To feel so fed up that the only way to get a good education seems to be privately?

[Greensha]

I’m uk based. I live in a reasonably nice area but the schools are rubbish. We’ve looked further afield and they’re all pretty similar. I don’t know if my expectations are off but the classes are huge, like 30 kids in one room (I thought 25 was the max!). The buildings scruffy. One had a lovely lunch room and nice outside space but the rest of the school was falling down. There’s absolutely no way we can afford private and the one local to us is worlds apart to these state schools. I am trying to remind myself that a lot of that is superficial, the teaching is the same in both sectors as the teachers are the same and I know my dc will leave school with a proper and ‘real’ understanding of life. I can’t help but feel my kids are at a disadvantage overall though and it upsets me. Why should some kids get small classes, loads of sport opportunities and nice clean and tidy environments when others don’t. Doesn’t seem right or fair.

And many teachers in private schools do not have a degree in the subject that they are teaching.

Agreed, but if you're not an academically capable enough as a parent enough to support them then the fact is they really do benefit from a smaller classes.

I've two daughters, both Russell Group, one studying medicine, the other doing a double degree in modern languages. Both had their secondary school education at a large, bog standard comprehensive in the UK (their primary school years were in NZ).

One eyed Kiwi patriot as I am, I've got to admit that academically, the education the girls' received over here was far superior to the one they would have received in NZ. (Whether it was better in terms of pastoral care, and not spitting them up and chewing them out mentally is another matter).

Two things that really stood out for us: the girls didn't feel that they'd been judged and found wanting, and that being in a comp' guaranteed their educational success and future outcomes. Many of their compatriots did. They had been brought up to value education, to believe they needed to do their best, that they would be supported to do their best, and their best would be good enough. The teachers were fantastic, supportive, willing to go way further than we were used to teachers being prepared to go in supporting and extending them, and made it very clear that they really appreciated having enthusiastic and committed learners to educate. The second thing was the amazing diversity of students at their school, from all walks of life, so many ethnicities and religions, people from very poor backgrounds, right through to very wealthy, multi-home, trust fund backgrounds. They are able, as a result, to relate to and communicate with others from a wide and diverse background.

Are you telling me the same child studying in a comprehensive will get exactly the same grades if they studied in a grammar or private school?

A bright child in a cohort that is struggling may be socially isolated though?

I never thought we would choose private for our DC. I'm someone who has dedicated my professional life for the last 20 years to trying to remove barriers for children who are disadvantaged in all sorts of ways. We are lucky to live in an area with good state schools so when we had DC we automatically assumed they would go to one of them.

Our 11 yo DD, who is currently at a very good mainstream state Primary school has Autism, ADHD and Dyspraxia and after looking at all the options we have reluctantly made the decision to go private for secondary. She simply cannot cope with the sensory overhelm and unpredictability of a big, busy school. Not without significant detriment to her MH and our family life. The smallest state secondary near us has 1600 kids. Because she's academically capable and 'masks' in school she doesn't meet the criteria for an EHCP and without one, she won't get the level of support at secondary that she has at her current primary school. Even if she could get an EHCP, it wouldn't change the noise and busyness of the environment. Even at her primary school (who are wonderful and have gone above and beyond) she's so overwhelmed by the noise and sheer number of kids she often can't eat lunch, won't use the toilet all day, she comes home exhausted and has huge 'meltdowns' (which can involve self injury) from 'holding it in'.

Her new school is very small, calm, quiet, only 12-14 to a class and they have the resources to give her the flexibility and support she needs. When we went to look round she cried in the car on the way home. I asked what it was that she didn't like and she said "no, they're happy tears. I didn't know a school could feel like that".

I do not feel ok about it, morally. Not at all.
DH and I are both the children of working class parents, I was the first person in my family to go to uni and DH left school at 16 with no qualifications. We know that there are many others like our DD, too disabled for mainstream but not disabled enough for specialist, whose parents could never afford it. We feel guilty and like we're abandoning our principles, but if we don't send her knowing full well we can afford to then we'll still feel guilty because we haven't put her first. We're not looking for her to gain an advantage in life, not interested in networking or social status, we don't even care about results at this point, we just want her to be OK.

But in most they are. This is the issue with any school. There are good ones and not so good in both sectors. But if paying for private you can choose the good.

It’s rather alarming that people can teach in private schools without qualifications- Have heard this before

@oakleaffy if you’ve heard that before, then I’m surprised you haven’t heard that due to the teacher shortage, teachers in state schools have to teach subjects which they are not qualified to teach.

Generally the group would tend to have different aspirations and that is a factor too in future success.

Re teachers not having a degree in their subject... DD's degree is pharma... chemistry... Dd is doing a PGCE for Biology - her uni didnt do Chemistry this year - lack of experienced chemistry teachers with time to be placement mentors (they are spread very thinly). She's already been asked twice (by first placement and training schools) if she'd consider teaching A level Physics. Times are desperate.

@Greensha When I went to primary school in the 1960s there were 46 pupils in my class and over a third passed their 11+. At secondary school we ran at just over 30 and did not have small group teaching until VIth form.

For the last 30+ years I have been an inner city school governor, as well as being (when they existed) a Lay Ofsted Inspector... the biggest difference in classes was never the size of the class but the passion of the teacher to convey the knowledge and excite children to learn. My current schools are both Victorian builds, one still has a roof top playground but the building are kept well because the staff care and look after the property, yes some rooms are not ideal but we make the best of them and our children make the most progress in the LA... starting well below the baseline in EYFS and then exceeding National and Local level when they move on to secondary school.

If I am honest, I would suggest you alter your expectations... because I am not sure that you will ever find what you are looking for.

You are being unreasonable to focus on building aesthetics and class size (it’s always been 30)

Ermmm.....no. it's not always 30. Most secondary schools have upwards of 32 in some classes and we have situations where children are being taught in groups of 60 or more because of staff shortages.

But no-one said they didn't! Drugs + general teenage behaviour happens in every school

@nneverbeenskiing you're just doing your best in an imperfect world.

The year 6 to year 7 transition is so tricky.

My similar DD does have an EHCP and her needs are met in a mainstream school. Her avowed ambition on leaving primary was "become a footballer or SENCO teacher."

A good school environment (of any kind) is worth its weight in gold.

Who says they don't need qualifications? At DDs indy school the minimum level of qualification is a BA/BSc. Many have Masters and there are 15 with PhDs. All have QTS status.
You are aware that to teach in state academies teachers don't need to be qualified?

There is massive teacher retention + re recruitment crisis. If you have kids in state secondary, ask them who last taught their maths or STEM subjects. Schools are happy to just have a body in the room, let alone a subject specialist. They save the specialists for GCSE years.

Regarding grammars and behaviour, it's been so eye opening for me to work in a comprehensive. They're good at managing all sorts of behaviour because they do it a lot.

My experience in grammar was the teachers didn't have those skills and they didn't have sufficient management or pastoral support because "those things don't happen here."

Grammars are also very short on cash. Ours had no counsellor for example.

There were a lot of mental health issues.

My DS went to a "requires improvement" OFSTED rated secondary school and he's currently doing 4 A levels to do a medical degree at university. No help from me either as I left school with nothing and was a teenage parent. It's all down to his own ambition. If they put the work in it can be done but they have to want it.

We feel guilty and like we're abandoning our principles

Of course you are not abandoning your principles and you mustn’t feel guilty for choosing what works best for your child. You are her advocate. No-one else is going to look out for her.
Children are not a medium through which to enact your principles.

Given that we have students joining our grammar from comprehensive and private I would say that good students with supportive parents, in general, do well wherever.

I went to a grammar and can confirm... was a terrible experience. Left in year 9 to go to comp as I hated it so much. Bullying, drugs and extreme mental health issues across the pupil population. Grammar does not mean anything except the kids work at a higher and faster pace, which increases the pressure on them and unsuprisingly a lot of the kids blow a fuse.

I'm not saying they won't do well. Of course a bright child will succeed anywhere.

But wouldn't they do a bit better in a more academic environment. Perhaps a few of the As become A*s.

Yes precisely.
Another thread is running asking if bright kids can do well anywhere. The unanimous reply has been: they might do OK but they probably won't reach their full potential.
If you are in a class of 32 where the teacher spends the majority of the lesson dealing with disruptive behaviour then how on earth will any kid be able to achieve their full potential? If you are at a school where it isn't 'cool' to do well and achieve, where expectations are low by the majority of parents then that's very hard to fight against as a young teen.

Berkshire. TBH I was a bit shocked too but it’s upper set so that could make a difference but it was maths so not an unusual subject. My younger was on a school tour so we went around to all the classes and I asked about it and started to count the classes. 25 per class at most - but kids do have illness etc.

There is a 3% difference in a level results between our school and the grammars over the border and almost no difference in the local private schools.

I get we are lucky and I know that isn’t the experience of a lot of people but my point wa s’more to say to the OP that private doesn’t automatically mean better.

To quote you OP and what you, rightly feel your children deserve - "A proper and ‘real’ understanding of life." And - "Small classes, loads of sport opportunities and nice clean and tidy environments".

YABU in suggesting only expensive private schools can offer this. Why? Because quite simply, this is exactly why we home educated our children and gave them everything you describe and far more.

Having been home educated right up until 16, they are now both at Sixth form doing A levels. The eldest is head student and only one of two that have had an Oxbridge interview. They are both very social, well rounded, show respect to others and handle themselves well in different situations. This is how they have been described by their teachers.

I strongly believe home education done well surpasses the experience of mainstream secondary education for many students in this country.

My DS was the brightest kid in his primary and would have definitely not reached his full potential had be been at his local secondary.

Like some of the kids DS went to primary with just weren't that smart. Quite a lot of them (and the parents) were jealous of DS.

DS at grammar was in the top set and was good but wasn't the best of the best.