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)

It seems to me private schools are either highly selective or provide options for subjects that average or even lower attaining pupils can be good at because they enjoy them (but wouldn't pass the Ebacc). Information is not provided for comparison so it's difficult to tell how successful they are. In any area you can't expect the private schools to be the same any more than you can expect the state schools to be the same. But state comp bashers (politicians, the media) simply that as 'good' and 'bad' state schools with a parallel homogenous, superior sector of private schools.

In an ideal world we'd get less testing and political interference in state schools and more transparency and similar level of regulation in private schools.

simplify that as 'good' and 'bad' schools

I'm not sure there's widespread evidence to show a need for greater regulation of private schools. Since they are fee-paying a really diabolically bad private school wouldn't last long. OTOH diabolically bad state schools, of which there are many, are for parents with no other choice, or who don't care, and regulation is vital to spotlight these schools.

It's nonsense that private schools are either highly selective or doing the private school equivalent of GCSE gardening.

A few private schools are super-selective. Others are quite selective. Others take all but low achievers in state school parlance. Others are completely comprehensive. Others are special schools for dyslexia, autism, behaviour problems, etc. Others specialize in rich-but-dim.

You can't generalize. Because private schools, far more than state schools, have to market themselves, there is much more incentive to identify a niche in the market than there is for state comprehensives which can be identikit with no difficulty at all.

Of course the need in the market is the market of parents who can pay the bills, which doesn't include, say, Afghan refugees or workless households in Tower Hamlets. But for those who can afford it, private schools are aware of the different types of students that might pass through their doors. Many will choose to reject those with special needs or whatever. But not all.

"But state comp bashers (politicians, the media)"
Maybe I live under a stone or just dont read the "right" papers or listen to the right radio programs but I dont endlessly hear/read the state being bashed. But I am aware that there is a lot of hostily towards private education on MN with comments being made about the schools themselves the children and the parents that are completely incorrect.

You need to define 'good'.

I've given this example a lot, but here we go again. I taught a 17 year old (well I've taught a lot, but this is one in particular) who had arrived in Birmingham aged 14 without a word of English.

At 16 she had 10 GCSEs grades A-C and a D in English GCSE.

Obviously she did not appear in the 5 A-C including English and maths. She makes the school look not very good.

But IMHO the school did a good job.

It had all the things that make a lot of MN parents shudder, lots of ESOL, lots of unauthorised absences, because some parents took their children out of school for months at a time to visit extended family. Lots of mid year admissions.

Michael Gove is often bashing comps (e.g LA maintained ones) out of a political agenda: his ultimate plan is to bring in more academy sponsors and then allow them to make profit. Sponsored academies have mixed results and are more likely to be identikit in the hands of chains. In that article I don't see any celebration of the achievements of inner-city non-academies like Bethnal Green which nearly tripled its results to 79% 5 A-C inc English & Maths, despite high proportion of low attainers, ESOL, deprivation etc. The other point is that it has had lots of help and resources like the London Challenge scheme, but instead of offering that help more widely he is just bashing other schools and blaming Labour.

""But state comp bashers (politicians, the media)"
Maybe I live under a stone or just dont read the "right" papers or listen to the right radio programs but I dont endlessly hear/read the state being bashed."

JoanBias
But what fee paying schools do NOT cater for is the 93% of parents who cannot afford them.
Which means that they NEVER take the children of poor uneducated parents who have no interest in learning

As others have said, I'm sure there are small areas where the local state school is better than the local private one. Overall, no.

But private schools cost a lot of money. If that means parents working all the hours God sends in order to send their children there, then there may be a significant downside to going to a private school.

Take this article from earlier this year. "Teachers are effectively acting as surrogate parents for thousands of pupils who often eat breakfast at school and remain in extra-curricular activities until the early evening, said Andy Waters, chairman of the Society of Heads of Independent Schools. He said ?more and more responsibility? was falling on schools during the economic downturn because of the sheer rise in parental workloads.
He said that ? in the current financial climate ? ?more and more responsibility falls on schools to be the moral arbiters for children?s upbringing?.
?Our often beleaguered parents need us to provide wrap-around care, breakfasts and evening meals, homework clubs and extra-curricular activities so that they can work the hours needed to earn the wherewithal to pay school fees,? he said.
?It may be easy for us to criticise parenting that can seem lacklustre at times, but if our role is not to support the children from such families, then what is it??

seeker im afraid only the Guardian is delivered under my stone with the very occasional copy of Horse and Hound slung in to remind me of a previous life and you can only get a signal for radio 3/4 under my rather peaceful stone!! Not much state ed bashing in any of those I just ignore Gove who is clearly only interested in making political sound bites to win votes.
Perhaps I need to go out and get a bit more of a life although I doubt my blood pressure could stand the DM.

I dont think we are that unusual but our village school is just as good as not better than the local pre prep. It is very small with excellent teaching, sports and music opportunities. Class sizesare 15 or less and my children are really happy. Its not oversubscribed either!
It may be different when we get to secondary age but the local comp seems good too.
We probably could just about afford school fees but im of the generation where im still paying back my student loan and have a crazy mortgage so would rather stick with the state system!

That's Market Snodsbury for you!

Well spotted seeker but I have to say that life in Market Snodsbury although rather bland at times is also rather nice.
honora my DCs wentoManyne years ago to the highly regarded Little Snodsbury primary school very similiar to yours when they were 8 we wangled a bursary into one if the countries most highly regarded and needless to say expensive preps. Sadly I have to report there was absolutely no similarity between them apart from numbers in each class. At the prep it was all specialist teachers in specialist class rooms two languages were taught 4-5 times a week seperate lessons for each science in proper science children were streamed, games four afternoons a week, endless extra curricular activities 100 acres of grounds to climb trees in etc but they were charging £5000+ a term for day and that was when we started 8 years ago. I'm not saying it was perfect it in fact had quite a few faults but it certainly bore little resemblance to the highly regarded ofstead outstanding Little Snodsbury Primary School.
I'm not entering into the ethical debate about whether it's right that a small % of children should have such a different education because their parents can pay or wangle bursaries although the later is becoming increasingly difficult when we started most people had never heard of bursaries. I just think its easy to assume that an outstanding primary or even senior offers the same as a relative handful of top preps/senior independents my experience is that they don't because they can't.

Oh, do you live on Market Snodsbury too, MCB- I thought that was Honoria's stamping ground!

Talkin you are assuming that all of the 93% who don't educate their dcs privately cannot afford to. I don't think that can be true at all. I know plenty of people who could easily afford to pay private school fees but choose not to. Instead they spend their money on a hefty mortgage for a house within catchment for their chosen state school. One near me is very oversubscribed and to live within catchment in a semi-detached house costs £500,000+.

bisjo
indeed, but those who can afford £3000 a month for a £500k mortgage must be earning over £150k so are in the top 3% of earners .....

in fact (as per the £60k thread on AIBU) - the 93rd bottom up centile for earners is around £65k - which will NOT buy you a couple of sets of school fees and a house in the current market

there are indeed people round here, lots of them, who could afford to go private but choose to spend their money on other things, but they are in the top 10% by wealth nationally ....

The Guardian does more than its fair share of bashing the state sector through their columnists although they usually get bashed back here on mumsnet - remember Andrew Penman (while the school he bashed has been getting fantastic results recently) and Janet Murray? Meanwhile the Telegraph has praised state schools, so the media is unpredictable.

not quite market snodsbury wherever that is.

silly me thinking that just because you live in the countryside schools are not immune to have to work in challenging circumstances. or is it only people in towns who have difficulties??

The OP asked if it was possible that a state school was better than a private school. i said yes I thought it was true in this part of the world.... and probably many parts of the country too. The main reason is the teachers are great .... .coupled with that we are in the middle of nowhere so class sizes are small. I dont get why that means you have to be arsey with me.

Really sorry- I wasn't being arsey- I was being PG Wodehouse-y in response to your name!

@honora Basically, anyone who says they have a state school which is better than their local private schools (or in my case, better than the vast majority of private schools in the country) gets told their particular example doesn't count, either because it's a grammar or they live in a particular (non counting) place or for some other madey-uppy reason. Then they get insulted. It's how this thread works..... :(

We are only in the top 45% of the income distribution and are paying one set of senior fees. At least half of the parents at ds's old primary are wealthier than us (and are not using private education). But they (most crucially I accept) almost all have two or three children, not one, as well as bigger houses and more expensive cars than us and foreign holidays. Does that mean that everyone can afford private school? Of course it doesn't. Does it mean that more people can afford to use it than do? Of course it does.

There are thousands of individual state schools which are better than individual private schools. I don't think that they are to be found exclusively in one area, though, which is what the OP asked.

And why do people keep saying - this school is better than that one: look at the league tables..as if it were the be all and end all?

I am confident that 'our' state primary was better than some of the private 'prep' schools around here. That's London. So many private schools for primary age (they aren't really 'prep' as in preparing for Common Entrance, but small schools using ex-churches and the like, smart expensive uniform, kind enough teachers but not necessarily qualified) fees low compared to may private schools, but just enough to ensure that if you can't take your child out of SouthLlondon, you can keep South London away from your child.

I have worked in several of these schools. Old fashioned teaching, old fashioned curriculum, teachers who are in it for the long holidays, or who just couldn't hack it in the state sector. Of course there are great teachers too, and other great preps, but I can list 3 in our locality which I would not have chosen over our community primary.

Mordion I've also noticed that anyone who says that some independent schools (not all) are better than any state school can ever be in terms of exam results facilities opportunities etc they too are told that either there example doesn't count or a state school is named which apparently has better results facilities opportunities etc, But IME on close examination this is not the case as demonstrated with Colchester Grammar which has supposedly the best exam results in the UK but in fact doesn't!
Those of you who think the state sector is as good or better than the top independent schools are not only deluding yourselves but being complacent as well and I can assure you that these independent schools are not being complacent. Theyve worked out that as we know live in a global village that our children are going to be competing for jobs university places etc against children from all over the world and that they cannot afford to rest on their laurels so for example many have moved over to the generally considered harder IGCSE and the Pre U. They are looking more and more across the pond at the Ivy League and also universities in Europe. Languages are being taught from an early age and it is the norm in many of these schools to do at least three languages. One of the schools results I mentioned earlier in this thread has increased its Oxbridge entry by 10% this year and is aiming for a 50%+ Oxbridge entry with another 10%+ going off to the Ivy League. These schools are correctly moving with the times they already know they are academic centres of excellence but are going to keep evolving and getting better. So those of you who think some state schools are as good as the likes of Westminster St Paul's boys/girls you need to wake up and demand more from you state schools if you children are not going to be left behind despestely trying to get into good universities/jobs competeing not only against these Westminster and others but those from China Russia and India. I frequently read comments on MN about our out of touch Etonian educated government unless state ed changes significantly then these schools are going to carry on churning out prime ministers heads of MNC's etc whilst parents with children in state ed smugly tell themselves that its comparable with independent ed and that with the saving they are making by not paying school fees they can send their DC off to a couple of extra curricular activities every week and pay for extra music lessons.
If you go to India Russia China they know how important education is; that's what gets you out of he gutter they have no qualms about spending their money on education many are sending their children to the likes of Westminster because for them they know believe it is education of this standard that will have an impact not only on the individual child's future but on them and future generations.

we're buggered then.
I'll get my coat.

middleclassonabursary - so if my children are bright, very bright, but not full-scholarship-to-top-independent super bright, what can I do?

Complacent I am not, we support, urge, extend and nurture our children's minds and schooling. But we cannot pay. Meanwhile those of you who can (or don't need to) are openly racing ahead and elbowing everyone else out of the way.

But there you have it. The wealthy and the competitive will get to the top by any means necessary. That isn't necessarily a good quality, you know.

People don't mind coming second, third even, in a fair competition. It's the unfair and the unjust that makes people wild. Revolutionary, possibly.

Read The Spirit Level.