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?

Out of interest, how do you define a 'broad and varied' education. I definitely feel my DD has experienced this at state school.

@Boswelian I would definitely take the fact that they've said he is two years behind academically with a huge pinch of salt! Independent schools are businesses who want to attract new customers, and worrying them with this sort of thing is one way to do it!

I've taught at both state and independent senior schools. When I marked 13+ common entrance papers at the independent school I was shocked by how poor the standard was in many cases, and that parents had forked out so much money for their child to be barely literate. I think I assumed that the children would be brighter. But as in every school there was a vast range.

If your state school says your child is doing well, then they will be doing just fine!

I sent my kids private after seeing the chaos of our ‘outstanding’ state secondary. My eldest was getting beaten up daily with absolutely zero consequences and the disruption continued - actually got worse - in the classroom. I pay for a calm learning environment where any bullying is addressed in full. Couldn’t give a damn about ‘connections’, hockey tours, endless sports clubs. It’s safeguarding and a calm, quiet classroom I pay £20k per year per child for and it’s worth every penny.

Why oh why oh why don’t state schools remove violent / disruptive pupils to learning environments more suitable for their needs as soon as they start kicking off? It’s baffling. Why should other state school kids suffer continual disruption and violence? It’s so unfair, and I would guess is the single biggest cause of educational inequality. Easily fixed, but just not.

@Christmasaaarrrggghhh because government won't fund such facilities.
Literally no money and no spaces.
Plenty of disadvantaged kids end up just off roll.. whole other thread but I know two personally who were kicked out of one school and no place in a school that could help them

2 years behind in maths by year 5 is what my friend a maths teacher reckons when she gets kids from state school. She says it’s due to state schools not stretching the top of the class as much due to all the effort going into bringing the bottom of the class up to average. She says the bright kids quickly catch back up though.

Nah, there will always be some people who will pay money not to have to mix with the poors, even if there was literally no other difference.

(Obviously Not All Private School Parents, but definitely some because I know them, and they are quite open about it)

OP, you said yourself that there were half the number of children in the class, and it is an academically selective school. If you skimmed off the top half of the year in your DS’s state school, the teachers would be able to pick up the pace of teaching too. Same as grammars can.

This is anecdotal and not true of all state schools. I have found it the other way round. Also anecdotal.

There are quite a few ex prep kids in my DS year 7 - not all are in top set maths .. despite their years of classes of 14

Nah, there will always be some people who will pay money not to have to mix with the poors, even if there was literally no other difference.

It may be an uncomfortable thing to admit, but whatever your views about state and private schools, it would be naïve to believe that the other students in a school have no effect on how good an education your child would get there.

@Boswelian
What are the fees?

I think with private schools a very big influence is the environment. It is actually set up for calm. Lots of greenery, fewer people, proper sit down meals. Classical music concerts at lunch time in the domed concert room.

State schools it’s in and out at a frenetic pace that heightens everyone. We are on the back foot before the first bell has even rung.

This was actually the reason I went for the all girls Catholic school for my DD for secondary. Our local comp has a huge bullying issue and lots of disruption. The Catholic school is calm and disruption is really rare, any bullying is nipped in the bud quickly.

That’s not based on their parents’ income though it is?

He attended an open day where they are quite literally selling the school, so yes they will paint it in its very best light to attract customers with big cheque books.

Its obviously not quite as clear cut as private = exemplary & state =crap experience/outcomes (based on your sample of 2 schools.) Unfortunately, as a parent with secondary age dc I have witnessed how underfunded education has been in the last decade, particularly infrastructure. The Government should be investing in the education of our children, not throwing taxpayer money into dead ducks like HS2 & they should respect the crucial role teachers play & bloody well pay them properly!

It varies a lot, some private schools are excellent but not all, plus having a lot more funding is how they have smaller classes. Selective admissions mean the kids are brighter plus the parents are more involved in the sense they are paying for education so obviously care a lot.

My DD's would have hated being forced outside in the rain and one hated sport... kids vary too!

I'm not who you asked but I sent my daughter to a selective private school after her average state primary for (in part) this reason.

At 10/11 of course we don't necessarily know where our children's future interests will lie and we can't be sure how well they will do in the future. But mine was interested in languages at the time. There was no comprehensive in my local area (all are rated at least good) which offered more than one or two languages and at several of them you didn't even get to pick which one. At the school she ended up at, she could have taken any of six modern foreign languages and also Ancient Greek and Latin. She's studied German, French, Russian, Mandarin and Latin at different times and could also have chosen to study Italian, Spanish and Ancient Greek.

It was a given that she would do triple science (there isn't an option to do anything else).

She could have picked loads of creative subjects at GCSE had she wished to (she picked one, but I wanted her to have the choice of what she really liked rather than being constrained by option blocks). I don't see why a child who is that way inclined shouldn't do Art and Music and Drama if they want to and can cope with the workload. That isn't an option at any of our local comprehensives.

And she was able to choose subjects in full confidence that they would run whatever - like other things I have mentioned this is a funding issue. I know of kids at state schools who haven't been able to do the A Levels they wanted because there weren't enough children choosing that subject. But DD could do Russian with only four students in the class because the money was there to make it possible.

She did twelve GCSEs. This obviously would not suit everyone but actually it's great for children who are academically competent because during that time her preferences for subjects changed as they got a bit harder and more in depth. And the depth she was able to go to was absolutely enhanced because everyone was working at the same high level. Having more subjects for longer meant she was able to make a more informed choice when it came to A Levels.

DD has been able to choose what she wanted to study with very few limits. This would not have been the same in a state school (obviously not because they wouldn't like to but because they are limited by the ridiculous eBacc thing and by funding).

Private schools aren't all the same, any more than state schools are all the same, of course. But the one I picked was definitely able to offer more than any of our local good comprehensives.

She would have hated extra sport, btw, and I would not have sent her to any school where this was prioritised!

Here in Scotland you go to your catchment school, none of this nonsense of applying, it levels the field.
I've never seen the obsession for schools be it outstanding/private and I live in a fairly affluent area, maybe it's an English thing along with the endless threads about class.
Youngest DD (state high school) just started at uni, her halls have kids who went to £40k pa schools, didn't buy them anywhere better than the state school kids did it?

@Christmasaaarrrggghhh
2 years behind in maths by year 5 is what my friend a maths teacher reckons when she gets kids from state school.
That would suggest state school kids won't be able to pass GCSEs/ Highers at the relevant age then, wouldn't it? Think your pal exaggerates a wee bit.

It sounds like you have paid to live in a decent state school catchment area. Where I live the state provision is poor which impacts house prices despite it being a very nice semi rural area.

If I wanted to mover to a better catchment area it would cost around £150k more for a similar house without the open field views we currently have and it would be located in a far more urban built up area.

Staying put in a home and area we really like and funding private education rather than moving house makes economic sense for us.

No, I haven't chosen to pay to live in a catchment area, I moved here for family reasons, no thought for schools whatsoever.
I don't actually know anyone who doesn't go to their catchment school.
I believe any child can succeed if they have the ability and work hard. Education should never be limited to the wealthy.

But which actually mirrors real life most? Not many workplaces are like this. I can't afford private for 2 so mine are at a great local comp. I do genuinely think it teaches a lot of life lessons and resilience

OK OP I have worked in a private school and I have also educated my children at both state and private schools.

Firstly, this - The private school reckon DS is 2 years behind their curriculum. is said to EVERY parent to make them think their child is a cut above. It’s very rarely true. But it’s always ‘2 years behind’.

I was wowed by the private school taster day too and immediately enrolled DD for reception. We moved when she hit year 5 and sent her to state school.

My genuine experience of both working and educating in private school:

1. unless you’re the local millionaire with a few massive companies he’s under your belt (so the ‘development office’ can tap them up to pay for a sports hall) in time you will be ignored - as will your child. The head will be the best pal of people they can Lee h more money out of at the expense of other parents.
2. children of teachers get a whopping discount. The teachers also heavily control who captains things, who has the biggest speaking parts, who has the lead in the plays - 95% of the time it’s children of staff.
3. Private schools wish to turn out well disciplined little robots which leaves very little room or individual personalities to flourish. Fall in line is the order of the day, every day.
4. Heaven forbid you have a child who isn a total gobshite. If you haven’t got a precocious prodigy, they won’t get a look in because they’re all about winning and if you’re not winner (and most kids aren’t) you are no good to them. My ‘quiet’ child was consistently criticised for being quiet. When actually saying things when they matter rather than verbal diarrhoea is a strong quality
5. Teachers NEVER leave - until their kids leave and the discount is no longer an incentive to stay. Meaning you get a lot of staff scared of change and if you get a horrible teacher you can guarantee your second child will have to suffer them.
6. Again unless you’re a millionaire, your child’s peers will always have better than they have - which bothers children immensely. To be surrounded by friends who have pools and 4 holidays a year when you don’t have anything like that can be unpleasant.

I could think of a hundred more reasons why private school is all fur coat and no knickers.

The private schools my DD went to did it identify the learning needs she has in maths. I did - but her schools dismissed my concerns and didn’t send her for learning support. The state school picked it up immediately and she has come on leaps and bounds.

I also think now she is in a state school she has a better mix of friends - it doesn’t kill children to realise that sometimes other people struggle in life or don’t have 2 shiny cars per household. Her friends now are MUCH nicer than her private schools friends who were mostly vile.

One point I will concede on is private schools have better facilities. That’s undeniable. But for £3k a month for 2 kids, I’m not sure an on-site pool is much better than having to go to the local pool for lessons

Whether intentional or not that is exactly what you’ve done.

Many more parents pay money to move to better catchment areas than pay for private education. I don’t really see the difference. Both are paying to provide a better education for their children.

For me it really depends on the teachers. A good teacher and a curious mind - that combination will start a fire every time.