright child and how they find school.
My ds atends a state school. there is some disruption to lessons but it somehow completely bypasses him - he literally doesn't notice - and when he does, is able to shut it out. That's about his personality, not how bright he is. However, he is/was happy at school and being happy and fitting in with the general culture of the school is really important. The culture at his school is very much 'everyone will achieve at something - doesn't matter what it is'.
Good state schools do very well by many of their pupils - the lad with SN that achieved his Maths and English passes was as much celebrated as my sons clean sweep of 9's at GCSE this year.

Of course they don’t. Many schools are mediocre places and some are scarily awful. Bright children wither and die in such environments

That’s why I said well supported children. Children who are well supported will have advocates to make sure things go well for them. That’s what I mean.

I was a bright kid that did well. My school was pretty shit though and I did well on natural ability and not due to good teaching (with the odd exception). I used to pretend to not know things or keep quiet. I would say I wasn’t stretched to the full extent of my ability and I didn’t really have to work because I seemed to excel against my peer group with no effort. I clearly remember my language classss not being set for example and being sat next to someone with no interest that ultimately got a G.

The difference in results between what I achieved and what I might have got at private school would have been negligible. I think I’d have got a few extra *s on my As at GCSE. There would have been no obvious difference at a-levels as I got my As. But the bigger difference I think would have been in success for Oxbridge, confidence, developing broad skills re extra ciricular, activity, better subject knowledge as a preparation for university and promoting aspiration. I was a big fish in a small pond and it was a bit of a shock to get to university and I had a bit of a crisis of confidence about my own abilities in the first year.

Statistically state educated children do better at university.
My experience is that the quality of teaching may well be better in a state school. What private offers is a selective intake and a more homogeneous peer group. I’m yet to be convinced that is necessarily better.
I used both.

Statistically privately educated children do better in life.

Statistically, middle and upper class children do better in life.

7% of all UK pupils are privately educated, the proportion rises to 16% at 6th Form. 90% of University entrants are state educated. Of course some Universities accept a higher proportion of privately educated children ( the obvious,Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol and the Music colleges). But many many middle class state educated children go on to be highly successful in the professions, it's daft to suggest otherwise! It all depends on how we measure success.

No, it's bullshit. Privately educated students have the massive advantage of the school being selective. The school does not have to tolerate ANY level of disruption, they simply expel. The remaining students are bright, engaged and compliant - the ideal class.

In state schools, sometimes disruptive behaviour continues throughout an entire lesson. The brighter students have to sit and wait ... and wait ... and wait for any attention at all from the teacher, if they ever get any. The learning tasks are pitched very low in a mixed ability class. The idea is that mixed ability classes raise the general ability of the class - this may be true, but they do this to the detriment of the brighter students who either sit and wait, become disruptive due to boredom, or are used as little teaching assistants for their less bright peers.

Andro - thank you for the explanation.
I don't recall my children spending their schooldays in such a soup, I must say.

Ask the multiple Year 11s who got a string of 9s at the state school I teach at, OP.

Ask the multiple Year 11s who got a string of 9s at the state school I teach at

All that proves is that some bright children do well.

What about grammars? I always thought they were the best option for a truly clever child. Plenty of my friends are paying for prep school in order to prep their kids for secondary grammars.

I was part of a group of around 6 very bright children in a below average comp. I did ok,but was desperately unhappy, bored in many lessons and only challenged in the subjects I struggled with, ostracised for being a swot etc

Of those 6 almost all have experienced severe depression in adulthood, and 2 have decided to be voluntarily childless as a result of horrendous teen years. One said to me "if I had kids they'd be weird like me and they'd be tormented like me"

I'd have thrived in a more academic school but the eldest sibling was the least academic of us and we were all just sent where they went.

As a result I'm a very big believer in sending your individual child to the school best for them - not simply where their siblings are or the local option

And no, I don't think bright children can thrive in state, based on mine, my friends and my siblings experience - teaching is pitched in the middle and effectively benefits no one as no child is average

In my day disruptive children were rewarded for occasional good days and quiet consistently achieving children (usually girls ) flew under the radar and teachers barely remembered their names. Years later a teacher told me that they felt things had gone even more that way at my old school so much so they noticed

Ultimately if I had the money, I would go private for secondary every time, I don't think it's as important at primary level you can get a good state primary a lot more easily

State includes some extremely selective grammars though, and also some schools that aren't grammars but engage in a certain amount of back door selection.

Attending a selective (private, grammar, religion, postcode) school is an advantage because selective schools contain fewer badly behaved children and less turnover in teaching staff.

Private schools are at an advantage as they can easily exclude / expel those who disrupt or don’t want to learn. They are also removed from government meddling and cost cutting.

I agree that by A levels the problem is largely removed.

There needs to be massive investment in those who don’t want to be at school / are disruptive. I don’t feel they should be taught in mainstream. It simply doesn’t work. Then parents will be more likely to buy into their local school and we’ll see far fewer selective schools.

Surely a bright child in a state will be in top sets and dc who mess about or don't want to be in the top sets will be removed?

How is your dd in disruptive classes?

"Surely a bright child in a state will be in top sets and dc who mess about or don't want to be in the top sets will be removed?"

This was the case at DD's school. Setting is the only way IMO.

Setting. If the kids are set then they will generally do well on state.
What I suffered was the bloody lack of aspiration and being called a snob for reading a book. I hope this has changed in state schools now.

I went to a mediocre private school. Pupils were getting C and DS for GCSEs.

Left and went to a much better private school where less able pupils were getting A*s.

Point I’m trying to make is that private schools are not a panacea; they can vary massively in quality.

It is entirely possible for a very bright child to be a complete bellend, disrupt everyone's learning, and still do enough work to stay in a top set

It's also not fixing the issue of disruption to move them down. You're just disadvantaging students who need even MORE input from the teacher and who will get even less.

DH and I both went to mediocre Comprehensive schools, both went on to achieve Ph.Ds, professional careers. As did lots of other people.