State VS Private and how can you tell at age 3 what kind of school is best for your child?

[kb101]

State VS Private and how can you tell at age 3 what kind of school is best for your child?

I have seen the other threads about the whole state versus private issue, which I am also wrestling with. We might be able to afford private at a push, and definitely at the expense of other luxuries like nice holidays etc.

It seems that one of the main advantages of private education is smaller class sizes (in my area it would be 20 in a private class and 30 in a state class), which many seem to think would have most benefit for children who are 'safely average' and would not necessarily get the attention that a very bright or struggling child would get from a stretched state teacher. But, is there any way of knowing at 3 that your child will be one of these middle students, or one of those 'bright and would do well anywhere' kind of children'? Does anyone have any experience/thoughts on this? On paper, DS1 is from bright 'stock' with both parents Cambridge graduates (I am state educated overseas, and DH was exclusively privately educated in the UK, so we are always bickering about what to do for the best) but I don't think I can tell at this stage where DS1 is on any scale of brightness.

There is subtle pressure from in laws who think there is no negative to go the private route and that you're giving them everything you can. Seems an expensive mistake if the kids would have been fine at the local state school ('good' OFSTED report). State secondary is not so fantastic locally and I guess I am worried about DS1 being disadvantaged when taking entrance exams for the top independent day schools/state schools against prep-educated kids.

I'd be really grateful to know your thoughts/experiences. Thanks.

I don't think geography is old-fashioned. I think learning lists of rivers is old-fashioned. I have never needed to know all the rivers of England and managed to get an excellent degree from a top university, held a senior job in a consultancy and generally be an active and informed citizen.

I don't think it is remotely old-fashioned to learn all the rivers of England. I think it is mark of an informed, civilised person to know that kind of thing.

There is much of my education that I do not need in order to function as a human being, but that greatly enriches my life nonetheless. There is much more to life than "excellent degree from a top university, held a senior job in a consultancy and generally be an active and informed citizen." (all of which also apply to me).

it's interesting isn't it. I am a mix of private and state schools (dh solely private) and I moved schools a fair bit so probably have a more negative view of education (!).

I do think a lot of these private schools (probably more so in London maybe?) are very results orientated. Can cite lots of stories but probably not for this thread.

I don't know, I think it's a very personal decision. The older I get, the more I think that the state option (especially where we are) is perfectly adequate. It seems to produce children who have gone on to get into university (including the top ones) or gone on to find themselves a good career. And if state education can do that, with larger class sizes and a good mix of everyone from the local areas (and surrounding areas), then why shouldn't that be a perfectly viable, if not the most sensible, option.

Singersgirl - I think you should set yourself a challenge to learn those rivers!

When I was in yr 7 at private school (was called upper 3rd in those days) we used to have to draw the map of the British Isles by hand and then write the rivers on...I remember enjoying that!

But Anna, that is why you send your child to a school that teaches those things - because you value them. I don't believe for a moment that the majority of 9 year olds who learn lists for a test will remember them as adults and I think it is wasting a lot of their energy and enthusiasm to drill them when they could be thinking about things instead.

LOL at the idea of my not being an informed, civilised person because I can't list all the rivers of England.

And, incidentally, I went to a secondary school that is frequently quoted on here by private school fans as a top school in the country, and even 30 years ago they had moved on from teaching in that way.

PMSL at the idea of having to know all the rivers in England to be informed and civilised.

It's a rote learning exercise. Really stupid people will be able to learn a list of facts. It doesn't demonstrate any understanding in itself

I don't think that learning things by heart = drilling => instantly forgetting.

Obviously if you learn lists of facts with no context it will not be useful. But do you honestly^ believe that that was what the school you are talking about was doing? It would be most unusual in an English private school today. Learning by heart is a very useful skill - I was partly at school in a French system, and when I went to university in England it proved extremely valuable to me to be able to retain dates and facts as the basis for history and literature courses. I was much, much better at it than my (mostly privately, A-level educated) peers .

Anyway, I was more suprised by the idea that it was odd to learn the capitals of countries by heart than by the river example. Knowing basic facts about other countries is very useful in daily life - and of course, one looks pretty uninformed in general conversation with no knowledge of those basic facts.

The capitals is much more useful, I agree, Anna. Of course not everyone forgets everything they learn by rote, but lots of people do, and the less useful it is to them in daily life, the more likely they are to forget it - like the ludicrous words my currently state-educated children often get in their spelling lists.

I'm very good at learning by rote too, and I was also better at it than most of my (mostly privately, A-level educated) peers. Shall we have a rote learning contest?

I think rote learning gets its bad name from systems/teachers where that is all that goes on. Rote learning with no analytical skills is not an education.

However, you can have all the analytical skills in the world but if you know nothing, you won't be very quick in the outside world (having to look up and verify every last piece of information on Google is very time-consuming).

I never remembered anything I learnt by rote.

I think, to the OP, as someone else said, what school you decide to send your child to will mainly be influenced by what you want tbh.

I too went to schools overseas and there is a big difference looking at schools here (it's the space more than anything else I think, and possibly the discipline and attitude to learning!).

It's difficult asking other people's opinions because everyone has a different take on it.

One thing mumsnet has made me realise (about dh and my attitude to schools) is that we are not very results orientated AT all. I would far rather my children were happy at school and getting by than getting top marks in tests.

I went to a top rated secondary school in Italy and there was a lot of rote learning there. I remember being in tears having to memorise a 10 page poem and just not wanting to do it as I couldn't see the point. I think it's a very old fashioned way of learning and I don't think THAT aspect of my education was something I'd want at all for my kids.

Now getting learning grammar, studying latin and all other mind jogging exercises which also require some rote learning by default, I agree with.

To the OP, I am in the same boat: it is very difficult to choose a school for a 3 year old as you have very little idea of what they're like - especially with your first one. I think unfortunately we have to go with the facts that seem to make sense at the time and be prepared for trial and error....

Lots of good advice here.

Tbh I wouldn't chose private because you think it'll give you the competitive edge. It probably won't. And starts you off on the wrong foot.

If you like the private school and can see your child there, and think they'll enjoy all that is on offer, then go for it.

If you're buying into that system purely for the get-ahead and academic excellence, then it'll probably end in tears. imo because this is education, and you might not get 'value for money' in terms of attainment. But you might in terms of your ds having a good time, doing the best he can, making a load of friends and enjoying school.

if you can afford it, like the school, think it's a good place and think your ds will enjoy himself - then go for it.

We go private, because we looked at schools with places, liked that one the most.

I think if I was picking a school I would look at the way they teach reading and writing. Ie. do they use pure synthetic phonics or mixed methods. Do they introduce books from the start or wait until the child actually knows how to do decode words from letter sounds. Ideally it would be nice to pick a school that uses decodable readers.

Although finding such a school is next to impossible. Failing that I would look for a school where the children were happy and thriving.

I got so fed up thinking about this. In the end, we moved house to a better school district so now we can't afford the private option - and there's only one school (dd is 3). I'm actually very relieved not to have to think about it any more. I'm not, personally, at all keen on private education, but sometimes when you hear about it you wonder if you are doing your dc a disservice if you don't take the option if you possibly can.

We've chosen a private school that takes children from 2 and a half until 7. It is very small, has a lovely homely feel about it but is very traditional. It is quite shabby really, not smart at all. We chose it because the children looked happy, bright and were very friendly towards DS when we were shown around.

Our plan is to keep him there until he leaves the nursery stage and then look at state primaries. If they compare favourably then we'll move him. If not, we'll keep him there.

In these credit crunch times you should also bear in mind if you will be able to afford private education if you have any more children. Whatever school you opt for, you do not want to be in the situation of having to remove your children because of circumstances beyond your control.

Personally, I have gone for the state option because I am quite cautious financially. Children with educated parents tend to do well whereever they go to school. My dd2 did go to a nice private nursery which prepared her for school better than the state nursery which dd1 went to. However, this may be simply because dd2 is more academic in general.

Message withdrawn

My view is that a good state primary is fine for children. From what I've seen of both the state and private sectors, literacy and numeracy are just as well taught in the latter.

From about age 9 I think I prefer the private sector, for reasons like the Geography point above. The curriculum is broader. They learn languages more rigorously. There is more music and sport.

I wouldn't spend the money on private education before about nine.

Having gone to both state and private (both considered 'top schools' in the country) I can honestly say the teaching was much better in the state sector, inspitational in fact.

The opportunities in the private school were just not available in state however (languages, extra curricular, school trips).

A lot of the school day at my state school was spent getting everyone to be quiet and listen to the teacher. The classes were huge and half the class had no desire to learn. This is at what continues to be an 'oustanding' school where politicians and slebs fight to send their children.

I am pleased I went to both and have friends still from both but will probably send dd private for the reasons above.

inspirational even

susie100 - did you mean the teaching was inspirational in private, not state, then?

Sorry - no I thought the teaching was higher quality and more inspirational in the state sector than in private. However the teachers were up against huge classes, disclipline problems, much poorer facilities etc.
I got a lot out of the experience but I don't think the teaching made up for all the other problems.

Yes, some of the teachers in the state schools are awe-inspiring, truly amazing.

I have seen some very lazy teaching in the private sector, eg, geography lessons spent on rivers but never once taking the children a few miles out of the school to see examples of some of the features, something the local primary school always did. No making models to show what glaciation looks like. Just note-taking. Dull. They can get away with it because the children are highly-motivated with parents who'll help them at home.

I love the sub-thread from my OP on rivers and rote learning!!

Surely rote learning is an important part of life and you could argue that learning 26 alphabet letters and their various combinations is rote learning, it is just that we continue to use the knowledge on a daily basis that it never becomes redundant or rusty.

I challenge anyone to a Japanese degree, one of the most rigorously taught in the world, without rote learning! Yes it was extremely dull to learn 1800 Chinese characters, but if I wanted to know what a Japanese historian made of the Meiji Restoration or the attack on Pearl Harbour then it was essential.

In my view rote learning has its place and is a skill that might be required of our kids much later on in their lives...

Bride1 - are you saying you have never seen lazy teaching in state schools? I do object to your insinuation that those of us who teach in private schools are lazy slackers who expect the parents work - a particularly unrealistic expectation if you teach in a boarding school, I would have thought.

As a child I had some truly shocking teachers in the state system - imagine spending the entire two years of your history A Level taking down dictated notes. But I had some fantastic teachers too. Equally, of colleagues I have had as an adult who have inspired me with their passion for teaching, two were in private schools and one in a state.

I hate hate HATE this lazy and uninformed generalisation that state school teachers are better seemingly merely because of the fact that they teach in a state school.

And to the OP - choose the school you felt the best about and which best caters for your and your DS's needs.