to ask if you use state or private education

[manicinsomniac]

Sorry, I know it's a little rude and personal but I only ask because I think that only 7-8% of the children in the UK are privately educated yet on mumsnet it seems to be massively higher than that which I find interesting.

So, if I'm not being too unreasonable to ask, do/did/will you use private or state education for your child/ren?

Word small tasks yes. Not two hours of homework for 9 year olds which is what some friends in private schools report. It is two hours because they don't want to do it, and find it difficult, and need lots of parental input.
Every parent I know who works and sends their children to private school complains bitterly about supervising homework, and worries about keeping their child up to the mark.

Call me lazy but this is one the reasons I did not send my children to private school. Entirely selfish I know, but I did not want to spend hours and hours doing what my poor mother did with me and my 3 siblings. Worrying about about 11 plus exams, worrying about homework on Sunday night, worry worry worry. We all did well, at the time, but developed a aversion to being hassled that has never quite gone away.

when you say 'failed basic literacy and numeracy', are you referring to SATS scores? Because it has appeared on here as though many fans of independent schools don't like or trust SATS anyway. Which way round is it?

And could you perhaps acknowledge that at no point did I say I didn't think there should be any brain surgeons?

let's be frank - you can't have it both ways

you can't say children are not failing because of state school inadequacy and say there is inequality of opportunity

either state schools offer equality of education or they don't

if you say they do, then you can't claim private school pupils have an advantage

if you say they don't, you can't say there's no reason for parents to go private

you disagreed with my whole post - which included my desire for an elite of brain surgeons etc etc

nice that you agree with some of it and you do want an elite after all

Once I finally got into the 6th form of the grammar school I thought 'this will be stressful and difficult-with all the 'clever' DCs'. It wasn't either-I managed fine and should have been there all along. Some people who had a place at 11yrs had left by then-not something that should have happened-they took up a place that could have gone to someone who 'failed' but intended going on to further education. The whole system was a waste of talent.

yes - they achieved the grade expected at Y4 - hardly prep for secondary school

i haven't said anything about sats, I dont' know much about them but I suspect they probalby test too low to be honest which doesn't undermine my argument at all

I probably wouldn't use the word 'elite', because that implies they should be cut off, and it should be unattainable for most. Of course different people should be allowed to do different jobs - they always will. But you know, there are some lawyers who went to state school!

I didn't say there was an inequality of opportunity, in fact. Well, of course there is one, but I do not believe it is as clearcut as you seem to think I do. You tend to take any and all arguments against private education and attribute them to me, I think.

I do believe that a child can be well educated in the state system, and can achieve highly. I dislike the fact that there are people like those on this thread who will always, even so, think of those children as 'a bit Tesco value'.

Whilst being wary of metaphors that don't stretch, and analogies which mislead:
Shop at Waitrose if you like, but don't assume that Sainsbury's only sells shit. And don't confuse the Sainsburys down the road with the Iceland you went to when you were 9, or the Aldi that you've read about where the fruit and veg weren't very nice.

I don't assume that Sainsbury's only sells shit. I don't assume children with a state education are Tesco value.

Whereas you assume that Waitrose only produces an undesirable end product and should be made illegal.

If you seriously believe private education should be abolished and these are your only arguments thank goodness you aren't Minister.

Anything about those failures in basic literacy and numeracy?

Difficult to comment not knowing what statistics you're using, although I suspect there are always some children out of the full range who will be at the average standard for year 4 at the end of year 6? They'll be the ones who are largely kept out of independent schools, I would imagine. Although I know some wealthy people do get their children into private schools which can cater for them, before you say so.

(ps, I'm not saying Waitrose is private school. Remember what I said about metaphors which don't stretch?)

this was the first and quickest ref

in that case i don't understand your metaphor and it doesn't seem relevant

Ah, the evening standard - famed for its un-partisan approach!

e number of 11-year-olds passing what is meant by passing? - they don't say Sats in English has fallen for the first time since the exam was introduced in 1995, the Department for Children admitted today.

An estimated 115,000 children, one in five, left primary school last month two years behind their classmates misleading language - of course a number will be 'behind their classmates', because it's a test and some will score more highly - competition, you see? Like in a race, one in five children will finish behind some other classmates, yes? unable to read and write oh no,panic at the evocative language!! to the required standard.ah. I see what you did there

The children who took Sats this year were born during Tony Blair's first term in office completely irrelevant fact other than chronological coincidence, but like the way the journalist manages to imply that it's their birth under the Reign Of Blair which has cursed their futures!, which he won on his famous promise to prioritise ?education, education, education?. When Gordon Brown became Prime Minister two years ago he too declared: ?Education is my passion.?

But critics said today's results showed the Government's school policies had run out of steam. Shadow Children's Secretary Michael Gove oh. Shadow Children's Secretary in 'Disagreeing with Government Shocker!said: ?This is the final proof that Labour, elected on a platform to raise standards in education, has failed to deliver.?

The Government has spent £2 billion on improving literacy and numeracy since 1997, only to see grades stall in recent years and now fall.any mention of where the grades where before? Nope?

The figures brought fresh calls for ministers to scrap Sats and seek a new approach to primary education. The results from the Department for Children show:

A one per cent drop this year to 80 per cent in the proportion of pupils passing English Sats at Level 4, the grade expected of 11-year-olds.I'm no statistician, but isn't a 1% drop generally considered statistically negligible?*

No improvement in maths and science since last year, with 79 per cent of pupils reaching the grade expected of their age group in numeracy and 88 per cent in science.no improvement? So, no fall, then? Yet when GCSE and A level results do improve year on year, this is also a bad thing? Explain?*

In London, 39 per cent of pupils ? about 30,000 children ? failed to pass English and maths at Level 4. compared with? Meaningless without context, either geographical or historical*

Ministers said pupils who did not pass the tests at the Government's target Level 4 were not illiterate or innumerate and claimed that Level 3 was acceptable. And?*

Soon after Tony Blair took power ministers introduced a national literacy strategy, in which every primary school child spent an hour a day learning the basics of reading and writing. Jesus, the shits! Fancy spending an hour a day reading and writing? WTF were they thinking?

Almost 580,000 children across England took the tests in English, maths and science in May. Fewer than? children achieved the top grade of Level 5 this year in reading, writing and science, bringing claims wishy washy. Of course Govey's going to claim that, as is the Evening Standard! that schools were failing to stretch the brightest pupils. Boys struggled with writing, in particular, with only 60 per cent passing their writing Sats at the expected Level 4, compared with 75 per cent of girls.

Dr Bethan Marshall, senior lecturer in English education at King's College London, said there were ?major flaws? with Sats and called for them to be scrapped.

She said: ?Boys tend to write very pithily and don't go into an awful lot of detail and the way Sats are marked tends to favour pupils who put in everything bar the kitchen sink.? so, what? Pithy writing will come in handy later when they're writing for the Standard, I should think.... bastard detail and meticulousness being shown by those upstart girls, eh?

The Government is planning an expansion of small group teaching and one-to-one catch up classes. Schools Minister Diana Johnson said she was disappointed by the results but stressed that pupils who attained Level 3 ? normally expected of nine or 10-year-olds ? could still read and write.

you are so in denial

"Ah, the evening standard - famed for its un-partisan approach!" I mean this is just weird - are you suggesting they made them up?

do you think the telegraph made them up too?

maybe leftie papers didn't report them because they were a bit sad and depressing for Labour

am so glad you are not in charge of education if you don't know what passing an exam means!

"Boys struggled with writing, in particular, with only 60 per cent passing their writing Sats at the expected Level 4, compared with 75 per cent of girls."

I mean do you seriously think that almost half of boys being unable to write a decent sentence at the age of 11 is not a problem?

If I quoted you an article from the Guardian, I suspect your response would be similar. The Standard is well known for its reactionary politics, truly. Ditto the Torygraph.

40% isn't 'almost half' (glad you're not in charge of exams either if you think it is). And 'passing at level 4' isn't the same as 'not being able to write a decent sentence'. You're reading the stats for what you want them to say, and you're unable to detect the political bias and emotive language being used here.

As you can see if you read what I've said, I'm not saying they're 'making them up', but you do know journalism is generally coming from one perspective or another, right? And that statistics are open to interpretation and spin?

Or don't you, sorry?

and really, it's 'weird' to know that the Standard isn't known to be partisan? Well, stone me!

no it wouldn't, stats are stats - tis weird to imply the stats are worth less because they were reported in the standard

so half isn't ok - but 40 pc is ok with you?

and that's 40 pc of boys aged 11 unable to use a comma in a sentence

so - 40 pc of boys unable to use a comma in a sentence - that's ok with you?

I'm back!
I don't think my 11 year old son can use a comma properly in a sentence. He writes very little if he can get away with it. Yet, he loves literacy at his state school. He loves the discussions, the topics, the way they springboard from a set book into ideas and feelings. He is absorbing it all, even if he can't express on paper everything he has absorbed. It is a groundwork for his personal development.

I think what is important is that as they get older, their skills as independent learners are developed by the schools. No amount of force feeding commas to primary school children is going to give the country what it needs which is creative thinkers. Children who are interested in what happens at school. They are there with their friends (we hope) It is not really about commas, it is about confidence in themselves, how to make their writing work (for example) To want to express themselves, verbally and on paper. To be able to express themselves without faltering.
Grammar and punctuation are tools to do this, but if you don't teach anything but that, children lose interest very quickly. You need stories and books and above all reading to teach children grammar and punctuation...

I think private schools have exactly the same problems as state schools in that they need the pupils to "measure up" in a statistical form, whereas what the parents really want are all the extras that schools can impart, the socialization, the drama, the creative projects, all the cross-curricular learning, so that you remember who the Romans are, not because you remember the dates but because you dressed up in a toga.

The point is gooseberry that if your child was in a state school, she would be able to use a comma. She would read (hopefully), you would encourage her eventually to use commas. The person next to her would notice her using commas. Her work on the classroom wall would show commas.

Are you sending her to private school just to learn commas? It is quite easy to teach that at home.

Anyway, I'm being facetious. I must go back to work.

wordfactory's list is pretty much what I and my siblings had at school.

It was good, and I like that ds has had homework from reception too. A good habit to acquire. I don't even stress over the marks ds gets (although he does do well)- I really do not have this mc angst that keeps being mentioned. Maybe because I am very happy with the school.

I suppose what I'm asking you to explain is that if the measure of a school is whether the children can use commas (which is what you are suggesting), it would be quite easy for all schools to work extremely hard making sure the children used commas correctly, whilst neglecting all other aspects of their education and personal development.

swanriver: you're not only being facetious, you're being horribly separatist. It's ok if state schools fail children with no parental support - the children who most need it? It's ok because middle class parents will do the school's job at home? So the rest can just whistle?

I'm not surprised your child enjoys literacy. They've left out all the boring learning stuff apparently.

And THAT is why social mobility is so appalling - because an elite group who know (educated and involved parents) are passing on what they know to a select group - their children. Because the schools which should be doing it, should be passing it on to everyone and giving them the best chance in life - well they aren't, and in the name of "equality of opportunity" this is defended by people who deny there's any problem at all.

I have only read a small part of this thread so may well have missed important comments. I always find it sad on threads like these that there are a number of teachers who pop up and say that they teach in the state sector but would never send their DC to a state school, as a blanket statement. How can you work in an institution where you have no faith whatsoever in the standard of education you are supplying?

However, gooseberry, I find the opinions that you have expressed in the last page quite simplistic. I'm sure you are correct that state schools are failing pupils in some cases. This may be for a variety of reasons- NC, teaching standards not being high enough (possibly because they aren't being paid very high salaries), chronic underfunding, poor Mx of behaviour (although this is also simplistic and certainly not all the fault of the teaching staff), etc, etc

However, you don't appear to be placing much weight on the fact that the intake varies hugely from school and generally between private and state sector.
The fact that parents make the choice to send their DC to a private school or a faith school or move house to be in the catchment of the better school in a certain area already tells you certain things about these parents, their income levels, their level of motivation and their expectations for their children. There are so many social problems/ problems with society in general which contribute to children failing nowadays and it isn't fair to place all of the blame on the education system.

To be perfectly honest, the way you are generalising makes you sound a little ill informed. I am not anti private education like joan but I can understand why she feels like this and think she has made some valid points.
Sometimes, I find that parents who have been fully privately educated themselves have an innate fear of the state system. They assume that they would never have got the results/ job, etc that they have if they had been sent to state schools. In some cases, this may be true but certainly not all.

You also speak about believing in elitism- brain surgeons, etc, etc. I believe in the truly talented being given the opportunity to excel whatever their background. There is less social mobility and far less spread of wealth nowadays and this is making the above less and less likely. By the way, the only two neurosurgeons I know personally were both entirely state educated.