No difference between state and private schools

[richmal]

Mr. Gove wants anyone walking into a state or private school not to be able to tell the difference. Could they not simply count the number of children in the classroom?

In our county, private schools occupy the top 10 places in the league tables. It's not rocket science.

craggy
they are selective .... its nothing to do with fees, its to do with entrance exams

out of interest, why the obsession with small classes?
there is no empirical evidence to support classes smaller than 24

but Gove is an ARSE of the first order.

His list of things that state schools "should be doing" made DD snort because her state school already does all of them.

My kids have done both systems. Both preferred state and my dd hated small classes and finds her new state school class of 30 'epic'!! I also found lack of discipline & sanctions appalling in the independent school - presumably because the teachers have to take into account the parents are paying their wages- honestly you would not believe the nonsense that went unchecked (willing to accept we were unlucky)

You need to look for a private school with excellent value added

Then the teaching is not in question

My DD is partially deaf, has hypermobility syndrome, has GDD and Moderate Learning Difficulties, has Autistic Traits, has Sensory Processing Disorder and Auditory Processing Disorder...

She is in NO WAY severely affected enough by her SN's to be given one of the 30 places per year group, across 3 SN schools, that are available within a 30 mile radius of our home.

Most DC's with Down's here are educated in MS until at least the end of Y9. You have to have profound medical issues and other disabilities, and often need 2-1 support to get one of the 30 places available.

Inclusion HAS to work, as there just aren't enough alternatives. And people with my DD's issues are already segregated enough by spending almost 30% of their time at school working in the Learning Support area, without being forced to be in there 100% of the time, without access to the same curriculum in lessons like Science, or PE, or music, Drama etc.

Chippy ... Typical of whom?

handcream Tue 04-Feb-14 12:13:29

Well, maybe when parents send their children to school they sign an agreement. If they cannot be bothered to be interested in their kids education well what about providing a trade or skill. If they cannot be bothered with this - then they go to special schools where specialist staff can work with them.

Please tell me that you don't think that this is what special schools are for.

Talkin I'm interested in your comment that there is "no empirical evidence" to support classes of less than 24. I unconvinced that small classes make a huge difference especially at senior level. The exceptions I suspect might be MFL, DS classes are in single figures, especially when you first start out and art again single figures. Many years ago I learnt to draw and was completely devoid of any ability, in small classes you just simply got more of the teachers time. But even then you needed others to encourage you (they were worse than me) to admire, and also just to say "I haven't got the faintest idea what he's talking about have you?" But once you get beyond a certain level you heed other, DS's biggest classes are maths 18 (I think) he says it's better more ideas, etc. going round.
Many years ago he was in a micro primary school (state) 36 children in the whole school, 6 in his actual yr, 10 in his class he was bored and unchallenged the two naughty children dominated the whole thing with a nice select captive audience to entertain.
It's the others in the class that matter, that why they are heeded, are they interested, bored, enormously talented, badly behaved, slow, geniuses and of course the actual teacher him/herself. There's even a place for the class clown, the boy at Uni being caught by one of our lectures impersonating him changed the dynamics of the lecture for that day and I can still clearly remember what it was all about!

I believe that larger classes are not of themselves a disadvantage where the children are able ( and older so more self managing).

It is common sense, I suppose, that where there are learning or behavioural issues, smaller classes will be easier.

My theory is that class sizes become less relevant, the more rigorous the setting.

If the pupils are of the same ability and at the same stage, then things work well.

The more mixed the ability, the smaller the class needs to be. Which is why I would prefer primary children to be in classes of no more than 20. 15 by preference.

Starballbunny Wrote "In general brains are genetic, if your parents have school fee paying jobs, they aren't dim. Non of the private school children I know are less than averagely intelligent and most are way way above."

Pwahaha, the richest in the world are invariably inbred thickos...Royal family, George Bush, celebs, sports players....

It's not what you know Starballs, it's who your daddy is.

Talkin

I thought the research from the States suggested classes below 20 were better. It's a while since I looked at it so I might be remembering incorrectly. In the primary setting I thought the main advantages were individual attention, behaviour control and more active learning e.g. direct questioning rather than more passive listening to the teacher.

gaba

The richest in the world are not celebs or sports people or even royalty. They are people like Carlos Slim (telecoms), Bill Gates (IT) and Warren Buffett (Investing). They are in a different league to celebs and the like. Oh and George W Bush (maybe surprisingly) when to Yale and Harvard Business School.

Went not when - thanks phone

I think celebs or sports people or even royalty are pretty damned rich and I think gaba has a point

Thinking that the majority of poor people are thick is abhorrent.

Is there a figure - cash money figure of investment into education that Gove has confirmed?

And calling rich people inbred thickos isn't?

I don't agree with StarBall's comment either.

word your right "rigorous" setting is more important than class size. IME very bright children need other very bright children (dons safety hat and hides).

I agree. Wherever a child sits on the ability range, there needs to be a sufficiently large peer group.

This is fine for most DC (numbers cluster at the middle of a bell curve), but it is harder at the outlying extremes.

I suspect those at the bottom end of the spectrum who like me in "art classes for the talentless" are actually the ones actually benefit most from very small classes and more one to one attention.

There's a difference in being 'intelligent' and being 'educated' - it's been proven that many sports stars have higher IQs than average but they started training when very young and had little time for education. Many athletes/footballers come from poor backgrounds with little interest in education and might appear 'stupid' because of their upbringing and behaviour, not their intelligence. Of course, many of our sports stars have been privately educated and they all seem intelligent to me when interviewed on tv. Further, it's well known that many actors/artists and other celebrities are dyslexic and may have struggled at school but are highly 'intelligent'.

Here you go - PISA stats on performance of private vs public (i.e. state) schools worldwide, taking socioeconomic background into account: www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40735107.pdf

See slide 21, graph on right (if you can bear the horribly designed slides). The pale blue lines show raw performance - in most (though not all) countries, private schools do better on this measure, unsurprisingly given that they all select by income/parental interest, and most select by academic achievement. The bright pink lines show performance accounting for socioeconomic background, showing that, in the majority of countries, including the UK, state schools perform better.

But amber we're not all paying for better results although I accept many many are or I hasten to add the right type of children in the class. Why does education always have to be about performance? Is this the only way we can measure it? As I stated in another thread I'm paying amongst other things for difference and I'm also coming quickly to the conclusion that lack of government interference is also worth paying for.

In the Far East class sizes are huge- 40+ but learning outstrips the West.

Class size is irrelevant to a degree if the teacher has good classroom management, the work is challenging-interesting and the children and their families value education- something that is lacking in some homes ( and you won't find those parents on this forum!)

The only difference between state and private schools are the parents.

My children attend private schools every single child I know has a tutor or supportive parents.

Take a state educated child with parents that dont support homework or teach at home, they will never be able to reach the same standard as a child with external tutors or supportive parents.

In my day no one was tutored, we all passed our GCSEs with out tutors or help from parents. What has changed to our education system?

I would really like to know the answer to this question