Areas where state schools are better than private?

[Narrie]

Does anyone live in an area where the state schools are really better than the private ones? I picked this up elsewhere but am afraid to comment there.

I have lived and worked in the Midlands where there are few private schools to choose but the state schools are not very good. I have lived in Nottingham, where again I felt the state schools were poor.

Even in London there were some awful schools and private was best.

I currently live in Cornwall having got here working in Exeter, Plymouth and Barnstaple. None of the state schools were good there.

Just wondered where the good state provision is. Is it just odd schools within a mass of poor provision or are there really whole areas where state schools are better?

Thanks.

(PS I have my own DC in a boarding school partly because of the state schooling and partly because we move around so much)

You do realise that the telegraph tables are as much an excercise in obfuscation as the FT ones? There is no direct comparison between the two tables, state and private. The state table has A then A/A/B whereas the private table has just A/A (a fairly sure indicator that the private school A standalone figures aren't so good).

You can prove most things with the appropriately selected stats. I'm a mathmo. I know how it's done. But, of course, I won't argue with you that there are plenty of superb private schools. However there are also some superb state schools, and in some areas, such as the one in which I live, the top state school is significantly better than the top private school. And to try and pull some kind of 'well, that one doesn't count because it's one of the really good ones' thing doesn't wash.

The truly accurate tables with be the Dfe ones - I have the KS4 on my PC.
As every school (private or state) has to submit exactly the same data to prove they are an education institution....

TalkinPeace2,

Do you have a link for those Dfe tables please?
I would like to see them.
Are there any for A level as well?

Thanks
Narrie

In areas like Sutton with superselectives and only one official indie school then the superselectives will obviously do better but that's not measuring all the indies within striking distance and isn't a value added score. It can be argued that the non selective girls indie does better with what it is presented with than the superselectives.

Funny you should ask that :-)
Here is the link to the A level tables by subject and school type
media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/xls/s/sfr01-2012t1t9.xls
Table 1c is the most revealing - once you have hidden rows 12, 14 and 17 as they are subtotals....

have not yet found it by school, but suspect it won't be there because the numbers of students are small enough to be a data protection issue

Here is the link to the GCSE data set - its huge : I have summarised for my own purposes
media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/xls/s/sfr03%202012.xls

That table you linked to just proves what I was saying;
Table 1c of 16-18 year old shows that 51.9% achieve A/A* in indies compare that with 41% in state grammar schools. Bearing in mind not all indies are selective, you can't argue with figures.

Those figures would have been more revealing if they have shown the breakdown of subjects by sector too. My nearest grammar has psychology and business studies as the most popular subjects. Yes its a grammar school. Most indies doesn't even do these at A level.

Thank you

But Munashe, the question was not about ALL Indie schools vs ALL state schools/ grammar schools. It was about specific areas.

The point is that in some areas, the best schools are state schools. In others, the best schools are independents.

The best school for your child might not be the best school in the tables.

The best school in terms of what it does for all children (as opposed to simply taking on the brightest / richest) won't be at the top of these tables, but might well be exactly where you want your child to be.

Actually Nottingham has got areas - e.g. West Bridgford, where all the state schools are excellent, in fact all the primary schools in the area were outstanding.

Munashe
EVERY independent school is selective : only the mind numbingly rich will spend school fees on children who will not achieve an Art GCSE without the teacher's help.....

In fact round here it works both ways : the less bright kids get pulled out of the private school to go to the free Sixth Form college
and the uber bright kids go to the college because it has the mega resources ....

All independent schools are selective. It doesn't matter what criteria you use for selection, a selective school will do bett then a non selective.

womblingalong,

It is about areas. Its also about what is considered "excellent". Personally I was not impressedwith the area whereI was living at the time.

It does seem though that many posters want to say how brilliant the grammar schools are but forget that most children will not be able to go to these. They also forget that many of us are not necessarily able to buy houses in the catchments for the schools they recommend. This is not a feature of cost always, its availability. Exeter is classic for that

When I lived in the West Midlands I lived in a borough which did not have any local independents and the schools were all comprehensive. Most of them were broken comprhensives. Of course a few miles away there was a very good grammar school in a different authority and a good independent around 15 miles away. No good for my job though or for my OH.

I now live in Cornwall. I have a choice of one school. The area I live in is very good in terms of where to live but the schools do not reflect that. But then most of those I live by are older and retired. Most potentially good schools are spoiled because they have a wide catchment and they take in many different children from different backgrounds and whilst some people think that is good, I do not. It does bring problems with it.
That is how I see it.

It seems though that the areas with good state schools areexclusively those with grammar school systems and its only the grammar schools that make them good. Hang you if you are not able to get your children into them. It also seems that its a small region of Nottingham, not where I lived. Hampshire and Essex where the good schools are.

Thanks
Narrie

I should add to my earlier posts that DS goes to the 'secondary modern' comprehensive which is 6th in the county at A level - still above all the Independent schools he is the correct gender for - so no, it's not just the grammars which are good...

There are loads of good state schools that aren't grammar schools!

Seeker,
So people keep saying. They just do not give a convincing argument to back it up. I look at the figures and the tables and I cannot see what I am told is there.

Thanks
Narrie

Narrie

If you really want to talk about Devon, it is correct that not everyone can live in the catchment for The Kings school (although Ottery is not expensive, and to be honest if it was a choice between moving to Ottery or paying for The Maynard, for example, I know which would be more likely to be achievable for most people). St Peters of course doesn't have a catchment area. Nor does the grammar school. However it seems fairly clear from your latest post that your definition of a good school is in fact one which is socially exclusive. And no, you don't get that in Devon/Exeter, not even in the 3 big private schools which all offer good bursaries and other assistance.

Ok. A grammar school educates the "top set" and they get 95ish% A-C. If those children were at a comprehensive school, they would still get those results. But the school would not get 95ish% a-c because all the other children who won't get a*-c are there too. So comparing a grammar school to a comprehensive doesn't make sense.

Narrie
You have to compare like with like.

Grammar schools and selective schools by definition do not include the children who make up the bottom sets at a comp.
Private schools by definition only include the children of extremely well off, probably motivated parents and are extremely well resourced, and will not include the kids who make up the bottom sets of a comp.

So, take any of the comps in Hampshire (link above) remove the bottom third of pupils from their stats and THEN compare with a fee paying school.
76% with all pupils there = 100% with the bottom 33% removed ....

I've always thought that there should be a league table of the best 60 results from any school .....
at which stage a lot of the non selective fee paying schools would stop looking so cool!

I still maintain that a comp that gets 74% passing at least 5 GCSEs in English and Maths at A-C is doing a pretty good job on the academic side.

MordionAgenos,

I do not want to talk about Devon. You are not the kind of poster one can talk to anyway. Sorry to have to say that but it is the impression I get from you. You are the kind of poster one agrees with or one shuts up.
I choose to shut up.

Thanks
Narrie

Highlands! All schools good, some excellent. One private school which is shit and stuffed full of overseas students with limited English to bump up numbers. They have non-specialists teaching A Level. By having only one private school it means that state schools are first choice and so are truly comprehensive. Small class sizes in many and high expectations. No grammars to cream off the best. Cheap house prices and amazing scenery!

@Talkin I agree - except it should be on percentages not numbers. So, say a table showing the top 33%, the middle 33% and the bottom 33%. That would actually be very useful - it would give an indication of not just how well the top achieves could expect to do but also how well the mid tier are served too.

I will ask my OH if we can make the Scottish Highlands our next stop.

Thanks.

Narrie - did you really mean to be so rude?