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?

rabbitstew - my DD's French primary teacher answers emails late into the evening - she never fails to respond to parents within 24 hours and if she doesn't respond on the day the email was sent she makes profuse apologies.

"I don't think you'll get to many private school parents worrying about how good state provision is."

I had an interesting conversation last week with a friend whose daughter started at a Kent grammar last September. Said friend was debating whether to remove her DD from the grammar school and send her to a private school - the academics at the grammar school are tough, as are some of the DC... Private school would be easier...

A Tripp Trapp is a middle class high chair.

"I think an awful lot of these arguments come down to the fact that some people resent the idea that others have worked very hard and been successful and decide to spend the fruits of their labours on their children's education. Odd, don't you think?"

Or, "If people don't think Tripp Trapps are good, it must be that they just resent the fact that some people have worked very hard and so can afford them".

That would be odd, in the sense that it would be a very odd thing to think about other people's motivations. The implication is that private education is actually inherently beyond criticism and so the only possible reason for someone to criticise it must be their own resentment that some people can afford it.

Someone could just as easily argue that some people who don't like state schools just resent the idea that others are getting free from state schools things that are as good as they are paying for in a private school. An equally pointless, polarising argument IMO - they're both variations on "you only think that because you're jealous!".

I think Kent is interesting bonsoir in that when you offer parents selection, the parents of DC who get in GS usually have few compliants about academic standards or behaviour. In non grammar areas many of these parents fill the private day schools.

"it would be a very odd thing to think about other people's motivations"

Really?

Bonsoir that depends on which grammar school it is-super selective or not.

So no turning off the mobile at 5pm for her, then, Bonsoir?

wordfactory - I think - and I know a lot of Kent GS and private parents - that the Value For Money of the GSs is amazing, and that that is why parents don't complain. Not that the GSs are perfect and if you weren't paying you might well prefer Tonbridge School to Judd, or Benenden to Tonbridge Grammar. But given the cost saving, you are jolly pleased when your DC get a place at the GS.

Bowlersarm - not a super selective but it requires DC to take 10 GCSEs, including three separate sciences.

rabbitstew - no . She is very dedicated (and Coordinatrice des Huitièmes - a slightly less important version of HoY).

"The implication is that private education is actually inherently beyond criticism and so the only possible reason for someone to criticise it must be their own resentment that some people can afford it."

That is where all these threads end up. Private school parents find the fact that anyone could object to the concept of private education either incomprehensible or risible or both. Or they take any criticism of private education as a concept as a personal criticism of them for using it. Which means that the discussion descends into spat and anecdote.

Objecting to the concept of private education is a political position that is at odds with a free market economy. Since sensible Westerners believe that a free market economy is the lesser evil, they do not object to the concept.

I've had children in both and found the primary school they went to until they had finished year five was great. I can't see what we would have gained by going private. They didn't do French, as much music and sport, however, but we made those gaps up very quickly thereafter.

And the social benefits of going to a local primary school for the whole family can't be underplayed. We know families we would never have met if we'd gone private from reception.

"I don't think you'll get to many private school parents worrying about how good state provision is."

Well, quite. Hence the daydreams about a system with no private schools - not something that will ever happen (I don't think they could, or should, be banned), but interesting to think about. A system everyone uses naturally has more people caring about its quality.

(Before anyone says anything, I know there are private school parents who are also state school parents, and even amongst those who only use private schools there are people who care a lot about state education - but the fact is they don't have the same immediate need to care, and some of them have a lot of power.)

martorana how on earth can you possibly know what all privte school parents think of the objection to fee payting schools?

You can't possibly have an idea of what more than a handful think!

I suspect also that many- not all, obviously- but many private school parents secretly believe that private education really is a choice available to all. Hence the talk of scrimping and sacrifice. You could if you really wanted to, runs the subtext. You just like your holidays and new cars.

That's really exactly what my question is about Martorana. There does seem to be this implication that private education is inherently better.

I'm not criticising anything, just wondering about the fairly general assumption. As someone above pointed out though, it is the noisiest people who get heard, and an assumption that is made by only a few people may seem to be more prevalent than it actually is just because they are the ones who talk about it more.

Sorry word. Please insert "many" as appropriate.

But you note I was talking about threads on Mumsnet. And you have to agree that is where many such threads end.

A Tripp trapp would have been so much easier to clean than the mothercare monstrosity that I bought. But so would an ikea basic. Sometimes money buys better and sometimes it doesn't.

Does anyone actually believe that all private schools are better than all state schools?

IME, ability to pay for education gives more choices, as there are simply more schools available to choose from.

I disagree.

I think a handful simply resort to 'you're jealous'.

Others, have a much more nuanced attitude, but mostly that gets over looked.

I've always said that I don;'t for one second imagine anyone is jealous of my DC's education. I know from reading threads on MN that the vast vast majority do not want what I buy. It is me who is the outlier here!

I do question the logic of the objection though. I also question what possible good it could do.

My children started in the state sector and are now in the independant sector. I have no doubt that for them, their current educational setting is better. There are several reasons for this:

1. Ds is geeky, akward and bright. He was bullied from the age of 4 at his state school. We were advised by an ed psych that if we could afford it, he would be happier at the most selective school we could find. He is. Because it is selective, he does not stand out in the same way and the school has more experience of dealing with slightly odd children.

1. In addition, the school has an effective anti-bullying policy. Ds has been picked on by one group of children and after the second occurence they were told they would be expelled if there was a third occurence. He is now friends with some of the boys involved.

1. Best of all, ds trusts his school and teachers to look after him so is happier on a day to day basis. They have more time to listen to him because of smaller class sizes and more time to cater to his quirks.

1. Dd is shy, quiet and prone to accute anxiety. She spent her time in her large, mixed age, state primary drawing unhappy faces all over her work and was to shy to speak up when she struggled. We moved her to an all girls school with small classes and she is flying. The absence of more confident boys has allowed her to speak up and be noticed. The smaller classes allow the teachers time to see what she is doing.

The quality of teachers is not noticeably different, there were great teachers in both setting and not so good ones too. However, what is different is that the schools have more time for my children.

I would also say that the OP, doesn't seem to be saying that she objects to private school. She's said she's a free marketeer.

Her view seems to be that they're not better than state schools, so why bother...

And I guess my point is, my DC's schools are better to me. So they are worth it. Value is subjective.