Calling all teachers.....

[GirlySwot]

....if money was no object would you send your kids state or private? (and why?!)

twinsetandpearls - I appreciate that you have a genuine dilemna. You clearly work hard to make life better for disadvantaged children. Part of that means that you live in an area of deprivation and therefore your own child has only a narrow range of choice which is not suited to her needs. You've clearly thought through the situation and are acting in the interests of your child while continuing your own career which is making an enormous contribution to society. I have a lot of respect for that. My issue is really with parents who have a perfectly good choice of state school, yet somehow believe that the simple fact that they are parting with hundreds of pounds a week means that they must be getting a superior education. It's either pure snobbery, or else shows a distinct lack of belief in their own child.

But inthegutter - how many people here have said that? Many of us here have chosen private school for a range of reasons and certainly not for snobbery reasons. i would have thought most, of not all state school teachers are very capable of making the best choice for their own children using all the info they have available to them.

I'm not a teacher - but have read this thread with interest. My 2 DDs have been educated in the state system so far - one is in Year 7 and has just started secondary school, and the other is in Year 6 and will start secondary school next September.

We live in a fairly affluent area - with the local secondary school scoring about 70%, and a "Good" Ofsted. It's also the school I went to - so I have some fond, and not so-fond memories!

However, although my DDs' junior school was excellent, and both girls have always enjoyed school, my older DD "hates" her new school. She certainly misses some of her old friends - who went to a number of different schools - but she's quite sociable and has made some new friends - plus is playing for the school Netball team and goes to drama club and singing - so seems to be making an effort. Her main complaint is that the majority of the lessons are boring, and she mentions things like having 3 French sessions a week, with 3 different French teachers. Out of 4 English sessions a week, 2 of them seem to be spent doing silent reading. Her homework seems much easier (colouring this weekend!!) and there is less of it than her younger sister has - and she doesn't have huge amounts.

In addition she clearly finds the playground intimidating, and she and her friends go to the library at lunchtimes. When I went for parents' evening(mid-afternoon) some children were picking up gravel and threatening to throw it at others.

I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed and am on the verge of sending her and her younger sister (in due course) to a local girls' school. Having gone to an Open Day I'm swayed by the smaller class sizes - 18, better facilities, single sex education - I think girls are more adventurous without boys in the classroom , at 12 my daughter could pass for 15 easily (I remember being very distracted by boys at school), and just a nicer "feeling".

It won't be easy to find the money, but we can, and at the moment I can't think of anything I'd rather spend it on.

Both my DDs are, I would say, above averagely intelligent - but by no means top of the class, my younger daughter particularly is extremely quiet in class and thinks more "out of the box" and is quite creative. Whilst I think both would do "OK" in the state school and would almost certainly get 5 GCSEs at A-C, given that I am fortunate to have the choice - I'd like them to do better than "OK".

DS is just one, and we will probably have him follow the girls in attending state schools initially and then take a view later on - depending on what seems right for him at the time.

I actually don't have much respect for my decision, I have acceptable schools to send my dd to. Why shouldn't my dd be forced to do gnvqs with the other kids or be ignored in many of our other schools while the difficult children get all the attention. If it is acceptable for some children it should be acceptable for all. I firmly believe that state education would be better if it was used by all strands of society so I have become part of the problem as well as working my pretty little arse of to be part of the solution.

I am also moving out of the area that I live in to move to a leafyish suburb as I think my dd will find it too much of a cluture clash coming from where we do to her new school as well as the siginficant travelling.

You are right it is not a decision made out of pure snobbery as I would not assume private is better and I rejected a private school before some of our state options. But if I am being honest I also want to keep my dd away from seom of the kids that I teach. The town and school I teach in has a siginficant teenage pregnacy problem. 10% of our year eleven girls are pregnant or have given birth, our kids do not find that shocking. If my dd ever behaved the way some of the children I teach behave I would be heart broken and while I do not think that I will be sending my dd to an idealistic utopia I do know that mnay of the children I teach behave in the way they do because it is accepted or even expected by their families and the circles they mix in.

Surr3ymummy I would have thought it unsusual to have 3 french lessons a week, in my experience it is usually 1 or 2 but maybe they are giveing them extra lessons in year 7 to give them a boost?

I would not be happy with a colouring homework, our schools gcse results are half as good as yours and the children get a rigourous homework every week that involves half an hour a night at least.

But i do understand, like you finding the money isn't easy but it is a proprity.

GirlySwot........ may I ask why you want to know? You haven't been involved in this discussion....

Clam,

My kids are at state primary and I never thought I would send them private but I now find people around me doing that (including as I mentioned on another thread a teacher friend) which worries me somewhat. As my eldest nears the end of primary I will soon have to work out what to do next.

I have read the above posts with great interest, surely teachers must know more about how different schools impact on kids than most of us. Like most of us I want my kids to go to a school where they will really thrive and be happy. We have "good" state secondaries locally but that still means big classes, restrictions due to goverment initiatives and the National Curriculum and less good opportunities for sport, music etc than the independent options. On the other hand I am not entirely comfortable with my kids only mixing with others from relatively privileged backgrounds, I don't want them to grow up with a distorted view of the world.

I've just seen the posting by Inthegutter:
"My issue is really with parents who have a perfectly good choice of state school, yet somehow believe that the simple fact that they are parting with hundreds of pounds a week means that they must be getting a superior education. It's either pure snobbery, or else shows a distinct lack of belief in their own child."
Erm, she must mean me - I've sent one DS to a highly academic independent (even though our income doesn't really stretch to it) and seen him flourish. I sent the other, less academic DS to the local highly regarded 11-16 state school (82% A-C last year) and have found that the school had no interest in getting the pupils to achieve more than the C grades that would show up in their statistics. He is now at an independent sixth form and has been really boosted by the help and encouragement of the teachers there.

As a teacher, when you spend time in each sector, it really is a no-brainer which one offers the better educational experience.

Can I just say to those of you that think small automatically means good that it doesn't. Small may have advantages but small schools often have disadvantages too. For example, many small primaries end up having to teach mixed year classes. Obviously there are some advocates for this system but generally speaking it's chosen out of necessity rather than educational value and I personally wouldn't be happy about my kids being in a mixed year class. Also small schools are likely to lack the facilities and expertise available to bigger schools. One advantage of the (yes private) school that my kids go to (and yes, I'm a teacher in the state sector) is that it can share the facilities and expertise of the other schools in its family (there's a co-ed kindergarten then single-sex prep schools, single sex secondaries and a co-ed 6th form). This means library, ICT facilities, sports hall, swimming pool but also minibuses and specialist PE, music and modern language teachers. These advantages aren't just available in private sector but in the new academies which offer progression from 3-18 (though I'm totally against academies).

I teach in a tiny all-through school, and there are many advantages for the prep dept - as you have said, Hurricane, access to specialist facilities and specialist teaching at an earlier age (you missed out Science ).

I teach in the the senior school and have classes ranging from 10 - 14 pupils in KS3/4, and a single pupil in KS5. I have known these girls for 2 months, and I know them inside out! Overall, I teach about 100 pupils, and it is so much easier to give them a good educational and emotional experience when I am actually able to build relationships with them.

No one can hide in small classes, so that group of quiet, pliable pupils that get forgotten in larger schools (with class sizes of 30) just doesn't exist.

Lilymaid - I find it hard to believe that a good school with an 82% pass rate would really have 'no interest' in getting students to achieve higher than a grade C! But even if that were the case - what about the child's motivation and aspirations to want to get better than a C if that's what they are capable of??! Or parental interest/involvement? Or do you believe it's totally the job of the school to churn out students' grades without the student having ownership of their education?? I think we're all agreed that there are a mix of good, middling and poor teachers in either sector, just as there are in any job. So it simply doesn;t add up that state schools aren't bothered about teaching to higher grades. Besides, as any state school teacher should know (!!) the old 5 A-C grades is NOT the only measure used by the govt these days. Schools are measured on value added too - ie a bright child coming in to Year 7 will be expected to acheive A* and A grades by Year 11. ScienceTeacher - it is NOT a no-brainer! My children have had the option of private schools - myself and Dh have taught in the private sector and have therefore been eligible for reduced fees but have chosen NOT to send them because even on reduced fees, quite frankly, I don't think most of them are worth the money. I want my children to achieve their potential academically, go to University IF THAT'S WHAT THEY CHOOSE and most importantly, develop the capacity to make really good relationships in their lives and be happy. And if I don't think they can manage that in their local comp, then I don't think I'd be showing very much faith in them or in our parenting!!

Prepare to be shocked, itg!

I spent much of last year working in a 'good state school', with 5A-C marks in the region of 80-85%, and outstanding Ofsted in every category. Still, it was pretty pants in relation to private schools in the area. Horrible, horrible middle sets. Bottom sets were OK because they were small and had support; top sets were manageable. But the middle sets had too many kids, no support, and more than the critical mass of obnoxiousness. I would despair if I had a child of mine in those classes.

Well then scienceteacher, I think you and I will have to agree to disagree!! Currently about 93% of children are educated in the state system, and 7 % privately. Most young people I come across are great! So state schools must be doing something right! It's a shame you found the state school you taught in 'pretty pants', but there you go. I suppose the bottom line is (and it might seem strange to hear a teacher say this!) we all tend to get too hung up about schools. A HUGE part of a child's education takes place at home, within the family, and outside of school in various contexts. And I mean education in the real sense, not simply exam passing. There are probably many more factors than what a school a child goes to that determine future happiness and well-being. Does the child have a stable family home with parents who are good role models? Are the parents relaxed and happy or stressed out? Just a thought.... when I taught in a private school, there was a higher percentage of divorced/separated parents than in the state school I'm currently in. Of the 2 parent families, a higher percentage of the mothers didn't work, and after they'd done the school drop off, they'd hang around the school grounds being very bored or even worse ending up bitching and interfering. I couldn't help feeling it was slightly ironic that these parents clearly thought that throwing money at their children's education would solve the problems they were creating themselves!!

what you say is v true, itg.

Message withdrawn

Money no object - I would teach him myself at home and have fabulous and educational trips abroad all the time.

The private school I work in isn't $10K a year better than the state school I work in. I have decided that at least initally holidays, always being able to take and pick up ds, being able to afford music lessons and instruments is a better use of funds.

But if money truly no object then I could move nearer the private school, have music lessons, holidays everything - so I would probably go private just because I could.

Wow Inthgutter,

"Of the 2 parent families, a higher percentage of the mothers didn't work, and after they'd done the school drop off, they'd hang around the school grounds being very bored or even worse ending up bitching and interfering. I couldn't help feeling it was slightly ironic that these parents clearly thought that throwing money at their children's education would solve the problems they were creating themselves!!"

I knew some teachers had a low opinion of parents but that's a good one. We can't win can we? If we are not there we are dumping the kids, using teachers as baby sitters and not "supporting" our kids education. If we are there we are "bitching and interfering". Am struggling to imagine a picture of numerous SAHMs hanging around the school in the morning, I assume you mean they chat to each other after dropping the kids off. Guess what? For some of us the price we pay for being there for our kids before and after school (so that they can have friends to play, go to activities and generally feel cared for) is that it really is rather boring during the best hours of the day when the kids are at school but we put up with it because overall we think we are doing the best we can for our kids. Don't really think this is state/private issue.

I think the state private argument is fairly irrelevant now on an ethical level because there are so many any inequalities and there's so much discrimination in the state system itself. In the name of improving 'choice' successive governments have actually increased the options for the education of middle class children and decreased the options of parents living in relative poverty leading to a 2 tier system.

As a middle-class parent who with a resonable income and as a teaher has all kinds of insights available to me that are not available to all parents I have various options within the system that are not available even to my next door neighbour.

I just don't see how parents can any longer be berated for choosing private education by middle-class parents who have opted for state education which is actually likely to mean a faith school or a school where houses in the cathcment are beyond the reach of most people or an academy which might be funded by Phone R Us or whatever and very, very rarely means the sink school down the road.

It's been said many times on different threads but there's a terrible irony that many private schools including the one my dcs attend have much more of an ethnic mix than the surrounding state schools which are sadly increasingly divided along ethnic and class lines.

Choosing a private school has been a difficult decision for me like Twinset.

I also can't stand the argument about it being inherently 'good' for children from middle-class, aspirational homes to be forced to join classes where the majority or even an influential minority do not want to learn and are disruptive. I don't want my children to feel they have to hide their aspirations or their ability for fear of being the odd ones out or being bullied. I want them to be challenged and supported in a way that I don't think our local state schools (despite doing their best with what they've got) can achieve.

This is not to criticise teachers or the schools themselves but a school can ultimately be only as good as its students

Girlyswot, you confirm my point exactly. Why do you think that sacrificing your life in this way, being 'bored during the best hours of the day'(your words)is doing your children any favours?
When I came across these mothers, the question that always confused me was this:these mothers clearly thought their children's education was worth throwing a lot of money at. (Of their husband's money anyway!!)Yet I was never quite sure what they wanted ultimately for their children. Did they want this wonderful education to lead to an interesting and stimulating career? Or to hanging around in the school playground getting bored out of their minds?? As I said earlier, stop getting so hung up on which school your child attends. Have a positive and stable family life, forge good relationships and friendships with others, TALK TO YOUR CHILDREN EVERY DAY, have an interesting, stimulating and worthwhile life and there's every chance that your children will turn out happy and well adjusted. Ultimately the most important thing for children is not what we tell them to do or not do. It's how we live our own lives. Do as I do, not do as I say.

Really don't see how mums OR dads hanging around the playground bored OR not bored has anything whatsoever to do with a debate about what school to choose for your child.

I am at the school gates mornings and afternoons because I've changed my working hours to fit around school hours. The vast majority of mums and dads (and there are a significant number of dads at the gates) at my dds (private) school also work. There's not much hanging around that I can see although there is a very active parents association and thriving school community which is very helpful in reinforcing the school's values etc etc.

I do quite like the fact that with every other parent at the school gates I have a very important thing in common: we all value our children's education enough to opt for private and all that this entails (in many cases significant financial sacrifices). Of course, there are many many people who value their kids' education at state schools but there are a significant number who do not and (as schools have become more divided along class and cultural boundaries) there will be schools where the majority of parents at the school gates (if they're there at all) are indifferent at best and unsupportive or even hostile to education at worst.

And while I wouldn't for a second under-estimate or undervalue the contribution of a child's parents and extended family to their academic success there are some things which can only come from a school and the school environment. A child's peers can raise or destroy aspiration, create and sustain or destroy discussion, share problems and challenges or create them, provide competition and advice etc etc in ways which a family will never be able to do. And a family and most if not all state schools cannot provide the sort of curriculum, extra-curricular activities and facilities that are often provided in private schools. For example, my dcs have had weekly swimming lessons from aged 3 in nursery and begin swimming galas at primary level, they have quality modern language teaching (with compulsory French and Latin or German up to year 9 in secondary school), quality music and Pe lessons with specialist teachers. Yes of course I could send them to these sorts of lessons as extras if they went to state school but they wouldn't have the same effect.

Interesting points hurricane, but I still have this sense of, why are schools singled out as being make or break, when actually unless a school is absolutely dire with huge problems, the chances are they will do a good job with children of all abilities. The fact is, you will always come across an element of people who are indifferent/hostile/uncooperative/confrontational etc in all walks of life. My sister runs a hotel and comes across all sorts of characters. My brother is a doctor and has also encountered all kinds of people/situations in his career. I know with our children from when they are a young age, there can be a tremendous temptation to protect them from all the elements of the world that aren't exactly as we would like them to be. There can be an urge to only allow our children to mix with a narrow range of like -minded others. But is this really a helpful preparation for life? I went to a comprehensive, which actually looking back wasn't a particularly great one. But what it left me with was a sense that learning was MY responsibility as well as the schools. I encountered people at University who'd been to private schools who just had no idea how to learn for themselves, or how to mix and socialise with a range of people. And since then, in my career, I've also realised that people skills and an ability to feel comfortable in a range of situations is just as important as passing exams.

Off topic but I don't want to just let ITG's comments go:

I don't think I ever said I was sacrificing my life. Life goes in phases and the best thing I can do for me and my family at the moment is be available to me my kids when they are not at school which for me at the moment means not working. It doesn't mean that I have not had a career or that I won't have one again. Family life and talking to my kids is why myself and my partner have made the choices we have (it's our money, by the way, it's a partnership with us each making diferent types on contributions and referring to the Husband's money is pretty insulting to all stay at home mums/dads).

Yes, I'm bored sometimes - most people are, so what. Guess what? Some people get bored doing their jobs - thats life, not everyone has a choice at any particular moment in time.

Bottom line: I am doing what I want do - spending time with my kids before and after school and enabling them to do fun stuff that they like, making the most of the school holidays to visit interesting places and friends and family. I chat to the other mums after I've dropped the kids off because thats fun and stimulating too - gosh I must be weird!

Hope this one can be laid to rest now as it's getting a bit iritating. I think we are all entitled to seek good schools for our kids, if you think it doesn't matter you are entitled to your opinion and I'm interested to hear it (thats why I asked) but I don't think its necessary make judgements about parents work choices.

At the college I went to the mix of state and private was about 50:50. Each group contained people who were good socially and could get on with others and those who found it harder.

How many state schools have a large proportion of children leaving school without 5 a-c gcses (including maths and english)? Too many I think. Does that consitute doing a good job?