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?

[TalkinPeace]

Whendidyoulast
Those links are about PRIMARY and mention streaming and selection as being bad things.
I quite agree.
I'm utterly against streaming and selective schools.

All schools should have flexible setting systems that are reviewed term by term.
As the mother of an August born boy I'm very aware of the issue.

Mixed ability classes at primary are VERY different from properly done setting at GCSE and A level within a comprehensive school, which is a good thing

[TamerB]

I don't really care about the evidence, my reason for choosing private would be for smaller classes- I believe it is a huge advantage. I wouldn't want them too small but 17- 22 is perfect IMO.

[pickledsiblings]

You still end up with a bottom set and all that goes along with that Talkin, and that is the problem that mixed ability teaching (if done well) can help avoid.

Setting at A level just sounds unnecessary.

[TalkinPeace]

You still end up with a bottom set and all that goes along with that
do elaboarate?

as in a comp school I cannot see why a bottom set for the bottom ability is a bad thing to help those students get appropriate qualifications

at DCs school the bottom sets get lots of support in academic subjects and some of those kids are in upper sets for art music drama or tech

because SETs and STREAMS are not the same thing, let alone SEGREGATED schools

The big difference between state and private schools
( to get back to the OP )
is that all private schools are segregated by god, gonads or cash as well as exams.
That is not the case at most state schools.

[pickledsiblings]

Talkin, you could justify setting in terms of access to appropriate qualifications as you have done but there is no research that shows it is best for discovering/reaching potential.

You can't tell me that there is no stigma associated with being in the bottom set at your school.

Why on earth would you set for drama, that is just bonkers. I would even go as far as to say that setting stifles creativity (not sure if there's any research to back me up mind :))

[josephinebornapart]

I think there is some evidence which shows that bright children are dragged down by mixed ability sets, as opposed to less able children being dragged up.

I've taught both- sets and mixed ability. From a teacher's viewpoint it is much easier to teach sets.

My children's schools use both: sets for core subjects and mixed ability for other subjects.

It's easy to become sentimental over the stigma of 'bottom sets'. Life is not fair. All children have different strengths and weaknesses. I can never understand the illogical thinking that on the one hand thinks it's fine to coach potential Arsenal footballers and put money and effort into bringing out their potential, yet feels some injustice is being done by creaming off the brightest kids who are our future researchers into cancer-cures etc. and giving them the right level of academic rigour.

I went to a grammar school which had 5 streams. I was friends with some children in the bottom stream , 5 streams below me, and they have done very well in life by and large and not walking around with chips on their shoulders.

[TalkinPeace]

pickled
Of course they set for Drama.
Why on earth would they not?

Some people are natural performers who do dance and singing and acting outside of school. Their lessons are mini performances which take into account that some kids are out of school for rehearsals for professional productions.

The lower drama set comprises those who have no natural ability in, or enjoyment of, performance, and their lessons are just plodding through till they drop it as a subject in year 10.
But at least they have learned some presentation and public speaking skills.

There is no "stigma" with being in "the bottom set" because
(a) its decided on transparent reasons
(b) very few people are in the bottom set for everything - because setting includes PE, arts, humanities, Sciences, Maths and English.

[AmberTheCat]

Gini, I presume the OECD data is based on the results of the 2006 PISA tests. A little out of date, but I can't imagine things have changed hugely in the intervening few years. I agree that slide (and no doubt the presentation as a whole, although much of it I find completely incomprehensible!) raises a lot of questions. From my limited knowledge of private education in other countries, I think you're right in assuming it serves very different purposes in different countries. In some Scandinavian countries, for example, I think private schools are pretty rare, and are generally designed for children with specific educational or social needs, rather than being thought of as providing a better education for any child. So using the figures for, for example, Sweden in a discussion about private vs state in the UK would be pretty meaningless, but the UK figure I think is interesting.

Re. small class sizes, recent Sutton Trust research suggested they can make a difference, but only when the numbers get below about 15. That's when the size actually enables a teacher to change their style of teaching, as others have mentioned. If you're looking at a difference of between, say 18 and 28, though, research suggests it doesn't really have any impact.

[josephinebornapart]

Interesting comment in the Telegraph today by Allison Pearson ( former teacher) on engaging children in learning as opposed to a more didactic approach ( with large classes...)

Telegraph

[josephinebornapart]

is that all private schools are segregated by god, gonads or cash as well as exams. That is not the case at most state schools.

Faith schools, single sex schools, post code lottery/ ability to buy into catchment areas?

All the above apply to state schools. All apply to the 3 top state schools in my area: catholic sec ( comp) school, and 2 single sex comps where house prices have gone through the roof in the catchment area.

[AgaPanthers]

There are very very few 'good' state schools that don't operate by excluding, first and foremost, children from poor families.

That's the easiest route to success.

The 'God' route is another way to achieve this, and places like the Oratory, where that cunt Blair sent his kids, are incredibly socially exclusive through extremely strict 'God' policies, which successfully exclude people too busy to polish brass or otherwise jump through hoops like some kind of performing seal in order to get a place at the state-funded monument to exclusivity and privilege.

[ISBN1966]

Is it always easy to identify able children? Particularly if they are lazy or unsupported at home? The last few posts suggest is is.

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

Allison Pearson, for example....

[craggyhollow]

Our local state gets good results and is not selective by area as it is the only one for miles, therefore takes children from the two towns plus local villages - all sorts of socio economics going on yhere

Out of London and big cities there is very little choice

[AgaPanthers]

The reason your local state school gets good results is because your area (as is common with rural areas) is more affluent than average.

It's still selecting - you aren't getting any Somalians from Tower Hamlets there, for example.

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

Do you know where craggyhollow lives?

[merrymouse]

What is an average level of affluence?

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

It's silly to say a rural school is selective because it doesn't take Somalians from Tower Hamlets... How could it? Schools have to be somewhere, and everywhere has to have a school!

[Bonsoir]

Indeed, TOSN. And rural schools often have issues with great disparities within their classes - rural working class and upper middle class commuter families with very different aspirations. And add in a handful of gypsy DC who change frequently...

[Eastpoint]

There are lots of low achieving schools along the south coast & in Cornwall, areas which have low numbers of immigrants but in which families have low aspirations. The schools in deprived areas of London have received increased funding. My ex-SIL taught in a leafy Hampshire primary school, she had pupils who only ate at school (staff gave them breakfast & they had FSM) but anyone looking would think what a lovely village school.

[AgaPanthers]

I certainly wasn't implying that immigrants result in poor outcomes. Several London grammar schools are comprised of a majority of children from immigrant backgrounds (though Indian and Sri Lankan rather than Somalian).

To take the example of Hampshire, the 'best' state school (Thornden) in the league tables has 53% of pupils entering the school with Level 5 in their SATS (where Level 4 is expected progress). The worst have only around 20% at that level (and just a few miles away from Thornden).

The London Oratory school (supposedly comprehensive) actually has a better ability profile than some grammar schools.

Anyway, obviously if you are in the wilds of Cumbria, then it's impossible for a kid from London to attend, so the overt exclusion that you get in London, where the child who lives in the wrong road goes to a failing school rather than the posh one, but the net result is no different from private schools with fees - if you need to live in the North York Moors to attend a certain school, that excludes children just as effectively as £15k/year fees do.

No doubt many parents in areas with many 'bad' schools would love to send their children to these 'good' schools in different areas.

[Clavinova]

I'm pretty sure craggyhollow sends her eldest dc to a private senior school (as do I) and so the location of this 'good' rural state school is immaterial - it obviously isn't 'good enough'.

[TalkinPeace]

Those of you who think Rural = Affluent really need to get out more.

Big rural comps have deprivation and poverty without parental motivation .... far harder to deal with than the children of immigrants.

[LondonBus]

"At my DS's private boarding school minor punishments include litter picking and getting up early.

The state schools wouldn't dream of doing something like this."

handcream at my DC's state school they have litter picker thingies for this purpose. I have seen the bursar handing them over to errant children, saying "Remember they are not swords!"

Being a day school, they can't get them up earlier.

[AgaPanthers]

Who thinks that? All I said was that a 'good' rural school, like any other kind of school, is the product of its inputs, which the school itself selects either passively by location or LEA policies, or in some cases actively through its admission policies. But, just like private schools, it is about selection.