Do private schools have better teachers?

[hercules1]

Read this on a different thread and it has peed me off a bit. I know lots of really good teachers who don't and won't teach in private schools. I've also known some teachers leave the state system to go to the private as they could no longer cope within the state.

Private doesn't equate with better teachers Of course it means lots of other things and I am sure there are lots of excellent teachers in the private system but no more so than the state.

The contacts thing it interesting, why is it when a child from DCs' state primary school have gained scholarships to independent schools or grammar school places either one or both parents have been teachers.

Because, as a friend pointed out the other day, teachers children hardly have a non-educational moment in their lives, as my children will o doubt testify. Little wonder they should end up high-performing in a system their parents know about. It is a recognised phenomenon in France, but in the UK everyone suspects bias.

One of the unspoken things, like added value so younger children held back so it can appear they are progressing all the way through the school. So a state school primary teacher could do so much more with a bright child but held back by system (and a glass ceiling of level 5 in year 6)

I agree with duchess - I think kids in academic families wll tend to do quite well because education is part and parcel of family life. I don't see much bias there.

I think most people really really underestimate the impact parents and the CHILD's own ability have on a standards of education.

I see school and what my son's teachers may or may not teach him as just ONE aspect of his life education (he is only 3 now, so mummy and daddy are his teachers !!). The rest has to come from the home and the work he does independently as a student.

I never expected my teachers to get me good A level results. It was my own bloody hard work that got me straight A's. My teachers didn't do the work for me. They also didn't help me get decent jobs. They wrote good references for me, but they didn't have to do the boring job applications or interviews that got me the job !

Putting a bright child in a mixed class, he (she) would get the highest marks etc without really trying, perhaps in a selective class he would have to try much harder to get the good results some students just need the competition to make them work.

May I restate the question that started the thread ?
We can all accept that some % of state teachers are better than private, and vice versa.

Most state and private schools now "sell" to parents much more than they used to.

One state school had a sculpture in it's entrance. The implication being that it was done by a pupil. It was.
22 years after he left...
State schools put on good spin as well, and are usually better at it.
So we're not getting clear, honest data are we ?

So to me the question is not which teachers are better, but how can I as a parent know which schools have better teachers ?

Agree 100% with what you have just said Yellowrose. I went to a school that most MNetter would never consider sending their children to but because of my parents and my self-determination, I ended up with a PhD and a great career. Similarly DH. An enriching, supportive home environment will always compensate for weaknesses at school (speaking from my own personal experience, of course)

and the impossible question will that school have good teachers for the next five (or seven) years

(I know - shouldn't start a sentence with and)

?I think kids in academic families will tend to do quite well because education is part and parcel of family life. I don't see much bias there.?

Things run in families, it isn?t unique to educators (e.g. how many doctor-child-of-doctor-parent do you know?).

I was told of an anecdote where an Oxbridge admissions tutor let slip a Freudian moment in an interview: he meant to ask ?what does your mother do for a living?? but knowing, from experience, the answer in advance it came out as ?what does your mother teach??

Sppedymama is of course right that home environment is critical, and fembear is bang on the money since a lot of work has sown the educational level of the mother to be consistently one of the best or often the best predictor for child's attainment.

But we are the parents we are, and can't choose suddenly to improve 100%. (usually).
However, some teachers are far more than 100% better than others.
What do Mners use to try and spot this ?

Message withdrawn

I would say that in my view, and except in very rare circumstances, most teachers in the state system are inherently good. You cannot only examine the teacher when deciding whether a school is suitable for your child. The environment, and more specifically the management have a huge part to play, and how they run the school informs to a huge extent the happiness at work (or otherwise) of the staff. A happy teacher is a good teacher, almost invariably.

In my experience as a parent and teacher, try to work out whether the staff seem tense. Observe them at open evenings/ days. If they seem tense with each other and the headteacher, do not joke or make eye contact with each other, and if the headteacher does not have an easy and friendly relationship with his/her staff, eschew that school, as poor management permeates every corner of a school and definitely affects the children- if only because a stressed teacher is more likely to be ill.

Furthermore, happy teachers are more likely to try new things, and pass on things that work to other staff. As with any workplace, a good working environment is more productive.

Duchess, what is "most" in this context ?
75% , 99% or what ?

I definitely agree that a secondary teacher needs a good degree - although I dispute the annoying assumtion that Oxford degrees are better than anyone else's. I just think that's not all a teacher needs - you need a whole raft of other qualities as well. And sadly a lot of teachers (state and private) ain't got 'em

I am hoping ds won't do exactly what dh and I do - in fact I am quite happy for him to go off and become a penniless artist, like 2 of my aunts and a cousin. As long as he is passionate about what he does and enjoys it, I really don't care whether he goes to Oxbridge or whether he makes much money. Dh is absolutely in love with his career (an engineer) and I hope whatever ds does he loves it too.

You are right though, I wasn't just talking about academic or even highly educated parents. Speedymama also talked about family influence. It really DOES make a huge difference. My father was quite a successful businessman and mum got married when 17, but neither had had the chance to go to university. They wanted us to have a good education though. Education was important to them.

Message withdrawn

Greensleeves - agree about Oxbridge degrees. Ex-boy friend was a very very bright grammar school boy and Oxford grad., but most of his Oxford friends were terribly dull and not so bright.

People need to go to London University (LSE, Imperial, Kings, UCL, etc...) far better but then I am quite biased

there obviously has to be some exceptions to the secondary teachers needed a degree where it is a practical/technology subject where a good teacher may have worked in that area for several years

At DC's school one excellent teacher worked for BT until their cull of a few years back now teaches graphics (technical drawing in effect) and electronics another had worked in the city for a good few years before teaching business studies

ooo this is a good thread, can I join in?

I can't be bothered reading every single bit (obviously I don't have time to as I am a busy state school treacher) so I'll probably make the same point as lots of other people but hey never mind.

I think it's a very hard question to answer. There are obviously a huge range of types and quality of school and a huge range of teachers in them. I teach in a good secondary school in a good area and we have some amazing teachers who are doing things like AST (advanced skills teachers) courses and there are some crap teachers who do the bare minimum and run out the door as soon as school finishes. I reckon that all schools have some excellent and some crap teachers.

I have a friend who used to work with me and now works in a private school and he has found it quite hard to get others in his dept to move forward as they are quite stuck in their ways and teach quite 'oldfashionedly' and traditionally. He also said the school is about 3 years behind my school in terms of ICT.

I only have a 2:2 and I teach Physics. I wouldn't have thought a 2:2 really counts as a 'good degree' does it?

DominiConnor- thanks for the voice of reason. The real question eceryone should be asking is 'How do I measure the effectiveness of the school for the time that my child will be attending?' I couldn't give a stuff what a school was like 10 years ago, if its performing well now and my children are happy and doing well. The problem with this issue is that it automatically brings everyone's prejudices to the surface. The post about independent schools being 'easier' and therefore teachers are bound to be no better is a pile of sh*te. As I said on another post, my dh, an inspirational teacher who gets great results from him pupils, taught in the state sector for over 20 years before moving to the independent sector. Does this make him less effective? Of course not! It just makes for a better quality of life for him and our family. Which I think is an issue for some people. They'll happily sit there on comfortable salaries themselves, but can't cope with the fact that teachers might want a comfortable life style too, so convince themselves that you can only be a decent teacher if you're in a sink school dealing with violent thugs all day! There are good, bad and indifferent teachers in both sectors, just as there are good , bad and indifferent doctors, lawyers, plumbers, shop assistants, childminders.......

Ooh, Beety, teachers at our school would be horrified that you suggested life is easier for them with longer holidays etc. They are required in school six days per week (school on Saturdays) and most are there 8-6. Yes, the school year is only 33-34 weeks but it's a six-day week.

I know lots of exceptionally bright people who got 2:2's. It just means you partied too much, not that you are not bright or a good teacher I was predicted to get a 1st by all my tutors, but ended up with a 2:1 - too many vodka parties

Yes SueW, absolutely. Although my DH doesn't have Saturday school at his place, I know a lot of independent schools do. However, he is often involved at matches over weekends, plus loads of extra curricular stuff - eg school trips during holidays, which can be incredibly demanding. Plus in boarding schools there are often evening/weekend duties. Plus in any school, state or independent, theres the preparation and marking in the evenings. Oh and yes, an 8 till 6 day is the norm at my DHs school, before any of the above mentioned extras. tbh, comments like the one about the 'easier life' are water off a duck's back most of the time - I've worked out that the people who make them are usually a) ladies of leisure who married rich and have barely done a days work in donkey's years or b) people who may be quite competent in their own sphere, but stand them in front of a class of cynical teenagers day in day out and they'd run a mile!!

One factor in choosing DS's school was the absence of Saturday schooling.
Form speaking to the chairman of governors at a post girls school parents seem to push for Saturdays, and the staff aren't all keen.
I think it's bad for everyone except the subset of parents who want their kids in the house as little as possible.
Kids get tired, and I think in most cases Saturdays hit diminishing returns big time.