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 the 'some kids will do fine anywhere' discussion has become a bit polarised, which isn't helping. Of course there are extreme cases. A very small minority of schools are very poor, and going to one of those would negatively affect every child. If a child is badly bullied at school, that will of course have an impact on them. Having an amazing, inspirational teacher is proven (as well as being common sense - who'd have thought it?!) to be a significant driver in children's achievement.

But outside of these extremes, I think most relatively bright, well-supported children will do well in most schools. As Word said earlier, the biggest factor in a child's achievement is the education level of their mother. That's not going to change if they're at a different school. Sure, they might do marginally better at one school than another, but it probably won't make the huge difference that some people hope/fear.

matorana absolutely!

Obviously money and student debt is in the minds of many students. And quite right! The cost of accommodation at many universities (I'm looking at you Bristol) is astronomical. And the maintainance loan doesn't cover it often.

On top of that is food, clothes, fares etc.

I point out to them that some of them will be entitled to bursaries. Won't even have to pay them back. And some universities (not ours) are very good at offering term time on campus jobs (warwick, Birmingham).

Which for me, suggests that we, as a society, should be focusing much more of our attention on those children that don't have the advantage of probably being able to do ok anywhere.

That last point was me talking to myself, rather than replying to Word's intervening post!

AmberTheCat how would you identify those children that "don't have the advantage of probably being able to do ok anywhere."

Amber and that can include the very bright as well as the not so bright.

rabbit that's true.

I realised I am on a hiding to nothing talking about the most rigorous academic experiences or love of subject.

What's interesting, is that this doesn't change when I attend schools that are more successful at sending DC to the most selective universities. Though I tend not to visit the most successful schools as a. that's not my schtick and b. they tend to have their own alumni come in and chat. I'm not needed at Colyton or Tiffin .

AmberTheCat should the "ok" in your post read "their best"?

DD1's (year8) state comprensive aims as high as possible, the cohort come from all socio economic backgrounds although being a faith school can be argued to be selective. 80% of leavers last year went to RG univerisities and the leavers list was full of children going on to study law, medicine, dentistry along with the usual English, History, economics etc. The current upper 6th are sitting on 18 Oxbridge offers. The school also has fabulous facilities, especially given it's a city centre school and it's cool to be clever has wonderful dedicated teachers who want the best for all pupils. Boarding / public school was never on our radar but we turned down 2 top independent day schools for this school with no regrets. On those grounds I would never assume private is better although I acknowledge this is the exception rather than the rule.

My younger 2 are at prep schools, and in my experience what they get there far exceeds what I have seen in any state primary although I wouldn't ever say that they're universally better, they're simply better than the other options we have. We feel that having the ability to pay fees doesn't make us better or guarantee that private is better it simply gives us a wider choice, and we have chosen to have our feet in both sectors.

"Which for me, suggests that we, as a society, should be focusing much more of our attention on those children that don't have the advantage of probably being able to do ok anywhere."

Absolutely. Absolutely!

Martorana you agree that children should be doing OK? I would prefer for them to be doing their best, whatever that might be.

More of the attention is focussed on the majority group. It's ridiculous to claim that it isn't.

The thing is I am not convinced that 'bright children will do well everywhere'. That is a myth imo. A bright child who isn't given the tolls and the teaching necessary to learning isn't going to learn as well and as much than one who is given the right amount/right level difficulty stuff.

I've seen it with dc1 whose teacher says that he could easily do level 7 stuff in maths (in Y5) bar the fact that no one has never taught him some of the concepts such as vectors... The capacity for reasoning is there, the maturity but not the teaching.

Now as a foreigner, I do have some questions that some of you might be able to answer about state and private schools.

What is the difference is ethos between these schools?
Compare to my home country, I am finding that british schools (or rather the ones my dcs have gone to) do not have this strive for excellence that I have seen at home (Not saying it's better or worse btw!). Is it a difference you find between private and state schools? Are private schools (or maybe grammar schools?) more competitive or pushing the children to achieve the best they can whereas there is more of 'strolling along' in state school?

Is the teaching style different? Maybe more based on learning methods and applying them rather than 'discovering' how to do it. I've come across a lot of comments about the fact that in private school they are taught to perform for A levels but not to think as such for example.

Is the 'but this child would do as well in a state school' not also down to the parents involvement ie the fact they might be putting some extra curriculum activities together for the child when at a private school this would have happen automatically?

Last question: Do you think that being at a private school can give the children the feeling that they are 'different' therefore promoting some sort of arrogance (Sorry just knee jerk reaction from me there seen the attitude of the children going to our local private school....)

Some posh schools have a problem with arrogance. So do some grammar schools probably. But many don't. Blanket generalisations can never work when applied to systems which depend almost completely on the human element.

Another comment here re state and private school.

Is it possible too that the clivage in between the tow depends on where you live? Some places seem to have lots of very good state schools. Apples for example is clearly a nice good school that cater well for the children.
Where I am, there are no grammar schools at all. A few private school and the state schools who are 'doing well' might one students going to Oxford each year. And this is only a very recent thing. In that case, with a child that is bright, 'Oxford material' as they say, it could make more sense to send them to a private school to increase their chances to achieve their portential.

"More of the attention is focussed on the majority group. It's ridiculous to claim that it isn't."

But whenever education is talked about on here it's always "but what about the very bright?"

Herc is right.

Of course more is focussed on the majority. That's what the comprehensive model is about!

And for the majority of the bell curve, it's an efficient model. But not for the outliers.

Mart I was talking about the attention from people who matter - i.e. the DfE. Not the attention from people posting on MN!

martorana this is a thread about private education.

So of course it is always going to veer towards selection, because many private school users choose academically selective schools.

Having this choice is one of the drivers.

As I said, I think the non-fancy day schools have replaced grammar schools in many areas.

But whenever education is talked about on here it's always "but what about the very bright?"

Martorana do you know any parents who do not see their child bright in any way?

Pretty much every parent I know will talk about their childs strenghts and look at them in a positive way. Not many of them will state that their child is not very bright.

Actually I'm happy to stick with 'doing well' rather than 'doing their best'. I'm not sure I buy into the idea that every child must be pushed to their absolute limit in order to be judged successful. The question of what we want children to be aiming for was touched on upthread, but for me it would include things like a fulfilling and enjoyable job that pays a decent salary, an education that gives them a broad and balanced view of a world, a strong ethical framework, a happy home life... Do children need to have every last drop of academic potential squeezed out of them at school in order to achieve those things? I'm not convinced.

AmberTheCat "doing well" is not the same as doing "ok" which is what you wrote. "doing their best" does not mean they are being pushed to their absolute limit. Not in my book anyway. However, if you happy for your children to do OK then fair enough.

AmberTheCat - I think the powers that be want to squeeze a bit more out of us all than they are currently getting. Maybe there's too much jostling around for the comfortable middle ground and not enough outlying?

Damnit, the world needs tortured genius to feed off!

This is all making for interesting reading, and a little depressing in parts.