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?

Abra1d - I don't think it's true that parents are hugely more clued up. Parents have different needs and expectations these days, but that's not actually the same thing as being more clued up.

And we know from threads on here that sometimes people put up with appalling things happening at school because it's private, or an "outstanding" state or for any one of a hundred other reasons......

rabbitstew, I think OFSTED has, for better and for worse, made parents more generally aware of what schools should provide. When I was at school in the seventies and early eighties parents did not criticise or even scrutinise schools half as much as they do these days.

And the recession has certainly brought private schools under more scrutiny. Lots have closed. And I disagree that parents will put up and shut up just because it's a prestigious school. I know plenty of parents who have kicked up a huge fuss. And because they pay fees and can remove their children, they tend to be listened to.

I sent Ds to a private school for 2 yrs that was pants academically; slacker DS who hates homework actually asked to leave so that he might possibly get decent GCSEs. I don't regret sending him there, but it wasn't superior at all.

The gossip I hear about a lot of private schools (local) is funny; plenty of awful stories, particularly about management and poor pastoral care.

"nd I disagree that parents will put up and shut up just because it's a prestigious schoo"

I have see threads on here where parents are doing just that. And my friends allowed their child to be bullied for 9 years because they didn't want to take him away from prestigious schools.

I have to say, I've seen threads, too, where children are being kept in schools they are miserable at and not being properly catered for, because they feed into prestigious schools and it would be difficult to move them, it's worth it for the end prize, etc, etc. Whether paying or not, parents mostly don't want to be moving their child from one school to another very often, particularly not when they've already invested a lot of time, money and emotional energy into the current school which hasn't met up with expectations, which must surely put them off trusting their own judgment too quickly again. And then, of course, there's the fact that unless you are willing to send your child to a boarding school, you are limited to a particular geographical area, and private schools which don't have much competition in the local area are not going to bow and scrape to a pain in the neck parent whose child doesn't fit the mould that other parents' children will happily fill better. After all, you can't have it both ways - ie that schools can quickly get rid of children that are a pain, unlike state schools, but that they also have to bow and scrape to parents' wishes, however tiresome.

A lot of private school parents are happy with that they have as are state school parents so there's no problem (as are home educators).

I have never assumed privates are better. There are some bad ones and also some for not very bright children which can of course be good for those kinds of children. Our children have been very happy in their private schools from age 4 - 18 and it's all worked out very well, worth every penny. As for what is "better" that just depends what a parent wants and thinks amounts to "better".

Also 8% of children go to private schools and get 50% of the best university places, make up 80% of judges, x % of senior people in other professions etc. I forget the stats but they do lead many of us to think paying fees is a good start in life.

Sorry not been on all day to answer post to me (been at work lol)

happygardening I look at my work email pretty much every day on holiday (obviously all day in term time) so yes, I would answer emails in the holidays (unless I was actually away somewhere!), though if the query needed to involve another member of staff I wouldn't be able to do a great deal.

Phone calls - well I don't and wouldn't give parents my personal number, so you could only call the office - I guess if they were there they would email me and I would call back. If a parent calls I will call back that day - often at the end of the day. Sometimes it's in the evening if that's when I can get hold of them.

"Also 8% of children go to private schools and get 50% of the best university places, make up 80% of judges, x % of senior people in other professions etc. I forget the stats but they do lead many of us to think paying fees is a good start in life."

So you're quite happy with "50% of the best University places and 80%of judges" coming from 7% of the population?

(wondering for the millionth time what a best university place is)

Those stats aren't meaningful unless you compare the children of the same social elite who went to state schools instead. You have to strip out family background to (sort of) figure out what impact the school-type actually had.

Toby Young went to almost all state schools and he seems to have done impressively well for himself (as did his sister), in spite of state schools.

MumTryingHerBest,

I too live in the area of SW Herts to which you refer. IMO I think the current arrangements suit the "member schools" and they are happy with the status quo.

If local rumour is anything to go by, the boy's grammar is now the preserve of those that score exceptional grades on academic or music test or are sibling of brother or has sister at girls (cross siblings). If either the boys or girls had been truly interested in taking a broader intake they would have continued with the ruling to get rid of the cross sibling rule rather than just the two years that were imposed on them.

The agreement allows them to ensure that the intake in their eyes are the children of very committed parents that supported them through the test or those that are already familiar with the school's expectations. There is very little room for new unconnected children who account for only 10% of the intake. There appears to be little that either local politicians or even those at Westminster can do. Many of the schools are now academies and do not answer to them. What I find astonishing is that this is occuring in the state sector yet no one seems to be able to call time on the SW Herts state of affairs.

Holiday I think when people say that about universities, they probably mean the most competitive courses at the most selective universities.

The type of courses that tend to stand people in very good stead in many different arenas.

I teach on one.

And I would say we take very seriously the fact that private schools are over represented in both the applicants and the student body.

With regard to applicants and students from state schools, I would say we see a majority from selective schools.

IMVHO far too few from comprehensives whatever their background...

So I would say school definitely has an impact here, thoguht the issue of selkective versus mixed ability seems as much of a driver as the fact of paying fees.

wordfactory - if DC have already been selected versus many other candidates on academic criteria at some earlier point in their education, the laws of probability dictate that those DC will have a greater than average chance of succeeding at being selected for the most academic universities later on.

Obviously selective schools are then able to do things such as move pupils along at a faster pace, engage them in a wider range of subjects and activities etc than non-selective schools, which some argue may further the inherent advantages that more academic DC have already been bestowed by nature.

One may also argue that non-selective education fails to develop the talents of the brightest...

Sure Bonsoir but since all sixth forms are essentially selective these days you woul still statistically expect more applicants from comps and for more to be sucessful. I think a lot of people would agree with the proposition that whilst comprehensive is better for the majority of DC it is an unsuccessful system for the very able.

"You have to strip out family background to (sort of) figure out what impact the school-type actually had"

This is an excellent point. I suppose the question is to what extent, and how, do we want schools to fill in the gaps for kids whose parents can't or won't supply the support that most mumsnetters children provide. We are thinking about this a lot at ds's school- which sent it's first ever kids to university last year. One of the problems is that it is just not something they had ever thought of. And there is still, depressingly, a "not for the likes of us" mentality. For somebody like me, for example, and therefore for my children, it would have been harder not to go to university than to go. I would have been the first person in my family in umpty generations not to have had a tertiary education. I know from Word's posts (forgive me for using you as an example) that it was very different for her. It seems wrong that children from difficult backgrounds have to be exceptional to make it while children like mine just swim with the tide.......Not sure what I'm saying here. Just stream of consciousness! It all comes back to this idea that being privileged seems to give you automatic access to even more privilege.

Do you think you have automatic access to more privilege, Martorana?

Don't mind you using me as an example at all martorana I am its true the only person in my huge extended family to take A levels let alone go to uni. That remains the case for the younger generation too sadly. I think middle class children with educated DC have a huge advaatge over those DC from different bakgrounds whatever sector they are eduated in.

However, I should add that I think amongst the middle classes, those DC in selective or private education have an even greater advantage. Its layers upon layers innit?

Unlike doctors who have to be qualfied to work privately or Nhs, private schools can employ who they like. They can employ untrained or unqualified staff.
Hopefully they do not given the cost of fees.

You could argue that some children have unnecessary layers, of course, Wordfactory.
Why that reminds me of the joke about why firemen wear red, white and blue braces, I don't know, given that the answer is, to hold their trousers up.

The private schools in my area are oversubscribed for the reasons FallenAngel has described earlier. The parents arent super posh or elitist in my experience, just havent been left with much choice.

If you know your child will be awarded a place at a good state primary thats tickety boo. But many of us are excluded by faith schools or by location and often (truly) poorly performing state schools are all thats on offer.

Oh and some parents welcome a school that recognises not everyone can leave work at 2pm or be a SAHP. Most state schools in my area offer no or very limited after school activities. One state school HM recently said she thought children ought to go home at the end of the school day. Perhaps shed like to tell that to my employer?

How do you do those diamond question marks, MillionPramMiles?

Millionpram, I agree with a lot of what you say. I have taught in the state sector for 35 years in a variety of areas, am sort of middly middle class and my own 3 children were fortunate enough to be in the catchment area for perfectly good primary and secondary schools and went on to good universities. I know all the excellent usually unseen, hard work that goes on in state schools but....... I would always put my childrens education before my own principles and choose a school that was best for them, be it private or state. Fortunately in our case it did not involve paying fees. I am not being hypocritical at all, just honest.
Re the extra actîvities. As a working parent I understand the difficulty of before and after school childcare and had to make arrangements for my own children on a couple of days a week when they were young and I was part time or supply teaching. However...... When I see the tired little ones at the end of the day in reception and Key Stage 1 who then have to go on to after school club I can understand why someone else in education said they need to go home. This is not a criticism, merely an observation. I do not have an answer to the ideal child care question.

all sixth forms are essentially selective these days you woul still statistically expect more applicants from comps and for more to be sucessful

Somewhat problematic as a comparison - most state sixth forms ask that you have a C in the subject studied to A level, or in some cases a B. Not quite the same thing.

But carry on with the 'failing the brightest' line, why not...

Wordfactory, the very able can do well at comprehensive schools.