Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Does private automatically mean "better"?

219 replies

sandyballs · 05/09/2005 08:13

Not trying to be controversial just genuinely interested in your views. The reason being, one of the 6 children in my ante-natal group is being privately educated and her mother is constantly going on about her daughter receiving a "better" education than the rest of them. I disagree. Views please but keep it calm

OP posts:
basketcase · 05/09/2005 08:27

Like saying strawberries are better than raspberries -yes for some, definitely not for others. Too many factors at work to make a broad sweeping statement. Also, I went to a brilliant secondary state school - my sister went to the same school and had a totally different experience as was let down by lack of recogniation of her dyslexia - same school, totally different opinions and results.

Personally, if there was a good state school that seemed to fulfil my child?s specific needs and interests, I would give that a go first - not only cheaper but also means she could share her school experience with her friends out of the village. If was not appropriate, would look elsewhere and bite the financial bullet if necessary. Sincerely hoping that one of the three local secondary schools (all with good reps.) will be ok for her though.

Paying for a private school does not guarantee better education - the teachers are trained in the same way with same qualifications. When I qualified as a teacher,several of our group went for private school jobs and I remember the rest of us laughing at them a bit, feeling that they were "wimping out" and worrying more about classroom control (opting for schools with fewer in the class) and status than actual teaching....mind you it did seem like the drips that were all going for these type of posts and the more spunky ones going into exciting and challenging schools....militant lefty lot, we were, back in the bad old days.

noddyholder · 05/09/2005 08:35

No it is all down to the individual school My ds is in the local state school and it is brilliant and he is far happier than I ever was in a private school

hellsbells4 · 05/09/2005 08:42

Think it partly depends on what the local state schools are like. Also what I like about the private system is that they offer so much more than just school lessons - after and pre school care from 8am until 6.30pm/ clubs/ trips abroad/ sports facilities and matches/ supervised meal times and table manners/ small classes/ discipline - disruptive pupils don't seem to dominate the classroom. Things I don't like about private schools - elaborate, expensive uniforms and snob factor.

Ameriscot2005 · 05/09/2005 08:47

Round here, private is better.

Ameriscot2005 · 05/09/2005 08:51

In the comprehensive school that I taught in, you could easily spend half the lesson on classroom control. It would have been a joy to teach these classes for a whole lesson, as is the case in most private schools.

wangle99 · 05/09/2005 09:05

I think it really is a matter of individuality where the child and the school is concerned.

DD was state education until she was 7. At which point she started being bullied by her teacher and the school would not do anything about it, The headteacher seemed to be scared of the teacher involved and would just pass it off.

There was no other state school around here I would consider her going into on the basis of their results, DD is a bright child and needs stimulation she would not get that in the large classes.

The private school is small, looks at DD as an individual, stretches her mentally in lessons and are happy to see me over any concerns which I know will be dealt with ASAP.

So for us private is definately better.

Hulababy · 05/09/2005 09:13

Hmm. I'm with Ameriscot on her post. I have cokpletely "wimped out" now having spent the past 9 years teaching; the last 4 at a school which went into special measures. I found the whole not being able to teach and only having to do class control and dsicpline too much - I have left the profession and have no intention of ever going back. Last year I had too many posts on here ranting, asking for suppoirt and advice becuase of the problems, for example . There are lots more similar threads I wrote on. I just can't do it anymore.

But anyway that's an aside issue really.

Private school doesn't always mean better. It depends on the child, the circumstamces, how you measure better and what is important to you. Private schools are normally different to state schools.

For me, round here and in our current situation, we think private would be better but we have comprised. We decided to TTC for a second baby and, therefore, we are sending DD to state primary (a good one in our opinion, and we are to move house next month to be in catchment). However, when she reaches secondary school age we will reassess everything again.

Enid · 05/09/2005 09:16

at primary level I would say there isn't much to choose between them

at secondary level, the results are definitely better for private school. But IMO, a good state school tends to give a more holistic education than a private school so if I had the choice I would go for good state.

dramaqueen72 · 05/09/2005 09:16

Our local primary school is heaven, award winning and just so lovely. however the local secondary schools are NOT and are just plain awful. we tried sending to ds to one, it was a nightmare and I wish we'd never even tried it. now both he and dd1 got to a small happy private secondary school and are blooming. its just so good, they really seem to think of everything, we love it.
aside from the horrendous uniform prices that is!

Ameriscot2005 · 05/09/2005 09:19

What do you mean by more holistic, Enid?

Ameriscot2005 · 05/09/2005 09:20

I've said it before, but IMV, we all have choices as parents and having money simply gives you more choices.

Enid · 05/09/2005 09:24

well...IMO and IME, you get a broader social mix and a much more 'savvy' social education which can broaden your horizons in a way that private school just cannot.

IMO it is a myth that private school give you more opportunities - in fact you are often corralled into following the Oxbridge path when that may not be the best thing for you at all. I personally think a bright child at a state school will usually do very well and be so much more prepared for life 'outside'.

Hulababy · 05/09/2005 09:26

Enid - not all pribvate schools are academic. Likewise, there are definitely some state schools that are very academic too. It really is a case of looking around and choosing which school suits you, your child and your circustances.

Enid · 05/09/2005 09:28

yes

unfortunately its not as easy as that as there is the small matter of cold hard cash to consider

Hulababy · 05/09/2005 09:29

That's what I meant by circumstances I guess really. I know the money IS a huge issue for many people.

Enid · 05/09/2005 09:30

sandyballs - how old is the girl who is being privately educated?

Hulababy · 05/09/2005 09:32

"her mother is constantly going on about her daughter receiving a "better" education than the rest of them"

sandyballs - that is just plain rude and nasty really. I hate the "I'm better than you" type of arguement.

ks · 05/09/2005 09:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

frogs · 05/09/2005 09:40

I have a dd1 in Y6 and ds in Y2, so fwiw these are our experiences (inner-London primary, but seriously considered various other options over the years).

You can be lucky with a primary school and get one which is (a) a good school with experienced and able teachers and (b) has a majority of children of average ability or above from supportive homes. In this case there would be no need to look elsewhere, unless you felt strongly about some of the extras that private schools provide (more sport, after-school activities, posher facilities, social glitz).

BUT in many cases the reality will fall short of the ideal. Many schools (particularly in London) find it hard to recruit and retain good teachers. Many are also struggling with large numbers of children from difficult and disrupted backgrounds. A good school will be able to cope with this and still provide the children with a stable environment and decent education. (This is the case in my children's school).

However, the class sizes will be bigger, and there will inevitably be less attention paid to each individual child, so some children's needs may not be fully met. Teachers also have very little flexibility to vary the curriculum, and much of it is couched in an off-putting 'edu-speak' that private schools can bypass.

Even if your child is in the ability range that is being targeted by the teaching there is still likely to be less 'polish' -- handwriting is often noticeably poorer in state school children, for example.

On the upside, many of the private schools (particularly in London) can be very pushy and a bit precious and competitive.

In the end it comes down to the relative merits of particular schools and individual children. It's not the place for political rhetoric, though sadly this is often how it turns out.

zippitippitoes · 05/09/2005 09:42

I think it's really hard and not particu;larly helpful to make comparisons because children from the same family going to the same school can fare completely diffferently.

There are poor private schools as well as poor state schools and it is a bit of a nightmare matching a child to a school as everything is so fluid. It is only in retrospect that you discover where you were right or wrong in your choice if things do not pan out as you'd hoped.

Ameriscot2005 · 05/09/2005 09:44

To me, Games and the wide array of extra-curricular activities make private schools very holistic.

Enid · 05/09/2005 09:50

hmmm

but how necessary is it realllllly...to do tons of different activities 'oh our school is so great they can do archery' - well I suggest they could live without it quite happily.

Ameriscot2005 · 05/09/2005 09:57

But it is more holistic, surely, to have a wide array of clubs and societies in a school. It goes beyond the basic curriculum and focus on exam achievement.

None of it is necessary, in a life-or-death sense.

batters · 05/09/2005 10:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

frogs · 05/09/2005 10:02

Yes, ameriscot, but some state schools do provide a reasonably good array of after-school activities (ours has football, tennis, dance, drama, music and French, which is pretty good for a one-form entry primary school).

And if your school doesn't provide them, you can take your children to all these activities out of school. Sure it's convenient to have them all on one site, but it's a question of whether that alone is worth paying school fees for. For us it wasn't. It's also quite nice for the children to meet different people at after-school activities, rather than just their classmates.

Btw I do think it's very rude of sandyballs' 'friend' to keep going on about her dd's education being 'better'.