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.

ooh what a juicy thread,

i am just wondering how we should go about improving local shcools that are failing> i dont understand how we are supposed to turn them round,

lets say the school has 100 children and 70% of the parents dont give a damn, how is that say 15% of the 30% left who can be bothered to do anything about the school....what do they do> sit in on lessons to find out which is the best teacher which ones are bad? chat to HM about schools ethos?

what?

and re the socialists...saying we are run by old etonions, after how many years in power what did labour do for schools> apart from send thier children ( diane abbott private blair - fab local school....what did they do - as under labour - the child poverty has increased as well as the gap between rich and poor....

The facts about less judges, politicians, lawyers, etc from the state sector is my biggest concern. We are moving towards an almost Dickensian level of inequality.

While it is pointless to argue against a parent making the decision to privately educate because their local state school is failing, ( I agree no child should be used as a sacrifice to their parent's political views if the school is not even hitting a 40% GCSE pass rate), but it is reasonable to argue against the many who are simply turning down good state schools not because of the perceived poorer education, but because they want the value- added privileges of the private sector.

We should always be aware that whenever we make choices for ourselves that help prop up a system of inequality, we will pay in other ways later. You may be able to buy access to a type of education that will enhance your child's career opportunities and influence and even if you are happy for them in the years to come to live in some gated compound with little contact with society at large, they will still be part of an increasingly divided and resentful society. If we encourage, and in fact hold up an elitist system that says that the individual is always more important than the group then there won't be much of a society left to be successful in.

Inequality breeds unrest - private schooling is one of the most damaging forms of inequality. We talk about 7% as though it's nothing, but those 7% dominate the most influential jobs and offices. This is the real unfairness OP.

Flatpackhamster
I am no maths genius (not by any stretch of the imagination) but it looks to me from those tables that Norway spends roughly 30% MORE per student than the UK? That's quite a bit more, IMO.
Thanks for that info though - what I find truly shocking is how much America spends on each student (for a country so rabidly suspicious of socialism). When I lived in the US, although I was child-free in those days so had no direct experience of the school system, friends and family would regularly lament the state of the schools their kids were in. Maybe it's a universal gripe, who knows. But I was surprised by that stat.

What you ought to take away from those tables is that money isn't the key here. Take a look at the correlation figures on the same webpages. Money can buy some success but it's the use that money is put to which really matters. And in America, with its dismally low standards, all the money in the world doesn't solve the problem. It won't solve the problem here either.

I beg to differ re. functioning socialism. I'm not about to celebrate New Labour, but I have lived in an inner city area for many years that saw one of the first Labour academies, and it's been a fantastic achievement for the local community and council. So I can see a positive if only on anecdotal evidence. And maybe I missed it, but I'm not aware of any great new school building initiatives under the current coalition government...

Aren't academies largely independent of government control? If anything I'd have said that reinforces my argument that socialism isn't the answer.

Don't get me started on PFI though. What a total disaster for the taxpayer and what a con. Of course we won't see what a con it is for 30 years by which time the Evil Architect responsible for making it ubiquitous will hopefully have been in the ground for a long time, but it's costing the taxpayer a fortune.

hackmum

I agree over-centralisation is a problem. Let's see: who introduced a cetnralised national curriculum? Who introduced centralised tests for 11 year olds? Who introduced a centralised system of inspection?

Who is now taking control away from local authorities, and making schools directly accountable to central government

Idiots, of course. If you think I hold a candle for this government or the Tory party you're going to be disappointed.

Hmm, as someone who teaches in the US I see a pretty good comparison between UK and US education. I taught in the UK for 12 years.

I live inMichigan, one of the worst affected areas financially (Motown no more). There is a state wide curriculum which is almost exactly the same as the one I taught in the UK. Dd's schooling was also comparable to her UK experience.

In the US her class size was 22, in the UK it was 32.

I don't know an answer, but I don't think anyone does. No-one knows enough about how the brain works, so the best way to educate isn't known.
But for whatever reason, generally speaking, private education gets better results than state.

I think people who can afford a private education for their children don't want equality of provision, because then they can't buy their offspring the life advantages that a private education can bring.

In essence, the strength of private schools isn't primarily the quality of the teachers or teaching, but the smaller classes, the fewer educationally and socially disengaged children to slow the pace of learning, and a smaller child/teacher ratio.

What you buy when you pay for a private school is the chance to educate your children in isolation from normal society.

It's the educational equivalent of living in a gated community. Shut out the chavs because they're spoiling things for you.

"It's just reverse snobbery. Or jealousy."

Yes, it's jealousy. I feel jealous that children who are thicker than mine will end up at better universities and in better jobs because their parents had money to buy them educational privileges.

"What people choose to do is really no one else's business"

It is if it perpetuates inequality.

Life isn't fair though shagmundfrued and most people just try to muddle through and make the best of things. It's pretty childish to be bitter about it.

children who are thicker than mine

Wow Shagmundfreud that's how you view other people's kids? How lovely.

@kissassangel. Is it really generally true that private education gets better results than state ? (Like I said, I went to a comprehensive that, because of its catchment, didn't have a large contingent of slackers, and I honestly believe the education I got there was as good as private).

For me, the big difference between private and state is not the grounds (they're nice to have but don't really change much), not the teachers (there are many fantastic teachers in state), not the fancy lab equipment (a really good teacher is so much more important), nor even the small class sizes (though they're nice to have) but the pupils. Not the bulk of the pupils - the disruptive ones. The ones who almost always don't go to private schools, and if they do, can be rapidly removed, but that a state school can't turn down.

It's easier IMO to teach in a mud hut to 50 motivated, well-behaved students than to teach 15 students who just don't want to be there in a state-of-the-art classroom. Not that the first is easy - but the second is nearly impossible.

I think that state school is good education for the amount it costs. The problem is that most of us underestimate the costs involved.

If 30 people clubbed together and hires a room, paid a salary high enough to attract a graduate, and paid for all the science, sports, technology equipment etc then we would realise just what a bargain state education is.

The fact remains that for a small minority who can afford it, fee paying schools offer a different experience.

For people who can't afford private but want their children to have more experiences than state school provides, I would suggest using any spare money for trips and holidays.

Life isn't fair ... most people just try to muddle through and make the best of things. It's pretty childish to be bitter about it.

This

Kirsty750005.
Where was this utopia because I want to send my children to your school.

"Did you know that state school educated students get better degrees at Oxbridge than private school educated undergrads?"

That's if they get in in the first place, though. Those from state schools are still very underrepresented.

An example : there's a state school close to my house which is caught in a death spiral.

A large percentage of the student body is disruptive. Therefore, any parents who care about the education of their children arrange by hook or by crook to send their children elsewhere. The parents who don't care about their children's education generally have disruptive children who don't see the value in education either - and so, year on year, the student body becomes more and more disruptive and the intake gets smaller and smaller.

This is happening despite the fact that the school in question has the smallest class sizes in town (no-one wants to send their children there), better-than-average facilities and good teachers. But the high percentatge of disruptive pupils cancels all of the above. Parents will still, understandably, prefer to senbd their children to the next college along, where class sizes are 50% larger, but which has few trouble-makers, who find themselves in any case isolated from the rest of the student body.

emphaticmaybe, that was an exceptionally eloquent post. I say that as someone who was privately educated. In fact, several generations of my family have been privately educately, but my own children won't be, unlike their cousins.
I also agree with Schagmundfreud's point, regarding those whose children are being privately education having no particular desire or incentive to improve state education. Why would anyone spend a fortune on a private education for their children without the expectation of tangible benefits of some kind. The fortunes of the private system depend quite precisely on the inadequacies of the state system, because the private system must, by definition, remain superior to the alternative to justify its very existence.
I grew up knowing that I was privelidged and actually believing on some level that my privelidge was warranted. I looked down on children that were state educated, as did my peers. People will say, "oh, but that's just you, My children aren't like that, I'm not like that, " but this isn't the case. I know plenty of children of friends at independent schools and so many of them have the same air about them, the same arrogance and entitlement.
I woke up to myself at uni, many people do, but a lot of people retain that misplaced sense of superiority for the rest of their lives.

Scuse phone typos

StepOutOfSpring

That's if they get in in the first place, though. Those from state schools are still very underrepresented.

That's not under-representation. They're failing to achieve the standards required, which is a very different thing.

@flatpackhamster. No, it's underrepresentation. Universities such as Oxbridge are confronted with many more applicants with the required academic achievements than they have places. They then base their choice on interviews or specific exams. Certain private schools coach for interviews and these specific exams, therefore enabling their students to be selected before state-educated students of equivalent academic achievement.

cornflower - I am in the same position. I also 'woke up to myself at university'. Realised that I wasn't exceptionally intelligent, I was just exceptionally lucky to have had a priviledged education - my 6th form really was a sort of academic ivory tower - we all floated our way through A levels with tiny classes and lots of one-to-one with tutors. Some of the students I was working with at university had more drive and motivation in their little finger than I had in my entire body and where often the first member of their family to go to university.

I don't think it's in any way unreasonable to be bitter about their children being screwed over by a system which privileges the children of the wealthy.

Oh and I do 'muddle through' as best I can given that I have a SN child who has waited 2 years in the state sector for an assessment and who has gone through the whole of infants with no proper SN support, with dire consequences for his behaviour and learning and for my emotional health. Also as someone who currently has a 12 year old rattling around the house with no school place (had to withdraw her from her school which was incredibly rough, despite good teachers and facilities, because all the middle class parents round here hive their well behaved and motivated children off to church, grammar and private schools after year six, so the local comps are disproportionately full of difficult kids and therefore challenging learning environments for children and teachers.

It stinks. The whole system is unfair and crap and I don't see why I should just quietly carry on 'muddling through' and pretending it's ok. It isn't.

kirsty75005

No, it's underrepresentation.

No it isn't. Under-representation occurs when candidates who are equal are excluded on the basis of their background. The state pupils may achieve equal grades but Oxbridge looks for more than that.

Universities such as Oxbridge are confronted with many more applicants with the required academic achievements than they have places. They then base their choice on interviews or specific exams. Certain private schools coach for interviews and these specific exams, therefore enabling their students to be selected before state-educated students of equivalent academic achievement.

The interview is a critical part of Oxbridge entrance. Everybody knows this. Training to pass interviews is a valuable skill which the private schools teach their pupils. So why doesn't the state coach for the interview?

It's not the fault of the private sector that the state has such low standards. Universities want the best. You can't gauge that with coursework and exam results. That's why the interview is so important. The state sector must train Oxbridge candidates for the interview and people should stop blaming the high standards of the private schools for the failure of the state system.

Apologies for eye-wateringly bad syntax in last post, but I AM cross, and typing on my phone!

@thebestisyettoocome. Leafy very naice former spa town in rural North Yorkshire.

If you were in the upper sets it was very much like private. We even had a debating club and sent teams to debating competitions. And yes, special coaching on interview techniques for those who were aiming at Oxbridge.

It may have changed since, though, this is some years ago.

That's if they get in in the first place, though. Those from state schools are still very underrepresented

I remember looking at this once, it wasn't that under-represented when you took the relative calibre of the kids into account - Grammar and many public schools are selective entry so have a far higher % of the kids who are Oxbridge potential than a Comp that has to take everyone.