WARNING this is a state v private education thread

[icarriedawatermelon2]

AIBU to feel that this is so unfair and that my DS should have the chance to experience all this? AIBU to feel really quite crap and that I have failed him?

To cut a long story short he is at nursery in an amazing prep school. He is there because it is on our door step and the nursery package was the best around in terms of flexible hours, extras etc. Anyway thats not the issue.

The issue is I have seen just how much is available to the children there but more importantly the amazing care of all the students, small classes, amazing setting, child centered learning, freedom to climb trees, etc.

We would be killing ourselves to send our children there :(
Our local state school has a lovely head, but is full to bursting, no space outside etc etc lots of heart there but you just can't compare the two schools.

My DC are every bit worth the best IMO! It makes me MAD that we can't afford it :(

Ok rant over....feel better for getting it out.

"There are plenty of threads on here talking about not being able to find a role that fits in with school hours, wondering whether to work or not, take a career break etc. I spent tons on childcare to carry on a demanding role. The result is that we able to afford private schools and they are worth every penny."

Sadly, not all jobs, even 'demanding' ones, pay enough to enable couples to pay 10K a year private school fees for each child. Particularly given the cost of housing.

We have a household income of 80K gross, (65K DH, 15K me), but couldn't afford to shell out 30K a year in private school fees for our three children.

Noble,

I am a little unconvinced. I recently had reason to spend some time at my old secondary school in the physics department. This is a competitive academic private school who I am sure can attract the teachers they want. I did not notice any teacher using any PCs to help. They basically did "chalk and talk" as you call it. Some were better than others but it seemed to work as well as ever.

And I sometimes think that we assume technology is a plus. You were discussing interactively changing equations and seeing how the corresponding graph changed. That sounds to me something that everyone would love to look at but people would not necessarily learn a lot from. There is nothing like plotting one's own graphs at a relatively slow pace and discussing a single graph to really understand why graphs look the way they do.

If I am wrong, please tell me why? And, if all the modern teaching methods have improved teaching, why are exams not harder rather than easier? I am very aware that this is a complex subject and that there are no easy answers or single explanations. On the other hand, as a mathematician, I believe you would also want to see some evidence of a method being successful rather than merely asserting it.

Larry, I am genuinely surprised that you didn't see a physics department making any use of computers for teaching. I do hope they used them for student tracking, etc. How long were you there?

Re equations, obviously students need to know how to plot graphs and time is spent doing this, but it takes so long to draw the axes, find the points, plot, label etc that the main point of the lesson 'how does changing the equation change the graph?' can get lost. Just as if I were teaching circumference and area of circles I would allow the use of a calculator, because multiplication of decimals by hand isn't the focus of the lesson, I would use ICT to explore changing the equations of graphs because plotting graphs isn't the focus of the lesson. One thing I might do is project up 3 or 4 lines on a set of axes using Autograph software and challenge the students to produce the same image on their computer/netbook/iPad/graphical calculator. If they could do that, I would tell them the points of intersection of my lines and ask them to achieve the same. How much more they can learn from that exercise exploring equations themselves than plodding through an exercise on graph plotting!

Don't blame teachers for exams getting easier, by the way, we have no control over them. One issue to consider might be the multitude of private exam boards competing for schools' custom by promising an easier ride.

Giraffe,

Two days. It was end of term and a lot of the classes were exam prep, so I am not sure it was entirely typical. As to "student tracking", I have to be honest and say that I have no idea, although I think I saw paper being used for that. To be honest, though, I would have thought that truancy and class skipping would be a very minor issue at a private school (at least it was in my day!).

I understand what you are saying re properly plotting graphs. But if you understand the shape of a cubic (for example), that it may have up to 2 inflections, then you can just plot a very few points on the axis to see what changing any of the exponents does to the graph. I guess I would have to see a lesson the way you described to see how (and if) it works better. I just think technology sometimes focuses people's efforts on the method of using the technology itself rather than the underlying concepts.

You clearly have real experience teaching and I do not, so I cannot but respect your opinions. However, I just cannot observe better outcomes in terms of the mathematical/scientific knowledge of young people compared to when I was at school (a fair while ago).

I did not blame the teachers and I know why grade inflation happened ( a combination of a failure to benchmark grades and government pressure to make schools appear more successful). However, I just would have thought that if technology really helped in a meaningful way, the students could have at least sat the equivalent exams and still scored higher.

Larry, exam prep tends to be grinding through past papers so I can't say that I'd be using much ICT there either. Your private school would be missing a trick if they didn't have a student database system like SIMs though. At my fingertips for any student I can have: their timetable, their parental contact info and sibling details, any SEN information, their back-catalogue of reports, assessment data and targets for all subjects and details of any detentions and housepoints. This is immensely valuable.

Re plotting graphs, what I had in mind was not quite cubic level, merely y=mx+c and understanding gradients and intercepts. This is taught in Y7 and 8 and is something that a lot of kids struggle with. I've taught it both with and without ICT and I know that the link between the graph and the equation is much more easily grasped when you aren't held up by the slog that is graph plotting. It's so much easier for me as a teacher too, to just be able to pull up a set of axes and instantly have a few lines on the board to discuss. I can also quickly respond to any questions they have with a visual demonstration. My room is sometimes taught in by an old-school teacher who doesn't always clean the board. Sometimes when I go in there he has left a painstakingly drawn set of axes with graphs on and I wince at the time wasted standing at the board drawing when he could be teaching. Your graph-sketching cubic example, on the other hand, I would probably do myself - marking on points of inflection and so on to get the shape of the curve. But in that case, the lesson is how to sketch the graph.

I understand your concerns about the mathematical and scientific knowledge of today's students. I don't think that can be blamed on teachers (although no doubt there are bad teachers out there). In schools there is no incentive to teach beyond the syllabus - anything that isn't on the exam is superfluous. Therefore if the exams are of poor quality (and I can level many criticisms at the maths GCSE) then correspondingly so will the subject knowledge of the students suffer. If the syllabus can be completed by the students quickly as it is less challenging, then the gap will be filled with another GCSE. It is rarely acknowledged by people who complain that exams are getting easier that students are taking rather more of them than they used to. How many O-levels did people used to take? 7 or 8? Bright kids these days sit a dozen GCSEs, so to constantly tell them that their exams are easier is not acknowledging the fact that they still work bloody hard to achieve the (more) grades that they do.

Moaning about how content has been taken from A-level (especially maths) is another favourite of those who lament dumbing down. It's completely ignoring the fact that the removal of these topics to Further Maths was to make the exam deliberately easier in order to improve the take-up of A-level maths which was disasterously low at the time. The provision of Further Maths at sixth form has improved in the same time, so students who want to study maths subjects at uni should have the option to take this. Take-up of A-level maths has improved, although there are still complaints that nowhere near enough students that need to study maths in sixth form. Restoring Maths A-level to its previous level of difficulty would be an incredibly stupid idea. I expect to hear it from Gove any day now.

Noble,

Thanks for that.

Not sure I see the need to take a lot of GCSEs, though. Personally, I took 11 many years ago, but I guess I was reasonably bright and well taught. I also did maths and further maths in the early 80s, so further maths is not new. They have merely moved part of the A level to further maths and thus made both exams easier. I really don't think even the old A level was hard for those with a maths "knack" (I walked out of my 3 hour exam in 1 hour, having finished and checked it twice). Maybe what is needed is some equivalent of what they have at a lot of unis; maths modules to support other subjects (maths for economics, maths for geography etc) in addition to maths and further maths A level.

dds teachers do 'student tracking' in a notebook :-)

At parent's evening, each one gets out the notebook and tells you exactly what she is achieving and where she has improved :-)

I think one now has an ipad, its the talk of the school.

The amount of GCSEs is an interesting point. The children at our local state secondary take between 10 and 12 yet at my children's high achieving independent school they only take 9. They are then expected to take between 3 and 5 Alevels. So even the brightest kids only take 9 GCSEs though I think many of them, certainly the maths, is now an IGCSE which means it apparently doesn't count towards Gove's EB and therefore any school offering the IGCSE in maths shows up poorly in the league tables.

I have taught in both the primary and the secondary sector. One of the things I hate most about the state sector is the constraints of teaching only to the syllabus. As a history teacher, it really is wonderful and especially good for top set kids to allow a lesson to digress every once in a while and analyse something else interesting that has come up. IMO, that's one of the things that really stretches the most able pupils. Sadly, the timetable syllabus constraints often make a lesson far more narrow than many teachers would like.

And I have to be honest here and say this suits many poor teachers well. Despite the fact that the state sector is bursting at the seams with excellent, well-qualified staff. It's simply not the case that the better qualified staff opt for the private sector.

I really am well qualified despite the bad grammar of my last paragraph. I shall blame the non-sleeping 7.5mth old who is currently bouncing on my lap.

And I have to be honest here and say this suits many poor teachers well. Despite the fact that the state sector is bursting at the seams with excellent, well-qualified staff. It's simply not the case that the better qualified staff opt for the private sector.

Isn't it? I think the elephant in the room is that 'better qualified staff' generally do. This might make many uncomfortable but if I want to go and be a Maths teacher at a top independent school these days I need a first in Maths from a well regarded university. Guildford High School or Wycombe Abbey are not going to take me if I have a 2:2 from an old Poly. I might be a brilliant teacher but the best schools really can pick and choose their teachers and academic excellence is a starting point.

It might also make many uncomfortable but if I have poor written and spoken grammar I am generally not going to be accepted as a teacher by an independent school. We also like to believe that there are many shockingly poor independent schools out there. Believe me, gulp, these are really very few and far between. It might suit us to think otherwise. People don't go on paying for a poor service.

To add of course there are many brilliant, well qualified and dedicated staff in state schools but until we start having an open and honest discussion about these sort of things we'll never level the playing field.

But having a first doesn't make you a particularly good teacher.

Bad teachers don't last very long in independent schools these days. I don't know any shockingly poor independent schools near me. There is a huge variety, but all of them get better results than the (very good) local comprehensive school.

Hamishbear academic excellence may be a starting point, but I've a feeling the real starting point is "did you go to a private school yourself" - I'd be surprised if a lot of staff had been to state schools.
It is interesting that being a highly qualified teacher would rule out having principles about only working in the state sector! It goes back to the idea of people who use state/work in state being "jealous" of those in private.

Regarding quality of teachers...

Near where I live, there's a comprehensive on one side of the road and a private school on the other. There's quite a good relationship between the two heads, and they are looking at ways the two schools can collaborate on ventures and share best practice.

In one of their recent meetings, the head of the comp was discussing the performance monitoring and management programme that the teachers go through, and the head of the private school not only revealed that they had no such programme or any way of independently monitoring how good their teachers actually were, but that she would have virtually no chance of being able to introduce such a scheme in her private school.

Steaming nit, of course not but having a first AND having all the other wonderful qualities a great teacher possesses does. If I could choose that's who I want in front of my child. Someone who is a true master at their subject plus, plus, plus. That's what you get in schools like those I mentioned.

Igggi, yes absolutely. IME the teachers in our state schools often have no knowledge of some of the things independent schools do so well. Sometimes they have so little idea of how advantaged those in independent schools are it makes me want to laugh (or cry)...I think there should be more cohesion between the sectors.

they dont need to unimaginative dad!

they have an extremely vocal core of customers (paying parents) who will monitor performance like hawks, over and beyond what any management system will do!

I wasn't suggesting that good independent schools do not attract well qualified teachers but it is also fair to say that state schools are also full of well qualified staff. I use the independent sector for my kids for many reasons but quality of teaching staff was certainly not one of them.

Personally, I have 3 very good Alevels and a degree from one of the best universities in the country. I also have my PGCE and an MA. I also officially an outstanding teacher although I prefer to think of myself as good because to me, outstanding implies nothing to learn. However, I've given it all up to work as a TA and I'm very happy with my lot.

Oh and I'm obviously very well aware of the advantages my children are receiving at an excellent independent school yet I would always opt to teach in the state sector especially at primary. If I returned to teaching secondary these days, I may change my mind but purely for the reasons I mentioned earlier about being constrained by the syllabus.

lovingthecoast: "I think the assumption that teachers of 'yesteryear' were of a higher standard is a poor one. In fact, there are far less poor teachers now than there was 40yrs ago. Teaching these days requires more skill, better planning and better delivery. Standing at the front of the class talking 'at' the kids is no longer acceptable thank goodness."

Yes - I had some truly appalling teachers 40 years ago who wouldn't last five minutes in a modern school. Mind you, I had a couple of inspirational ones who, I think, wouldn't be able to teach as well given the current constrictions of NC, Ofsted, league tables etc.

I think it's harder for teachers today, though. In the school my DD was at, the teachers spent most of their time exercising crowd control. I'm sure some of them would have been excellent teachers had they been given the opportunity to teach - but for the most part they weren't.

Would it not be a bit easier to be a "great" teacher in the private sector, with small classes, selective entry, supportive parents, high expectations etc? Rather than in state with all the barriers to learning you can find in a typical mixed class.

dd's favourite teachers at her independent school are without doubt a) the blokes and b) the young women. Old women get very short shrift indeed.

Roger Irrelavant

Yes, iggi, throw in getting paid more (which would generally be the case at some of the independents previously mentioned) and therein lies one of the problems.

@larry. If programs contain less these days I would assume that's its because we have decided that more pupils should take A-levels, and you just can't teach the same amount of stuff in 2 years to a student on the 50% percentile as you can to a student on the 80% percentile.

I teach in an institution whose intake is mostly made up of willing but not particularly brilliant kids. I am occasionally lent to teach certain courses to a nearby elite institution. In the elite institution I deliver reasonably well-crafted old-fashioned lectures and it works very well - in the "ordinary" institution I have to be far far more creative in my methods to get a basic understanding of the material across (and then don't have time for anything more). This basic understanding I don't have to get across to the students in the elite institution - they have it already, and I can use the extra time to go further.

I think that debate on teaching methods often obscures the fact that the main factor influencing how fast you can go in a classroom and how much stuff you can teach is the ability level of the students in the classroom : teaching methods do influence the outcome, but within the range that student ability determines.

igggi, I have no doubt it would be easier but for me part of the enjoyment is the challenge of differentiation especially at primary level where you can have a class of year 3s which range from children still grasping basic phonics to those free reading relatively complex fiction. At secondary, I loved having one top set class who really loved history and grasped the concept but equally enjoyed one of my bottom sets who really struggled with the idea and needed all my skills to bring it alive, make it relevant and capture their imagination.

I think teaching in the private sector would be very different and perhaps not for me. Though I freely admit my perception may be wrong.

I think Kirsty has just explained the differences well.