To think at a private school, it’s not the teachers that are better...

[Caitlin555]

....it’s just you are less likely to get the bad behaviour, and more likely to have smaller class sizes?

It drives me mad that there’s this perception that the teachers at private schools are so much better than at state. They are not. In fact, you don’t even need a teaching qualification to teach at a private school.

It is obviously easier to get good results and control a class when you’ve got a smaller class of (probably) better behaved, more affluent kids whose parents want them to be there and to not have the social problems that some schools contend with.

I wish parents would just be honest about why they are sending their kids to x private school - it might be the small class sizes, it might be the facilities, it might be that it is super selective - but don’t make it about the teachers as that’s an insult to those amazing teachers who work hard every day to make a difference at state schools.

And no, I’m not a teacher.

I was sent private from 4 years old onwards.

Ridiculously sheltered, indulged, spoilt childhood on every level.

It was glorious! Resilience.... both parents died in my late teens, I divorced young, single parent, no family support network whatsoever, serious health issues.

Got through (and continue to!) with a smile on my face and no mental health issues or breakdowns whatsoever.

So hell yes, I’m resilient despite (because of!) my private education!

It's been mentioned a few times already but it's important to note that not all state schools are the same as each other, but ALSO that not all private schools are equal either.

There are private schools that are religious based, that may or may not also be academically selective.
There are academically selective private schools.
There are sport-selective private schools.
There are more single sex private schools (this matters IMO), although they aren't all single sex by a long stretch.

And that's before we go anywhere near public schools!

Because they're not all created equal, people's experiences are not necessarily "typical" of either type of school. So it's inappropriate to say "all private schools" or "all state schools" - and when it comes down to the individuals who WORK in those schools then it becomes even more inappropriate to over-generalise.

I only have personal experience of one private, academically selective school, and very close vicarious experience of another.

I went to a state primary school. I know what people are saying about the mix of the two types of school, because I experienced (and, I believe, benefited from) it.
State primary - mix of all types of people: council, very poor, middle class, well off, working class. As a result I had friends from different social classes and from different financial backgrounds. It didn't matter to us at that age, we were friends because of the people they were.
Private secondary - definitely less of a mix. Of course all had to have money, most were middle class (not all), but some were poorer than others (me, for e.g.) I adapted. I still had friends from primary school.

What it gave me, that I felt a lot of my secondary peers didn't have, was understanding of other people's way of life. That NOT every family had 2 cars (or even 1!). That NOT every family could afford to eat at posh restaurants. That NOT every family was able to buy new clothes - all these things that broadened my social spectrum. Some of my secondary peers had been in private education their whole life, and had never come across these differences - so had less understanding.
Not necessarily less empathy (although, y'know, teens...) but just no experience. And less adaptability to different social scenarios.
Of course you can learn this after school - but while at school, it's not so easy.

I did the same for my boys - put them into state primary in Australia - but if DS1 hadn't got into the academically selective state high school programme he did, he would have gone to a private secondary school, mostly to keep him away from the awful awful local high school, which suffers from not only a very poor behaviour record, but has some lousy teachers as well. You can tell they're lousy when a student (friend of mine's daughter) can take the prize in maths for her year with a score of 47%. The teacher who came the next year, as a casual/temp teacher, spent the first half of the year bringing them all up to where they should have been by the end of the previous year - they were 1.5 years behind .

I built resilience through being the clever clogs at state primary (and bullied for it) and the poor girl at secondary private (not really bullied for it but I had to learn to deal with being "different").

Excellent post ThumbWitchesAbroad.

I don't know if you are in London. Our DC's primary was very homogenous middle class - a bit champagne leftie. Lots of snide playground comments about anyone poorer than the norm and anyone richer. The cofe secondary (a London holy grail) was like a tale of two cities but peppered with behaviour that when I was at school would have resulted in expulsion. The selective London day schools my dc attended later were far less pressure cooker in relation to what people had and felt far less judgy on a variety of levels. There were one or two who thought they were better than every one else but they were not popular. But, yes on the whole, whilst being ethnically diverse the school populations were not socially diverse (some dc lived in a small terrace; some in a London mansion with indoor pool) and but 100% of parents valued education highly and I can't think of a parent who didn't go to university (except me - I dropped out). One of the big differences in our experience was at family stability level. At the Independents, divorced or single parents coukd be counted on one hand (although a few separated when dc grew up).

Contrast to my Kent grammar - daughters of bus drivers, nurses, hospitality staff, doctors, teachers, solicitors, farm workers, post men, etc, but it was homogenously white and lacked inspiration or expectation. A minority went to university, hordes into nursing, teaching, local banks. It was 6th form at a local public school that opened the world for me.

I think that private schools all vary somewhat. But as a public school pupil in the 60's (paid for by the local Education Board as a hard-luck case) I felt very lucky and privileged.

The classes were all full (except sometimes at 6th form level), and the teachers were usually very good, sometimes a bit bonkers, and occasionally eccentric but brilliant. However, the defining quality was that they were pretty free in the way they taught, and were all very respected. Discipline was very tight, and however we tried to muck about, at the end of the day, we were obedient, paid attention and did copious amounts of homework. I don't know how they did it but you had to be a twerp not to leave without sufficient qualifications to move onto further training, university, officer training or whatever. It was an opportunity to have a good profession. That was what parents paid for.
State schools can also be excellent but many have a reputation for barely keeping control of their charges. Nowadays drugs , bullying, thieving, bad behaviour, frequent changes in teachers, state bureaucratic interference, and teachers who often get stuck teaching subjects they do not really know.

My kids go to state schools and, in my view, are not qualified or incentivised for anything. It is sad to say this but as a parent who has always tried to help and encourage them, I don't think I am alone in feeling this.

Is it not that parents will be more supportive and encouraging of children to learn if they have invested large amounts of money?

I don’t think there’s any real cachet to a public vs private school tbh Although there might have been in the olden days

I was shocked to see my kids prep is a public school, I had no idea

Nobody cares about that stuff do they?