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?

Are the diamond question marks apostrophes rabbit?

rabbitstew: it's my superior private education - JOKE.
Have no idea why punctuation is appearing that way. Its quite annoying, only happens sometimes.

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

Yes.

nit well what's the reason for the under representation of comprensive educated students on the most competitive courses if nothing to do with being the wrong model?

story I didn't say they couldn't, I simpy said it's a less effective system meaning fewer of them do.

If everyone went to comprehensive schools, the children who are now at private schools, who apply to competitive courses, would have the same odds they have now of getting a place. Unless you are arguing that state schools take in the raw material but destroy it along the way?

As it is, a lot of the children whose odds are higher anyway, are at private schools.

So private schools are over-represented because that's who they take in the first place. Given that a state sixth will have everyone from the Oxbridge hopeful with 11 GCSE A*s to the 5 A-C grade student who is taking 3 A levels in subjects they gained Bs and Cs in at GCSE, it's not really surprising that fewer of them gain those places. It's the whole 'not showing people the door because they're not clever enough' ethos at work.

(I'm aware that many of those courses now make strenuous attempts not to discriminate against state applicants in the ways of which they used to be accused, so will not suggest that there's any of that to factor in).

The point stands that you cannot compare the fact that most state sixth forms ask for a GCSE pass grade in the subjects a student wishes to take to A level, to selective and/or private sixth forms, who would exclude the majority of those same applicants and take the ones who are going to get the places on said courses.

nit my view, and it's one shared by nearly eveeryone on the widening access programs, is that even taking into account the difference in selection processs at sixth form (noting also that many state sixth forms ask for far more than a C and manage out the less able) comprehensives are under represented. And though some of this is undoubtedly down to the poverty/wealth gap, some of it is undoubtedly down to the schools and their model. We're still come up against the same problems time and time again that have nothing to do with class or ability. It's so frustrating!

Do you think it's the issue you've mentioned before - about getting students interested in Oxbridge earlier than at sixth form level?

Oxford - does say that part of the reason that Private schools are over represented is that the very "bright" (and with motivated parents) poor kids may well have managed to get bursaries to private schools.

It would make sense if a private school was going to give bursaries etc. to "poor" students - it would be selecting on the grounds of those being the brightest pupils. The same brightest pupils who should be going to Oxbridge.

However around here plenty of Private students go to State sixth forms, and with similar chances of gaining an Oxbridge place.

What I haven't heard of, which used to be common when I was growing up, is parents sending their previously State school educated children to a private sixth form to gain the grades for Oxbridge/Medical school.

It stands to reason that all those DC who apply to sixth form having spent their entire school career in non-selective education are going to be statistically, on average, less academically able and less prepared than those DC who have spent all or even part of their school careers in academically selective education.

Hence "under representation" of DC from comprehensive schools at élite universities. The issue is not that it happens, but rather the extent to which it should happen.

That's the point Bonsoir.

And I would say, and indeed the universities say, that at the moment they are under represented taking that into account.

nit I think that is certainly an issue. Students thinking of applying to very competitive universites have start thinking about that early.

I think schools without sixth forms are certainly a disadvantage here, as there is rarely someone mentoring pupils with that in mind.

Another issue is definitely poor choice of GCSE and A levels, which is partly due to the above but also partly due to a resistence from some quarters to accept that as far as these universities are concerned all qualifications are not equivalent.

Another issue is under achievement at GCSE. This is often coupled with students being encouraged to take GCSEs too early (hopefully now sorted) and taking too damn many. There is also the issue that schools are largley judged on how many pupils they can get through five GCSEs, not on how many get the best grades, so that is where the resources are chanelled whoch is perfectly understanmdable, I guess.

Then there are the peripheral issues of application, personal statements and general preperation including reading around the subject or doing something that ties in IYSWIM. Sure young people should be able to sort this themselves in an ideal world, but many need good guidance, advice and practical help.

I could go on but I'm winding myself up now ...

Then there are the peripheral issues of application, personal statements and general preperation including reading around the subject or doing something that ties in IYSWIM. Sure young people should be able to sort this themselves in an ideal world, but many need good guidance, advice and practical help.

I actually disagree quite strongly with the idea that DC ought to be able to sort this out for themselves. What is the point of school if not, aside from education in the broad sense, to guide the ignorant young through the system to a place of knowledge and understanding?

Well, whether they ought to be able to or not, is besides the point.

Some schools offer excellent help and guidance, some schools don't.

What is absolutely certain though, is that it can't be the responsibility of the universities to somehow bridge that gap! And that goes for quite a few other issues too.

As a matter of interest, do Oxbridge accept a disproportionate number of applications from students from Kent in comparison to, say, Hampshire or W. Sussex, which do not have grammar schools? I know the number of students from the N. of England is low in comparison to the South East, but how about different parts of the South East, where there must, given the cost of housing, be a fair number of otherwise pretty "privileged" people nevertheless using state education?

Also, I think from what people have posted on mumsnet before, that Hampshire is a county with a lot of 6th form colleges and not nearly so many secondary schools that go through to year 13? Does this have a demonstrable effect on the proportion of state educated students from Hampshire who get into top universities (what with the effect mentioned by Wordfactory of not having been "prepped" for such universities from early on in their school careers)?

(sorry, meant disproportionate number of applications from state educated students from Kent...)

How much does peer pressure affect children's choices? I can see that it would be easier to choose a lot of academic subjects if everyone at your school were required to do the same (as per grammar schools, which effectively limit the number of subject choices you have, because you are supposed to be "academic, " not "practical."). Does having too much freedom to do what seems to be more interesting at age 14, or to choose subjects because that's what your friends are doing, have more impact than being around lots of clever people? Is it more the selectivity of intelligence of selective education that is making the difference, or the narrowing down of choices by going to such a school, so that you are channelled in a certain direction without having to think about it?

Sorry rabbit I don't know the Kent versus Hampshire stats off the top of my head.

What I do recall though is that the three top LEAs for state schools were Reading, Sutton, Bucks.

The top three for RG universities were Reading, Trafford and Sutton.

All schools are expected to offer academic GCSEs.

Interesting!

Martorana - I know that. Some schools don't offer much else, though.

Does having too much freedom to do what seems to be more interesting at age 14, or to choose subjects because that's what your friends are doing, have more impact than being around lots of clever people? Is it more the selectivity of intelligence of selective education that is making the difference, or the narrowing down of choices by going to such a school, so that you are channelled in a certain direction without having to think about it?

I think it's a slippery mixture rabbit.

I think too much choice has been an issue to some extent, which is especially damaging when taken alongside certain teachers remaining adamant that GCSEs have equivalence.

Now whilst I understand the driver here is to avoid undervaluing more practical qualifications, I think the net effect has been to give a false impression to many pupils.

Also, let's be honest, when schools have invested in less academic subjects (staff, resources etc) there is a temptation to defend that investment (as is often a critisism of private school parents ).

However, I don't think choice need be an issue if only it were accompanied by brutal honesty!

The thing that annoys me about this debate, and all the others before it, is the suggestion from some quarters - or, the implication - that those state parents who maintain that their state school (often a selective but not always) is better than, or even as good as, private schools doesn't actually know what good education looks like. For clarity, since my post follows one of hers, I've never seen word even remotely suggest that. But others have and do. I went to a comp, but at that time it was certainly the best school, by results, in the London borough in which I grew up. Including the well regarded private schools. I now, bizarrely, work with a man who went to the posh boy's school down the road from my school. He cheerfully admits that my school was better (and often mentions that if he still lived where we grew up he'd send his daughter there rather than the expensive posh school she attends elsewhere in London). People where I live now often suggest that the league tables must be wrong or fiddled somehow because there is no way DD1's school can really be better than the posh schools in the area. I don't actually care, partly because Dd1 is far from the best student at her school (very far from it in some subjects) but it does irk when people suggest I'm only happy with the school because I don't know any better. I've also known people to suggest I only got into Cambridge from a comp because I was fulfilling a quota. That might be true. But it might not. I did a lot better in my finals than most and since most in those days were posh school products I can't have been that lacking in merit....

TBF Herc I think the people who feel their private school can't be replicated in the state sector, often aren't refering to the results.

They usually mean the type of school - super selective, single sex or whatever - , the facilities - which given the cost ought to be better, and general ethos.

For example happy often states this about her DS school and I would absolutely concur with her. It is a super selective, single sex, full boarding school which makes no bones about that fact that it is for the scholarly.
Given what it is and how much it costs, there's no way that can be replicated in the state sector, even amongst the admittedly superb super selectives.

I agree, word. However, it is particularly infuriating when people talk about the wonderful facilities and extra curriculars and so on at their private school and say "There's nothing like that at the state school". Well, no shit Sherlock- that'll be the £15k pa per child, then, won't it!

"I went to a comp, but at that time it was certainly the best school, by results, in the London borough in which I grew up. Including the well regarded private schools"
but it was exceptional wasn't it? I bet the gate was jammed with sharp elbowed parents foaming at the mouth on open day.