Bridging gap between state & private schools (interested after reading below paying for private threads)

[user1473882712]

Like all parents dh & I want the very best education for our preschool aged dc. We will never be able to afford private school fees & the state schools are fine, we have heard no bad reports. We would like to think that in years to come our dc will be just as well able to fight for uni places & good job & will be able to compete with privately educated & those who have come from outstanding primaries & secondaries.
How can we bridge the gap? What can we do at home to extend their learning etc so they don't feel inferior or not good enough to those who have had thousands spent on their education...?

I think a lot of the advantage comes from understanding the university system actually. My friend at an elite academic school was told to study subjects he would get the highest grade in that were qualifying subjects for courses at Oxford and Cambridge. They literally sat with the entry requirements for subjects worked out that theology at a particular college had the least number of applicants and at that time allowed 1 b. He picked that over English which was way more competitive and then springboarded to a graduate scheme as a lot are very snobby. (He is clever too) my school said pick what you enjoy and didn't even suggest looking an uni entry requirements, then a year later looked at what universities would let you in with what you studied. No one had been to uni in my family. I didn't under and there was a hierarchy of them and it didn't occur to me that some subjects were more competitive.

Drop the attitude that your kids will need some sort of remedial action to 'bridge the gap' and that you regret not being able to afford private because that tells them instantly that you believe that their chances compared to cousins are compromised. Hardly confidence building.

My comp educated DC have Oxbridge-ready grades, or are heading that way. Not sure yet whether they will take this option, might prefer Imperial, for example.

Take an interest, support but lay off the pressure. Invest in the child's interests and talents, don't push your own.

It sounds as if you are the ones with an inferiority complex.

I was privately educated, my siblings were not, we all have roughly the same qualifications, career level and income- we had the same parents.

My DC are getting an education which is as good academically as mine was.

Not an obtuse question but what exactly is the gap you want bridged?

There isn't automatically one just because it's a state school therefore if you perceive there to be one you first need to identify if.

You can use a tutor to cram for the exams, it's exam performance that really gets the places at good universities. Once at uni, state school kids do better. However the "old boy/girl" network from public school cannot be replicated and it is this that continues to provide access to opportunities after university.

I was privately educated and from my school about 15% went to oxbridge and about 80% went to Russell Group universities. Only a tiny minority went on to non-university choices.

My niece is about to do GCSE's at the best-performing comprehensive in our city - highly oversubscribed and CofE with a church-attendance requirement to get high enough in the entry rankings to have a chance of a place. Most of the kids generally are reasonably well behaved and willing to learn. In the last 5 years they have had 1 oxbridge entry and typically about 20% go on to Russell Group.

Now given that my own school was academically selective it would be reasonable to agree that the Russell Group entry rate could be about right - those 20% in the comp being probably ones who would have got in to a selective school at age 11. But the practically non-existent oxbridge entry is surely proof that there is something massive missing.

I think people are being unfair about there being no gap. I am very happy with the state school my children attend. I can't see another school teaching literacy or maths better to be honest....but some of the other subjects I can give examples of a gap. (This is ks2) My children learn french once a week with a teacher who doesn't speak French. Their private school friends get 2 lessons a week with a specialist French teacher. DT is taught at my children school via 3 DT days a year. They construct stuff with paper in their classtoom. They have never done anything that is not made from rolled up paper. Friends at independent school have..,you guessed it a specialist DT teacher and a DT room and do things like make a bird box, make a working rubber band car etc.

OK. Keep an eye on the academics-but you would, anyway, wouldn't you?

Then look at the things private schools spent their enormous amounts of extra money on and decide which of those are important to you and/or you think would be useful for your child and provide them. For us they are mostly music, "culture" for want of a better word and knowing about formal manners and etiquette (once again, for want of a better word).

I agree it isn't the state school that is the problem but the parents (in some cases) that hold the children back.
If you extrapolate the attitude of taking a day off for minor illnesses, expecting schools to educate and having no input yourself and generally expecting the others to sort out your problems, then this isn't going to help your child to flourish.
Of course this attitude exists in both state and private schools and (I think) it is becoming more common. I think it is one reason many immigrants can do so well in the U.K as many seem not to have such an entitled attitude. This is just my experience at work though.

@flamingnoravera "Once at uni, state school kids do better. However the "old boy/girl" network from public school cannot be replicated and it is this that continues to provide access to opportunities after university."

No, this is misleading. If a state educated and a privately educated student have identical A level grades (and these aren't at the very top), then the state educated one is likely to do slightly better: that's one justification for contextual offers (universities often, on social justice grounds, make much larger concessions than that effect would suggest - once the A level grades in question are above BBB, allowing a slippage of one grade in one subject is over-compensating).

However, it doesn't follow that your child will probably do better at university if you hold your nerve and state educate them. Statistically speaking, your child will probably do a bit better at school exams if you privately educate them, and then a smaller bit better at university exams if you privately educate them. It's the fact that the performance gap given by a private education is smaller at university than at school (wouldn't it be astonishing if it were not?!) that leads to the "state school child does better at university than private school child with same grades" phenomenon.

Much of the "gap" people worry about is not exam grades, either at school or at university, of course. You think it's the old boy/girl network. I think bigger contributors are likely to be communication skills, ambition, confidence and resilience.

As always, your child is not a statistic and you have to make the best choices you can for your child. Don't kid yourself, though: the statistical difference between the sectors is not all measured in A level grades.

One of the major differences at private schools is class sizes. The fewer children, the more attention each will get. Sending a child to private school will make a difference to a child's academic ability.

Adding to a child's education at home will also make a difference to a child's academic ability. Lots of people cannot afford private education. Very few cannot afford to buy a revision guide or have access to Khan Academy. I am not saying that playing in the park or relaxing is not important too, but doing a few minutes maths each day will improve their maths ability in a way which playing in a park will not.

Bit off topic but I did loads of drama at school - I was in lots of plays, did poetry readings, joined a local youth theatre, and did GCSE and A Level. There is absolutely no way I could do any sort of public speaking. None whatsoever. Surely a debating society is more useful?

I agree that the gap, whilst measurable in some ways (and A Levels and universities attended and degrees earned are the easier ways to measure) there are other aspects which are much harder to measure.

Yes of course children from state schools can do well - they can get fantastic results, they can engage in lots of extra curricular,moo to Oxbeidge and be top performers in the world of work. The fact that examples of these can always be found and the fact that some schools manage to achieve more of these positives doesn't prevent there being a gap. It's a less tangible gap than simply a level results and that's what private school parents pay for. It's why lots of those who can afford it, who gain places to super selective grammars and to independent schools still choose to pay.....they think there is more to it all than exam results.

One thread recently about this talked about the difference between being well qualified and well educated. Cash strapped comps and state grammars can certainly achieve high grades (for some pupils anyway) and without doubt some deliver a great value for money to the tax payer. Grammars emulate many aspects of independent education too. However, especially in Comps, early high expectations, ambition, knowledge of the uni system and world of high powered work are often lacking. When being high achieving or goiing to top unis is the exception rather than the norm, and where the staff haven't done those things either, it will always be harder for bright children to access the next stage in the same way as kids in schools where it is almost a given that everyone will being applying to top places and that everyone will be equipped with the right subject choices to get them onto top he course, steered by parents and teachers who did the same thing and know the system and routes and support it.

How many bright students in Comps find themselves lacking in advice about which A Levels to choose to open the doors to the academic courses, or even the advice when choosing GCSEs. How many have teachers who are resistant to what they see as elitism in terms of different subjects or unis? How many have access to staff who have been to Oxbridge and can give first hand experience? The gap comes from spending 11 years in school where being the clever one is being unusual, where you have to keep your head down and not be too pushy or draw attention to yourself, because it might be ridiculed or draw unwanted attention, where a culture of lower expectations can only have the effect of seeping through to you, when knowing that there are other people out there experiencing a different kind of education can only make you feel like a bit of an outsider and you have somehow missed out or are inferior through lack of that experience, if you've not been taught to keep getting back up despite set backs.....

The gap isn't just about results. It's about being in a different kind of system for 14 years of education which given that length of time being exposed to what is a different culture, results in a gap which whilst difficult to pin down and to eradicate, is certainly present. It's why people often choose to pay.

You've nailed it for me chocolate.

I do see kids in the state sector who can go toe to toe with their counterparts in elite selective schools, and it's down to the parents' attitude on life. I run into these families through sports and dance. They make their children dance with blisters, run in the pouring rain or row with a head cold. They demand focus and commitment. A lot of parents who choose private schooling tend to already have this sort of attitude, and many private schools will help shoulder the burden of teaching children to discipline themselves, commit and focus. But there are plenty of high expectation, high self-discipline parents out there who cannot afford private schooling with some pretty awesome kids.

Meanwhile we at state schools never outright ask for a simple donation

I've come across it. Our local State superselective used to ask for monthly donations. For the new sixthform centre - thereby sowing a niggling suspicion that if you didn't subscribe then your DC might not get invited to join the sixth form.

Our school used to ask for donations, too, via the PTA. But it was only £10 p.a.

EmpressoftheMundane DC can be extremely successful in the state sector without this absurd stereotype parenting. My DC have observed over the years how the fact that I'm 'hands off' - but interested in a general way in their progress and outcomes - has helped them far more than some of the obsessive pushing a number of their peers had to contend with. I think it can be hugely counter-productive, although on MN the mantra is that you have to monitor every last detail of your DCs' lives for them to get anywhere in life. I find that attitude extraordinary. Anyhow, clearly my own DC are evidence that it isn't necessary and it's slightly irritating that this stereotype persists.

Our school asks for voluntary donations, suggested at £5 a month. Plenty pay a great deal more, some pay none.

I think it is a case of where you draw the line in terms of "pushing too hard." goodbye. Some parents draw the line too indulgently imho. A lot of things in life that are truly satisfying take consistent effort. (Music, sport, mastery of a new skill, etc.)

I know capable children who's parents fret that they are falling behind and are not likely to reach their potential. I'd never be rude enough to point it out directly, but allowing kids to lie on the couch for hours staring at a screen and eating junk food is probably part of the problem.

My perspective may be skewed. I live in an area where a lot of families can afford private school, but don't choose to. I don't actually know any who choose state school as a matter of political principle. I do know many who would consider paying for education a waste because the money could be sent on so many other pleasurable consumptions. They understand themselves as passive consumers; not doers. People with this mindset don't get up early on the weekend with their DC to go museums, mountain biking, drive for miles to get to tournaments, etc. They lounge around; their kids lounge around. Then they get annoyed when their kids get left behind.

I don't expect my children to be born as confident, self starters with no input or effort from me. My DH and I both encourage them, do things with them, and insist that they carry through on commitments, even when it's cold, rainy, or they just aren't in the mood.

In my little patch of London, it's not private or state school that really makes the difference and separates children, but instead parental attitudes. Too many duvet-days, passive entertainments, and junky treats doesn't build resilient, confident, healthy adults. (Note: I said too many, rather than any at all!)

No I disagree. For some reason I don't understand there's a modern culture of parental intervention in school work and extra curricular activity which never held sway when I was a child. Your own attitude exemplifies this. MN seems to be worse than real life even though my DC go/ went to a high achieving school (albeit state school) where some parents certainly do/did seem excessively driven. I can't see why intervention beyond going to parents' meetings and taking an interest in what your Dc are doing is needed any more today than it was when I was a child (a long time ago). There can't be any evidence that getting your DC up early on rainy Saturdays to do ballet with blisters will advance their chances in life more than lounging on the sofa snapchatting or playing the x box will. Plenty of my DCs' very successful close friends at school and Oxford (including highest First in year etc) lounge about on sofas at weekends and snapchat and play the xbox rather than going out to do some self improving activity. I think it's the intense parents who have it all wrong, not these very normal but very successful kids. Where is the evidence that this driven parenting reaps benefits?

There can't be any evidence that getting your DC up early on rainy Saturdays to do ballet with blisters will advance their chances in life more than lounging on the sofa snapchatting or playing the x box will.

I think being active when you are "building" your adult body will help you through life, and there is evidence that we create a "store" of health that we then draw down on through life. So yes, having parents who say: there is no bad weather, only inadequate clothing, stop complaining, put your rain jacket on, we are going mountain biking as a family as planned, does make a difference.

I was careful to say too many duvet days rather than none at all. I suspect these children that you allude to, are doing something during the week and having a rest on the weekend. I frankly know a lot of DC doing nothing but having one long passive rest.

No Empress I think you seem to have (along with many others no doubt) an incredibly structured life which you fondly believe will propel your DC to great things in life. Your DC may well achieve massively in life but I doubt their structured infancy will be at the root of that.

No, it's not a case of being very intense during the week and having some well earned downtime at the weekend. It's a case of being relaxed generally and not incredibly hyped up all the time with self-improving activities constantly at the fore.

"I frankly know a lot of DC doing nothing but having one long passive rest."

All at state school, I presume?

Well obviously Bert. Also, state school kids can only ever hope to do even tolerably well in life if they have parents minded to force them out for wholesome yomps in the rain, every weekend, regardless. En famille. Presumably that's a married famille too - are single parents scuppered even if minded to do the whole wholesome yomp thing? And that's after a long week practising pointe of course, preferably with blistered big toes. There's an exquisite snobbishness going on here although without wishing to cross swords, I am a bit dubious about your own etiquette thing.

There is hope I promise 😂😂 - stressy patents scare me. 3 of mine are actually my sisters. They lost their parents when they were little and we adopted them and for many years things were rocky. No pointe or Saturday morning romps here !!! But, love and cuddles, giggles and tears and we have muddled through. We have instilled a work ethic and an attitude of just try your best. Whether you want to be a plumber or a rocket scientist that's ok. Just be happy

I've known a fair few children left with life long joint problems after being pushed too hard in ballet - is that what you mean?

I've given the curtesy of my sincere opinion.

I've said I think it is the attitude of the parents, not the type school of school that matters most. I have pointed out that it is a case of getting the balance right. We will all have a different opinion about where that balance lies, and this will depend in part on the children that we have, and those children's abilities and what will suit them. You have to respond to the children in front of you.

(I'm not getting dragged into the single parent comments or the ruining joints in ballet. Not every argument has to be reduced to its logical absurdity.)

Wow mumsneedwine, if I've read that right. That's quite some situation - all credit.