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

I don't think many parents make their decision about which school to send their child to based just on reputation TBH. Just looking at threads on MN shows how much thought, stress, concern and worry goes into the decision process for many parents. I doubt there are many people who don't look at the information available, visit the schools, ask questions of the staff and ossibly other parents...even have a walk by the school at start and end of school, and breaktimes. All of these have been chatted about on MN alone.

I think it's unrealistic not to judge on reputation though. I once knew someone who believed in judging on experience, and I'm not joking, her kids went to about 4 different primary schools by the time they were 11, because she kept on finding reasons why they were no good. Reasons which people had told her were the case before she sent them there!

My first stop wasn't private either, but it was the last. If yu have good local schools , then coiunt yourself lucky.

'Belive in the system'? Well, I just go in and do as good a job as I can. My choice of school for my own children as no impact whatsoever on the quality of my work and I pride myself on my professionalism. I also put in extra time helping to set up a secondary nurture group for which I have no extra money or time. So I more than do my bit.

there seems to be a bit or repetition going on here. that is some of the anti-private people keep saying 'you can't make generalizations about private ed' and I keep looking for someone making a generalization and i can't find one! Everyone has their own experience and judges for themselves on that. ofcourse some children do well in a solely state setting. Of course not all private schools are worth their salt. But i will do what i think best for my ds based on my experience of both.

These generalisations are complete pants.

Wait until you have to make a real choice between state and private because your state school is not delivering the kind of education you expect for your child.

If you can't afford private, sorry - there is no debate for you. It really doesn't matter. You may be fishing for warm fuzzies to say that state is fine, but you are not going to hear that from me.

If your state school does happen to be satisfactory, then count your blessings. And enjoy your fancy cars, clothes, holidays.

Where is anyone fishing for warm fuzzies? I haven't noticed that, have I missed something? [puzzled]

And as for generalisations - if your local state school is satisfactory you'll enjoy fancy cars, holidays and clothes? Que? My local primary school is, and I still don't enjoy all those fancy things!

?

Yes I think your SIL is mad sunnyside (from the description you've given).

I can't see much in the way of generalisations either here really- most people's reasons for choosing state/private are different. We'e chosen a private school for ds2 but I can honestly say- hand on heart- that I don't care what results he gets. I really, really, really do not care about exam results. They didn't feature in the decision. I would like him to get into the local grammer school because the alternative is a sink school (and he won't go there as we coulod afford to pay for private secondary if he doesn't get in- although I;d rather he did). But that aside (the convienience of not having to pay large secondary fees) I really , really, really don;t care what exam results he gets. I don't care if he get 15 A* GCSEs or none at all.

Ameriscot, but Blu wasn't saying that the two types of school were in competition for the same pupils. What she was saying (I think) is to question why the private school pupils - despite doing worse in exams - were getting to better universities, and suggesting it was likely to be a/that they came from affluent, confident backgrounds which impressed their interviewers despite being less able than their peers at the other schools and b/ (even more worryingly)that the interviewers for university were snobs who where impressed by their poshness.
What other explanation can there be?

I don't think they are less able though.

From what I see, is that if a school gets 0% in GCSEs, chance are they didn't sit them at all

Ameriscot specifically said pupils did significantly worse in exams in the private schools so in this case I think they probably are.

Aloha - yes, you are right, that is what I was saying re Ameriscots post.

Ameriscot - why does the private school get a lower score on exam results, and yet get more pupils into university? And why do people prefere to send their children to a school that gets lower GCSE results? I'm not grinding an axe, honestly, but I may have misunderstood your popint.

Indeed, the two closest independent senior schools to me get 0% on their GCSEs because they don't sit them. They are both American curriculum schools and somehow manage to cobble together enough learnings to send their graduates off to half-decent universities.

It was to illustrate that you can't always trust league tables when it comes to schools that don't have to follow the National Curriculum.

Ah that makes sense.

What do they do instead though?

They follow a curriculum that enables them to graduate, USA-style.

Well, that's so different and obscure I'm not sure it really adds to the debate tbh. If they are following a US syllabus that is quite a different matter, and really, totally irrelevant to why most of us look at Ofsteds and league tables.

The point is that you need to look beyond league tables. I think American schools, especially if they are boarding, are inspected.

Not obsure to me though - one of the schools is 0.5 miles away, the other 1.5 miles. It's all about the choices you have in your local area that count.

Yes but surely most British people don't send their kids to American schools in Britain, do they?

I do know someone who went to one, in Egypt - but that's because it was nearer than the English/ Welsh one, and her mother couldn't cope with the idea of sending her either to a local or a French one!

Some do - but that's not the point.

Is it true that if you can foot the entire bill you can buy your way into any university in England? (Not sure about elsewhere in UK but I'm sure I've read this somewhere).

Hence Johnny Silverspoon gets into top uni regardless of A-level results/international equivalent if M&D can cough up perhaps roughly the same as they've been coughing up for the past few years anyway?

Sixth form education at a boarding school doesn't come much below £10k and you can more than double that for a top public school where pupil doesn't gain a scholarship. Or M&D buy way in with brand spanking new swimming pool/tennis courts/science block...

Definitely not true of any university I've worked in, SueW. They're all Russell Group ones. I'd be amazed if it was generally true, to be honest.

I've just been googling and I wonder if I read it when we lived in Australia and about Australian universities rather than English ones.

Although written well after we left Australia, This article says:

They pointed out that it is now possible to buy your way into university through full-fee place. Though there are still cut-off scores for full-fee places, they are lower than for government-subsidised places. After all, only a gifted and fortunate few receive the ENTERs of 99 plus needed for the most competitive courses.

Though some full-fee university courses are very expensive, most are cheaper than six years at a top private school. On this argument, if private schools and full-fee places are alternative means of accessing the most competitive university courses, then full-fee places are cheaper.