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?

mart I don't thinkword thinks that kids should grow up to be worker bees. I think that she thinks Cameron thinks they should. And I agree with her. That's exactly what societal pressures are currently geared towards. Worker bees, burdened by debt and thus unlikely to dare rocking the boat.

Martorana - as I have tried repeatedly to say, I am not suggesting that state schools don't do any of this stuff. I know they do. I also know for absolute certain sure that in order for my DS to do what he does, at the level that he does, living where we do, without the school that he is at, it would mean me being a full time taxi driver between 3pm and 8pm every week day and all weekend. Even then, we would not fit in what he does in a 60 hour school week.

Does he need to do all this stuff? Of course not. He enjoys it all though and I love that he has the chance and that he takes advantage of it (all those activities are his choice, BTW - he could do less and have slightly shorter days)

Well I am confused by what you are saying, Word, I'll be honest.

And you did casually elide well/ok, which seems a bit strange.

DD1's school does not offer enamelling. :( I have now realised that those DfE ranking tables are rubbish. Since they don't take into account the availability of enamelling. To think I thought DDs 1 and 2 were well rounded. What was I thinking. :(

I will cheerfully admit that DS isn't well rounded but he is super excellent at knowing about the things that actually matter. Even if they are sufficiently niche that 'rounded' isn't really the right word...

Exactly herc.

And the answer is never going to be 'oh just close private schools and grammar schools and send everyone to comps.'

For a start that's never going to happen, so what a waste of energy to spend on it! Talk about negative returns.

Far better to concentrate on improving things that might have a chance of actually making a difference to the diversity within the establishment.

And the first step must surely be to get people interested in being part of the establishment?!?

Well if you're confused just ignore me nit. Don't try to simply retranslate everything I say in a mocking tone.

It's a bit pathetic to pick up on my posts and do that. Like those annoying kids who repeat what you say in a stupid voice.

Martorana - to "not agree" that it is a competitive world is like "not agreeing" that the world is round or that day comes after night...

"Like those annoying kids who repeat what you say in a stupid voice." Ner.

How?

Well I do find some of that a bit daft, sorry - but yes, maybe it's a lame tactic: can you say how, then, you would get people interested in being part of the establishment?

I think there is a problem in saying 'well, that is the status quo and it always will be' re. segregated education - I don't think you can address the problems it causes unless you properly acknowledge them and think about how things could be different. Anything else seems like an ineffectual sticking plaster to me.

LOL Herc. Enamelling is an essential part of roundedness, don't ah know. I should take this up with your school ASAP, if I were you. I am amazed that ofsted don't report on it.

{I did say that clearly no one needs to do all this stuff, didn't I?}

My iPad clearly disapproves of "dontcha" even though it is pedantic enough to correct the capitalisation of iPad

How do we get people interested in being part of the establishment?

For a start, we don't accept okay or good enough. The establishment sure as shit don't accept that for their kids.

We don't defend the comprehensive model blindly so that we become like the bent copper who thinks it's okay to lie in court for the greater good.

We accept that achieve anything like diveristy within the establishment is going to require DC to compete and compete hard. And we act accordingly and perhaps make some very difficult choices about resources and education.

We don't defend the comprehensive model blindly so that we become like the bent copper who thinks it's okay to lie in court for the greater good

I'm not even going to quote that in a silly voice! Just.... what?

I think 'ok' has been sufficiently explained and discussed - I don't think anyone has actually said they are happy for their child to muddle along being mediocre if the child could be doing better.

When you say 'we act accordingly' to make difficult choices, what choices are you actually thinking of?

I have never defended the comprehensive model blindly. I have always said that it works well at it's best- but it can be done badly.

Lot's of choices nit.

I'd divert resources to the highest ability including a super selective grammar school in every LEA.

I alkso think as a country we need to make some hard choices about tertiary education. Too many low quality establishments offereing poor quality courses and teaching. Divert the funding from there to universities offering a much higher standard and make it free to go there.

I accept it's not palatable. I'm advocating a small minority be given resources. But if this small minority is diverse enough in terms of sex, gender and race it should have a huge impact on the establishment. It might change society for the better.

TBH we've tried bottom up change, and it's made no difference. Blair, like him or not, thoight that by bringing in wholesale changes to education that the general populace would become better educated and thus change society for good. No more voting for the establishment. No more social inequality.

What happened was the majority, although better educated soent their money where they were told, paid their taxes and shut their mouths. Frankly, they left the establishment to it, happy to shop for sofas.

I very much agree that the tertiary education sector requires rationalisation.

Others things I'd do.

Stop schools peddling shite about equivalence in qualifications and universities.

Punish teachers who continue to do so. Make HTs accountable for proper information.

Start introducing the idea of high achievement early. But stop schools insisting on options in year 8. When DC do take options make sure each and every child knows their implication.

Sanctions for schools that include an option block with only practical subjects in it.

Sanctions for schools that only offer double science.

Start talking about university early. Introduce the idea alongside GCSE options. The two are inextricably linked.

Allow people from the universities to come in and come in early...

I'm not sure many people really, truly want diversity within the establishment. It all sounds far more uncomfortable than shopping for sofas and, what's more, would apparently stop you shopping for sofas.

Stelath - I'd be up in arms if I was paying for school and my child only did 2 instruments though. My girls both do 4. And they go to state schools. Mind you the local posh school has tried to poach them (for their music stuff) more than once.

Indeed Bonsoir.

It's bloody ridiculous that capable students can't attend the most rigorous universities because their parents can't or won't pay their accommodation costs!

And all the while, we're propping up some frankly terrible institutions and courses by government funding and unpaid loans.

"Stop schools peddling shite about equivalence in qualifications and universities."

This is a big one.

In France (where at least all DC do basically receive the same curriculum until age 15 and no meaningful choices about bac options are made until 16) the Ministry of Education is responsible for the propaganda that HTs peddle about equivalences in qualifications and HE to pupils. HTs must by law provide said propaganda in a series of talks to their pupils. Does so much for their credibility...

There's enough time rabbit trust me, we have between our house and flat nine sofas!!!!

But what jobs would the terrible lecturers at the terrible universities do if they were closed down?