First post: what is wrong with considering private schools?

[dietcokeisgreat]

Dear all,

I just starting looking at mumsnet last week and joined today. Some of my work colleagues talk about it and i am thinking about options for education for my son, who is just 3 and thought i would take a look. Well, i just starting the thinking, so it is early days.
We could pay for school, or maybe not, we don't know yet. He is our first child, we are having problems getting pregnant again, so unsure if there will be more yet.

I was surprised at some really negative comments on lots of threads towards people posting for advice/ whatever about private schools. Why are they doing that? What is wrong with people thinking about different options? Or asking about a school they know that is private? Twice i read something 'well i can't pay for school' as a response. For me, its no different to whether or not people have cash for other stuff. I can't afford to live in the smarter part of town, or pay for a boarding school but that doesn't mean no one should be allowed too!

Just wondering...don't want to post something that will enrage others or be and be upset by responses ....

Thank you.

Google to the rescue .... sort of. I think this demonstrates that, for the high achievers, comprehensives might work better for them in the long run, especially if the uni admission process gives positive discriminates.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/317276/RR353_-_The_link_between_secondary_school_characteristics_and_university_participation_and_outcomes_FINAL.pdf

"For example, when comparing pupils with the same background characteristics and prior attainment, studying at the same universities in the same subjects, those from selective independent schools are 2.6 percentage points more likely to drop out, 6. 4 percentage points less likely to complete their degree and 10.3 percentage points less likely to graduate with a first or a 2:1 than pupils from non-selective community schools."

Absolutely. However, I have heard it argued that this just shows that the pupils from the state sector who have "somehow" managed to get the same grades as privately educated peers are "lucky". Yes, really.

Well it's common sense that it is hard to add value (as defined by OFSTED) to the higher ability students.

The sort of value added by highly selective schools is harder to measure, but that doesn't mean it's non existent.

Since when did we give so much credence to OFSTED and their measures and definitions?

Until I joined MN I never heard of VA. Surely it's how your individual child is getting on, some will do badly in even the best school, some will do unbelievably well in a second rate school. I just don't accept this statistic show anything.

TheWordFactory

I'm a skeptic by nature, but they do have access to data at the individual level, across many thousands of students and their "outcomes".

I'd be interested to see if there is anyone else analyzing the data with a different outcome, but I do give "credence" to proper data and analysis - even from OFSTED (or in this case the DoE).

Correction - not OFSTED or DoE but

June 2014
Claire Crawford
Institute for Fiscal Studies
and University of Warwick

As usual, on these threads, my take is this: every individual school should be taken on its own merits, be it state or independent. There is a massive variety of both.

We have just finished looking at both sectors for dd1 (secondary). She is currently very happy and doing very well in Y6 at a local state primary, which we chose because it fit our remit for primary education the best (out of both sectors locally) - for us.

We've looked at four independent secondary schools and our local comp, over the past couple of weeks. One more indie to look at.

No thrown chairs, disruption or rudeness in either sector - thankfully. Happy, motivated kids in both (though one of the indies had very tired looking kids the day we went!).

At the moment, dd is head over heels in love with the comp - where she bonded with a couple of teachers, and spent half an hour talking textile projects with a Y7 girl. I loved one of the indies, but it is very cramped in terms of space and the art department was tiny. DH loved another indie, but it is further to travel and dd didn't feel at home there.

I wouldn't judge anyone for choosing one sector or another (if they can). Or a Church school, either (which we can't). But I can't get the lumping them all together in sectors when assessing/judging them - its just not accurate.

happy, yes that's probably an acceptable perspective at an individual level.

However, if you look at it from a national social policy level, it's incredibly important. A country that doesn't try to ensure that its education system is of a high quality and aims to educate all children to the best of their ability is degrading one of its greatest assets - its workforce - to the economic cost of all.

If you look at the statistics produced by eg PISA or the OECD on educational attainment you will see that they are based not just on overall attainment but on the degree to which the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students is narrowed. The UK does ok on these measures - and does way better than the US where the quality of public education is notoriously poor.

But married the definition of VA as it currently stands is so narrow.

It measures, essentially, the ability of a pupil versus their results.

So a school that gets low ability pupils their 5 GCSEs is doing very well indeed on VA. But a school with very high ability pupils who all get good results, look pretty neutral.

But that doesn't mean the later school isn't doing really fabulous things with those high ability pupils.

Ofsted and their pressures and SATs and the ridiculous frantic situation state primaries are in between about feb until may is just another thing I pay to avoid. Primary schools are caught in this tragic cycle of doing everything imaginable to get as many L4s and L5s as possible so the poor Y6 kids and their teachers end up with sats prep coming out their ears. By obsessively teaching to the test they manage to get some natural L3s to scrape a L4 and some natural L4s to scrape a L5. They know it causes problems for their secondary colleagues but they have no choice as it's the means by which they will be judged.

elitee

"try to ensure that its education system is of a high quality and aims to educate all children to the best of their ability"

I second that! That seems to be the issue of greatest importance. All these statistics should help identify where needs more investment and improvement which, in the long run, returns many times over in social well being and economic health.

elltee
I went to a bog standard comp and I would happily argue that anyone who can get good grades in the sort of school I went to is at the higher end of academic ability and is likely to do well in university - not least because they have developed independent study skills.

I expect my privately educated DC to reach their potential because I am giving them a good environment to do so. They have so many more opportunities than I did not just academically but with extra curricular activities.

Yes, I battled my way to decent grades because I was academic anyway and had a supportive home environment. However, I am under no illusions that a significant number of children who were in the middle and bottom thirds of the cohort were let down. Getting a 'B' instead of an 'A' can shut some doors (no A* in my day) but getting a 'D' instead of a 'C' closes a lot more.

TWF

Agreed on VA, but the report I linked to isn't using that. It goes right down to indivduals and compares those with similar attainment from similar backgrounds but at different types of school (comp, grammar, private) and shows how they do at uni.

Its a considerably more detailed measure than the stats table, which I agree are only good for measuring overall performance from a policy making point of view. Limited use to parents or teachers at the individual level.

Hak

I never said ALL state schools were crap. It just so happens that our catchment primary isn't "good".

I am regretting it slightly that we chose to move where we are moving - a decision made based on location / work / infrastructure.

There was another area we were looking at where I would have had zero problems to send DCs to the local primary (state) school. That school had outstanding facilities (think multiple proper tennis courts at a primary school) and very good results, but we never found a house in OUR price range to move there. It also had a secondary school that looked like a private school with fab A-level results.

We could basically choose to spend more on the mortgage (not sure the banks would have lent THAT much) and not do private school. Is that any better??? Although given the house prices in that area, it is probably full of people who could afford private school but choose not to.

elltee I agree whole heartedly that educational policy at macro level must take those things into account.

However, I do think we need to be very careful about making a school's VA score its prime motivator. It is one way to judge how successful a school might be.

My own focus is often how high ability children fare in our system, because I teach at Oxbridge and am involved in the widening access scheme. And TBH I don't think VA scores help much in assessing how successful a school is respect of its highest ability cohort.

Chaz, without doubt the squeezed middle refers to middle it average ability kids in state schools as much as it ever refers to anything. Bright kids are pushed, those at the bottom (academically) are supported and the least amount of time is given over to the middle...until it's time for sats.

Although to be fair to ofsted, they are needed. Up to date info on how our schools are performing is important I just disagree with the pressure to constantly improve results year after year. And if it wasn't for ofsted, would we have any idea of the extent that extremism had penetrated some schools in Birmingham?

wordfactory, I imagine a large frustration in your job is trying to encourage kids from more deprived areas to actually apply to Oxbridge. Many of them see it as 'not for them' and font even consider it. But then stepping even further back, I've seen very bright 15 yr olds who haven't even got university on their radar let along Oxbridge. It's a real shame but they just presume they will leave after gcses when they are easily capable of achieving good Alevels and going into HE.

Chazs - absolutely, and well done - and with the interest and support you have in your own DCs, they will no doubt do well.

But I think your comment illustrates very well why VA measures, and transparency about outcomes for middle and low attainers are necessary - so that these children are better served.

Isn't it a good thing though that many kids from deprived areas don't have Oxbridge on their radar.
It wasn't for my ds and they would never have thought to apply, they too believed it was for other people and I agree with them.
I think its important to let children know these unis exist and what subjects they cover, but if it isn't for them there is a chance by encouraging them to apply you could knock confidence, and waste time and a choice for admission.

WordFactory - I didn't mean to suggest that VA should be the sole determinant - of course not, when you're dealing with something as important, and complex as educational outcomes.

However, I think there is a lot of focus on how high ability children fare here, not least because MN posters are often parents to high ability children, and as a society we consider accelerated attainment - reading at 3, complex maths at 8 - an absolute indicator of exceptional ability (which it isn't necessarily). I'm happy to acknowledge that being a mother of a child who mostly likely will be a middle attainer academically because of her dyslexia has made me rethink my priorities massively.

Well if you never apply.....then absolutely, by definition, "it's not for them"

Are you channelling the now largely suppressed third verse of "All Things Bright and Beautiful" by any chance?

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.

"The sort of value added by highly selective schools is harder to measure, but that doesn't mean it's non existent"

I'd suggest that the experience a clever and hard working student has in trying to achieve academically in an environment where they may have to deal with regular low level disruption, and sharing a classroom and a playground with children from chaotic and severely deprived homes, is probably also hard to measure and maybe of very great value.

People often say of children from private schools that they have a sort of polish and self-assurance which makes them stand out at interview. I can think of more important personal qualities which I'd like a young person to have..... empathy and a bit of humility don't go amiss IMO

"Isn't it a good thing though that many kids from deprived areas don't have Oxbridge on their radar."

"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate."

The biggest disincentive to applying to top universities for state educated children is the fact that they have so few peers who have the same ambitions. If state schools were more representative of society this wouldn't be so.

Our school system reflects the rhyme above, and people who buy a private education for their children are paying to keep it so.

No, I have to disagree with you, morethan
It should be on the radar of all high achieving kids. A meritocracy; something to aspire to if they are very able and willing to work hard.
Ironically, there are perhaps a lot of slightly less able children in generally high achieving schools in both sectors who should really be told by all means apply but it's not a given just because you're bright and you're still expected to work your socks off .