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.

How do you know that teaching is 'pitched in the middle'? I ALWAYS set challenging activities (with extra challenge on top for the brightest) for my students, and expect it to be done. The children in my class scored ABOVE FFT20 in their GCSE in my subject, that's to say, if they attended the 'top 20% of schools', they still wouldn't have done as well as they did with me.

If you were to visit my state school, I think you'd have your preconceptions challenged. And we are in no way selective, and in an area of high private school attendance.

I'm really confused.

Surely all state secondary, have sets??

How on earth can they not

Do they set for everything? Or just English and maths?

I was referring to personal experience only, which is all anyone can do.

And we were only "set" for Maths

I teach in a comprehensive. I would send my DC to this school, or a similar one, without hesitation (eldest is currently Year 2, also at a state school).

80% got 4 or higher in both maths and English, does well in Ofsted, very little disruption, etc. Plenty of extra-curriculars, nearly all free. It is in a naice catchment, but still much more diverse than any local privates (economically, EAL, ethnicity, SEN, etc) and I think that's important.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to send my DC to the comp DH used to teach at. Different part of same town. ~50% 4s in maths and English, RI, frequent fights, and most of the teachers are looking for a way out. I would do anything I could to stop my DC having to go to a school like that although couldn't afford private anyway

Do they set for everything? Or just English and maths?

Depends on the school and sometimes the year group. Where I teach, we set for English & Maths from y7. Science, MFL, PE and possibly other subjects are "banded" from y9.

At private school your kids are more likely to be surrounded by other kids who have engaged parents and have been taught proper standards of behaviour. State school takes all kids including those whose parents don’t give a crap and whose behaviour is totally unacceptable.

I went to a state school and was utterly miserable due to the low calibre of people I was surrounded by. I was ostracised for working hard and doing well. It was difficult to find anyone I had anything in common with. I’d have bitten off your hand if you’d offered to send me to a private school.

Surely all state secondary, have sets??

Depends on lots of things.

A few of my exam subjects had few pupils, so there could only be a single group - i.e. under 20. This was in the days of GCEs and CSEs so the single group was comprised of both which made teaching very difficult as the two sub-sets were being taught different things. (This was a school with 1,200 pupils so not tiny by any means).

Also, sometimes, particularly Maths and English, if there are 6 groups, they're not 6 different levels. Again, in my old school, the 6 yearly forms were split in two, so there were two lots of 3 different ability groups, i.e. top, middle & bottom for forms a-c and again for d-f, which meant quite a difference of ability in each group and the same situation of both GCE and CSE being taught in the middle groups.

Turning to more modern days, my son, who had just done his GCSEs was only in sets for Maths & English - all other subjects were just random with no sets/groups according to ability. Even in Maths & English, there were only top and bottom sets, with the 4 middle sets being random.

These were both state schools.

Another thing to remember on threads like this is that people often seem to compare crap state schools with good private schools.

I’m not.

I agree Bertrand. DD's comprehensive was a particularly good one.

Top sets in decent states schools are comparable to any private school.

So when choosing a state school, find one that sets, if you have a bright child. Some schools teach in mixed ability groups, which basically involves teaching to the top, and differentiation down. It's a bloody hard job though, I've done it. Banded ability sets at GCSE for all kids works far better.

Totally depends on the school.

People always come out with "oh bright kids do well anywhere" but that's total bollocks. If you have a bright child in a school where the teachers spend all their time on discipline and none on teaching, and where the overall culture is that school is crap and only mugs do their homework, of course they're going to do badly.

When we moved to our current house we targeted a specific area because of the local state secondary. In terms of exam results across Scotland it's consistently up in the top 10 and often outperforming the private schools. It's packed with motivated, enthusiastic kids and there are no real issues with discipline or truancy. We could spend £20k per year per child to send them privately but they wouldn't get a better education than the state school. However house prices here are much higher than in other parts of Glasgow so you could argue we're paying that way.

It depends on the school and the child. Obviously, private schools have smaller classes and higher expectations which I think is the main advantage.
The teaching is not necessarily better in private schools, in fact it can be worse

DD went to a bog standard Scottish state comprehensive. She got 5 grade A Highers, 5 grade A Advanced Highers and was offered a place at Cambridge.
She learned to deal with a very diverse range of pupils from every conceivable background, which was very useful social training as she’s autistic.
OP, it completely depends on the individual school. A good state school can be excellent. An average private school may spoon feed the pupils, who then struggle at university without the strict supervision and mentoring they’re used to. A good private school is wildly expensive and the pupils can be in an isolated social bubble of privilege.
A bad state school can be an undisciplined hooligan factory.
You need to assess each potential school on its merits, and also consider your budget. I saved over £150,000 by using state education.

My DD (who is now at college doing her A levels), went to our local comprehensive. Her year 11 was quite hard, as some of the children were still messing around and the teachers seemed to be out of their depth when it came to getting the pupils ready for the new style GCSEs.
And to top it all, they had a film crew in the school for the whole year documenting all of it!
My DD ended up teaching herself some of the subjects that the teachers didn't cover in full.
And it worked! She came away with 10 GCSEs, all 6 & 7s.
If your child wants to learn they can thrive in any school.
Public school is a luxury.

Everything Fayrazzled said.
Why not speak to your DD's teachers and try to get some help for her? A child in our family goes to a school with similar issues but is getting lots of extra input from subject teachers who don't want to let a bright, well-behaved pupil get short-changed.

I'm my experience yes. Both children got brilliant GCSE and A Level results and got their first choice Universities.

One has just got a first in Physics and the other is in her final year at Uni also studying a science.

My son's school had an accelerated set so he did a few of his GCSE's early but my daughter's school was pants.

Both children are very driven and have always put the work in to achieve their great results.

Some bright children might on the face of it succeed as well at a state as a private school - I did, but whether they thrive is a different matter.
I went to a moderately good comprehensive and came out with A’s and A*’s at GCSE, 4 A’s at A-Level, went to Cambridge and on to a specialist technical role at a major company.
However, I was utterly miserable at school, I was bullied mercilessly for being a swot and a geek etc etc. The teaching with a few noteable exceptions wasn’t great so I ploughed in a lot of hours in my own time (and had some tuition in Maths at A-level) so ended up giving up all sports and other hobbies, school didn’t have any swimming facilities anyway, which is what I was good at (the PE teachers generally supported the mocking of my total lack of coordination at team sports).
We were only set for Maths and Science, in other subjects they deliberately paired the top with the bottom and so on as apparently you learn by helping others - yes if they want to learn as one girl did, not so much if they spend the lesson bouncing a basketball off your head.
It was utterly miserable and then when I made it to uni I was out of my depth among all the people who had 4 A’s and played county level sport and were in a choir etc etc. I found my people and ultimately thrived at uni but school was hell.
I spent a long time deciding whether to have DC as I don’t want them to go through the hell that I did. However, after meeting DH who went through a non-selective private and loved it I’ve finally gone for it and have DS and DD on the way.
We live in the catchment for one of the best performing state schools in the country but it still has behaviour issues so I’m still not sure if we will risk state for DS.

Drwhy.

That is a very good point. We only get one precious life if there is an alternative where you will find more friends why not go for it.
Being lonely at school is horrible.

My dd will be going to v good state school but if she is shoved again with dc who do not want to learn I will think about removing her.

i moved mine and ultimately it came down to funding (30+ in class, one TA) - now in classes of 14, in a selective prep which means that everybody there is more or less at similar intelligence levels.

They are happy brcause even at 7&9, they felt out of it because they're quiet bookish types - in this school it really means that they fit right in and neither of them have had that.

My son is at a superselective grammar school. I went to the Y10 information evening last night. They are expected to do 2.5 hours of homework a night, have huge support from the teachers and parents do achieve high grades at GCSE and yet also avail themselves of all of the extra curricular activities on offer, which include cricket tours to Dubai, rugby tours to the southern hemisphere, drama, music, sport, art, cultural trips etc etc. The class sizes are reasonably small for a state school, disruptive behaviour isn't tolerated and to be honest, I don't see much difference between the education my son is receiving and that which my friends are paying £££££ for.

I know we are lucky, but it was a big part of why we chose to move to the place we did - all of the schools here are rated outstanding and the comprehensives are excellent and achieve very good results. DH and I were sent private all the way through our own educations, and I don't think it gave me anything other than a huge sense of entitlement and not particularly brilliant results - I think that the teaching at my son's school is infinitely superior to that which I received at my school.

...to achieve high grades...not 'do'

DH and I were both full boarders from a young age. DH’s school is a world famous public school.
Both of us are very bright and hold senior roles in intellectual fields. Neither of us realised our academic potential until university and beyond: DH, because he was so fucking miserable; me, because I wanted to be popular and rebellious, not brainy.

Our children attend the local primary and comp (London).

DS1 is just about to finish his A-levels and is applying to med school. He has had a happy, stable childhood and has friends from wildly different backgrounds.

He knows how to talk to anyone properly, not like a condescending arsehole, and he is wholly responsible for his results through bloody hard work and initiative (his school had recruitment problems which particularly affected the science departments).

He’s utterly true to himself and happy in his own skin. He’ll make a wonderful doctor and more importantly, he has the tools to navigate life with integrity and courage.

SD and the DTs are little but they are thriving at their primary and growing up securely able to map their local community and the overlaps within it (classmate’s mum works in local shop etc).

The much vaunted confidence and social polish that DH and I have is just armour you need to develop in either a super competitive or super predatory environment.

It’s not a sign of high self esteem or good mental health at all.