will a normal child do well anywhere?

[thepowerofvoodoo]

What is better about private schools? i've read through lots of threads on here about private schools and know a lot of people "in real life" who send their kids to private schools and wouldn't consider anything different. i suppose i look at it from a different angle as i went to bog standard state schools (many, as my parents moved a lot), a mixed comp and then did a degree at oxford. so i suppose i see it as "it didn't stop me doing well" and that my parents (not that they could have paid) would have just wasted their money. i suppose i also believe a child should want to do well for themselves and motivate themselves rather than be artificially pushed.
i look at the area i live in and ALL the primary schools are OK - there's none in special measures or anything, so will be sending my nearly 4 year old to whichever he gets into.
Is is just a matter of where the parents went (state or private) the children go? Some of my friends haven't even considered state because they didn't go to state school. I suppose I'm the same because I'm not even considering private because I didn't go.
I just don't see the point of paying for something that is available for free (but then I'm a tight arse). What am I missing?

It HAS to depend so much on individual kids, and individual schools, no?

Yes, of course this is the case. I highly suspect, based on lots of conversations and through pe in teaching, that in the main the better schools are private/indie/grammar. They in the main have better academic results and in the main offer more diverse activities/experiences. They in the main have more money, but of course the real factor is they are selecting, actively or not, parents who in the main are motivated enough to choose a good school for theur LOs. THis is simply enough in itself to guarantee a lower percentage of disruptive/poorly motivated children, which is what OP wants.

Mexxo, it is definitely the case that boys and girls have a totally different approach to learning and school generally you only have one of each and you are presenting this as fact?

racingheart, I think you went to my school :( There really was an ethos of mocking anyone who wanted to work. I was predicted 10+ O levels at 11. I left school at 16 with a mediocre 5, which didn't include maths or any science. I had supportive parents who were interested in education but I just wasn't strong enough to ignore the bullies, and didn't want to draw their attention. My db just coasted through school and if he got any qualifications at all I'd be surprised. He found he didn't have to so didn't bother. He was tested with an IQ of 150 after leaving school, so he wasn't actually just thick like we all thought

I sent my DD to private secondary because she is easily led and I worried what would happen to her. DS1 is a geek but totally unconcerned about other people and their opinions and thrived at a High school in a grammar area. DS2 went to private Juniors then on to state grammar and did really well, highly motivated with a clear goal in mind.

DS3 went to state primary then grammar and didn't do very well at all. Same parents as the other 3, same concern for his education but he did the bare minimum he needed to get through and no more. In temperament he is very laid back and like his uncle. His laziness caught up with him and his GCSE results were poor.

But having said all this, SIL1 had the attitude that a child would do well wherever they went and sent her 2 to the nearest primary and secondary, which were both dire. SIL2 said "as long as she's happy" and wasn't too bothered either. All of the cousins are now adults and there is no difference in how they've turned out. They are all doing similar sorts of jobs. I can't honestly say that mine have done any better than their cousins, for all my pushing.

Gosh.

That's really interesting, Sabriel - I know its only one anecdote, and not a conclusive study, but still, fascinating.

It does sort of bear out my own experience, which is of some of my private school cohort doing very well (not necessarily the early flyers, either) and some completely nosediving, and ditto my state school pals. There really isn't a clear state v private divide in terms of what they've achieved as adults.

Then again, I'm quite ancient so not sure if that still holds true - hence your 'cousins' story being so interesting.

No, Sabriel, I was pretty clearly presenting it as my experience with my own children. In the spirit of general MN sharing. So perhaps not appropriate for you to try and stir up some unjustified gender-thread. Just my experience. Step away from the aggressive gender stereotypes.

Having said all that, and completely without prejudice to the fact that I am only able to talk on a first-hand basis about my own above-average-yet-mocked-for-being -"brainbox offspring, my mother is a primary school teacher (in state schools) of 30+ years' standing and she is very firm on the fact that in general girls are far less susceptible at primary school level to peer pressure to "be cool" than the boys.

Make of that what you will.

I don't give a toss about gender stereotyping. Girls are known to work differently (in the main) than boys. Ask any teacher, TA or educational researcher. In the playground, there is a whole lot more banter between boys than girls (why are there tons of male stand-ups and so few female - people think this divide starts young in the playground). I worked in a school where they split the boys and girls in the top set: the girls did phenomenally well, much better than when mixed, the boys turned into apes, the best male teachers could barely contain them - they were mixed thereafter. I don't think it's a big step to say that perhaps boys have more pressure to be mediocre than girls. We are all women on here and tend to post from PE - perhaps men would have a different story to tell about succeeding in state schools?

To address Sabriel's point. I'm not sure how easy it is to compare life outcomes. School is clearly only one factor in how you get on careerwise. I'm the least successful one of my family if you count salary and social standing, but I have by far the highest education. Exam results are important, but I think most parents send DCs to public schools for all the extras we've already talked about on this thread - not easily measurable by salaries.

Let me add to the list of anecdotal evidence. I was a geek who did well on paper too. I even went from an SM to Cambridge, thus proving that even the 11+ is no barrier to success. Ha! My mother still thinks all was fine and I had a happy childhood. I hated it. I had the same experiences as already descried, so no need to reiterate.

It?s not uncommon. I have worked in state and independent schools and the difference is clear in terms of work ethos and attitude to success.

I will send my super bright DS private for his mental wellneing.

To answer the original post. Do ?normal children do well anywhere".

I think the answer is probably a no.

Bright children like me (or my DS) or any number of those spoken here can do well in any school anywhere in terms of qualifications. In terms of survival and an unaffected personality or carrying lifelong b emotional baggage it might be different.

I am not sure what a ?normal" child is although I will assume here you mean an average, well brought up child who isn?t outstanding and doesn?t have any SN in any way. Well, the bad news is that the evidence shows on the whole those (what I call) middle rankers, do very badly unless the school is chosen well. Such children do very well in private schools, exceeding expectations. In state schools generally, the underperform (as probably most will do anyway, except the geeks).

But does it matter? In the real world, such schooling success is of little use these days.

But jabed, isn't part of your viewpoint affected by your personality? I have just as many members of my family who felt let down and damaged by their private education as members of my family who felt let down by their state education. I was the only one entirely state educated and the only one who doesn't have any complaints about it, now. That is not to say I didn't have times when I was made to feel unhappy by other children, but I have a tendency to turn difficult episodes in my life into positive learning experiences and therefore write them off as actually having done me some good - probably because the majority of the time I have been happy, so it is easier to see things in that light.
Surely the biggest problem with your education was that you didn't feel able to express your unhappiness to your parents, but bottled it up, instead? You can't cure all the wrongs done to you by trying to avoid your experiences for you ds - he may find other negative experiences, instead. Let's just hope he feels able to express them to you, so that you can do something about them.

I don't have the option really of sending him private anyway - it's not within our means, however, I have looked at the closest school (it's nextdoor!) and that's where he'll be going as it's the only choice we'll get into. I haven't been into a primary school for 25 years but it looked OK, a little run down but the feeling was good. I suppose parental influence is very important no matter where a child goes and I am the sort of person who really cares about education. Luckily my DS is going to be one of the oldest when he starts and can already do his letters / numbers / basic reading etc so I'm hoping he'll thrive. He has been at FT nursery since he was 3 months old so is very used to the social interaction too.
I also suppose personalities come into it and rather nastily of me, I've always had an ability to shrug off and ignore peer pressure, and as a result think others should be able to too. This never made me a target for bullies as if they tried I simply had the ability not to react (physical abuse is different obviously and I didn't suffer this). As I've got older I know that this is just my personality and not something I expect everyone to be like, some people are more sensitive than me. I was very geekish at school in the sense that I was always the top of every class, never played out, always chatted in the library at break times, didn't have a boyfriend, didn't care about fashion or makeup (still don't!) but I was not picked on because I didn't care what people said.
I think you're all right - personalities are key and probably more important than the "geek" factor. My brother, for instance, was bullied a bit and mainly because it made him cry and I think bullies see that initial weakness and pounce. He was not geeky at all though, a normal teenager (something I wasn't) - and middle of the range academically. Maybe for someone like him, from the suggestions on this thread, private would be better.

jabed - just read your reply. I think you're right and what I've tried to articulate above. For a "normal" child (and your definition is spot on the meaning in my head) like my brother - I think perhaps a private school would be better, based on what people have said above. For a bright child (and I think in retrospect that's what I must have been), it depends on personality and whilst qualifications may be similar at the end, experiences will vary greatly. I was as happy as I think I would have been anywhere. I had an odd personality!
I'm not sure I agree with the bit about schooling success not mattering much anymore - without a doubt I have got a few interviews and subsequently jobs because I have an oxford degree. I don't believe this is right - but if it gets me in the door, I work to change them from the inside :).
Incidently, with the current fees and university charges I'm half hoping that my DS does not want to go to University. I would certainly have not gone had I faced a £50k bill at the end. I'm hoping he finds something vocational (and useful to me in my old age... builder, plumber or electrician I hope!).

OK, I admit I am horribly biased, it's true, so maybe I do have my ears pinned back for every reference that supports my theory. And I was generalising that second time Web, but not the first!

rabbitstew, why is it that you argue that my difficulties are because of my personality? I firmly believe that many aspects of my personality are a result of my schooling, not the other way round.

I was a square peg in a round hole always in SM. Up until then I had been bright and as I recall quite happy (certainly not unhappy). In SM I now personality changed from being bright and cheerful to that you see now (and many comment rudely and hurtfully on it). The effect was that lasting.

As for this
Surely the biggest problem with your education was that you didn't feel able to express your unhappiness to your parents, but bottled it up, instead?

That isn?t what happened. I was able and did express my unhappiness to my parents. Both my mother and father attempted to affect things. I was promised time on time by the LEA that I would be given a place elsewhere. It was a lie. A downright lie.

Worse than that attempts to contact the school always resulted in a backlash from teachers and the Head, so I learned that expressing my feelings to my parents was not something I should do.

My mother and father had no idea that independent schools existed, let alone that I could go to one. That isn?t too surprising given the local grammar school had been the local independent in my parents day. The nearest private school was several miles and in a different area. My parents didn?t even know of it. It was several years later when they found out and saw it as a solution for my brother (which it was not anyway).

You are right about one thing; I learned to bottle it up.

You can't cure all the wrongs done to you by trying to avoid your experiences for you ds - he may find other negative experiences, instead. Let's just hope he feels able to express them to you, so that you can do something about them

This again is a hurtful comment. When my DS expressed his problems with a school I immediately took action and did the only thing I could - I removed him.

Hmmm. What Jabed describes is so familiar. It is a story I hear and see repeated time and time again. Maybe certain bright children do well anywhere. But most thrive among peers with similar interests and aspirations. We are happiest and work at our best when we feel secure, liked and respected.

Nothing Jabed has said indicates her personality is basically tilted towards being unhappy at school in general. Her comments were specific to her experience of a school where peers put you down if you loved to learn. Snap here, snap for a big handful of bright comp-educated people I know. I'd be glad of Jabed as a parent if I were a geeky kid, unhappy where I was.

"I will assume here you mean an average, well brought up child who isn?t outstanding and doesn?t have any SN in any way. Well, the bad news is that the evidence shows on the whole those (what I call) middle rankers, do very badly unless the school is chosen well."
I only have limited experience of the state sector but I have found and talking to others with children in the state sector they agree that these children do do well (I'm talking top performing comps here). It is those who aren't so easy the super super bright who need significant differentiation in work from the rest of their year group and those with significant learning difficulties but not so bad that they need constant help just to function in school, who dont do well in the state sector. In fairness Im unconvinced that the latter do well anywhere.

thepowerofvoodoo

I guess you were lucky in that you were academic (ended up at oxford) AND had /have decent state schools in your area AND are very motivated and not easily swayed by children who during the teenage years loose any ambition AND (this i guess is an assumption) but (had or are) the type of parent who will give your child a lot of support and a 'can do' atmosphere at home.

if you were living in an area where schools were in special measures or not achieving at all well, you knew your child is the type who is easily influenced or tricky to motivate and you had the opportunity to send your child to a school witch slightly smaller classes, more support, children all from backgrounds where parent splace a big focus on education and support their learning at home, lots of facilities and extra curricular for your child to help them be more inspired or have more opportunities to try different things.

Obviously it all depends on the individual child and situation, one of my children I'd happily put in state and be confident they'd get a lot out of it. Another I feel is far more suited to a private school and will achieve more, they'd be fine in state but would be more likely to fulfill their potential in private.

There's a tendance on these sorts of threads to compare the best of comps with average private schools. Having taught at three run-of-the-mill comps, the group that does best academically are the ones on the C/D boundary as teachers have (had?) targets to push these to C.

I totally agree that it is a fallacy to compare top comprehensives with average private schools. Our local secondary is diabolical, the one up the road is average and oversubscribed and the next one is brilliant and also massively oversubscribed. The difference between those 3 is staggering. The third one has a tiny catchment where housing costs a fortune, and most people who could afford to live there might as well go private as it is cheaper!!

The differences are not just the results, but the facilities, level of activities, Ofsted report, everything at the first one is satisfactory, the school is run down, they don't have any enrichment opportunities, no music, no trips, etc

As my children already attend a similar primary with no enrichment opportunities whatsoever, I find it really stressful having to offer everything at home and I will be highly valuing these when choosing a secondary.

As per children doing well anywhere, I have seen too many very bright children coming from our local primary fail miserably at the local secondary to believe that this is completely untrue. Of course there is the odd exception, but it is just that. Most children and young adults need a little bit of support to succeed.

I think that if you artificially push a child...you are doing them a favour! I do not believe in the concept of being pushed beyond your ability. You can only be pushed to the max of your ability, not beyond it.

I think that most children can do well anywhere, if the holes ( if there are any) are closed by parents or tutors. A smart kid can do badly at a rubbish school, if they get sucked into a low aspiration peer group.

Anyway, if your kids are clever and hardworking you can afford to worry a lot less!

Children who do well well in average/ bad schools are the intelligent ones who do not feel much need to fit in with their peers. My ds1 is very sociable and loves to be the centre of attention therefore I chose a school which had a very able and aspiration peer group for him to fit into.

"Holes" that occur for the very able are the work they are required is either something they already covered or the work they are being asked to do is insufficiently challenging. I met a boy who was voluntarily reading a quantum physics text book at 4 his knowledge and understanding of this particular subject in fact all science/maths based topics was not only beyond his class mates but his teachers as well. The mother opted for home ed!
My DS when a primary was better and significantly quicker at maths than his teacher who kept making mistakes which my DS felt honour bound to correct thus making her even more insecure and more errors occurred etc etc. infact he was quicker at a weird maths game than all his teachers. So he becomes bored and restless he swung on his chair and whistled in class waiting for others to complete work, then the teacher sets him harder maths but these too are easy and when she sets him even harder questions marks it wrong because she can't do them and he had to show her hes right and then gets fed up with school and even maths in general and starts doodling on bits of paper and more chair swinging and then hes accused of not concentrating so the vicious circle continue. He now attends a super selective independent: for us problem solved.
Yes parents tutors can help but the problem is that in lessons it's back to the same old stuff.
If your childs ability put him into only 1 in 500 and your comp has 1500 then only three have a the same ability if your lucky IME no state school will channel resources/effort into a tiny group and ultimately understandabley because state ed is about the meeting the need of the overwheming majority because thats who most of us are.

jabed - I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, I didn't mean to, and you defended yourself eloquently and convincingly, as usual. What comes across more strongly than anything else in everything you post is how much you love and want to do the very best for your son, which I think is lovely. I also think it goes to show that we can none of us generalise too much about what is best for other peoples' children!

I think if the schools in your area are dire then you are really up against it - it's why I think the catchment system is such a disaster. My friend who lives in Holland got her eldest into a school a long way from home because it was the best school for him (very academic) - no catchment issues, just a check whether he met the criteria (he did) and my friend had to make the decision whether the distance is doable (it is).

I think if you are lucky to have a good state school which handles able students well then your DCs will do well there. So far DD1's secondary, which is our catchment school, looks promising. Intake is very very mixed, as evidenced by a very high Value Added score, but they differentiate very well and so far DD has not reported any issues other than a few kids from the 'rough' middle school in our area kicking off. We're keeping an eye.

I think the other point that needs to be made is that the level of parental engagement that is needed for most children to succeed in a state school is high. Enrichment activities, sport, music, drama - the parents mostly have to supply these things, whereas private schools tend to do this as well as the usual academic curriculum. With the increasing prevalence of families where both parents work full time (we do) and issues around commuting, it is very understandable that many parents will simply not be able to manage the logistics. DH and I work regular office hours with very little unpaid overtime (although I do take work home every so often), so we get home relatively early and can do all that stuff. It's quite different when both parents have no choice but to leave very early and come home very late.

Which is why I'm keeping my judgey pants firmly in the drawer.

pointythings, just wanted to agree with you on the extracurricular, as I said above in my post but wanted to reiterate as I think it is very very valid.

I have 4 children and at the moment with the eldest 2 doing all the extras at home is a nightmare and tbh I can't imagine how we'd cope carrying on like this when all of them are at school. It puts a huge strain on family time and resources, so I'd much prefer them to be doing all that at school. When the time comes for me to choose a secondary school, this will be one of the most important elements for me to consider...

Keep an open mind. I am state-educated and university educated as is DC's father. Both of us at comps, both performed well. I looked at State and private. Was very disappointed with the private school facilities for the amount of money they charged. One had a library, which was actually a moveable little cupboard. One school had good facilities but the Head told me she liked to mold the kids to their way of thinking. Not my cup of tea. In the end found the local state school so brilliant, forest school in place, all kids have to learn musical instrument, foreign language tuition from year 3, house system, outdoor play, streamed maths and English. I actually found the school to be much better even with larger class sizes. Local comps get great results and have Oxbridge candidates each year if you want them. Plus I can pay for foreign holidays, extra tuition if required, musical instruments, no contest. I am lucky on the area. Would consider private in other areas.

I think a normal child will do well if the school has an balanced intake of all abilities with a minimum of 30% able well supported kids ( ive read thats the tipping point). In some inner city schools its really not going to happen but probably the norm in very middle class suburbs.

I was state-educated, and up to secondary was competitive, bright and loved learning. I was hated by most other kids in my school and bullied mercilessly. It just made me more geeky and if it hadn't been for one teacher who gave me extra to stop me getting bored, I'd have probably been very disruptive.

The first secondary I went to was competitive, had prizes for best in form, percentages in work and exams and everyone knew precisely what position they were in class. I loved the work, but hated the rest of it. Great system for a geek, terrible for the rest of the kids.

After I was 13, I was transferred to another comp which had little to no competition, no prizes for best in year, nothing. 'Being a naice gel' was more important, and it didn't help that I was doing O/A levels in the mid-80s, when the teachers' strikes were on and half the time we had nobody in the room teaching us. I lost impetus, and though I did get where I wanted to be, I had a major shock upon starting Uni. I couldn't believe how much more the grammar and private students knew, even basic subject stuff (one physics teacher for the whole of the school, who was absent half the time couldn't teach the entire syllabus let alone extra stuff) and I had few to no study skills in comparison and had no self-confidence, figured I was stupid and was lucky to get through. Yes I envied the grammar pupils.

(Self-confidence eventually came back, but it took a doctorate to prove it to myself that I wasn't stupid)

So yes, a bright/normal child can do well in a middling comp, but it's in spite of it, not because. (Sorry its a bit long.)