AIBU to think that state schools should be achieving this?

[KatyPutTheCuttleOn]

private schools GCSE results

Should state schools be able to achieve results closer to this?

I don't want this to be a private school bashing thread, but really, should state schools be able to achieve closer to this?

I think Boney's point highlights how it important not to impose artificial standards in terms of results. Yes there should be high aspirations for all pupils but these may differ due to their individual strengths and interests.

I agree that state schools face a lot more challenges than independent schools but I do think expectations make a big difference.

My DCs went to a private school and the noticeable difference between their school and the local high school was the expectations. Their school expected certain standards of behaviour, effort, achievement, etc which were largely fulfilled whereas the High School seemed to be far more tolerant and more concerned about pupils not "failing" which, in my opinion, did not challenge some of the young people to push themselves to excel.

lastnight
Perhaps the problem is part parental attitude and child work ethic. However, my child was previously at a local state school and my attitude towards his education hasn't changed but he is certainly achieving more now that he is at the private school.
The smaller class sizes means that the teacher can provide each child with more individual support and work tailored to match their ability.
Also the fact that parents can take their money elsewhere if not happy with the teaching means that a greater effort is made (only based on my experience and not necessarily generic) to ensure that the children achieve as much as possible.

It is far too simplistic to put every thing down to children's work ethic and expectations of the school's and parents. Some children have more learning challenges from the outset. Then if teaching is not catered to their needs the problems are compounded.

derbyshiregirl

Is the school giving you the percentage of total pupils that could achieve A*-C or are they giving the percentage against the total pupils in the school year?

So is that 90% of 300 pupils (the full year) or 90% of 100 pupils (pupils that should get A*-C)?

Quote:

'91% of students gained five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C. '

Which isnt what I originally said is it!

Many parents with children in private schools are quick to top up with additional tutoring if they think that their child needs a boost in any particular area

Now this is one thing that really astonishes me. I can understand paying for private education and I can also understand paying for extra private tuition to fill gaps in basic education if a state school isn?t meeting those needs.

But I would be absolutely furious if I was paying school fees AND had to pay for a private tutor as well ? ok not for something additional like piano or dance, but certainly for something basic like maths. Yet I have a pal who?s a maths tutor and he says half his pupils go to private schools. So what exactly are those parents paying school fees for?

Round the clock teaching Kleinzeit?

You cant compare state and private.

Private will always get better results, pressure from paying parents both on the school and child, smaller classes, better facilities, very very few SEN or FSM children etc.

No idea where the poster lives with 6,500 a year private school fees. It's 14,500 a year for our cheaper girls school. £22,000 at the dearer one. Non boarding with uniform and music etc being insanely dear on top of that.

£260 a term for music lessons as apposed to DDs private ones at £110.

That's not simply cars and holidays, that's more than our post tax income to send two DDs

derbyshiregirl (if aimed at me)

What I am (badly) saying is that schools -private, independent and academy play the stats game.

'91% of students gained five or more GCSEs at grades A*-C. '

Is that 91% of students forecast to get A*-C achieved their target

or is it 91% of the cohort (whole year) achieved A*-C?

91 out of 100 pupils (if 100 in the school year) is obviously better than 45.xxxpupils out of 50 (pupils that are forecast to get A*-C, with the other 50 pupils forecast to get D and below) but each percentage is statistically correct

Methinks the OP has just lit a bomb and is standing back letting it go off...

derbyshiregirl There are two ways that parents can use superior purchasing power to get a better education for their children - one is through private school andne other is through catchment area.

If the average house in an area costs over £1m then the state school probably will do better than average. And once it is labelled as a "good" school lots of parents who care about education will speedily move in doing two things:-

1. Pushing prices up further
2. Improving results

Actually the OP has been out all day with her family. I was interested to see what people thought - should state schools be trying to raise standards by looking at what the private schools are doing; not all private schools are selective and now that many secondary schools are going down the academy route they have more freedom in terms of what they teach.

My son's comp had 96% achieving 5 GCSEs A*-C.
Admittedly it's in the area of the city with pricier housing so the children enter secondary with advantages like keen parents, less than average FSM and SEN but it sends someone to Oxbridge every year and top 20% ish go to a RG uni.
The point Im trying to make is that both private and state schools vary and you can't compare top private schools with bottom state schools. While top private schools achieve excellent results, there are plenty that serve the low achievers and will have poor or mediocre results.

No idea where the poster lives with 6,500 a year private school fees. It's 14,500 a year for our cheaper girls school. £22,000 at the dearer one. Non boarding with uniform and music etc being insanely dear on top of that.

Its in manchester - prep schools average £6500 per year and senior schools average £10,000 per year. These prices are roughly similar at the vast majority of manchester and Cheshire private schools.

should state schools be trying to raise standards by looking at what the private schools are doing

No, there should be more sensible options for the non-academic. It is stupid trying to get everyone to jump through GCSE hoops when it simply doesn't suit some people.

>> should state schools be trying to raise standards by looking at what the private schools are doing

No, there should be more sensible options for the non-academic. It is stupid trying to get everyone to jump through GCSE hoops when it simply doesn't suit some people.

Agreed. My school has all students take IGCSE Double Science or separate Physics, Chemistry and Biology, which is harder than GCSE and does not have a single Science option.

There are a small handful of students who get two Ds or 2 Es in these courses. For some of them, taking a single Science GCSE might have given them a chance to get one C. An Applied Science BTEC could be another alternative option.

At least then they would get a passing grade in a qualification, rather than two failing grades which leaves them without a qualification in a core subject.

Private schools must be doing some things well to get the results that they do, but they are far from perfect.

My DD is at an independent non selective primary school which costs £3500 p.a from reception to year 6. She will then probably transfer to a non selective independent girls school ,where the fees are currently around £4000 p.a. Not all schools cost 6k +

I teach in a state secondary. I know that some schools are reputed only enter students that will achieve C and above, so their results will look good. I teach the full ability, one of my students this yer was predicted an F and got a D- we were delighted!

Olivo - that's really low fees. Here in manchester we are low, but £3.5k pa is really low. Are you in Ireland by any chance?

No, not in Ireland. I realise how lucky we are though!

Yeah, they can look at what private schools are doing and copy that, can't they? Like not letting any poor children in and stuff like that, or setting an exam you have to pass before you're allowed through the door, maybe? Or giving up on and booting out any child who's not going to reflect glory in the league tables?

Yes, state schools: look and learn.

I currently work as a TA in High Schools. I usually support the teachers in the lowest sets in English and Maths, usually in classes no bigger than 15. The typical mix is generally about 12 boys to 3 girls.

These kids could probably all achieve average grades if the support at home was echoing the support offered at school but many of these students just don't seem to know how to learn effectively and expect failure from the minute they set foot in the room. I think there is a massive achievement in just getting them into school and keeping them coming daily until they turn 16. Exam passes at any level are an added bonus.