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 agree, MumTryingHerBest, that ok sounds too unambitious. On a scale of 'doing ok', 'doing well' and 'doing their best', I'm happy to aim for all children 'doing well'. I'm not sure it's really possible to judge what 'doing their best' actually means - how do we really know what an individual child is capable of?

Amber, a lot of those things that you describe are exactly what I would consider to be the difference between doing well and doing their best, though. I do not measure the "added value" I expect from a fee paying school in terms of exam results, and I do think DS (too soon to judge for DD yet) would get pretty good results in a lot of state schools, good enough anyway to get an equivalent university place to that which he would get with better results from an independent school given the focus on widening access.

What he wouldn't get would be the chance to do all the other stuff, academic and otherwise, which doesn't "matter" in terms of exam results, but which makes him rounded, happy, and a more interesting and interested person. Not that the balance couldn't be made up outside of school, with a lot of investment of time and money, but it would be a constant struggle to keep it up.

I'd rather have a system that encourages all children do well, rather than one that helps already advantaged children to do brilliantly, at the expense of less advantaged children. Societies with the smallest gaps between the richest and the poorest are generally the happiest.

Some people genuinely do enjoy academic work, though, once they realise it isn't necessarily what they were doing to any great degree when they learnt how to answer the questions in their GCSE English Literature, or maths exams, or whatever...

Sorry - again that was me musing to myself rather than responding to you, stealthsquiggle! Could you give examples of the sorts of experiences that your son gets at private school that you don't think he'd get at a state school? I'm always fascinated by the idea that private schools turn out more rounded individuals - feels counter-intuitive to me, but I'd like to understand it better.

AmberTheCat "rather than one that helps already advantaged children to do brilliantly" - not sure what you mean by this, surely you should be encouraging those who are doing "well" with little effort/coasting to do achieve more? I don't understand why you think that this encouragement would be at the expense of other children.

I do not think that, a child at the top of their class should be ignored/held back in order to allow the others to catch up to their level. Perhaps you are not saying this, but that is how it is coming across to me.

"Societies with the smallest gaps between the richest and the poorest are generally the happiest." - would be interested in knowing how they defined happiest.

I haven't got time to trawl back to see what your general views are, Amber, but whilst I support the point that "already advantaged" children shouldn't be supported at the cost of others, what I was actually doing was explaining why we choose, since we are lucky enough to have the option, to pay for a private school - not because it will deliver better letters on a piece of paper, but because it will enable (as long as we choose right, of course) my DC to be all that they could be and want to be. Doing "OK" would be a waste, and is something I can do my utmost to prevent.

Of course, doing "OK" is a waste for very many other children who don't have the option too - which is where we come back to the "moral imperative" discussion. I do what I can where I can to support initiatives such as those trying to attract more girls into STEM subjects - it's not a lot, but it's what I can do.

AmberTheCat - perhaps you can give examples of the sorts of experiences that your DC gets at state school that you don't think he'd get at a private school?

What he wouldn't get would be the chance to do all the other stuff, academic and otherwise, which doesn't "matter" in terms of exam results, but which makes him rounded, happy, and a more interesting and interested person. Not that the balance couldn't be made up outside of school, with a lot of investment of time and money, but it would be a constant struggle to keep it up

I agree with this 100%.

Sorry, Amber - x-posted. I think it comes back to some of the points made earlier. Private schools have more money to spend per pupil, therefore higher staff ratios, therefore more time to spend with a child who wants to and is able to explore around a subject. So, most of all, my Y7 DS gets to challenge teachers who have time to discuss things with him, because they are teaching a class of 9, not 30. He lives in a world where he expects to be able to debate anything and everything with his teachers, where a teacher of a larger class would understandably regard him as a PITA. He also gets to do lots of things which would take me many hours and many hundreds of miles of driving to replicate outside of school - including riding, tennis, cricket, rugby, swimming, archery, enamelling, 2 instruments plus choir, maths competitions, inter school general knowledge competition, arts festivals,...... I do know there are excellent examples of all of these sorts of things in state schools, but I also know that at no state school in our area would he be able to do anything like this range of stuff in a single year. If there were one that came even close, he would be there.

I don't see private school children as any more rounded, happy or interesting than state school ones. Not round here anyway...

Doing OK, is exactly what the powers that be want for the majority IMVHO.

Lots of worker bees, paying their taxes, not expecting too much. If they can convince the majority that's that what they want too, so much the better.

Sparkling I wasn't meaning to make that a generalisation - I said (or meant at least) that I think DS is more rounded/happy/interested/interesting than he would be if he were at a different school.

Ok, ok, I'm taking back 'doing ok' and going for 'doing well', ok?

I know stealth. I really think there are way too many variables and personal experiences to ever debate this to good effect. Lots of defensiveness on all sides re their personal choices and situations.

I know we have struck lucky with DS1's state Secondary. Which I found out recently has an Equestrian team. But he doesn't ride,

Good lord, what a silly wilful fuss over the phrase 'doing ok' - we all know perfectly well that this doesn't mean an acceptance of mediocrity, or a state-determined progression toward worker bee status as the poster wrote it, don't we? Surely?

I once said something like my dd was 'doing just fine' and got the same 'well, maybe you are happy with 'just fine', but I want a little more than that for my children' business. Daft.

I don't actually think that most schools do just want their kids "doing OK"

But once again, the undercurrent of slight distain for kids in the state system- -"worker bees" is at least better than the famous "dregs" comment I'm sure many of us remember- but still. I'm surprised at you, Word- that's not like you at all.

At what point does what you can do become who you are?

Same odds amber.

The powers that be want you to do nicely and make some money so you can spend it where they want you to spend it like a good little consumer.

They don't want you or your DC rocking the boat. They don't want your DC making the laws that affect us all, or applying them. They don't want your DC running the banks that control all our lives, or managing the funds that control all our pensions.

They don't want your DC running companies, or making policies, or being in charge of the next generation of DC's education.

So doing okay/well works for them...

Oh, and stealthsquiggle- you might be surprised by how many state schools manage tennis, cricket,rugby, swimming and various choirs and orchestras. And inter school competitions. Even my ds's high school, which is one no Mumsnetter would willingly choose has rugby, cricket, football, basketball..............

Shit, 'well' is the same as 'ok' now? Is there to be no language left for us?

So, let me get this right: in order not to be a drone, not to do all those boring droney things like earning and spending money, which apparently children who achieve highly won't do (?), the best and most subversive act against 'the powers that be' is to send your children to private school so that they can learn to rock boats and make laws? Because private schools do tend to churn out so many anti-establishment subversives, right? And that's who we want to run the banks and be in charge of education? Unlike what we have now, which is.... that.

Am confused.

mart I did not call state schooled kids (like me) worker bees.

I said that is exactly how the powers that be, view the majoirty. And if you don't think that, you are very naive.

I think I am out. This is all sounding a bit weird.

nit once again you know that's not what I said but hey ho...

Apologies, word, I misread.

I was blinded by the constant "I send my child private so they can be well rounded individuals" posts that just make me want to scream.