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?

rabbit's questions are absolutely key. Two of my children are doing careers tests today at school which last 3 hours. In the car this morning to them I said - it's not an exam. It's not pass or fail. It's just about finding out what you want to do with your life. I would certainly say "Egyptology at Oxford" would be best of those choices as it probably opens more doors to higher paid careers and much better to earn a small fortune and love your work than earn nothing much and love it.

(I think I was the one who tends to use the "moral imperative to do the best for your child" point which many parents do in practice whether in choose a good comp, a good private school or by helping them at home).

I think I love the word 'striven' .

I'm putting it into my pocket alongside DD's current fave 'confusement'.

As for the idea that certain DC will do well anywhere, well I just don't accept that.

I think it's a middle class concept TBH. And one more frequently held by women.

Sometimes it's held out of breathtaking arrogance.

But more often than not held out of a breathtaking incomprehension about how the world has changed. How certain things matter less, and certain things matter more.

It's understandable. We all think our DC are great and want them to achieve to the best of their abilities. The thought that that might not be possible due to factors like wealth and geography sting.

Martorana I do know parents with SEN children at my DCs school.

There is one with extreme problems in my DDs class. She punches, kicks, bites and pulls hair. the children are wary of her as she acts without warning and they do find it hard to understand. However, she has made some very good friends in the class. She came to mine for a play date at Easter and I have taken time to explain to my DD why the DC behaves the way she does.

Perhaps being in yr1 the other children are accepting her for who she is and the bullying will come much later.

My DS has a SEN child in his class (yr 4) who is struggling a lot with learning. She is actually very popular and is far from bullied.

It could well be that the school my DCs attend has a fairly low level of bullying. Perhaps when they get into secondary it will be a whole different situation. Until then I can only give examples of what I have experienced.

I am very surprised that, with experience as a teacher, you never came across a child being bullied for being bright. I know one person from when I was at school that was so badly bullied for being a swot at school that he still vents about it on FB.

Martorana It's paltry as far as maths goes. One one day course in a whole term? For kids who are being bored rigid by the maths they get at school? It's neither sufficient nor appropriate. Neither is the complete lack of anything for music. The English ones do look good, and English is something that the providers do well, DD2 went on a brilliant English day last term (it was actually a saturday) where they did creative writing around fantasy themes (taking the work of Diana Wynne Jones and Cressida Cowell as jumping off points) and she said it was the best thing she had ever done in her life. But even then, for an entire term she will have 3 little one day oases of enjoyment shining out like jewels admit the turgid drudge of the rest of her current everyday experience. But yes of course she is lucky to have that, as I pointed out I completely appreciate that other similarly bright and engaged kids won't even get that, either because it's not on offer or because the parents either can't afford to pay for the opportunities or can't negotiate the hoops the system makes you jump through.

Even having said all that, I know there are primary schools which do brilliantly. And I know that there are secondary schools that do brilliantly. And I do not believe it is accurate to say that all state schools can't and don't offer the opportunities that posh schools offer. Many do, I would maintain that all could (not in terms of built environment resources in some cases. But in terms of educational inout - definitely). Those of us who are parents in the state sector just need to keep nagging away about the opportunities we would like to see on offer, with concrete examples of things that the kids could do (e.g. arts projects that are possible, for example). IME state schools can and do listen, and again, IME they are as keen to increase opportunity as parents are.

For th poster who doesn't buy her DC 'read round the subject' books - really?? For me, that;s the best bit of being the parent of a teen. A genuine excuse to buy even more books than I normally can justify. DD1 and I are currently engaged in a stealth war of claiming and then repatriating books from her pile to mine. This is also clearly giving her practical instruction in real world deviousness.

slowcomputer I agree. DD2 is at a state school educated (year 7) and we are very happy with the school and she is getting along excellently as she is very academic but:

1. We have only just had a report from the school saying how she is getting on, before Easter and have our first teachers meetings next week. My daughter best friend from primary is at a private Cheltenham school and this happens termly. I know I could contact her tutor with a problem, but that is not quite the same thing as having a planned report or meeting.
2. Her classes are all mixed apart from maths, which is set, and she moans a bit about general disruption.
3. She has a drama teacher who can't control the class and when they try to work as a group, everyone messes around and doesn't bother to learn lines etc. This teacher said to my daughter that she needs to deal with her stress levels when she was getting irate about nobody trying to do the scene they were told to do. I think the teacher needs to learn to handle the class and then my daughter would have no stress.
4. She has cooking once a week but half the lessons are taught by a music teacher in the music room, and therefore they are behind the rest of the year on their cooking opportunities.
5. The building is very old, toilet doors do not lock and get v dirty during the day. There is chewing gum in practically every hole in the wall and under all the desks and chairs.

I could go on. This school is has a good ofsted rating and said (by ofsted) to be on its way to excellent. It has some excellent teachers, has an immense amount of extra curricular activities and my daughter is very happy there. My DD1 went to the school, left with GCSE's all A-A* and is now at a RG Uni studying Law, so I'm sure DD2 will do well there but the experiences are quite different.

Oh Martorana. SEN != 'not bright'. :(

DD2 is bullied for being both a child with SEN issues and for being bright. But most of all, I think, she is bullied for being both those things at the same time as being the smallest and youngest in her year. And for being a girl. The super bright boys in her year, who are both at the top of the age range, and also sporty (and very very nice kids) are not bullied or othered at all. But they are boys. And sporty.

rabbit actually my dyslexic DS - who was certainly struggling with reading at age 10 (although he could read, it was just such an effort that he hated it and avoided it like the plague) - was never bullied. He is on the periphery of bullying at his secondary school - his best mate is bullied for being small for his age and arty - but DS (who is far from large but is on the small side of normal) is to a certain extent his minder. He has also finally discovered the on switch for reading - he's read more than 2500 pages in the last 2 weeks. But since it's because he is powering through Game of Thrones and some people might think he was a tad young for that, it's not something we are shouting from the rooftops at school

I have no illusions that my DC would "do well anywhere". DS, for example, is, I am told, startlingly bright all round, exceptional at maths, very big for his age, ok at sports, ok at music, ok at art (but he loves sports (except football which he loathes), and art, and music). There are very many schools, both state and private, where he would have been stuffed into an "academically G&T" pigeonhole and all other interests would have been ignored. There are others where his academic needs would not have been met and he would have been bored so, being huge for his age and having a short temper, I suspect he would have ended up getting into a lot of trouble.

..and yet, as a bright all rounder with no SN, I think he would fall into this group who seem to be described as "children who would do well anywhere" because - well, why? Because he wouldn't miss any academic targets?

His last report talked about "all round intellectual development rather than mere academic success". The fact that the school is able and willing to both recognise this need and facilitate it is why we are prepared to pay the fees, to be blunt.

Herc - I think it was me who said I don't buy "read round the subject" books - and I don't yet have a teen - DC1 is 11, so at the moment he is reading books we already have, on the whole. The definite downside of having a great school library and librarian is that when he does bring books home he won't let me pinch them and read them before he takes them back - there are a couple which I have bought for myself (mostly on Kindle) as a result, though.

DD1 has a great school library. But it doesn't tend to get books the minute they are published, and you can borrow them for a bit and then have to give them back. We like OWNING books (hence we reached the book event horizon many many years ago and now live in what looks like one of those second hand bookshops there used to be where you can't see any walls because all you can see are shelves, and there are piles of books on every surface and in most corners. We are in the process of evolving into bats). She has certainly had suggestions from teachers of her A level subjects re good books to get hold of either through buying or the library. Reading round the subject is one of the great joys of GCSE and A level in the subjects she does. At least, AFAIC.

HercShipwright - I think that goes to show that anyone can be bullied: the bully just has to spot the weak point and work out how to exploit it. What is a weak spot for one person is not necessarily a weak spot for another, because it's not what they have allowed themselves to be defined by.

There were a couple of boys at my primary school who were bullied for being "thick." One had a bladder problem in addition to his difficulties with reading, writing and maths, and I still remember him being pinned down in the playground by a group of boys until he wet himself - his bladder problem was also, or course, to the bullies, another example of how "thick" he was. Gangs of people can be truly nasty. The poor boy was just so sweet, too - he wouldn't hurt a fly and didn't see nastiness coming from others until it was too late.

"I am very surprised that, with experience as a teacher, you never came across a child being bullied for being bright. I know one person from when I was at school that was so badly bullied for being a swot at school that he still vents about it on FB."

Just lucky, I guess. Certainly the Mumsnet received wisdom that bright children can only be satisfactorily educated in a completely separate institution from their less bright peers would indicate that i have been.

At my school you could bullied for almost anything. It was like the fecking wild west .

I learned very quickly to pretend not to care about school work and never ever admit to revising .

Some bright children do better in that sort of environment. Some don't need it. Some less bright children do better in an environment where they are allowed to work at their own pace without there being any pressure to not hold others back. Some schools achieve this through rigorous setting but some outliers prefer to not be outliers and to achieve that happy state they need to be educated with the other outliers, not in an environment where they stick out like a sore thumb. Some outliers modify their performance and effort to try and fit in and that's the worst case scenario. It's not unreasonable to want to avoid that.

I really wouldn't wish the grim time DD2 has had at primary school in the last few years on anyone. That's why I am delighted she will shortly be at a school where she will probably be in the middle of the curve for that population, rather than at either end. And luckily, that sort of tailoring to the individual can be found within the state system.

Martorana "Certainly the Mumsnet received wisdom that bright children can only be satisfactorily educated in a completely separate institution from their less bright peers would indicate that i have been".

Interesting you lay the blame solely on the parents.

Have I missed a poll or a thread somewhere as from where I stand, opinions on the best approach to educating a DC appear to be very mixed with very little in the way of a definitive "this is the way to do it".

Just to be clear, my DCs attend a state non-selective primary. I have no idea what secondary we are going to end up with, nearest or otherwise, as the area is now oversubscribed, so for me, having a choice would be a luxury I would revel in.

Whilst you believe your decision is the one everyone should make, I think you are simplifying the thought process. There are many factors that will influence a decision and unfortunately very few will base their decision on "for the good of man kind". After all, the human race did not develop the complex thought process it did just to behave like sheep.

TheWordFactory lol at the wild west comment

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?

Sorry, rabbit just seen this and assume you were asking me?

Interesting question.

At DS school (selective, big name public school who send a lot of their cohort to Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial etc) it is presented as the obvious choice to further an academic career.

That's not to say that some pupils don't go on to different establishments way down the pecking order. They do. But generally, it will be to do something very specific which is well thought of at that place IYSWIM.

The school and parents are very clued up about choice and the process.

When I go to sixth forms as part of the widening access program, I have to do a much greater selling job. Where at DS school it is assumed the pupils will aim high, that is often not the case in the schools I visit. Pupils and teachers alike labour under all manner of wrong illusions about Oxbridge.

I tend to sell it as just a great place to study. I point out all the positives (cheaper than alot of places, plenty of bursaries, lots of contact time)and try to dispell the myths. I always point out that if these young people are going to give it three years of their life and are going to pay for the priviledge, they may as well get bang for their buck.

My quirky, ASD is at a good state comprehensive. Now in year 8 hs is settling down, after a couple of years. He is bright and doing enough to stay in top groups but not excelling. For him a more discplined private school would have been a disaster as he has mostly just survived the school environment.

Despite only having good things to say about DS1 comp, we are sending DS2 to a private. Also bright but he needs sport and discpline. DH works away a lot and I have a neuroimmune condition so 'outsourcing' his education a bit. Not a selective school and he will no doubt be top of sets but it will do his confidence some good and he should enjoy it. For me that counts a lot!

Herc I am certsain your DD2 is going to be happy at secondary.

As you know, I'm a big fan of the school. I wish it was a model that could be copied and rolled out in every LEA.

I think that doing well is being the best that you personally can be at the thing that you want to be doing. I do sadly know many people who believe that doing well is going to medical school. And nothing else. Hey ho.

It's very interesting in ds's school, where they have just started to send a few kids to university that it has proved practically impossible so far to persuade them to either try for anywhere that's far from home or that is higher up the "prestigious" list. I once heard the Head say in exasperated tones to one boy "You're predicted the same grades that my daughter got and she went to Cambridge- why is Greenwich top of your list???????"

Word so am I. :D My long conversation with the head of sixth form today included a little bit about her, and the needs she will have when she is there - and I mentioned that she has a big poster with that quote from shakespeare - you know, 'She is but little yet she be FIERCE' (I might have misquoted slightly, can't be arsed to go into her room to check) on her wall (she snapped it up when we went to the globe during the holiday). He thought that was hilarious. :D

The school really couldn't have dealt with DD1's existing and (sadly) new issues this year. I have been amazed at how great they have been, to be honest. It's one of the reasons I get so annoyed when people refer to pastoral care as one of the things a posh always will do well and a state school never will. I hope posh schools do always do pastoral care well - I know DD1's school has played a blinder for her this year. Although to be fair, she has played a blinder too - I don't think you could ever hope to find a better model of determination and stoicism in the face of adversity than her. I couldn't be more proud of her than I am right now, whatever results she gets in this year's exams and the ones to come.

Herc

I swear DD's school is going to fill a hospital by itself!

Interestingly, when I travel around on my Oxbridge bandwagon, I feel a real sense of young people thinking very little about academic enjoyment or fullfillment. It's all a means to an end. Degrees that don't lead somewhere specific are considered a waste.

I try to point out that a good degree from our gaff will open plenty of doors...

Mart at least the head has the right idea (although there may be many valid reasons for going to Greenwich, obviously). As a WC person myself though - that 'I know my place' thing is genuinely A Thing. It's a very difficult mindset to get over. There was a very interesting article in a paper (I think The Times) earlier this week about the psychological issues female high fliers face and that 'I don't deserve as much as men' thing was mentioned. It's as ingrained, at an almost primeval level, in WC kids as much as it is in women of all stripes. We all need to guard against it because of course its complete bollocks!

It's interesting, WordFactory, that you state the obvious, that they are good places to further an academic career, as the big selling point at your ds's school. Also interesting that you appear to have more or less given up on trying to sell this aspect in your widening access programme. Already there are two worlds: the world where furthering an academic career is a serious option; and the world where that's a pipe dream for people with spare cash to help finance it, and the real purpose of university is to get a well paid job, or increasingly, any job, at the end of it.