Would you pay for private education when there is a very good state alternative?

[alfiesbabe]

I know this is a contentious issue, but am really interested to hear other people's views. Our situation: have just moved DS (Yr 9)from private to local state school. (His choice). He had been on a scholarship as a chorister, and finished in the choir, but money wasn't an issue as DH teaches in the private school so we paid peanuts for fees. DS is really happy and likes the wider range of students. He is in top sets for most subjects and reports back that the work is more challenging and behaviour better than was the case in his previous class. He gets less homework, but to my mind what he does get is more relevant (eg in maths he might get set 5 questions to test that he has understood a teaching point, whereas at the private school he'd be set several pages of the same type of question). Results wise, the private school had 85% 5 A-C passes, the state school had 72%. Bearing in mind the state school has the full ability range, whereas the private school is selective, this smacks to me of better teaching in the state school. It seems like a very small difference considering parents are paying about 12K a year for the private school. A-level results are similar - statistically the private school is a little better, but not by much. The private school offers more in the way of music and sport; but DS has gone as far as he wants with music for the moment and isnt bothered about sport. I'm not looking for validation of our choice - we know we've made the right decision - but I'm left with this feeling of 'What were we actually paying school fees for?' The experience as a chorister was valuable, but I can't get my head round parents who pay the full whack, specially if their child isnt musical or sporty. I'm aware that our local state school is outstanding and we're very lucky in this respect. So.... why WOULD anyone pay for private in this situation?

It's very very difficult for a state school to exclude a pupil (except on the 'zero-tolerance' issues - fireworks, guns, knives etc). Which is good news for parents of 'difficult' children, as schools are forced to work with them and try and sort the problem out.

...which is bollocks for everyone else

Other reasons for using a private school over a good state school:

• not SATS. I know not all private schools avoid them but some do and it is an important consideration for us.

• I've said it previously and I'll keep saying it (ok isn't relevant to primary) but the examinations that secondary private schools offer are changing - many now abandoning GCSEs.

I actually find it quite amusing that some posters seem to think that there is very little difference and it must be peoples snobbery. I wonder how many have actually visited an independant school and seen what actually is on offer.

IME even so called zero tolerance issues don't result in exclusion each time. Violence to teachers don't result in exclusion either. And my experience of how some of these children wre dealt with (or not!) are not good!

ScienceTeacher- agree that being able to kick out problem pupils can be an advantage for private schools. But in the case of my ds, his behaviour started to deteriorate because the private school he was in was not offering enough that was inspirational and challenging. Our experience was that not all, but too many, of the teachers were complacent and dull. Maybe the fact that they were relatively cushioned made it easier to deliver lessons which were going to get the kids through exams, but which weren;t really enthusing them. And it's interesting that my DH (who is a truly amazing teacher - the kind who 20 years later has kids on facebook telling him he's influenced their lives) is also moving back to the state sector.He's found his experience in private interesting, but honestly believes that the state sector is more satisfying in terms of the impact education can make on young people's lives.

I guess if you start at the bottom there is only one way to go.

our local partially selective comprehensive is deemed outstanding by OFSTED and no, ds1 is not going there

it just wasn't the right school for him - he's very bright, very sporty and also has a statement

our local school is huge, 2000+ pupils on a fairly small urban site, no sports facilities to speak of, very very academic but little understanding of special needs, and for him it would have been a sensory nightmare, just too many people, too much noise ...

we went to the open day and had a meeting with the senco and I kept on waking up in the middle of the night worrying about it

his primary head was also worried and said it she didn't think it was right for him either and what really clinched it was that he was terrified of the idea of going there

in the end we decided we just couldn't send him somewhere where he was destined to fail and looked around for alternatives

in our case the alternative is an academically selective boys' independent with smaller classes and fantastic facilities and although ds has problems from time to time he's very happy there - he definitely feels we've made the right decision

however, when ds2 and dd get to the same stage we will look again at all the options including local comprehensive as they are very different children and we will try to send them to a school which is right for them

as far as independent schools giving people more confidence, the grammar-turned-private which I went to encouraged us to discuss, debate etc there was very little passive learning, very little note-taking which definitely stood us in good stead when we went on to universities

Have to say it's great not having to pay for an education which is better than he had before [very very smug emoticon]

Here in Hackney, carrying a weapon (including fireworks) always results in exclusion. Even when it is 'just' in their bag and the kids are actually lovely (which sometimes seems stupid to us in the exclusion unit).

However, violence to teachers or other children unfortunately, should be a 'zero-tolerance' issue but sadly often isn't (due to conflicting reports, need for more evidence etc). Usually unions are good at standing firm on this.

Scienceteacher, think your attitude is a bit weird. I really like getting the best out of all the children I teach and care very deeply about them. It would be a total failure to our children if we purely kicked out children who are struggling to cope with school because they are too busy thinking about the fact their Dad's in prison and they are scared someone's going to come and 'get' their mum while they are at school. The state schools I have worked in have in many cases been very effective providing mentoring/counselling etc rather than just kicking them out.

Hmm... getting a bit off the topic here

Apologies for the wording of my post, am tired and typing too quickly

Umlellala - agree. I think truly excellent teachers do care about getting the best out of the kids they teach. Sometimes that means rethinking, researching new ideas, approaching something from a new angle, taking a risk. Hmm, all good skills for the pupils to be exposed to and soak up too..... A big factor in ds choosing to move to the state school was that he is very bright, and wasn't prepared to accept the pedestrian, uninspiring manner of some of the teachers he came across. He knew that they were covering the curriculum, but they were providing very little else in terms of real education.

I don't like the implication that I would advocate kicking out children who struggle to cope.

But then results are not the end of the matter. My daughters state school (grammar) gets superb results but I would question the variety and creativity of the teaching and say they only really care about results. They are also poor at pastoral care. They are currently in the top 20.

My son goes to a different state school with poorer results but is completely happy and has superb pastoral care and in my opinion more variety and creativity in teaching. It is still a good school and frankly much more caring and supportive of the child.

I am torn as to which one to send my youngest to as the former has also got better facilities.

Umlellala - I'm glad you've found that experience of mentoring/guidance in state schools. I have to say I think the pastoral care at the state school I teach in is very strong, and at the state school were ds has started is if anything even better. It never ceases to amaze me what an excellent job the tutors, heads of year etc do, despite the fact they are dealing with large numbers of pupils.

The private schools kick out troublesome pupils who in many cases end up in the state sector. If the state sector booted out all the troublesome pupils, would the private sector take them? Nope! So what do we do with these children? Ignore them? Throw them on the scrap heap?

Somebody somewhere has to try and reach these children? It won't be private sector despite their charitable status and suppose superior pastoral care which is only available to those who tow the line.

It is all very well for those who blabber on about better behaviour in the private sector but they conveniently forget that it usually comes at a cost to the state sector who often have to take on many of these pupils and are not in a position to toss them to one side like the touchy feely caring private schools.

So I ask again, if private schools don't want them, and state schools struggle with them, what exactly do we do with the troublesome pupils?

As for one of the reasons for choosing private is that they do not sit SATS, please.

I live in a grammar school area and the private primary schools spend their days coaching their pupils to pass the 11+ and for those going onto other private schools, the common entrance exam.

They are exam factories and everybody knows it. That's why in the adverts they always state things like 100% pass rate in the 11+.

Then when many of these kids get into the grammar schools, they struggle and require even more coaching/private tuition.

I live on the border of a grammar school area too spokette and the state primaries for the borough coach the children for the 11 plus just as much, that is their main priority in Year 6.
Local to us I'd say that from intakes of between 120/180 in the grammars at yr 7, you are not looking at more than about 20/25 from the small number of prep schools in the area. The state primaries feeding the grammars are large, sometimes three/four form intake, and very successful pastorally and academically.

Spokette - why should any child who mostly knuckles down at school and behaves themselves have to be educated alongside troublesome pupils. Ought they not to be taught in special schools or special units?

But there are not many of these special units/schools are there? Also, only a handful of children would require such extreme measures. A lot of bad behaviour arises for a variety of reasons including disruptive home life, boredom etc which can and should be managed in mainstream schools providing the will is there.

State schools have to (rightly) take these childen but then have the charge levelled against them about not managing behaviour blah, blah, blah whilst the private schools pat themselves on the back for producing well behaved and motivated products when in reality all they have done is excluded the ones they don't want.

One of my colleagues at work has this very problem in his son's class. A boy has joined the year 4 class after being jettisoned from his private school and has been very disruptive. He is from a well to do background but parents appear unwilling or unable to exert any influence over him. The private school has had enough so now the state school has to do the best they can with him but unless they can engage the support of the parents, what can the school realistically do? My colleague is not happy and is giving us ear-ache.

If pupils in a private school display disruptive behaviour for the reasons of boredom or a dysfunctional homelife, the private schools try to work with the pupil and family to help them just as a state school would. I don't understand your point.

Why ?

That you don't understand the point.

You originally asked "why should any child who mostly knuckles down at school and behaves themselves have to be educated alongside troublesome pupils?"

In response to my reply you then say "If pupils in a private school display disruptive behaviour for the reasons of boredom or a dysfunctional homelife, the private schools try to work with the pupil and family to help them just as a state school would."

So what happens when they (private school) can't resolve the issues ? The child is booted out because as you said "why should any child who mostly knuckles down at school and behaves themselves have to be educated alongside troublesome pupils" and I guess that is the sentiment of most fee paying parents.

No, you misunderstood me.

"why should any child who mostly knuckles down at school and behaves themselves have to be educated alongside troublesome pupils"

I am referring to pupils in the private and state system. You suggested that it is a travesty that private schools do not take on disruptive pupils. I replied with the above statement. No child who wants to learn should have to put up with disruption in class. The school (ANY type of school) should try to sort the issues out where they can. Where the issues cannot be resolved, these children would be better served in a specific unit or school with teachers trained to work with these types of pupils.

Fair enough and agree.

My SIL works as special needs teacher in a special unit. Currently has 4 pupils assigned to her and some days she is lucky if one turns up. She tries her best though.