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.

For information, I have no teaching qualification and was quite recently head of department at one of the schools alluded to by acronym above.

Perhaps so @Caitlin555 but the schools I quote all perform pretty highly in league tables and are head and shoulders above schools in many market towns. I'm from a County/Market town and am 60. When I was a girl many, many families paid for their dc who didn't pass the 11+ to attend the private schools. The tragedy was that all too often those slightly dimmer children did better than their grammar school siblings who were conditioned into teaching, nursing, retail banks and the e o grades of the civil service. Their private school sibs went into surveying, allied med professions, law and accountancy. That's what I recall as quite scary. I was a grammar school rebel and my parents were dysfunctional so my grandparents sent me to board at a very good county school for 6th form. One of three girls and I had a whale of a time but it broadened my expectations.

My husband is a bloody amazing and very experienced teacher. He's taught for years (decades - scary!) in a mix of state and private schools. In theory he's the same teacher in all those schools - but in reality he's not. In his current independent he has small classes of well behaved kids. He has a supportive and high calibre SLT. He has enough free periods and release time to run his department properly, and to spend time with individual students who need extra support, or want to discuss their coursework, or just want to chat to him about their latest football match. He has the budget to buy whatever books and IT programmes he likes. He's not constantly constrained by 'data drops', so he has more freedom to plan his curriculum as he wants (particularly in the pre-exam years). He works in a department of highly experienced subject specialists. He gets to spend his day in an attractive place, with lovely facilities, and nice food (and time to eat it!). All of those things mean that he is able to be a better teacher in that environment. It is not an insult to state school teachers (which he was for many years) to acknowledge that.

The thing about unqualified teachers is also more complicated than it seems. Unqualified is not always bad. The last time DH recruited for a new teacher, the candidate he wanted (out of an excellent field of qualified teachers) was somebody without a teaching qualification but who he could see from his interviews and classroom observations would be amazing. He had the freedom to choose that candidate in spite of their lack of qualification and they did indeed turn out to be amazing.

I agree that people are fully entitled to pay for private schools. You don't want kids who come from poor backgrounds and all the problems they bring: you want to send your kid to a school that can select their pupils, and which can expel children at will.

Fine.

What I don't get is why private schools are classed as charities, and so get charity-style tax breaks.

As caring parents, you're paying for your kid to get a leg up. I totally get it. I'm not doing it myself, although I suppose I could, but I understand why you're doing it.

But why are the private schools getting tax breaks?

Get ready to bang your head so more because as far I am concerned, diversity to us means a mixture of ethnicities and cultures, something terribly lacking in our local state school that alienated my dc and like it’s been said before being able to pay doesn’t remove you from the realities of life: divorce, SEN, etc we also have families who live in mansions to humble council flats shock horror.

@tilder

The whole purpose of the entrance exam is to exude an air of academia while screening out those who might bring the grade average down. Children with SEN, typically.

It also makes people feel like they have earned their school place. That they are special and clever.

It doesn't require ultra high intelligence. Can't really as statistically there wouldn't be enough ultra intelligent children with wealthy parents to go round.

Yes, exactly this. Wealth doesn’t always equal intelligence so if it was all based on intelligence the school probably wouldn’t be able to pay its bills!

@Arkestra

I agree that people are fully entitled to pay for private schools. You don't want kids who come from poor backgrounds and all the problems they bring: you want to send your kid to a school that can select their pupils, and which can expel children at will.

Fine.

What I don't get is why private schools are classed as charities, and so get charity-style tax breaks.

As caring parents, you're paying for your kid to get a leg up. I totally get it. I'm not doing it myself, although I suppose I could, but I understand why you're doing it.

But why are the private schools getting tax breaks?

Quite - this baffles me!

@OhTheRoses

Perhaps so *@Caitlin555* but the schools I quote all perform pretty highly in league tables and are head and shoulders above schools in many market towns. I'm from a County/Market town and am 60. When I was a girl many, many families paid for their dc who didn't pass the 11+ to attend the private schools. The tragedy was that all too often those slightly dimmer children did better than their grammar school siblings who were conditioned into teaching, nursing, retail banks and the e o grades of the civil service. Their private school sibs went into surveying, allied med professions, law and accountancy. That's what I recall as quite scary. I was a grammar school rebel and my parents were dysfunctional so my grandparents sent me to board at a very good county school for 6th form. One of three girls and I had a whale of a time but it broadened my expectations.

That is interesting and quite scary!

Being able to pay for private school certainly does remove you from many of the realities of most people's lives.

@QueenBlueberries

I honestly do not see my kids' state secondary school represented here. Languages are taught by native speakers, except one teacher who is English but speaks 5 languages fluently. Science is taught by scientists. Maths, well by maths teachers who have degrees in maths. My DS2's current English teacher is a published author, and the Media teacher is a retired journalist with years of experience. The only subject that is spread out to non specialist teachers is PSCHE, and I don't mind that as it gives the kids a wider input from different perspectives. It's not only private schools that has specialist teachers.

Yes, it was the same at my state school!

You may get the best teachers as a result of all those others things - if I were a teacher and could get a job in private school, I would. More money, well behaved, keen children, none of the 'disengaged' or troublesome kids.

Completely agree with all your other points - but a knock on from those might be a better level of teaching too. Seems quite likely.....

Let's turn the charitable status on its head. We were high earners. We paid eye watering amounts of tax. Then paid school fees from net earnings whilst rejecting state school places for our children. Why then didn't we get tax relief on the fees as we chose not to use a state provision?

Charitable status comes from the bursaries and community works many independent schools offer.

I agree London is a different kettle fish with a catastrophic divide.

I’ve heard a few parents over the years say teaching is better private. They also say the same of grammar schools.

When you cream off the top students though, it’s not difficult to get good results.

I have experience of both sectors. In my experience I do not think I have ever heard any of the parents say they selected private because the teachers were more able. I selected private at certain stages because of facilities, money available for extra curricular activities and after school teaching, sports provision, geography, flexibility (moving in from out of area so needed certainty re places). I genuinely haven’t heard the inferior teacher Issue once. But that’s only my experience. I think there are amazing teachers in both sectors and I take my hat off to them as I think it’s a hard, underpaid, under appreciated job.

@OhTheRoses

Let's turn the charitable status on its head. We were high earners. We paid eye watering amounts of tax. Then paid school fees from net earnings whilst rejecting state school places for our children. Why then didn't we get tax relief on the fees as we chose not to use a state provision?

Charitable status comes from the bursaries and community works many independent schools offer.

I agree London is a different kettle fish with a catastrophic divide.

Oh god I’ve heard this tax point so many times before - that people who send their kids to private school are somehow doing their poorer neighbours a favour by not using up school places. Paying for a state school place through taxes but not using it.

I know in theory, yes, if you decline a state school place at a great local school it means another child can go. But the tax argument could equally be said for the NHS as well. If I have fewer health problems than some, should I pay less tax as I’ve been less of a burden? If I pay for private medical treatment should I pay less tax?

I don’t even have children (yet) so why am I paying taxes for school places anyway?

I teach in a private school.

It depends how you define "better" - I've found the quality of teaching ultimately depends entirely on the passion and patience of the individual, no matter where they work.

However, private schools can offer teachers things that state schools can't, which means they are more equipped to do a 'better' job because their time is dedicated to actual teaching and not other things.

For example:

• small class sizes allow more focus on individual pupils and not just those who are the loudest or most in need. This is especially a plus for me personally as the "middle of the road" students don't get overlooked
• More free periods, marking can be done done in those free periods as long as the teacher isn't providing cover. So you have less stressed teachers who don't take as much marking home
• I may as well be honest, less disruptive pupils, meaning no one child is taking up the teacher's whole attention.
• Fewer safeguarding issues - again if I'm being honest (and factual) safeguarding issues are less common in high earning families than in low earning families. So less stress and time taken up on that part.

Don't get me wrong, there are downsides - paying parents who expect results and think you work for them and not the children. Heaps of extra curricular activities so, depending on what you teach, you can kiss goodbye to a lot of weekends. Children who are so shockingly privileged that you just know the real world is gonna smack them on the arse the minute they leave home. This week I had a sixth former who just couldn't understand why period poverty existed, he couldn't fathom that some people can't afford £2 for sanitary towels.

sst"It’s the children who are more disciplined in private schools that makes all the difference"

You've got that arse about.

You're implying they're 'better'. No, private's get to 'select in', and 'select out'. The children aren't necessarily 'more disciplined', it's just that those who aren't, get thrown out advised to leave.

(Unless that school is struggling financially, in which case that child gets to stay.)

A privilege state doesn't enjoy.

SomethingN1 "The school is ruthless in dropping the girls whom they believe won’t get the grades in secondary out- apparently they start indicating to the parents from Grade 5"

There's your answer about how 'good' your DD's school is.

It's a results factory. Hope she enjoys the acres of ground to be 'active' in.

Glad your husband 'was clear' something 😉

Let's face it, as a teacher, if you've got a great degree and a choice between a rough comp and an elite private school, you'll pick the private one

I picked a PRU.

Quite blatantly this will be subjective. But I can tell you that in my recent (last 2 years) experience the teachers at the state primary which 2 of my children attend are far far far superior to those at the private prep which my other dc attended (and has thank God just left). At our state school they are mostly in it for the passion of the career and are driven to do their best for every child, whereas at the private they are basically just scoring subsidised private education for their own kids and can’t really be bothered to put effort into anyone else’s (beyond the odd favourite). Secondary wise my experiences of private are better but I totally think teachers who have a child in their class who wants to learn will give their best.

Absolutely spot on. You are buying a way out of mixing with chavs and any parent saying otherwise is lying through their teeth.

Without a doubt 🤷‍♀️

What funny is the earnest group insistent that their child’s private school is “more diverse” than the state option 😁. Pull the other one. Tbh I would respect them more if they were honest about it

They generally are more diverse in terms of race etc. Not diverse in terms of class though.

At our state school they are mostly in it for the passion of the career and are driven to do their best for every child, whereas at the private they are basically just scoring subsidised private education for their own kids and can’t really be bothered to put effort into anyone else’s (beyond the odd favourite).

Do we send our kids to the same private school?!

Almost every single teacher in my kids primary has children in the school, who get picked for everything, and they are pally with the richest parents (so not me) and their pal's kids get picked too. Nobody leaves because they get subsidised private education. It bothers me no end, I've recently raised it with the head and if they weren't so settled and happy there I'd pluck them out in a minute, save exH his money.

I was privately educated. Some of the staff were fantastic and would have been no matter where they taught, some less so, despite the small class sizes etc they weren't great. One woman was utterly unhinged and did me lasting damage. Some of them were amazing and helped me blossom.