Private school class sizes going up? AIBU?

[Meepme]

Our class is now at 16, but when my daughter started, it was 10. I'm debating what I'm actually paying for if they keep increasing the classes. AIBU?

My sons classes (secondary) have 10-12, teacher and TA. In the first year where the classes were not ability based he struggled to make friends in any of his classes as it was the same 10 people in every lesson.
I do think 10 is a very small class size, day in day out, for the children. However, as a teacher myself I do like the idea of such a small class!

I would say that you are paying for classes half the size of state. I’d suspect that fees will increase at any school that maintain smaller class sizes, so it’ll be a balancing act decision for you.

@Equalitea yes, i think through reading most of these posts, it seems like 16 is a good number to have. I pay £20k a year per child and other than this class size change, the school has been good.

10 is 1/3 size of state. It’s barely financially viable. It’s also dreadful for ks2.

@Meepme £20,000 from YR to Y2? That’s a huge amount. Our old prep
is £21,000 yr 3-8. This is to cover subject specialist teachers. It’s £13,500 for YR-Y2. Why are you paying so much? Or is DC y3?

@TizerorFizz it's year 3 London, very expensive

Two private schools near me have gone busy in the last two years. Both one form entries with classes of 10 or less.

16 IS a small class. 30, the average size of a state class isn’t even classed as big, it’s classed as “full” or standard.

I work in a prep. 16 a class is our aim. For quality and sustainability. A few classes have stretched beyond that and some (lower year groups down generally) are less and that is sometimes worrying, for example by horrible coincidence of a few children moving (including a set of triplets) one of our KS1 year groups ended up as two classes of 10 and 9 and there was strong consideration of merging them because the cost of two teachers and two TAs for 19 was not cost effective at all. Thankfully they didn’t and more children have joined.

16 is still a great number - think about it, a 1:8 ratio assuming you likely have a full time TA too.

10 is cute for reception as you sad but tbh whilst it may be an academic advantage to have so much attention it’s not doing much good in terms of learning patience, resilience, social skills, it’s a disaster for sports and tbh as they get older it’s just a bit dull and not a good reflection / training for real life, which they’ve got to hit one day!

You're panicking too much. You’re clearly invested in your childs education and can afford private schooling. The first point on its own puts your DD ten steps ahead. It will be fine.

Busy - meant gone bust

I think all independent teachers should do a few years in state to learn how teaching is done properly.

In my experience most have at least started out teaching in state schools and then moved into private/independent sector. There are far more opportunities to get through your NQT/ECT period in the state sector as more schools to start with.

So they already know.

Some move out of independent into state, back and forth between jobs throughout their career. It's quite an old idea that someone starts training and stays in the same school forever. Most move to new jobs every so often, especially earlier in their career if trying to climb the ladder.

These days private schools don't produce their own teachers - they've been through the same training as the state school ones.

It wouldn't make a difference imo.
The super rich would still have alternatives - they did in the past.

And they, and those who are less wealthy but in private for a range of reasons, really wouldn't suddenly all turn up at your bog standard state comp or your 'inadequate' primary school, let's face it.

And it's such a relatively small percentage using the private sector, especially once you leave the south, that it's not going to make much difference.

The government could be funding schools better now but they aren't.
A lack of private schools wouldn't change that.

But most good ones do take on qualified teachers for their main teaching staff, ime.

And it's only LEA schools that have to take in qualified teachers in England anyway. Academies and the like - all can, and do, employ unqualified teachers.

"But you can’t compare it to State (where class sizes are 30) because these aren’t normal kids - they are motivated with engaged parents. Just being around kids like that will be beneficial for your child"

😬😬😬 Now that's a statement. So parents who can't afford £30k per child per year on education aren't engaged, and parents who put their kids in boarding school at 8 and throw money at the situation are engaged? I attended a private school, and worked at another one. There were whole bunch of very privileged kids with anger issues, drug problems, lack of motivation... Teen angst plus money brings a lot of trouble. Parents don't know the half of it. Yes, there are less "feral" kids than in state school, but this is such a blanket statement.

Apart from this, the teaching at private schools can be very hit and miss. We've had very bad teachers, some of whom had actually been preying on the students (what used to be called "having affairs with") just be quietly moved between schools rather than be fired and held accountable. Not to mention unqualified teachers being hired due to nepotism, neither of which you get in state schools. Many of these teachers are still teaching years, decades, later. In fact, I've just looked up one of the teachers from my old secondary school who was quite openly sleeping with a 16 year old student when I was there, and he's now working in a state school having gone through a few private schools previously. Obviously this isn't on his record. Had he been a state school teacher he would have been imprisoned.

ANYWAY I know this was never intended to be a thread about state vs private schools, I couldn't just let this kind of comment slide.

Sorry OP that your thread is being derailed! I think 16 is a better class size than 10 but I understand your worry if it keeps going up with no notice!

Sorry nrft and I can see it's gone in various directions but I'd say it depends. My boys are at a prep and they have had anything from 10 to 16. It's all boys so friendships all seems to work. To be honest I'm good with 16 but 10 was also fine as there is another class of a similar size in the year group, so enough for friend choices and sports teams. Ours fees are toppy and I'd be unhappy if the class went over 18 as that's one of the reasons we're paying. But 16 is fine.

@Meepme Your London day fees for y3 are less than my DDs old prep in Bucks then! Y3 - £21,000.

I don’t quite understand why people using private schools are fixated on class sizes. When DDs school went to 20 in some classes, a few parents went mad. It’s not much different to 18 which was the norm before y3. The children were streamed. They children were well behaved. The children were engaged. 20 girls was a doddle! If there had been 10 I really would have worried about financial stability. I prefer a school with decent building that are well maintained, fab sports facilities, music practice rooms, drama facilities and great well paid teachers. I don’t care about 18 or 20 in a class.

Size of the year is at least as important as size of the class for things like friendships and sports. Definitely don’t want it too small - mine at coed with 35 in a year ( 2 classes of 17/18 but 3 sets for maths and English so 15ish for those- bottom set tends to be v small). Both are in a year that is gender “heavy” in their favour, which helps. They can put out at least 2 teams with subs so everyone gets a game and there’s not too great a spread of ability within a team.

DD was at one point in a class of 16 in primary and at another point in the same year in a class of 34 (they amalgamated two small Y3 classes because a teacher left). I far far preferred the class of 34 and DD was incredibly bored in a tiny class of 16.

I find it interesting that so many teachers believe 16-18 is an optimal size for primary classes when many of the most sought after primaries in London run larger than that. I believe that, for example, CLSG, NLCS and SHHS all have 24 per classroom by Year 3.

@expat96 That’s because the results of these schools make them highly desirable and parents will tolerate slightly larger class sizes if it means their child can get a place.

Plus it’s a business. No school is going to turn down extra fee revenue if they can get away with it.

24 is an ideal number in my mind. Or 20. Both split nicely into groups!

I think all independent teachers should do a few years in state to learn how teaching is done properly.

What do you mean by ‘teaching is done properly’?

I’m not sure what that poster’s comment meant. A lot of “teaching” is now more about crowd control. Independent schools aren’t immune from behaviour problems but it’s easier for private schools to expel disruptive pupils. This thread I’ve linked shows what a mess a lot of schools are in.

I’m only speaking from personal experience, but neither of the the independent schools I’ve had direct experience of have had such extreme behaviour problems, compared with the local state school which has plenty of pupils disrupting the entire school.

Comments such as that poster made are ridiculous. I’m not sure that teaching can be done “properly” when there are such huge behaviour problems. How can teachers be expected to “teach”?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4836123-is-behaviour-out-of-control-in-a-lot-of-schools?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

I’m not sure what that poster’s comment meant.

Well quite. Also if the teaching in private schools is so appalling why do people object to them since state schools provide a better education and it’s free.

I think between 16 and 20 is the sweet spot.

10 would be too small for me, so I'd be welcoming the change that OP is seeing

Maybe more relevant to secondary but if the unqualified teacher at the independent has a good degree in subject, an appropriate induction and is mentored by a senior member of staff who observes their lessons and provides feedback in what way would a qualified teacher be any better?

That's pretty much what you do on a pgce anyway but with some university sessions and a couple of fairly pointless essays to write.

what way would a qualified teacher be any better?

Happy Candle I don’t think they would be, but the ‘unqualified teacher’ is one example on a long list on mumsnet why state education is better than private.

Yes, it’s not the same anymore, increased class sizes and not hire enough staffs. when my son was in reception, there are 8 in each class, it was lovely, the teacher has time to read with them at school individually, school offer piano lessons, tennis, swimming and when my daughter in reception last year, they are 17 in each class… they only do group reading and no piano options….