We haven't had a state vs private debate for a while! What did you think of the Fiona Millar programme on schools?

[WideWebWitch]

Well?

But in that case they'd have to open a lot more non-religious schools round here, bk, and pragmatically that's very difficult to do- the work of decades.

dinosaur, if i were going private, it would be to get the following:

good academic results
high expectations of children both academically and in terms of behaviour, courtesy, social interaction etc
expectation of committed, supportive parents
opportunities for a reasonable range of extra curricular activities
high level of pastoral care
the desire and ability to cater to different abilities and personalities (at the "top" and the "bottom" of the scale)
diversity, especially in terms of race

i am looking for all of the above in the state sector too - in fact that's just what i'm looking for full stop.

as far as local primaries go, i'm confident schools with all the above exist, i'm just not confident that ds will get into them. our lea doesn't have enough places for all the children either i've heard...

bk, to my mind "comprehensive" means taking all academic abilities. We're obviously at cross purposes.

well how do you feel if people go private, scummy? for many that would be a more palatable choice than a c of e school...

My kids' school does all that apart from 5 & 7, I think, Miggy. Though I hope they are teaching the values you mention in 3 in non-religious terms!

Is the village school very different?

Village school is very small, mixed class teaching which I am not keen on. Small concrete playground (despite being surrounded by fields), very limited music/drama (due to size). Also 7 is really really important to me, the village school hours are such that I would have to get someone else to take them to school and collect them 3 days a week, which in the sticks is not easy and I wouldnt like. I dont mind going to work if I have personally left them at school (but thats just me-obv!)

Dino, I can't answer most of your questions as my daughter won't go into Reception until September BUT, our catchment school prospectus focuses on getting reception children to be able to sit & listen to instructions, put their own jumpers on and change into plimsols for PE and only then will start doing 'learning' type things.

I accept these are crucial things for any child to be able to do at some stage in their lives and cetainly do not have a problem with children learning reading /writing etc much later than 4/5.

But my dd can do all of these things, read, write, is a completely social animal and I worry that our local school will not be able to cater for her. I learned to read early and was only happy when emerged in a book whereas she is a total livewire & I fear she may be disruptive if bored.

I've not tried to 'hot-house' her, quite the opposite but she is determined to learn at the moment & is a sponge. She's also very physically active and needs a strong focus for her energy.

As I said earlier, dh and I are left wing to our cores but are struggling.

Must improve my typing speed, certainly wasn't covered at my state comp

Some very interesting answers.

Twink, one of my friends has a son who is about six months older than DS1 and started in Reception at the same school in September. Like your dd he could read write etc long before he started. He's getting lots of extra stuff through the "Gifted and Talented" programme and my friend is very happy with it - might be worth finding out what they could offer your dd. (My friend is a teacher and has quite high standards herself.)

bk, yes I do have a problem with grammar school btw but they're not going to change things if I tell them to, are they?

Before any of my kids even started at primary school there was a big local campaign to change to non-selection; the majority of parents canvassed voted to keep the grammar (illogically) and in any case it turned out that there is a covenant restricting the school to being a grammar - if it changes it gets given to a dogs' home or something. LEA not keen.

Dd1's state secondary school offers all that you mention, BK. Because it's the only school in our area it has a wide intake of pupils. It has excellent academic results (second in Scotland last year) and offers better facilities than some private schools.

Because of its excellence, almost everyone chooses to send their children there, doctors, MP's and all. Imo, it really demonstrates what comprehensive schooling can and should achieve. I wish every child had such opportunity.

And, re your private schhol requirements, the Catholic "comprehensive" provides all of them. The grammar and county schools don't.

school.

Well personally my palatability hierarchy in terms of types of school is:

1. Not selective on income of parents
2. Not selective on ability
3. Not selective on faith

So I'd have to be very convinced that my kids couldn't access and/or be happy in any available state school setting before I'd consider going private.

I think everyone has different hierarchies though, bk.

That's pretty similar to my way of thinking on the topic scummy, but I am genuinely interested in getting a handle on other views.

DS1 goes to a Church secondary school (high school). It is funded by the diocese. I don't know what the proportion is but I'm sure the Church pays more than 50%. Admission is 50% Church affiliation & 50% nearest home to school. They also have a specialist hearing impaired unit that takes pupils from a very wide geographical area, and it's the nominated physical disability school for the area (with lifts, ramps, wide doorways & other adaptations).

My other 3 all go to grammar school. I went to grammar school & was there for only 1 year before the whole area went comprehensive. It totally wrecked any chances I had of academic success & we have stayed in this area ONLY because we still have grammars. Some comprehensives may be great but personally I don't agree with them. All children are not the same, and have different strengths and weaknesses. A one-size-fits-all education is not acceptable. I want my children taught at their own level, not languishing in a class moving at the pace of the slowest, as I did for the last 4 years of secondary school. Other people are entitled to their own views & that's fine but I get heartily sick of the annual "lets get rid of the grammars" campaign we get here. Local parents clearly don't want to get rid of the grammars & people move here because we have them.

I would also have sent all of mine to private if only I could have afforded to. Smaller classes, better discipline, more activities, more flexibility in start & finish times, & they are taught to project themselves in a way that state pupils aren't, which gives them a leg-up for later life.

But lots of people manage to get a decent education out of comprehensive schools Tallulah. I don't understand why it wrecked any chance you had of academic success?

Where do you live?

Me? I live in Hackney now, but I went to a comprehensive school in E. Yorks.

I totally agree that a one-size education doesn't fit all, Tallulah and thankfully there are some good comprehensive schools out there that DO meet the diverse needs of the kids that happen to walk in at their door. Suedonim's kids evidently attend one. I attended a school that approached that ideal though there was some way to go. I just think it's so sad that we as a society still endorse a fairly segregated education system where the some of the most important things to know in order to predict where a child will attend school are parental income, academic ability levels and religious faith. Why on earth we choose to divide people along these lines practically from the cradle I will never know. I think we all have a poorer experience for it.

I realise that one of the main ideals of the comprehensive system is that it promotes mixing of people from different classes/religions/ethnic groups/ability range etc. And I fully agree that this is a good thing.

However I am very dubious as to how much mixing goes on in comprehensives. I teach in a very average comp. The children are streamed, so they don't mix that often with children from very different ability groups. By and large the children stick to their ethnic/religious/class groups (with one or two exceptions), because they feel happier mixing with people that they have most im common with, as do adults in my experience. What are mumsnets views on this. Do comps promote mixing?

hmb, aren't they streamed by subject, so that they are with different people in every set? I thought that was one of the purposes of comprehensive education - that nobody is good at everything, but everybody is good at something - they don't just stream by general ability, do they?

Yes, by subject. Which is a huge advantage over the old divided schools. I agree that it promotes the chance of children to suceed to the best of their ability in all subjects.

The point I was trying to make is that comps don't promote mixing on ability. The child will be with their peers in all subjects. So they don't get to feel what it is like to work with people who are brighter/slower than themselves. They will learn what it is like to work with people who have a similar ability to themselves in each subject.

Incidentally our grammar school's 6th form is comprehensive - the only general entry requirement is 5 Grade Cs (As required for sciences and maths I think) - kids come in from at least 20 secondary schools (in several different towns) including C of E, Catholic, comprehensive and independent, and they do mix well.