If you can afford private education but remain in the state sector...

[TheseJeansHaveShrunk]

It's going to be hard to avoid this becoming another state v private thread, but what I'm interested in is a slightly different take on that debate. It's not "which is better?" but "if you think state school is better even though you could afford private education, then why is that?"

The question is based on the assumptions that the DC in question is/are reasonably bright (so might benefit academically from academically selective education), that the state school is non-selective (as most people don't have access to grammar schools), and that you hope for your DC to go to a good university (to make the £££££ fees worthwhile!)

I've been mulling this over ever since I heard some maths professor from Cambridge talking on the radio about the age-old private v state inequality of Oxbridge admissions. He was all for improving access for state school applicants but said that the simple fact was that for maths, even the best state schools generally teach only to the A-level syllabus, whereas the best private schools take their maths/further maths A-level candidates well beyond the syllabus and so the state school applicants are at a huge disadvantage - they simply don't have the starting level of knowledge required for the course.

This made me wonder: with this sort of unequal playing field, if you have the choice of private education, what reasons might you have not to take it?

Would be interested to hear from those who've made this choice - how it's working out, or if your DC have finished school now, how did it work out? Did they go to good universities/get good jobs, etc? On the other side of things, if you paid for private schooling but now regret it, why?

My DC go to a state school by the way.

.

FWIW my best friend's db is gifted in the way happy describes. He attended a comprehensive. He started A level maths at 14 graduated from Cambridge with a first and has a PhD in artificial intelligence. I think if you are that gifted then you will succeed no matter what.

PenelopePipPop - I am happy to read that your particular combination of MC family values and experiences plus comprehensive education worked out for you.

Do you think, however, that a fully comprehensive education system over many decades, unchallenged by a vibrant and competitive private sector, is likely to be globally competitive?

Xmas Im sure there are children who do well in the state sector but IMO the curriculum has become so prescribed and narrow and the calibre of those entering teaching has declined these two factors mean that the super bright frequently sit unchallenged and bored in all but super selective education be it it independent or state.

Bonsoir- you were going to show me the research that shows that properly setted comprehensive education in the UK disadvantages bright children.

Was I? I don't think I offered.

And how can such research exist, Seeker? The only research that can show how fully comprehensive education leads to long-term inexorable decline in standards, in particular for the brightest, is in countries or states that have tried it. Which is why I suggest you broaden your horizons a little.

Bonsoir, I have already said that more could and should be done for the most able (and the least able) in comprehensive and almost certainly all schools but it's pretty obvious that if children are in the top or bottom couple of percentage of all children nationally then they are likely to need expertise beyond that of a local school. It is understood that this is the case in sport and nobody would dispute this and parents and teachers know to join local clubs where there will be routes for progression to regional and national levels. I don't see why it is beyond the wit of man to replicate this academically and there ARE examples of such networks via summer schools, G & T conferences, university workshops etc. But there should also be and probably are online forums and expertise for gifted children. A good local school should be able to tap into these and allow time and flexibility for gifted children and I think this does usually happen.

But as I and TEacher keep saying this is all a distraction. The top and bottom percentages are by definition a small and unusual minority. It is self evident that a local school will struggle to accommodate their needs.

That is absolutely no reason why a comprehensive school can't and shouldn't work and catering for the brightest couple of percent should not detract from the bigger problem of the kids who should be capable of getting good qualifiecations and going to university but don't.

Disadvantage bright children how exactly?
It is quite possible that children who go to the local comp rather than the top academic private schools will not skate through 12 a stars quite so easily because they have not been taught two years or more above the level for their year group as standard for many years. Doesn't mean they won't get the A stars but perhaps not with their eyes closed in the way they might had they been hot housed.
However, as stated before, what about the emotional disadvantages of segregating these children and putting them in environments that positively encourage extreme perfectionism (environments in other words where eating disorders etc thrive)?
And the disadvantages on a larger scale of making children think that they can not be educated with children from all types of background- personally I think this disadvantages everyone- not just the children who cannot afford private.

Bonsoir In response to Seeker?s earlier post where she queried your comment Since you consistently argue for fully comprehensive education, which is proven to disadvantage the cleverest, that is you I am pointing my finger at, seeker.

You wrote: Do you ever read the studies produced by the OECD or by US universities, seeker?

I too was going to post - catching up on this fast moving thread - to see if you could send us details of the above.

I'd be genuinely interested - as I'm sure would others.

Jesus.Hides thread

Why do you think that the problem of clever children not pursuing their studies as far as they could is a "bigger problem" than that of the top few not meeting their potential? That is exactly the line the French went down 40 years ago...

Bonsoir it is such a total assertion that I can neither agree or disagree with it. I don't have a horse in the independent v state race. At no point on this thread have I said that I think one type of school is better than the other. I am agnostic on the point.

I was contributing to a rebuttal that other people have also made to your view that "Creating value only has one definition in a business sense...All our Western economies carry a lot of non-value creating people who cost our economy money." and that this should be the dominant value we apply to evaluating the effectiveness of a school/mode of education delivery.

There are other values that can also be created through delivering inclusive education (privately or state funded) which can benefit society as a whole and which should also form part of our evaluation of the effectiveness and overall virtue of the system we employ.

And please don't say research exists and then not cite it. Either cite it or say nothing. It is incredibly slack to expect the people arguing against you to just take on trust any generalised assertion you make. You said at 12:35 there were studies produced by the OECD, US universities and now some data from France about the economic costs of universal comprehensive education. Please could you link to this.

'Do you think, however, that a fully comprehensive education system over many decades, unchallenged by a vibrant and competitive private sector, is likely to be globally competitive? '

Under the surface is always this slightly paranoid and entirely misplaced sense that the comprehensive ideal has a sligtly sinister agenda of preventing the progress of the most able.

In fact, comprehensive schools usually have setting and a top set class will not be that dissimilar from a grammar school or independent school intake depending on the area of the school.

I have taught many students at or who came from comprehensive schools who went on to highyl successful careers, sometimes via Oxbridge.

Bright kids do not have to be segregated from their peers in order to be successful. You do not that don't you Bonsoir?

If you are interested, do the research yourselves. It will take you a very long time to understand the issue. Start off with the OECD website - it is excellent. But you will need to look at French and US research in due course.

PenelopePipPop - it is not "incredibly slack" not to be able to give a quick reading list to enable people to understand a major issue in a few internet links. Or else we could all be experts in everything just by reading a few links from the internet .

'Why do you think that the problem of clever children not pursuing their studies as far as they could is a "bigger problem" than that of the top few not meeting their potential? That is exactly the line the French went down 40 years ago... '

Well, most obviously, I've not seen any evidence or had any experience of these extraordinarily bright children being somehow held back (I wonder how on earth this could or would happen). The numbers of kids achieving A*s and going on to RG universities would seem to paint a very different story.

I have, however, seen a great deal of evidence that there continue to be large numbers of children leaving school having failed to achieve any decent qualifications.

Is there any evidence that people in France are somehow more disadvantaged than their European peers because of their schooling?

The oft cited Scandinavian countries which have had comprehensive schooling (under threat recently) are famous for their good academic results and social mobility.

Ditto. On Jesus.

Bonsoir - did you not know there was tons of research showing how the able do just as well as a fully comprehensive system?

Just find it yourself ....

The more you look at the evidence versus the assumptions the more the fear of comprehensive education seems like just that - paranoia fed by those who wish to preserve the status quo and perpetuate privilege, whether they're aware of it or not.

Well happy poor teaching is poor teaching.In my Ds' s class there is a year6 working on year 8/9 maths (this is a mixed year 5/6 class). The school has arranged for a maths teacher from the local secondary to help the teacher challenge him. Similarly one child is at NC level 2 and that is also catered for.

Listen - I have read hugely on this topic. It is massive - education concerns every child in the world and there are so many different systems that is incredibly hard work to get one's mind around the differences. I am very fortunate to have experienced several school systems directly (as a pupil) and indirectly (as a parent) and I am on the board of an association that governs a hybrid system, so I am endlessly exposed to this. There is no "nutshell" research about this, but there is masses of evidence. People in the UK are so used to having a high-performing private education system with all the benefits it brings to the whole education system that many can only see its disadvantages. But throwing away private/selective education is like removing religion or Latin from the curriculum. When you remove religion, you remove the teaching of morality (because religion, in our societies, has always been the vector for the discussion of moral issues) and when you remove Latin (in the UK) you remove the explicit teaching of English grammar (because Latin was how grammar was traditionally imparted in English schools). You do not solve all the problems of education by making schools comprehensive.

'Education in Finland is an egalitarian system, with no tuition fees and with free meals served to full-time students. The present Finnish education system consists of well-funded and carefully thought out daycare programs (for babies and toddlers) and a one-year "pre-school" (or kindergarten for six-year olds); a nine-year compulsory basic comprehensive school (starting at age seven and ending at the age of fifteen); post-compulsory secondary general academic and vocational education; higher education (University and Polytechnical); and adult (lifelong, continuing) education. The Nordic strategy for achieving equality and excellence in education has been based on constructing a publicly funded comprehensive school system without selecting, tracking, or streaming students during their common basic education.[1] Part of the strategy has been to spread the school network so that pupils have a school near their homes whenever possible or, if this is not feasible, e.g. in rural areas, to provide free transportation to more widely dispersed schools. Inclusive special education within the classroom and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are also typical of Nordic educational systems.[1]

The Education Index, published with the UN's Human Development Index in 2008, based on data from 2006, lists Finland as 0.993, amongst the highest in the world, tied for first with Denmark, Australia and New Zealand.[2] The Finnish Ministry of Education attributes its success to "the education system (uniform basic education for the whole age group), highly competent teachers, and the autonomy given to schools."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland

Speaks for itself really doesn't it....

The thing I never get in these debates, is that so many of you who think comprehensive education is the best option ( personally, I am undecided n this, so follow these discussions with interest) and that selection, tiers, and grammar schools are somehow unfair and a bad thing...

Then go on to mention they got into Oxbridge

...which is very selective ( and hence unfair?)

...but now this selectiveness and discrimination against the lesser able and gifted is suddenly a good thing, and something to be aspired to?

This always puzzles me a bit.

Isn't Oxbridge the university equivalent of a secondary top tier or grammar or selective private school?

Bonsoir, I have also got many years of experience working in education - both state and independent. The fact that I am experienced does not mean that I can make assertions without having to back them up with evidence.

Put your money where your mouth is like everyone else or people will suspect that you are on shaky ground and you know you are.

Oh maybe I do have a horse in the race then.

Seriously, I am pretty smart. I don't wish to brag but off the back of my bog standard comprehensive education I got a first from Cambridge, an MSc in Research Methods and a PhD in Law so I think I may just be able wrap my pretty fluffy middle class brain around some statistics even if they come from big US and French universities, I think they use the same type of number ing system as us. Just show me the fricking numbers or shush.

Have you looked at TIMMS and PIRLS 2011, fivecandles? Finland is no longer top.