Does private automatically mean "better"?

[sandyballs]

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

If only we had a half-decent state school in this part of London.........................

Private is not necessarily better. It depends on the school.

I'm terribly ambivalentas is dh, who is from Holland, where private education basically doesn't existbut we're sending ds to a private school because our choices around here are (1) some v. good church schools (Catholic & CofE) in which you haven't a snowballs's chance of hell in getting a place at if you aren't baptised and/or don't attend church regularly or (2) some scary looking non-church state schools with unbelievably high rates of truancy & unbelievably low scores & awful teacher-student ratios.

I agree with Enid who reckons state schools offer a more "savvy" social education. . .it's something I think about a lot.

Basically I had to make a huge decision this summer as to whether or not raise my kids on my own in NYC, where we're in the catchment area of one of the best (if not the best) state school in NYC, or here in London with dh, where a private education looked likely. In the NYC school, which ds attended for a spell last year, there are no uniforms, kids call teachers by their first names, and the kids have a general city savviness & confidence. . .on the flip side, that savviness means that most of the kindergarten kids (what you'd call reception) had seen Star Wars Episode III--you know, the one that's NOT for kids under 12 or whatever. . .? So that "savviness" has a flip side: often too-early exposure to the adult world.

We're here in London now, and ds will go to an ultra formal schoolthe exact opposite of what he had in NYCand I wonder every day if we're doing the right thing. . .

My stepdaughter is privately educated and beautifully polite and well behaved. Ds will go to the state primary two minutes up the road. Hope it will be OK for him. I think small class sizes are the single best thing about private schools.

unfortunately i beleived that private automatically means better for the first 2 and a half years of my sons primary education. I wont bore you with the details but both my sons are now at a BRILLIANT state school and are doing MUCH better

my son is polite and lovely and goes to a state school i on the other hand went to a posh private one and am a rude cantankerous old bag

Cod I have two kids in private school and trust me , if they started to act like arrogant little shits they would rue the day!

It depends, is the answer. Some Private schools are better than some state schools and contratiwise!

For us Private is easier as Jimjams says. There is wrap around care onsite, where the kids can play with mates, from 8 to six if needed (donm't need it that late myself but some do).

Inaddition class sizes are smaller. As a teacher in the state sector I can guarentee that you can do more for and with a class of say 10-14, than you can a class of 30! It is simle arithmatic. I consider myself to be a reasonable teacher, but a class of 30 means each child gets , possibly, 2 minutes of my time a lesson. If I had 10 , they would get 6 minutes. And that is without time being taken out of the lessons for bad behavior. Not to say that doesn't happen in Private, but it tends to happen less.

Regarding savviness I agree that there are flip sides. But not all Private schools are 'isolated'. the svhool that mine goes to sends their sixthformers to work as volenteers in a local SN school, a few life skills will be learned there I think.

A woman I met recently who is sending her DS to a private school told me that Private Schools do hot have to employ fully qualified teachers.

Anyone know if this is true?

They don't, and neither for that matter do state schools. I worked on the 'unqulified' regester for 2 terms at the school where I work now as a fully qualified teacher. To put this in perspective I had not finised my PGCE but I had a degree in the subject I taught, and was 2/3 of the way through my post grad teaching qualifucation. The staff had all seen me teach and I was asked to apply for the job. But tecnicaly I was unqualified!

the numbers of unqulified teachers in the Pirvate sector are probably similar to the state sector, there are none in my kids school fwiw

Eaney, certainly used to be true - a degree would be sufficient but not necessarily with a specific teaching qualification.

To answer the original question I think there are good and bad schools, both state and private. no guarantee that fee paying schools are "better" educationally or socially.

My opinion is:

"the vast majority of independant schools are better than the vast majority of state schools"

Generally they have much smaller class sizes (which i think is SOO important esp when the children are younger)
They also dont HAVE to abide by the national curriculem... which means that the really young ones seem to spend much more time outside in the schools (often extensive) grounds... doing cooking / art / other more 'fun' things etc rather tha spending half there day doing 'literacy hour' / 'numeracy hour' etc

I think that is also VERY important esp when they are young.

It also has to be said that most private scores get better GCSE / Alevel results etc as well... (but again my school, which was a church of england school, almost impossibel to get into sort of thing actually got BETTER results than alo of the local independant schools)

saying that the vast majority of the pupils at my school were children for whom that was the ONLY non fee paying school, their parenst were prepared to send them to, so most in our school came from 'nice homes' with relatively well off families so to speak, which is NOT true of the typical state school either.

Where i live i would ONLY wnat my own children to goto independant schools, despite not having done so myself

Ameriscot - my views back then were rather green and learnt the hard way re: classroom bouncer or teacher...
I was vey happy to give up teaching too - though for me, state schools experience only. Went for one job in a rather exclusive private school and left mid morning as the general philosophy and snobbishness made me feel very uneasy - for example, they only let pupils sit GCSE exams if they got a grade C or above in their mocks...kept their results in the charts artificially high. Of course, it wasn?t phrased like that, it talked about "selective individual tailoring to maximise the pupil?s exam potentials" or some such rubbish....blah blah.

I don?t care where people choose to send their kids ultimately - just as long as those who send theirs to expensive private schools don?t end up going around smugly, all superior and passing their prejudiced ideas of a two tiered education system to their children. Equally, I hate to see inverted snobbery of those parents who presume all private school kids are stuck up little brats and pass these views onto their own children...

I work across a range of mainstream schools in a large town.

In my experience, the primary schools are generally ok, with a few exceptions. The high schools are all much worse.

If I have the choice, I would like my daughter to attend the local state primary. I will reconsider when she reaches 11, if we have the choice financially.

There is only one private school within around 45 mins of my house and it gets good results but no better than majority of the local primarys. (Similar sized classes)
Secondary is when it would matter round here but still is not neccessarily the best option.There is now a new head who acording to parents who I know that send teir kids there ,is much more sensible and doesn't push the kids to take 14/15 GCSEs and has limited it at 11.There is definatly lots of sports activities at the school though.Netball and swimming teams and particulaerly good.Althoughother schools have v.good sports teams too.

I wonder where you are talking about Nikkie
I completely agree with you btw.

It's interesting how we all consider class size to be the most important thing isn't it? Internationally my understanding is that there is little evidence to suggest that it makes much difference. Catchment areas and the educational attainment of parents is still the best predictor of success. This means that schools that are hard to get into (whether through cost, "saintliness" or moving next door) are always going to have better results.

dh and I both went to state primary and then private secondary. I went to a very "non-exclusive" sort of school, and was fairly happy. He was a scholarship boy at a school with a strong religious and academic ethos and didn't fit in at all. We both did well enough and went to university. Would we have done so anyway? Difficult to tell really, but maybe my dh wouldn't have got the problem with authority that he struggles with in a work situation.

We have sent ds (and dd next week) to a state primary. It's not the closest or the most popular, and it's results are not fantastic, but we are very happy with it. The main thing that put us off the private schools (apart from the cost) was the ridiculous uniforms. They just seemed incredibly un-child centred to me - I mean a shirt and tie for a four year old? What on earth is that about?

In our area one primary school has a much more affluent catchment than another but both feed the same secondary school. Many parents (inc. several friends) have lied about where they live to get their children into the more affluent one which they deem to be better! This makes me mad! I believe that education continues beyond school gates and feel that those parents potentially do their children more harm than good. After school they will play with those who attend the school for their real catchment... how do they answer the question 'Why don't you go to our school?' Are they to answer '...because my Mum thinks I'm better than you!' IMO children should go to their local school, parents should support their children's education and therefore any concerns re. possible lack of attainment can be addressed at home as well as at school.

Slightly off the suject but all part of the same snobbery if you ask me!

Sunnyside, why is it that people fully accept that people can choose state school X over state school Y becuaes they think that it best suits their child's needs, but that if you choose Private X over State Y you are doing it for 'snob' reasons?

Since you don't know me, my children or my personal circumstances, how can you make that evaluation?

A lot of people have talked about results - eg GCSE resuts, saying that their local state school is better than the nearby private school (why, of course).

Private schools are either selective or non-selective, and the selective schools almost always get 100% or close to it (for 5 A*-C). Those that don't get into a selective school go to a non-selective, so it is not surprising that their results are not 100% because they don't have the highest achieving children (rich people have thick kids too). They might only be 80%.

The league tables only measure the results for 15/16 year olds, but in independent schools, it is really common to sit the exams when children are ready for them, rather than according to their chronological age. This means that the number of exams sat in year 11 are often fewer than the child actually takes, so it is a smaller pool from which to get your 5 A*-C.

I've never heard of someone not being entered for an exam after a course of study just because they are not going to get an A or a B. If it does exist, then it could happen in either sector, and I would suspect more likely in the sector that cares more about league tables.

The two closest independent schools to me are always right at the bottom of the league tables (close to 0% A-C) and that with fees of £20k a year. Yet they are good enough schools, sending most of their pupils onto top universities - far more than the local (heavily-oversubscribed) comprehensive (35% A-C) could ever dream of.

Some people must take snobbery very seriously, if they are willing to spend £10k per child on it!

Yep, and I'm so dedicated I even give the children extra 'snearing' lessons at the end of the day!

Hayho, just about to get mine in the car so that I can go teach other people's kids in a state comp. What an uncaring snob I am!

Where we are state is good, but private is excellent and at £4500 per year represents value for money!

DD's school is in top 100 independants and inspectors couldn't think of any suggestions for improvement!

Chose to send her there based on my crap experience in the state sector (as a child - not a teacher)

i went to state school from 5 till 11 , i had been in and out of hospital with asthma and had fallen behind in my schooling. I was sent to a private preparatory school for a year and two term and it was the happiest period of my school life. Ten in a class. I surged in confidence and took part in so many activities, sport, music, drama. When I went back into the state school system my expectations of what i could achieve had been so far raised that i did very well in exams and found them rather easy. i notice my state secondary school, 35 to a class, was a lot about class control, so i just self taught basically. i'm sure i couldn't have got into oxford without that period of private schooling - I'd never have believed i could. If i can afford it ds is going private.

i went to state school from 5 till 11 , i had been in and out of hospital with asthma and had fallen behind in my schooling. I was sent to a private preparatory school for a year and two term and it was the happiest period of my school life. Ten in a class. I surged in confidence and took part in so many activities, sport, music, drama. When I went back into the state school system my expectations of what i could achieve had been so far raised that i did very well in exams and found them rather easy. i notice my state secondary school, 35 to a class, was a lot about class control, so i just self taught basically. i'm sure i couldn't have got into oxford without that period of private schooling - I'd never have believed i could. If i can afford it ds is going private.