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.

.

I sent my sons to a private prep school to age 11. I did this because I wanted them to have a top rate education in small groups in an environment where messing about and "learning through play" was not on the agenda. They also had supervised homework at school fromage 6. As I am a working mother the out of hours sport/swimming etc. was also very useful to me.

My sons learned self discipline and how to apply themselves and made very good progress because of all the one to one attention. All the teachers were very highly qualified and absoloutely lovely.

I sent them to a state grammar school at 11 because I felt that at that age they needed more independence, and I also thought they would get a better education as round here most independent secondaries cater for those that need a bit of support rather than the exceptionally bright. Some of their contemporaries who were of about the same level with academic studies went to the 3 local independent schools. I was surprised that these children did not get grades as good as my sons when it came to GCSE ( and for the eldest one A levels. DS2 has yet to do A levels, but is on track for some very good results.

My philosopy is along the lines of "give me the child until he is 7 and I will show you the man".

'the textbooks used exclusively by Independent Schools (in the UK) '

Unless they're the ones written by myself and my colleagues whilst we were in the state sector!! I'm fairly certain that I got the job in the private sector on this basis by the way and because of the fact that I achieved excellent results in the state sector without selection. I have to say though I've had the most incredible culture shock in that because the only funding we get is through fees and there is not particular state funding assigned to, for example, ICT, our facilities and ability to access the 'innovations' are way behind the state sector. I won't be mentioning this to prospective parents but I'm sure they'll be able to see it for themselves. They don't choose us for innovation, the opposite - they're attracted by tradition.

Fivecandles - I apologise if you feel patronised. I often do, too, on these threads (I have experience of multiple education systems that very few people have the luck to have).

But I do really refute the idea that state education in the UK does not have a benchmark in the private sector. At the very least it has the benchmark of better performance in public examinations and the constant cross-examination of the system as to why this happens.

Innovation includes such things as smaller classes and more parental involvement. Indeed, in the UK the state sector has learned from the private sector that better adult:child ratios improve school performance, hence the introduction into the classrooms of TAs, parent helpers etc that did not exist a generation ago.

higgle, how smart of you. That's what I did too, though I actually took dd into home ed from age 10. Secondaries are much more of a muchness than primaries - and HOW I agree about learning through play crappity crap. That said, I wish to god I had a state grammar near me.

'I have experience of multiple education systems that very few people have the luck to have'

How on earth would you know? You steam in with a set of assumptions, prejudices and generalisations and never bother to ask.

I'll give you an anecdote: in French écoles privées the classes are the same size or larger than in French state schools. I know of one local collège privé where 11 year olds are in a class of 38. No streaming - they are together for all classes. Parents have chosen this school in preference to the local state collège where there are 25 pupils to a class (I know, my DSSs went there) and the classes are never full (this is an unusual situation however - most collèges are 30 per class). In France, no-one thinks that smaller classes are better. No-one knows. There is no research (as there is in the UK) to show it because there are practically no schools that don't have the official number of children in them. French écoles maternelles have 1:30 from age 3 to age 6. No-one minds. There is no different. (the children learn very little indeed).

Millais - your experience makes perfect sense with what I am saying. Innovative teacher with lots of ideas wants to move from stifling state to open-minded private school.

'My overriding experience of teachers who hail from the state sector is that their ability to understand, appraise, take on board and apply the nuances of different educational practices is very limited because they are unused to constant innovation.'

Sorry, Bonsoir, but your experience, once again, is out of kilter. In fact the reality is completely the opposite.

You do realize that many teachers in private schools will have come from the state sector, like myself. At the very least they will have trained in state schools.

In fact, since only 7% of kids are educated privately the vast majority of teachers work or have worked in state schools. You are therefore making a huge and crass generalisation about over 93% of teachers.

I'm bowing out now because what's the point in dealing with Bonsoir's completely random prejudices and assertions when she so clearly lacks interest in the facts or anyone else's experience?

Bonsoir,

But as you will know from your extensive reading, the correlation between smaller class sizes and attainment is not strong:

"The evidence base on the link between class size and attainment, taken as a whole, finds that a smaller class size has a positive impact on attainment and behaviour in the early years of school, but this effect tends to be small and diminishes after a few years."

(from here but there is other research that comes to the same conclusion)

Class size is one of those things that it seems 'obvious' should make a difference to attainment (it also seems 'obvious' that having more TAs should improve attainment, but the research there is mixed too) but in fact turn out to make surprisingy little difference once other variables are controlled for.

'But I do really refute the idea that state education in the UK does not have a benchmark in the private sector. At the very least it has the benchmark of better performance in public examinations and the constant cross-examination of the system as to why this happens.'

Bonsoir, our local Comp models itself on the Independent Sector - it offers all manner of extra curricular opportunities, foreign trips/exchanges as far afield as China, extra support to potential Oxbridge candidates, visiting lecturers/poets/theatre companies/ballet school affiliation, orchestras/choirs/bands, you get the picture.

Anyway, IMO it is a pretty ropey school. There is some brilliant stuff going on in the classroom but the kids on the whole are angst-ridden yobs (who rule the school like a menacing mob) - why, you might ask...because this all singing all dancing school may seduce the parents but what they don't see are kids eating their lunch in the loos because the dining facilities are v. poor indeed or kids trailing all their stuff around because there are no lockers...

Anyway, I digress...

I am giving you my experience: teachers here who come from the English NC have a much harder time taking on board the hybrid (French NC and English super-free mostly up to the school) curriculum that they are expected to teach here than do teachers from the private sector. Schools here do recruit directly from the UK (increasingly) and are getting more and more clued up about what works and what doesn't when faced with having to do something new.

'Innovation includes such things as smaller classes and more parental involvement.'

Now, you're just being ridiculous.

Small class sizes are dependent on cost. It has nothing to do with 'innovation'. Neither does 'parental involvement'. Getting into private schools necessitates parental involvement (and income) in a way that getting into a state school does not. Individual teachers have no control over class sizes and most schools have little choice in the matter either so hardly good examples.

If hospital A required patients to have good health and lots of money before accessing it and its neighbouring hospital B accepted all patients would you also assume hospital A's lower death rates were the result of greater 'innovation'.

teacherwith2kids, you beat me to it .

I think Bonsoir should bow out...know when you've been out-smarted Bonsoir, it might even make you endearing .

Class size, like other issues, does have a positive impact on attainment, as you rightly say. What it doesn't do is have a positive impact alone. But what does work in isolation? Nothing much. The cocktail of educational attainment is very complex one (as this discussion and many others and massive amounts of research and thinks tanks and government angst etc demonstrate).

All innovation has a cost attached.

'Innovative teacher with lots of ideas wants to move from stifling state to open-minded private school. '

That is the opposite of what Millais said and it is the opposite of my experience having just moved to a private school after 15 years in the state sector.

The private school is NOT innovative or open-minded. The state schools were.

Fivecandles - why would an innovative teacher brimming with ideas move to a school that wouldn't let them use those skills? They never would - it makes no sense at all to suggest they would.

Teacher movement between the state and private sectors is excellent and healthy in order to cross-fertilise and also to allow individuals to express their talents more fully in different environments. That's also why some teachers like to work in other countries (sometimes, almost surprisingly, for lower pay) - to learn something new, to innovate and develop and become a better professional. That is precisely what French teachers can never do. And the system is all the poorer for it.

Bonsoir, but what is the 'innovation' (def: new idea, product, process) in smaller class sizes?

As I have said above, it might seem innovative or strange in comparision to the French norm, but private schools having small class sizes (as a consequence of the fact they have high fees, not as a purposeful pedagogical new idea) is simpy a continuance of a long tradition. It is that tradition that parents are buying, not innovation.

while there is a bias at some Russell Group universities against state school pupils,

there are also some state schools and /or teachers that seem to actively dissuade capable candidates from applying to oxbridge/ st andrews etc with comments like " oh you think you are too good for Manchester/ Glasgow / Edinburgh " or there are too many toffs you will be unhappy" while these are all very good unis it is still not perhaps in the child's best interest to dissuade from oxbridge

my sister went against grain and still applied for and went to St andrews yes about 30% may have been upper middle class but most people there are normal,

For all manner of reasons and quite often because they can't hack the innovation expected of them in the state sector. In many ways it's a much easier life teaching in a private school and teachers can get away with much lazier teaching. Oh, and the longer holidays are a draw. Fees reduction for own kids. You are very naive if you seriously think the only reason teachers opt for private schools is because they want to be more 'innovative'. Honestly, it's laughable. You're coming across as quite silly now.

Errr, I may be speaking out of turn here, but I think one of the main reasons that teachers move from the State sector to the Independent sector is for a quieter life (less or at least the hope of less disruptive kids) - no?

"I do of course agree with you that not all children who are able to/ or do work above their national curriculum level are hothoused. Just that 'top' selective private schools, do this as a matter of course"
Twisted even at super selective there will still only be a tiny minority with IQ's of 140+ I once read somewhere that over 75% of my DS's school were in the top 3%, the relatively less able will be hot houses not just by the school but their parents as well. The expectations of parents who send their DC's to these types of schools is very very high and in may cases the children and the schools are expected and are aware of this expectation to deliver the goods in some it will inevitably lead to mental health problems. But ultimately this is the fault of the parents. Again only IME behind every neurotic child lies a neurotic parent.
"My overriding experience of teachers who hail from the state sector is that their ability to understand, appraise, take on board and apply the nuances of different educational practices is very limited because they are unused to constant innovation."
We have recently had a lot of contact with teachers in the state sector at our "outstanding high performing academy" and I have to say bar a few exceptions this sadly is our general experience as well. In fairness we have met with similar problems in independent sector (admittedly at prep level) and the same problem many moons ago when I was a governor of a state primary so Im beginning to wonder if its teachers as a breed!

Regarding the discussions on Pages 20/21 about fully comprehensive schools with setting in place - I don't know of ANY comprehensives that set in every subject.

Yes they set in Maths, English, Science and Languages, but what about Geography, History, ICT, RE, Art?

All 3 well regarded senior schools in my town have mixed ability groups for these subjects and inevitably that leads to mixed ability teaching in those subjects and a fair proportion of students who are not interested in learning / are disruptive are in those lessons.

Ironically, I'm finding it hard adjusting to the fact that things I took for granted in the state sector are considered innovative to the point of threatening in the private system. The reason many teachers and parents are drawn to private education is tradition not innovation and don't get me wrong there are advantages to this.

It's just that your assertions are more and more ridiculous.