To think State education is really poor?

[Boswelian]

We sent our eldest to a taster day at a private school. He was agog. His school don't allow playing on the grass when it's wet. The private school change them into waterproofs and wellies for break. PE 3x a week. Sport every day. Dedicated specialist teaching in art, DT, languages, sciences etc. 16 in a class instead of 30. The difference in the quality of life between the two school has really blown my mind. The state school is "outstanding". The private school reckon DS is 2 years behind their curriculum. We've been told in state that he's meeting expectations. How is this remotely acceptable?

Money talks

You are completely correct. It is a combination of 3 x the funding per child plus private schools not generally having to deal with behaviour/attendance/poverty issues. Parents who send their kids private are, by their nature, invested in the outcomes.

You can get quite close in state depending on the area. Parents are invested they just commit to house prices instead, ime anyway

The thing about ‘two years ahead’ is generally complete tosh.

But they do like to spout it!

@EasternStandard yes area dependent but in any state school there will be a % of parents who just aren't engaged and poverty issues which simply don't exist at private schools to the same extent. Persistent disruptive behaviour at private schools isn't tolerated and offenders are usually asked to leave, at DDs school in a class sizes of 18-20 she said there are only occasional disruptions and these are quickly stamped on.
It isn't a case of all private = good, all state = bad as this is blatantly over simplistic and untrue but not all of us have good state schools.

No offence, but I honestly find it hard to fathom how a (presumably well educated) poster could write such a dumb OP. Unless of course it was meant to set everyone off and posted in AIBU to guarantee a bun fight.

There's no need for an upper case S on the word state in your thread title OP.

Of it wasn't "better" people wouldn't pay £20k a year for it ..

Private schools get a ton more money to spend on extra curricular stuff. And they are all-whatever they say-selective.
You can pay for all those extra curricular things and send your children to state school.

Depends what you class as better and what your other options are locally.

Yes I'd take this part with a pinch of salt OP.

The UK national curriculum is designed the way it is so children access it in a spiral, planting seeds then revisiting them to nurture them until they grow into massive trees of understanding.

If you try to skip ahead or hothouse them, the children don't actually do the deep learning/proper retention/understanding of the underlying concepts required to apply that learning to the next thing. The pressure to always "be better" and get ahead of your peers causes children to burnout at different points along the way. Some do it around GCSEs, some do it in the sixth, and some do it during or after uni.

The NC isn't perfect but it's pretty damn good, it's designed to meet children at the developmental milestones they're at (such as stages of brain development) and decent private schools don't try to skip it or get ahead of it.

Anyone who knows anything about how children learn would never say a child is X years behind at primary, it's a meaningless statement.

This is why hothousing is a bad idea, and good schools (private, public or state) don't engage in it.

I'm not anti private schools at all (DH works in one), but from what you've said I'd advise you to go with caution OP and look through the marketing to what they are actually offering, as difficult as that can be. Some private schools are worse than state schools and they're still expensive.

I've never looked round a private to compare but
I thought my Dd's primary was very good. They had huge grounds and changed into coat and wellies to play outside in the winter. P.E twice a week in winter then P.E once and swimming once in summer. They had specialist P E teachers and learnt so many different sports as well as a fully kitted out hall for gymnastics. They had a specialist French teacher and Music teacher. She had instrument lessons too. And the Maths and English was so much further advanced than anything I did at Primary. The classrooms were noisy, though with 27ish to a class.

We have a Grammar system here for secondary and it's awful because you go and look at the Grammars and they're like another world compared to the comprehensives. There are also a couple of faith schools which my DD was lucky enough to get a place at as they are comparable to the Grammars and actually beat some of them in results. But it was so obvious when doing the school tours of the massive divide between Grammar and Faith schools Vs Comprehensives.

It is typical in private schools to say children are ‘behind’, yet the National Curriculum is widely criticised for being extremely demanding of children. My theory is that this is their ‘business line’ - they appeal to parental guilt in order to hook you in. I teach in a state primary school and I can honestly say the education we provide our children is fantastic. No we don’t have waterproofs and wellies, but we have dedicated, well-trained staff and a forward-thinking leadership team.

There will be great state schools and poor ones; equally there will be great private schools and poor ones, but I think parental pressure is such that more boxes will be ticked in private in terms of ‘extras’. This doesn’t necessarily equate to better education!

They actually have two longer days per week, so you’re wrong here. It’s not at the cost of anything else it’s actual added learning time.

They also have an excellent language offering as well as a vast music , art and drama provision.

One of the private schools near us advertises a 100% success rate into the local Grammar, the small print states 100% of the children they recommend take the 11+.

It's a grotesquely simplistic assessment to say private = good, state = poor.

@Thepeopleversuswork this is very true.

In our town there is a private school that seems to be fairly popular. It's results are good but not massively better than any of the state schools in the town. Slightly better, that's all. When you consider that it is also selective and that it's intake will be primarily from reasonably well off middle class families who are very committed to their children's education then I don't think that is a ringing endorsement. If the other schools can take all abilities from all backgrounds and still give them a run for their money I am not sure whether it is worth the money.

I had a colleague whose DD attended there. Very bright girl, but when she got some health issues in VI form which meant she was struggling to keep up, the school were just not interested. Totally unsupportive. She ended up having to leave and finished her education at the local college who were much more understanding.

I have to admit the extracurricular opportunities at the private school are probably better. Certainly for music anyway. Like a PP though we were in a position to provide those activities for our DC ourselves

Yes, DDs outstanding state secondary did the same.

The trouble with all this "extra curriculum" is that there is a maximum amount of learning a child's brain can do before it just gets tired. Learning isn't the only thing a child should do in a day! Having more lessons actually gets to diminishing returns territory. Children should be playing, socialising, and enjoying quality time with their family too, to learn social skills and feel secure and confident. The best private schools offer a schoolwork-life balance to their children.

You may be bright and brilliant - I’m sure you are and would have a brilliant career no matter what school you went to.

the argument against divisive paid for education - or at least mine is - comprises many things including social equality. But you often hear how people feel their children would not have achieved if they hadn’t been privately taught/coached. Astounds me that they are competing against people like me

Not sure this is a new phenomenon op....isn't it exactly the reason rich people shell out for private education? Because all the extra funding means it can provide a much better experience and funds aren't drained by meeting the barage of SEND, mental health and poverty related needs that state schools are battered with. The underfunding of state schools is very poor...the schools and the staff in them do a remarkable job given the shit they have to deal with.

This.

Also agree that the 'two years ahead' claim is a bit if a red flag. Unlikely, and would be of dubious value anyway at a young age.

Well, I employ several young people age 15-21. I can tell you that the ones who are privately educated are not anywhere near as good at the job as others are from state schools.
They might be able to get high grades but they are not prepared for the working world!

Friends of mine were very clearly told by their local private primary that they would be wasting their time applying for a place for their deaf daughter. They weren't interested in having pupils with additional needs. My friends were shocked at the way they were treated. She went to her local state school, was sat at the front of the class and did brilliantly and is now at a (Russell Group) University.

Eek! Reported double post.