What do private schools do that state schools don't?

[Mommymoments]

For me the local private does
Weekly swimming
Learning an orchestra instrument (extra cost)
Debating
Language (Spanish, French, German & afterschool Latin, Mandarin & Russian)
Yoga
Hockey & Lacrosse
Lots of sporting & drama opportunities
Excellent field trips out of school
Ski trip from Y7 onwards..

Would love all that for my dc's but can't afford it. But would love to hear about all the nice extras your dc's get at their private.

From ds's: Vastly superior buildings. (Everything looked immaculate and specialist classrooms well equipped). Text books!! Smaller classes. Teachers much more available to offer help/ advice. Massive range of enrichment activities generally, but especially on their 'sports' afternoon (so that even ds - who really isn't sporty - found things he wanted to do). And a much more personal touch from support/pastoral staff etc. (Which he really needed). And since he's left a fair bit of alumni stuff.

Only if they’ve been privately educated it seems.

Labour would never do that. Not going to happen.

In theory it would depend who owned the buildings and what they decided to do with them, etc. But it's not going to happen.

My eldest has maintained a group of friends made up of some of his classmates from state primary and some from his private senior. He left school a few years ago and is still with these friends. There has been no snobbery (inverted or otherwise) between them and their achievements and ambitions are all very similar (and none of them have had a ‘network’ to get a leg up). I think it depends on the level of private school, some (like my kids) was a ‘bog standard’ one but some are way more exclusive and in need of very serious levels of funding. Those are the ones that probably produce the more blinkered kids (but not knowing any personally I can’t say for sure).

This reminds me of that Monty python sketch.

Yes.
Also, many of them have excellent facilities so it would be unfair on the children at state schools which didn’t have all these playing fields, theatres, top-of-range science labs etc.
I think what might happen is they’d be bought by overseas buyers and made into international schools. Labour wouldn’t mind that though I’m not sure how British children would be kept out of them.

Yep, and then people wonder why privately educated kids might just be averse to socialising with them. It’s less ‘mummy doesn’t want me to encounter state school children unless I’m using them for archery practice’, and more ‘would rather not be friends with people who hate me by virtue of the school I go to’.

I htink it's hard to generalise as to how much children mix with different types of children. My son at one point was the only white boy in his private school class so I suppose the other boys some of whom are from fairly closed communities got a chance to meet a white boy. Our local state primaries to an extent divide on class and colour lines - C of E seems mostly white (entirely different from the much more mixed private primaries) and the nearest to my house has a lot of little girls of 5 in muslim head covering etc and is non-denominational, We also have a hindu staet primary school (and there are certainly not that many of those in the UK) and lots of state Jewish schools too and I presume state muslims ones as well - so a huge mixture because this is London

However if you stripped out every child at the private schools at age 11 on a busary obviously most of the pupils have parents who can afford £18k a year fees so that is going to be the relatively well off even if that is 4 adults working to fund that child's school fees within the family.

My children's friends tended to be those in their school, sometimes from a club or hobby or church, sometimes a neighbour. Then they go to university and make new friends too (first time my children were in a sense in a white environment or majority white was at university).

My sons fee paying school did events - a musicl for example - with a leading state grammar school so that was mixing and those parents I met there seemed no different from the parents of my sons' school (except the leading state grammar parents that I met were all white and I suspect richer than the first or second generation immigrant parents of my sons' school). So it can be quite hard to generalise between schools.

Smaller classes, better behaviour, more parental buy-in, more clubs, more residentials and an expectation that only the very best is acceptable from the pupils.

When I taught in state Ed, my energy went on behaviour management before anything else. I taught high ability classes and behaviour could still be iffy. In lower ability classes, the aim was to keep the pupils in the room. Teaching wasn’t the priority I am really sad to say. I used to offer additional lessons at lunchtimes to the kids who wanted to learn but couldn’t because of the shitty behaviour from their classmates.

So in a nutshell, indies are more able to have teachers teach properly because of better behaviour and have pupils learn than in state schools.

Oh and even though I haven’t taught in state for a while, my friends who do have said behaviour is worse than ever at their different schools.

Which one?😁

Behaviour is not always better but dealing with it seemed a lot more effective. There had been exclusions (some permanent) at the school for smoking weed etc and I think there were some vaping incidents. The schools aren’t full of perfect little darlings but there is a very low tolerance for bad behaviour and nonsense (parents won’t spend their money if the school is running amok).

This is the report.

*Smaller classes, better behaviour, more parental buy-in, more clubs, more residentials and an expectation that only the very best is acceptable from the pupils.

When I taught in state Ed, my energy went on behaviour management before anything else. I taught high ability classes and behaviour could still be iffy. In lower ability classes, the aim was to keep the pupils in the room. Teaching wasn’t the priority I am really sad to say. I used to offer additional lessons at lunchtimes to the kids who wanted to learn but couldn’t because of the shitty behaviour from their classmates.*

That's really sad to hear - I wonder why these students are so badly behaved and aren't interested in learning?

The research into state school v private school was done with lower grades - BCC I think. Kids who get As and A stars do well whatever.

Number 1 thing - safety.

I'm not worried about my DD witnessing violence on a daily basis.
I'm not scared she's going to be assaulted or persistently bullied.
I'm not worried about her being afraid to go to school.
I am not worried her having to put up with her lessons being continually disrupted.

And in the event that any of the above does occur, I know the school will deal with it swiftly and appropriately.

As a former state secondary school teacher, I honestly felt scared of some of the classes I had to teach. I was verbally abused daily. I saw fights happen daily. I heard about teachers being physically assaulted regularly. I was physically assaulted and suffered long term injuries as a result. The students responsible faced little consequences. In 9 years I only recall 2 students who got permanently excluded - they both broke the law in school. My mum taught in a variety of both primary and secondary state schools and had similar experiences in every one.

I now teach in an independent school. In 4 years I have not been verbally abused, not seen a fight, not heard of a colleague being assaulted and not once felt scared. Several students have been permanently excluded for disruptive behaviour, bullying, setting off the fire alarm, and damage to school property.

The school is ethnically diverse and the majority of students are not super wealthy. We can afford it thanks to staff discount and inheritance money. The school is not particularly selective and takes a range of abilities, including students with SEN and complex physical and mental health needs. The pastoral support is fantastic and small classes with plenty of TAs mean everyone's needs are met. My DD loves school and is absolutely thriving.

I got all of this in a state Secondary with its own pool, tennis courts, rugby/football pitch, specialist expressive arts & music facility, debating society, massive woodland cross country running course, Latin, French, German. The provision has changed a lot in 20 years unfortunately.

Nailed it with safety, interesting and sadly v relevant point.

I think this thread shows that it is not about these 'extras'. That is not what parents are paying for when choosing to s me their children to a good private school.

It appears to be the quality of teaching with little disruption in small classes. Teachers seem to be able to their jobs better.

Thank you for this, it absolutely sums up why my children won’t be going to our local state secondary.
The vast majority of those above disparaging private schools go on to say ‘my children go to an excellent comp in a wealthy area’. Fab for them. But I don’t think you can criticise others for making a different decision when their local state school is as described in @quickbathroombreak ’s post.
Alternatively we could move for better state provision, but I’d still be paying for their education, just an a different way.

I don't think anybody criticises people for doing what they believe is best for their children.

There is however something sad about the 'everyone out for themselves' mentality though, and it is reasonable to lament that. If so many people have come to the conclusion that small class sizes and appropriate provision of TAs matter, and are prepared to pay for that in regard to their own children, then why do we not elect governments who resource schools appropriately? Why do we perpetuate a system where the average children of citizens in the middle class to wealthy bracket get a better start in life than all other children, regardless of need, ability, or parentage?

The self-fulfilling prophecy isn't in anyone's best interests, long term. Those who can afford it opt out, and then have a vested interest in supporting a system and a government that perpetuates this segregation. At a personal level, it is entirely understandable. At a societal level, it is morally wrong.

then why do we not elect governments who resource schools appropriately?

Probably because there isn't currently a party who will probably fund schools (NHS, Police, public transport etc) at the moment. Unless someone creates a new countrywide party that does that, we can only vote on who is going to destroy the country least during their time in government.

Not the vast majority @DanceMonster
I really take exception to this trope of the leafy comp and how it's alright for them. I once lived in what would describe as a leafy area and there were plenty of deprived pockets and margins.
We then moved to a beautiful but deprived rural area (in cornwall) which you would probably describe as leafy but most assuredly isn't. Both my middle class, motivated children did very well indeed. They had support at home and found their tribe (it's always there somewhere) while being able to observe other tribes. And dare I say it (I'll get slated for this!) their presence (and that of others like them) helped the school population as a whole.

I went to private boarding school. Got expelled which was a most positive experience and didn't hinder me in the slightest.
Sent my son to local state school and had lovely long haul holidays instead of paying fees.
Eight of his school year went onto Oxbridge.
Would certainly do the same again.

If only it were that easy 'to do it again'. Your dc is obviously very bright and was supported at school and at home. Unfortunately not all children are that fortunate.

Wow!