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.

I've been teaching in the independent sector for twenty years and find your sneering, judgemental attitude appalling. I've taught thousands of bright and not so bright motivated young people who have worked their arses of to get the grades they achieved. A lot of them had jobs at the weekend or after school in retail, hospitality, sports coaching and did DoE and partnership schemes with local schools. There is nothing "not real" about their experiences. Your post does just as much to entrench these tropes and fallacies as any other. I've also taught in the "good" state schools that are held up as alternatives..the ones where you need a six figure salary to be in the catchment, money is spent on tutoring and skiing and the kids are basically the same. There is far more diversity of standard within the state sector than between most average privates and good state schools. You're missing out on a pool of great candidates if you automatically dismiss someone based on their schooling.

Intrigued to read this. How do you know that a state school educated child has not been heavily tutored, interned at mummy and daddy’s work and doesn’t ski/sail? How do you know a private school pupil has not had personal challenges, studied independently and had grit? What about state school children whose catchment is very white and middle class (a nearby state primary is flanked by houses that are over £1m)?

What does study independently mean?
Last I checked with family members in both state and private, who are from similar socioeconomic backgrounds and have engaged parents, the children were being taught in school and were having to do the revision, homework and exams themselves. No-one was doing it for them.

Having typed this, I just realised how awful you sound and very much like the type people who purport to be against.

Wow don't let your prejudice and assumptions get in the way! I would actually hope as you work in recruitment that you would hire someone based on their merits, not what school they went to!

100%

I attended private school and was horribly bullied.. DC are happy in their state schools. They are still at an advantage over lots of kids as they will get an inheritance, have a good diet, youngest has a private tutor, both have extra curricular activities, and parents who are involved love and talk to them. The only advantage out there isn't just private education. Life is never fair.

Nope you don’t. I worked in a state school, which was an academy school more than 1/2 English state schools are. They used unqualified “cover” teachers when teachers weren’t available. In my particular subject on three occasions I had to correct the cover teacher. I’m not blaming her she did have a degree but not in my subject. I’m sure I would have made errors if I’d been asked to teach chemistry for example. Cover teachers don’t get the training offered to teachers who are being asked to teach a subject they have studied to degree level.
My DC went to a private school all teachers were qualified.
Im not saying that private is always better than state or vice versa but the one thing I learnt during my teacher training is that most parents haven’t got the faintest idea what was going on day to day.

I think the point posters are trying to make when they bring up drug taking in private schools is that many private school parents think they're paying a premium to avoid that kind of stuff for their child. Reality is at private school they are doing a shit ton of drugs especially class a like cocaine because they have more money for it. Anyone that's read spare knows even princes were getting off their face in private school.

Oh and the amount of stories about private school students and ketamine. It destroys your bladder btw

Obviously posters know drugs are everywhere but the point is why waste money deluding yourself that you are avoiding it?

Research shows that not streaming can be detrimental to bright and motivated kids, although it may help the less able.
Just one reason we decided not to send DD to the local Comp.

Who has ever said that the choose private in order to avoid drugs. These posters just randomly brought up the seemingly horrendous drug issues in all private schools. Stated as though it was fact and an epidemic so that's the reason they would never choose indy schools.
It's just ridiculous.
Teens will be teens, no matter what school they go to!

Reality is that more millionaires send their kids to state than indy, so access to money isn't an indy school thing. It's a parental income thing.

Bullying exists in all schools, the difference is with how its dealt with.
In my own limited experience based on 3 schools (2 State) bullying is dealt with much faster and more strongly at Private.
In fact excluding DC is a LOT easier in Private

OP when I was at school in the 60's we had over 40 children in our classes. 30 is a manageable number. Not all schools are falling to bits and scruffy, lots of primary schools have new buildings and big outdoor spaces. I know of tiny and very old private schools who don't have either. If you don't like the schools in your area you could apply for schools further afield, or move. Lots of children in state schools do very well.

@Ballyhoballyhoo

Do you warn prospective employees that they won’t be employed if they were privately educated? Otherwise their turning up for an interview is wasting everyone’s time.

That would be really dull for some children - some of the bright ones would get seriously bored, and disengage altogether. It must also be a nightmare to teach all-ability sets, where some of the class are bored to tears, some have absolutely no idea what you are on about, and neither of those groups is learning anything.

DS1 went to a local comprehensive which streams for everything from the age of 11 onwards, and DS2 will go there next year.

Just thinking that he might accidentally hire someone like my sons - state-educated secondary, but they can both ski and sail.....

You mean your kids don't fit into narrow, stereotypical boxes? Shocking!

As I said Local Authority schools. I actually had no idea that there were so many academies in the UK though. There is only one academy secondary school local to me. All of the primaries are LA. I didn't realise this wasn't the case in other areas of the country. We only have one private school locally. It is shockingly poor and the teachers were not teaching the subjects they should be when my friends studied there, but as a PP said this isn't the case in other areas where the school has more competition. The private school in our area is filled with parents that think 'anything is better than state' like some posters on this thread. When actually the state options are locally are great. I've seen our local private school mentioned on a previous thread regarding violence and refusing to do anything about it. So I don't think it has changed much. I think what this thread shows us is it depends on where you live, there are great and poor schools in both state and private. OP doesn't have a choice but to send her DC to state, but hopefully she will be reassured that her DC will be fine.

Sorry I don't believe "more millionaires send their kids to state then private"
I'm yet to meet a millionaire they tend to stick together.

I've definitely seen numerous people on this site say they are scraping the money together to send their kid private to avoid the shitty behaviour and drug use of us plebs (obviously the pleb bit is left unsaid haha) I don't even have a problem with this people can spend their money on whatever they want and if they think they're getting a better life for their child then I'm not one to begrudge that.

I'm just saying there is a big class a drug problem in private schools the kids have more money to spend. Read spare they couldn't even stop a literal prince.
You don't even want to know what they get up to in boarding school.

It doesn't matter whether you believe it or not but many of the best state schools in metropolitan London have millionaire parents (politicians etc). As a % no, as a total number yes. But like you say, they stick together so 🤷. I think you are most likely be thinking of the elite public schools which actually only make up approx 1% of the number of indy schools, I would hazard a guess that the 'normal' indy schools have no more drug taking than the local state school.

Parents should raise their kids to not want to do drugs anyway.

If only it was that simple

There are 3 million , millionaires in UK and only 560,000 kids in Indy schools. Even if 100% of kids at indy schools were the kids of millionaires then the kids of those other 2+ millionaires are in state. However the % of kids in Indy as children of millionaires isn't 100%.

Fair enough, it doesn't really say that much tbh seeing as only 7% of schools are even private.

Plus how are we defining millionaires because someone who's lived in the same house in London for 50 years is probably sitting on a couple million.

Alright I'm not too bothered by where millionaires send their kids I only came to this thread to mention they do do a ton of drugs in private school.

Yes but your point was that kids at indy schools have more access to money to spend on drugs. I'm merely saying that's a misnomer because the number of kids of millionaires is higher in state than indy sector so there are more kids with access to more money in state than indy

Ok I see what you're trying to say.

With 93% of schools being state then any millionaires attending those schools will be spread thinly.
The average private student will have a lot more money than the average state student.

Technically someone living in their grandmother's inherited house in London could be considered a millionaire because they're sitting on multiple millions of pounds but they could work at Tesco. Likewise someone earning six figures but with no savings because they blow all their money on private school and holidays is not considered a millionaire.

That's why I mention how do we even define a millionaire?

Not that it matters much because obviously the average state student has less money than the average private student. Exceptions are not rules.

What is average though? My SIL has same household income as us but her kids go state. Does average include the 25% who are fee assistance?
That's the trouble, there is no "average" in either sector which is why making sweeping generalisations doesn't do anything to either debate.