WHY the general assumption that private schools are better?

[tootsietoo]

I know this is similar to other recent threads, but slightly different!

I know very little about education - never worked in the sector, don't have many friends working in it, never been interested til children arrived! However, in my limited experience (DDs 6&7 at local primary school) the level of professionalism of the teachers is impressive! There seems to be such a comprehensive structure for planning progression and for assessing children's attainment, whilst the teachers seem to have the freedom to work with the children to inspire them in that they choose topics which interest them and can tailor classes and working groups to match children's abilities.

Yet within my group of friends there seems to be this inbuilt assumption that if you ever can pull enough cash in then off to private school your children will go. I also frequently read on here that the existence of private schools is unfair because it means only a few children will have the best opportunities. Which seems to assume that all private schools offer the best opportunities.

Is this a hangover from the 70s and 80s when we all grew up? Were state schools much worse then? Why is it just assumed that private schools offer the best education? I know private schools have more money therefore usually have the glitzy facilities, but surely it is down to the person standing in front of the children day in day out who is the really important part? I recall that at my small private girls day school I experienced the most inept teaching methods imaginable and I am told that at private schools today there is no requirement for teachers to be qualified! I do appreciate that my children are at a good school (that is, classified by ofsted as "good"), but are they all that unusual?

I think no-one has the answer as to how to create a system where all DC fulfil their potential, hence the lack of satisfactory suggestions. But the will is there.

"I don't think that assumption exists, Martorana. I think people want all DC to get the opportunity to fulf their potential."

Really, Bonsoir? I'm sure I remember you posting somewhere about how there is a moral imperative to give one's own children as much advantage as possible in a competitive world. Or have I got the wrong person? Sorry if I have.

My position on parental moral imperatives is coherent with wanting all DC to fulfil their potential.

It isn't if advantaging your own child means using, and therefore maintaining, a system that disadvantages other children.......

If the system is at fault you are entirely misguided to think that adopting an ideological position with your own DC would have any effect other than to disadvantage your own DC.

Martorana is there a such thing as an educational system, anywhere in the world, that doesn't disadvantage at least some children?

"If the system is at fault you are entirely misguided to think that adopting an ideological position with your own DC would have any effect other than to disadvantage your own DC."

How does that fit in with your assertion that everyone wants the best for everyone else's children? Are you saying that this should only apply if one's own children remain top of the heap?

You are very confused, Martorana, and seem to think that if the system is faulty it is somehow the duty of those parents who can both see its faults and have the resources (in cash or in kind) to palliate their effects for their own DC not to do so out of solidarity to others less clairvoyant, less resourceful or more impecunious.

No. I think it is the duty of those of us whose children will do well wherever they go to advocate on behalf of others "less clairvoyant, less resourceful or more impecunious".

And no, I am not confused. I just don't agree with you!

No, you are confused - you don't understand where the boundaries of responsibility lie. Hence you not agreeing!

I suspect that word and bonsoir would definitely categorise me as neglectful. however I just had a very interesting phone call with DD1's head of 6th form (we are having a lot of dialogue at the moment about trying to organise her consultant appointments so as not to clash with mocks, AS levels etc and also about how the school can best handle her needs) and he was adamant that our benign neglect policy in some areas (the amount of cold hard cash I spend on reading round the subject books can't be categorised as neglect I suspect although since I always have an ulterior motive - I get to read them too - it's not exactly altruism either) has been the best possible thing for her, since she has superb coping strategies.

Right now I am definitely feeling that posh schools are way better than state ones though since I've also spent a good chunk of the morning booking Dd2's G&T courses for the term, which has cost and absolute fortune and eaten up a chunk of time I had allocated to, you know, work stuff. I think it's iniquitous that parents in the state system have to do all this themselves, and she'll out the cash too. I can well imagine that many parents will either not be able to afford such things, won't be able to spend the time (and it does take bloody ages) booking the damn things, because many jobs wouldn't have the flexibility to spend time doing that, or will just not be arsed. :(

The boundaries are in add ident place for me. I also don't. agree that I have a moral imperative to advantage my child even if it is at the expense of others, and I don't agree that it is a competitive world, I agree that some arts are competitive- but I don't agree that life is.

As I said, I think differently to you. That does not mean I am wrong, or confused, or don't understand.

It must be lovely to be so certain that your child WILL do well wherever they are.

"good chunk of the morning booking Dd2's G&T courses for the term,"

What are they? And are they things that a private school would provide as part of the fees?

Martorana I am not entirely convinced on the point - "whose children will do well wherever they go".

How can anyone possibly know whether their child will do well at any school unless they have access to a crystal ball.

I've know people to change from private to state. I've known people to change from state to private. I've know people to change from selective to non-selective. I've know people to change from non-selective to selective.

Children have individual needs. These needs, at the time of application, can only be determined by the people who know that child best, the parents. Taking a one size fits all in an area where there are options, makes no sense at all. Many will give you examples where they have had no options so have gone with what they can get and with quite disastrous results. The fact that it worked for you does not conclude that it will work for everyone.

How do you define "do well". Surely this is determined by an individuals own expectations. Some people will see their child as having gained a Degree at Oxford as someone who has done well. Others will see their child as having gained 5 GCSE's at any level as having done well.

Add to this the fact that I have a close friend who was heavily bullied at school for being the class "swot". She got out of education as soon as she possibly could. Her experiences have heavily influenced the decisions she has made for her child. Should she ignore her own experience and just go along with the crowd. Would you do that if you felt you were heading towards a cliff?

I have another friend who's academically bright daughter attended the local non-selective state school. Her daughter was so badly bullied for being top of the class, that she developed very worrying behaviour. The mother will do whatever she can, not to send her other DC there. Should she ignore what her daughter experienced and take a chance on it not happening to her son?

Having an idealistic approach to education is all very well and good, but directing the future of your own DC has emotional elements to it. Not many people will want to see their DC as a "sacrificial lamb" in an attempt to achieve equality.

How "general" is the assumption, though? I have lost count of the number of times that I have said that having the option to pay fees merely increases the number of schools which you can consider in the attempt to find the best school for your child.

There is also the option not to be as "involved" as, for example, seems to be required in France. Yes I am extremely aware of what my DC are doing at school, interested in progress, etc, but I am not teaching them, or scheduling extra curricular activities or providing them with material to read around the subject. Their interested, involved, mostly subject specialist teachers are doing that because, as others have said, they have the luxury of time to do so to a far greater extent than their state school colleagues do.

We could exist on one income, and I could be a SAHM with the DC in perfectly good local state schools, and I could spend my time supporting their education (both in the academic and in the wider sense). However, I feel that the teachers, most of whom I know well, are better placed to do that than I am. Having grown up as the child of a teacher, I knew from a very early age that I did not possess the patience to be able to teach any child, let alone my own.

This is the right decision for us. It would not be for a lot of other families. I have never, ever assumed that private schools are better by definition and have seen more than one example where a private school has dramatically failed a child who has then been "rescued", and had their needs far more effectively met, by a state school. In one of these cases I know that the parents had been seduced by the pretty uniform and "naice" intake and had been blind to the lousy standard of education .

Not to get involved in the moral imperative thing, but it is necessarily a "one or the other" decision? One very successful and well-off parent I know at DC's school invests time not only in being a parent governor at the school (to address shortcomings rather than just complain about them), but is also a governor of her local state primary school - investing in improving the system for all.

Mumtryingherbest- I will answer in more detail- but can I just point out that you are falling into the trap of the needs of "bright" children being prioritized. All your examples are of bright children. What about everyone else? And I speak as the parent of "bright" children.

Where we live, even though the school/LEA does not pay, there is only one approved provider (the university). With DD1 we got special dispensation to send her on a residential writing course (aimed at much older kids) outside the county when she was in Y6 but only because the tutor wrote to the school saying it would be outrageous not to let her have the opportunity (she was invited after a local course). DD2s courses this term are a 2 day English and drama one based on Macbeth, a writing one (again Shakespeare based), an algebra one, a science one (about the structure of matter) and a creative arty one that comes under the ICT heading because it is using iPads. Apart from the 2 day thing, they are all one day courses and the daily charge is £30. She is doing every single course available to her - as a primary school pupil she is not allowed to do the secondary maths or English G&T things even though she is working at levels that would allow her to access them intellectually (I'm not sure I disagree with this policy though, she is so tiny physically, and the youngest in her year, I just think she would be intimidated in a course with y7 or y8 kids that she didn't know). There are no music G&T courses on offer at all. It's a really paltry selection, and the whole process of booking is nuts (each one has to be booked and paid for separately using an interface which logs you out after the transaction has been authorised by the bank - so really clunky).

I know that the local posh junior schools offer this sort of thing and much more - this is an example where posh schools are deffo better than state schools - her best friend goes to the local posh junior school. However, the posh Senior school does not compare (except in snob value) to the grammar. So even though right now I'm miffed, I haven't changed my view that there are state schools which are better than posh schools. Just, not all of them. Which we all accept anyway.

This is obviously an example of where having parents with a bob or two who take this sort of thing seriously and understand what is on offer and how to access it gives kids an advantage over those who don't have that and clearly it isn't fair - but then, neither is it fair that exceptionally bright kids are not adequately served in normal school time. The fact that our primary school has issues with serving the brightest kids doesn't alter the fact that many don't, though. And nor does it alter the fact that from September, Dd2 will be at a state school that will more than meet her needs (there will be kids a lot brighter than her there, for sure - at least in some subject areas). Throughout our association with the primary school we have striven to improve the things on offer to both kids complex SEN issues and exceptionally bright kids (the groups sometimes overlap and sometimes don't) and it would be unfair to say that the school hasn't improved out of all recognition in this regard over that time - but I feel there is still a lot to be done. We won't be there any more though and I do wonder who will pick up the mantle of pushing for opportunities that are slightly non standard, for the slightly non standard kids.

Actually, I suspect striven is most emphatically not a word. No matter. I like how it sounds.

Just wondering: what is it that our children are supposed to be aspiring to when they go to Oxford, Cambridge or Russell Group universities? How is it being sold to our young? What are they told these places will offer them that other universities or tertiary education courses will not, and what is being done to persuade them that they should actually WANT what is being offered?

Is it better to study Egyptology at Oxford, Chemistry at Reading, or Accounting and Finance at Oxford Brookes? What are our young supposed to be aiming for? In what ways are they underachieving? By not aiming high enough in their careers? By not having a career plan? By not seeking power and influence? It's hard to "achieve" if you don't know what you are supposed to be trying to achieve in the first place and therefore why what you are currently doing is supposed to be "underachievement." By saying people are underachieving, are you not really saying that you think a lot of people have the wrong ambitions, or no clear ambition?

Martorana how many parents do you know who do not see their children as being bright in at least one thing?

By your assumption that I am "falling into the trap of the needs of "bright" children" being prioritized you have missed the point I made about people making their decisions on an emotional basis and subject to their own experiences.

I used these particular examples to demonstrate that children don't necessarily thrive in any school. I only mentioned that they were bright as that is the very reason they were bullied. Interestingly I don't know any children who were bullied for not being bright to be quite honest. I am sure there are cases where this happens but I have never encountered any.

I'm pretty sure striven is a word!

And I am in awe of that selection of courses- you're saying it's paltry??

MumTryingHerBest - of course children are bullied for "not being bright." Just ask the child who is still struggling to read at age 10.

"Interestingly I don't know any children who were bullied for not being bright to be quite honest."

Really? Maybe you should talk to the parents of some children with SEN......... Or to children in the lower sets of selective schools.

I could say that I don't know of any children who were bullied for being bright. Because it's true, I don't. But I believe that it happens- because I have no reason not to believe the people who tell me it does. But in all my years as a teacher (many years ago) a parent and a school governor I have never personally had to deal with it. Being bullied for being thick, for being "speshul" (I use the word and spelling advisedly) yes, regularly.