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?

"No amount of force feeding commas to primary school children is going to give the country what it needs which is creative thinkers."

I mean, this is the sort of turgid nonsense that passes for education philosphy these days. Teaching a fact is "force-feeding" and it's mutually exclusive to encouraging creativity. One can't possibly do both. Teaching facts is just so damned oppressive. Must tell all those musicians and composers who have to practise and learn the notation and which key to bang.

Great. So a child has lots of ideas for a novel, but can't write them down. Big step forward.

I'm not ill-informed (I know a lot more than Joan for a start!) and I have experience of a very well funded, with a comprehensive (inc SN) intake from the highest possible demographic - which slavishly followed the National Curriculum and produced utterly mediocre results. I have experience of traditional state primary education with good parental support which produced excellent results. And I have God knows how many child years of primary and secondary education in various NC, non NC, private and state instititutions.

The difference is, I can see self-contradition when I see it, a failure of cogency and downright denialism.

"I believe in the truly talented being given the opportunity to excel whatever their background." Why, so do I. And state schools which had rather a lot of money put in under Labour, don't offer it. And as you so rightly point out, and as I did too, "there is less social mobility".

And this is because many schools don't do their job properly. They rely on middle class parents to teach the basics, the "force-feeding" which is so anathema to them, and the ones who don't have such supportive parents can go jump.

And you think this is fair? I don't.

Mind you, a teacher in their twenties was probably NC educated and doesn't know how to use a comma herself and the same goes for the parents. Not their fault. A vicious circle.

IME, DD's state school, is very very good in bringing the students who are not so able up to a decent level, which is great - except, this is done at the cost of the more able students. Our school, will not stream, move students up/down etc. because it would be seen as being discriminatory. Students are taken out of class for extra help with Maths or whatever, yet they cannot give the more able any extras, because a less able child might get upset. Its rubbish ! And it makes me really cross that I because of this system I am having to pay for my daughter to get the education she deserves.

There is a world of difference in our opinions and outlook, Gooseberry, but it's rude and wrong to say that's because you 'know a lot more' than me.

I do though - you asked to be shown one child who'd failed in the state sector. I showed you 115,000 not 18 months ago. You tried to deny it, then apparently think that 40pc of boys who can't use a comma doesn't matter. So long as it's not half.

Oh and what's that phrase again? Is it 'lies, damned lies and.....and..... the universal truth as represented by statistics and their objective reporting in The Evening Standard'? It's definitely something along those lines....

'Failed' doesn't mean 'didn't get top marks in SATS' though for heaven's sake!
You seem a tad preoccupied by commas, though.

All it really boils down to is there are good state schools and bad state schools, good private schools and bad private schools.
Everyone is looking for the best for their own DC.
Some people have no choice, some people can move to get a better choice, some people can pass an exam to get a better choice and a very small percentage can have the whole choice, paying if they prefer.

What we should really be doing is reforming the system to give every DC the best education for them.

And if 'knowing more' is the same as 'being able to google and find an article', then here's some knowing for you.

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/23/state-school-pupils-better-university

And what would be your point in posting that article? Should I start complaining because state school pupils have an advantage? Should you, possibly, stop complaining that they don't?

You and the anti-brigade really are in complete denial. Complaining that I'm obsessed by commas? Ok, how about 40 pc of eleven year old boys can't write an extended sentence? Is that ok?

I didn't just google it [hmmm] I read it at the time and read around it. I read a lot that I don't store on my computer ready to dole out on mn. Certainly if you claim there is not one child failing at basic numeracy and literacy you ought to know what you are talking about or even if it is true.

"'Failed' doesn't mean 'didn't get top marks in SATS' though for heaven's sake!"

Total denialism.

These children have the reading and numeracy ages of 8-9 year olds. It is not about getting top marks. It is about being able to read, write and do basic maths.

• the literacy ages of 8-9 year olds

maths is slightly better

so if your child gets a C at GCSE, will he/she have failed? Or will the school have failed him/her? Or what?

Exotic - quite right (the only option you missed was 'find religion' .

However, 'reforming the system to give every DC the best education for them' means vastly different things to different people. For some, fully comprehensive is the only solution. For others, its something modelled on grammar schools and really good provision for the less 'academic' kids. For many its mixed sex but for some, girls thrive in all-girls schools.

Some of this is ideological but some is simply that it doesn't seem possible to devise a system which optimally suits every child.

Joan why are you avoiding this question

Do you think it's fair that schools leave tens of thousands of children with the literacy skills of a nine-year-old as they go on to secondary?

Do you think that gives them equality of opportunity?

What is the point of your last question? What is your point in posting that article?

1. and 2) ever heard of 'value added'? What isn't fair is that all 11 year olds don't have the same equality of opportunity for many reasons - it isn't the case, though, that schools take children who could have got a sweep of 5As in SATS and then refuse to teach them above a level 4.

2. How rude. What's the point of yours? Why don't you answer it, instead of asking that?

3. My point in posting the article is to try to counter your refusal to admit anything positive about state education.

(and I notice you have nothing to say on the matter!)

What are you like?

I'll answer this question then I'm off: you just don't make any sense to me at all.

A C isn't a fail.

If they get a C at least I know we gave them the best chance to get an A*.

Why is this relevant? It's not, it's utterly irrelevant but you just can't answer all the other points so your argument is reduced to this kind of silly sniping.

"4) My point in posting the article is to try to counter your refusal to admit anything positive about state education."

I don't understand how the article you posted was positive about state education. It seemed to be saying that the state pupils got into university inspite of their state education.

No, thesethings, what it was saying was that state educated pupils achieve better degrees!

I've answered every question you've asked, but you ignore that.

They got better degrees. But they got into university inspite of the state education and not because of it.

Joan why are you avoiding this question

(AIBU to think there should have been a comma there?)

No, for god's sake, they got there because they got the grades, and passed the interview, and then they turn out to have, sometimes at least, a rather impressive work ethic and they get better degrees because of it.

Oh god must hide: all you have to do is read my posts to say that I don't refuse to admit anything positive about state education.

You're saying that, only because you adamantly and in the face of evidence refuse to admit anything negative about it - but at the same time say that private schools have an educational advantage!