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?

[tootsietoo]

I think some do SanityClause, that is what is bemusing me and the reason for my question! There are people I know looking round all the local private schools for their children to go to at KS2 or KS3, and I know that they have not visited or considered the local comp.

As I said, I wonder if it is a hangover from a time when perhaps state provision was worse than it is now. Or a relic of the class system. Because as far as I can see, and as many of you confirm above, there isn't much to choose between the sectors now, it's about the individual schools.

[MumTryingHerBest]

The area I live in is served by SW Herts consortium. A number of parents (not myself, I should add) are using the private preps. to gain access to the state secondary schools. Private schools are often a fall back option if they don't gain access to the semi-selective secondary schools. As a result of this I would imagine that the private schools have a similar profile of children in attendance as the state selectives.

[rabbitstew]

Well, there you go, then. Some private schools really are better for some children in some circumstances than the alternative state schools. No school is perfect, even the most expensive public schools. In fact, there isn't really such a thing as perfection, anyway, it's all how you perceive it. What for one is an awful experience, damaging experience with no redeeming features is for another a useful learning experience from which you draw strength. What for one is the most exciting, memorable, important and valuable experience is for another a bit of a bore (yawn).

[Owllady]

As much as it pains me to say this, my experience is that bright children at state school have to work far harder for opportunities post school than those who leave at the same level from private.

[tootsietoo]

You see, what I am really trying to do here is to find reasons to NOT think half my friends are snooty education snobs who don't want their children going round for tea in council houses and think the local school is terrible.....

And I think I have. What you have all said is that private schools ARE mostly better in terms of class sizes, selectivity (making teaching easier) and facilities.

These reasons, for me, probably don't outweigh the benefits of the local comp. But I can see they are probably important for many others.

Must just get a tweezer for these splinters in my bottom.....

[rabbitstew]

That isn't my experience, Owllady, but then that probably depends on whom you mix with and what opportunities you are seeking.

[MumTryingHerBest]

Owllady, what was it you experienced to draw that conclusion?

[Martorana]

Private schools provide a lot of things as part of the school day that non private parents have to find a way of fitting in extra curricularly (if that's a word). But I would expect a school I was paying 10 grand + for to provide pretty fabulous extension activities..............

[happygardening]

Homeiswheretheginis (fab name) re your comments on boarding up thread no one is more aware than I am that boarding your children doesn't mean you don't love them, I also know boarding children, doesn't mean they turn into dysfunctional sociaths unable to form relationships and I know all about holidays with boarding children and their parents and as you say they are usually charming and often successful.
Both my DS's full boarded from an early age one from yr 2 and one still is 9 yrs down the road.

[happygardening]

Martorana one of the reasons why state schools don't have a way of fitting in extra curricularly (I'm not sure that is a word) is that their days are so much shorter. Our outstanding high achieving academy only offered one session on games a week totally 1 hour when I queried this with our Tony Blair clone head he told me that there "wasn't enough space in the curriculum for more games", he greeted my suggestion that the children did 1 less GCSE (11 instead of 12) with amazement "this is what parents in this area expect", "how about lengthening the school day, why can't lessons end at 4.30 a couple of afternoons a week?" "Ah well 75% come on the school bus which leaves at 3 30," "why can't the bus pick them up at 4 30 twice a week", "oh no we can't change the bus times anyway parents wouldn't like it. There are extra sporting activities put on after school all can attend if they wish to" "but there's no bus home for them" "yes I know but parents can pick them up" "not if they're working they can't" "in this area many mums are SAH mums".
This is obviously why they only ring parents between 9/5 during the weekday!
Friends with DC's at independent day schools report much longer days, flexible bus services or two hours for lunch. Therefore more extra curricular activities.

[Martorana]

"Friends with DC's at independent day schools report much longer days, flexible bus services or two hours for lunch. Therefore more extra curricular activities."

So, nothing to do with all that extra lovely dosh, then?

[NigellasDealer]

I wonder if it is a hangover from a time when perhaps state provision was worse than it is now. Or a relic of the class system
you sound naive

[happygardening]

Maybe I'm being thick here martorana but what point are you trying to make? IME senior state schools have shorter days end of story where it appears that independent day schools (which I admit I know little about as I don't send my DS to one but this is what my friends with DC's in day schools tell me) have significantly longer days, or very long lunch breaks many report that attending an after school extra curricular activity at least a couple of times a week is compulsory especially in the earlier years.

[Weegiemum]

The education my dc are getting can't be bought - there are no bilingual private schools in Glasgow. I'd be depriving them of a second language if we did (what my dad wants!) send them private.

As it is they're achieving well, loving school and speak 2 languages fluently. Why would I want them to go anywhere else?

[Soveryupset]

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

This above was absolutely my experience, but I was also unlucky as our local primary was overflowing with classes of 32-35 children (after successful appeals) and no extracurricular activities whatsoever. Also a very high level of teacher absence (due to sickness) in every class but one, so a lot of disruption to learning.

Finally despite an outstanding label, a total lack of tackling bullying, the amount of times my DS1 was beaten up when he was younger was incredible - looking back after a particularly nasty incident which left him severely scarred I should have sued the school.....

Things are bit better now but I believe he has been scarred by it and it will take a long time to get over it. It is just not tolerated in the independent school I moved my DD1 to, whilst my son was repeatedly told to "man up". I frankly can't wait until September when my son moves. Yes maybe we have been unlucky but this was our experience and as such a valid one I guess.

[Martorana]

Yes maybe we have been unlucky but this was our experience and as such a valid one I guess."

Of course your experience is a valid one. But surely it is an experience of one school and shouldn't be thought of a representative of the state sector as a whole? A child in my circle was persistently bullied at both his prep school and the well regarded public school he went on to, and it was handled spectacularly badly. But I wouldn't extrapolate from that to the entire private sector........

Happygardening, my point is that comparing the extra curricular offerings of private and state schools is daft, because private schools have so much more money to spend. Lengthening the school day isn't going do any good if the isn't the money to pay an ex member of the West Indian test team to come in and coach the 1st 11.

[TheWordFactory]

The thing is martorana some things often don't cost that much. It's more about the will to offer them.

We're just about to kick off the athletics season and my DD will attend at least one fixture a week from now until the Summer. Many will be organised by the distict or county. Many will be organised by schools.

At each fixture the local private schools will attend and indeed quite a few state schools. However, some schools will be conspicuous in their absence. It can't be that they don't have any decent runners or jumpers etc. Nor can it be about money.

Some schools will have the will to take part, others will find excuses. And parents have bugger all control over how a school will behave.

[tootsietoo]

explain more nigella's dealer?

[Martorana]

Yes, I agree, word- sometimes schools are crap, nobody's denying that. However the money thing rears its ugly head in all sorts of ways. How will the kids get there, for a start? Ds's school has a mini bus and games teachers prepared to give up loads of their own time to the kids, so he does attend loads of fixtures and matches. But not all schools do. Not all schools have enough engaged parents to encourage their children to go. And, to be frank, being repeatedly beaten out of the park by the school with the aforementioned ex test match player as a coach put several schools in this area off cricket rather......Not saying that it should have, obviously. But it's not always as straightforward as it first appears......

[MumTryingHerBest]

I think TheWordFactory has an excellent point. As parents pay a private school directly, the school has no option but to listen and, wherever possible, act on what is raised. State Schools are paid by the Government (admittedly who are in turn paid by us) so they listen to what the government tell them to do, which is often nothing to do with what parents want.

[TheWordFactory]

martorana yeah, a mini bus and staff are needed, that's true.

But plenty of state schools do attend. And actually not always the ones you'd think.

A very mixed comp close to DD's school puts on loads of sporting events, including an annual netball tournie that is fiercely contested. And they always turn out for the district/county athlectis stuff.

DD has been running against the same girl from that school since year 7 .

[TheOriginalSteamingNit]

Some schools will have the will to take part, others will find excuses. And parents have bugger all control over how a school will behave.

Desire to avoid such assumptions of 'excuses' being made by my dds' school is why I always back up the frankly rather over-bearing won't-take-no-for-an-answer netball teacher in semi-forcing dd2 to play in netball matches when possible (not when not possible: I stop there, though the teacher doesn't) - because it only takes one or two year 8s to decide they don't like it any more for the attitude to infect and the school never to be able to field a team.

At the other end of the scale, I guess, would be a situation where she'd never get picked, or would be playing an awful lot more, and everyone would be more invested in the netball team all round. I personally find this way the lesser of two evils!

[Impatientismymiddlename]

It is just not tolerated in the independent school I moved my DD1 to, whilst my son was repeatedly told to "man up".

Your son must have been at the state school my son used to go to. He got told to 'man up and to stop being over sensitive' on a regular basis.

[Martorana]

As I said, some schools are crap at that sort of thing.

There is also the problem that if you have a school where a lot of kids are disengaged for whatever reason, it's sometimes hard to muster a team. And if teachers have been motivating their socks off all day, some of them have run out of oomph by 3.30......

[Martorana]

"Some schools will have the will to take part, others will find excuses. And parents have bugger all control over how a school will behave."

Sadly, the school often has bugger all control over how the parents will behave..............