State or private education for bright child?

[Lorelai]

I've been thinking a lot lately about whether or not we should be thinking about private schools for DD1 (3.4), and would appreciate some advice (please bear in mind we have NO money, so any private education would have to be entirely scholarship/bursary).

She seems to be quite a bright child, and not just through my own rose-tinted glasses. Her playschool 'teachers' have commented on it several times, as has one of her Sunday School leaders (who is a primary school TA and has said that DD can do some things better than some of the children in her class). Having said that though, I am not keen on labelling her this early, or putting any pressure on her - I was a G&T child so I know from experience that it is better to let children find their own level. Personally, I decided I would rather not work hard enough to fulfill my potential, and I am happy with that decision. So I don't want her to be pressurised to perform.

We live in a relatively affluent area (although in a less affluent 'pocket'), so there are no really 'bad' schools locally. That said, there are of course some that are better than others, and unfortunately the closest primary schools to us are not the 'better' ones, and there is no way she would get into the 'good' ones. I'm not massively worried, as I know she is in no danger of leaving primary school unable to read etc (in fact I am pretty sure she will be reading before she starts - she can already recognise letters, understands that they make different sounds, and knows what some of those sounds are, compares similar sounding words and can write her name plus copy other words that I write down for her).

However, I am still wondering if we should be thinking of private schools, and if so then just for secondary or for primary too (have I left it too late for primary? She will be starting reception in Sept 2012). Any thoughts would be appreciated.

"A good state primary will not let down the bright ones."

Have you read the link KATT provided about mixed ability? Mixed ability is just one of the reasons state schools simply cannot provided an ideal learning environment for bright pupils. Forget ideal, they cannot even provide a half-decent experience. They can only keep the kid happy, jump the DfE hoops, ticks the boxes they're required to tick and convince the parents they're doing a good job of "educating".

I'm sure mine isn't the majority opinion around here but after several kids in the state sector; years of dealing with state schools as a parent, consultant, volunteer, governor; a wide knowledge and experience of the G&T programme, having numerous teachers, heads and other educationists in the family etc., it is my opinion that every state primary fails every child ...and does it in a big way, it's just that most parents either don't dig too deep into performance because they're reliant on the free baby sitting service or they use as a yardstick those unreliable indicators such as teacher opinion, OFSTED garbage, league tables or the size of the smile on Kevin's face after being allowed to pick his nose all afternoon while watching Horrid Henry in the "media room".

"So we do extension work with him at home and challenge him, and encourage his learning and curiosity alongside his very good state primary."
Excellent! For those who have to use state schools for bright children you can compensate for the damage by taking an active part in your child's education. Take comfort in the fact that children spend less time in school than they spend outside of it. Take charge of the child's education yourself and have no expectation of the school except for ensuring the safety and happiness of your child.

emy72 You may be able to come up with one state school that nurtures talent (although DAL has said not!) but in all my experience I've not found one.

You will be able to come up with a private school that's not as good as other private schools.

I still think the statement stands - chances are private will be better for a bright child.

Do have a look at the website, teaching battleground - it's written by a teacher and you get a really good idea of how the state system (doesn't) works.

Dadatlarge it is my opinion that every state primary fails every child

You are generalising and talking out of your arse.
Around 80% of the children in my Y2 class have prgressed by at least a level in all areas of literacy and numeracy this year. I am able to explain the poorer progress of the remaining 20%.

We set in both maths and literacy (using a phonics scheme), so the teaching is not mixed ability for the 2 main subjects.

One of the children, tested today, has a spelling age 41 months above his chronological age. In fact, only 5 children in a year group of 55 have a spelling age more than 4 months or more under their chronological age.

At least half of my class are free reading.

You are an insulting all teachers who work hard to help the children progress through careful planning and knowing each individual's needs.

Such arrognace is just a demonstration of your ignorance.

DadAtLarge, I am watching my dd (now 14) narrowly for any sign of the damage you claim that every state school does to every child. What I see is a child who:

regularly comes home excited about something that has been discussed at school and goes off to do further reading or wants to discuss things further

spends her breaktimes discussing reading and future career dreams with a group of like-minded friends

has developed interests in a range of areas which have not been supported or stimulated at home

also has friends with different interests and enjoys their company too

has repeatedly turned down offers of home education despite the fact that her chronic health problems make attendance very difficult for her- she says she feels she would miss out

Where would you say that damage is? That is supposed to happen to every child?

I do not recollect that she every watched Horrid Henry at junior school, but I do remember how much she enjoyed studying Macbeth.

If she comes home eager to learn more about something studied at school and I point her in the direction of further reading or sit down to discuss a question with her, I hardly see that as "undoing damage".

The only damage that was undeniably done to dd was at junior school when she did not receive enough support for her physical disability. But her intellectual curiosity has been stimulated, not damaged.

I do not deny the validity of your experience, I just find it very arrogant that you should claim to be able to speak for every child in every school.

gordongrumblebum and cory

I don't agree with DAL's 'every child' but the thread is talking about bright children. I can't see how with a class of 30+ with an ability range which will include children who can barely read, a teacher can really get the best out of children who are streets ahead, and that's what we're talking about here.

Your examples are fine for kids who are happy to go up just one level in a year but what about kids who are capable of going up a level a week?

KATTT, where did I say my dd is not bright?

I am not saying it would be right for every bright child and I fully understand that some children may well need something different.

But even bright children are different from each other, they have different attitudes and different ways of feeling stimulated- what is damaging for Bright Child A may actually be the right thing for Equally Bright Child B.

Schools and teachers are also different in how they handle things. Dd remembers with great fondness the maths teacher in Yr 6 who let his top set work on Yr 8 work and spent a lot of time putting together material with mathematical puzzles etc. A good English teacher can do marvels in getting work at widely different levels out of the same set task: it's a question of guidance. fwiw I do not know any state school that does not set for ability in the key subjects, so your bright child is not actually going to be doing literacy or maths together with the children who can barely read: in junior school, they may not even be in the same room for those lessons.

I was in happy in state education but have never found myself to be at an educational or intellectual disadvantage compared to my privately-and-Oxbridge-educated academic colleagues, so I think I may be entitled to assume a) that I was quite bright b) that for whatever reason I was stimulated to do the learning I needed to do to hold my own. I read ahead, I was sometimes far ahead of the class (occasionally even of the teacher) but for some reason I still found my school experience made me want to learn more. Because people are all different.

For dd I think the experience of being with a mixed group of people has been very advantageous: it has taught her better verbal skills- having to adapt and get across to a wider range of people- and it has done nothing to put her off reading.

If I had to give any advice on this subject, it would not be "measure IQ and then decide" but "look at your child as an individual, what makes him tick, what kind of environment does he need?". If you feel he needs something different- then try to give it to him if you can.

I think my reference to "every child" has been misunderstood. Schools fail different children in different ways.

Let's focus on schools failing every bright child for the moment.

gordongrumblebum, thanks for explaining how you've failed the bright children in your class. OK, you believe you've done well. Your school probably thinks you've done well. I'm sure many parents think you've done well.

The problem is that you, like everyone else in the establishment, have to follow the curriculum, targets, methods and everything else handed down to you. One of the goals is on the amount of progress children are expected to make per year.

That target is a load of bullsh*t, but you teachers have to follow it religiously because that's how performance is measured. Some children aren't capable of a progress from 2c to 2b (for example) during the year because of a disability, absence, illness or whatever other reason. For other children, 2c to 3c is working far below their ability.

You would be doing well by the bright children in the class if you knew the speed at which each was capable of progressing and at which s/he was most efficient at learning and if you progressed them at this speed. You've got no chance in hell of being ever able to do that in a mixed ability 30. You teachers don't even try! All children have the same target for progress and this takes no account of the fact that children's natural ability to progress in different subjects varies as they grow. It takes no account of the speed at which a child is capable of progressing in a particular subject in a particular year. In fact, teachers aren't trained in how the needs of the very intelligent children differ. Teachers aren't even aware that these children learn best when they're learning at their speed. Why? Because there's no point training teachers for something they'll never be able to deliver in the class. So the targets for progress are set uniformly.

Are there crap teachers? Absolutely, plenty of them. But there are many good ones too. I respect the huge amount of work those teachers put in, I'm in awe of the dedication some of them show to the job. But given what they have to work with and within they cannot do anything but fail every bright child.

cory, I'm not talking just the experience with my DS. In his case, the school had been brilliant. He had an IEP, he got individual teacher time, a secondary school teacher came in once a week to teach him maths. The school couldn't do any more. 100% to them for their efforts. They were trying hard, but they just aren't geared for it. It's a Ford Focus pulling a plough.

Yes, DAL, but I am still waiting to hear how my dd has been damaged. She reads masses, she enjoys discussions at school, she is looking forward to university- where is this damage you are talking about?

btw I have never heard a school suggest that you can't move forward more than two sublevels- the way our schools think, this is an average rate of progress, not something that applies to every child

KATTT - sorry, posted and ran and haven't been around since.

We probably would be going private for all of them in a heartbeat if we could, yes - I think that the smaller class sizes are better for ANY child, not just the bright ones.

However, that said, we are lucky enough to have a very good state primary which differentiates the work and streams the children fairly aggressively from early on, which is why, given that we have been advised that at the moment, on his current trajectory, he will get into a super selective without too much difficulty, we have decided to leave him where he is and not pile on the pressure of keeping a scholarship in a very academic prep. (That, and the fact that one child at the private school in question recently came home and asked her mother why they didn't have a helicopter because 'everyone else does'......we just aren't even on the same side of the universe and I didn't want my children having that sort of sense of entitlement - there is more to life than being clever!)

I don't have any experience of the private sector, broke myself, but will say that some private schools can get better results at GCSE stage and A levels which compared to some state schools.

My advice would be to forget G&T and if school mentions it then ignore it or play it down. Put her through a good state primary until 11 and get her into a local grammar school if any are available. If not then look into entrance exams for private school providing their results are far superior to the state option. To be offered a full bursary for a private secondary school a child would need have a very high score on the entrance exams. TBH 3 1/2 if far too young to predict her acheivements so far in advance.

She sounds lovely and just enjoy her.

If you were rolling in money I would say put her through private for social reasons.

Sounds like a similar set up to our area, not selective schools.

Will add that a fair few of the DC's who went to the local private school are now in our state 6th form doing A levels and their GCSE results are no better than our DC's (mine got the best in her school, shameless boast). However, they are all being subjected to bad results in the 6th form .

cory, I don't know where you got this impression that kids are "damaged" goods. My claim was that state schools fail all bright children.

If you feel that they haven't failed your DD, then fantastic! :)

Hmm, tending to agree about state schools. State school my DD is at is looking like they will be 'failing' quite a few bright pupils in the next year. My DD being one of them. I cannot believe that all the pupils are getting below a D because they aren't capable of better when a couple who manage an A are resitter's and privately tutored.

What I was trying to say is to look closely and carefully before you choose and do not assume that just because you pay for something it is better than what is available for free.

What I have experienced is that in both sectors you have to be really very careful when the catchment you go for is middle class/pushy parents. This is because you can get a school delivering very little and achieving great results - I would say this is true in both sectors.

I am in this situation now with the state school my children attend, but when I have gone round a few private ones I have spotted similar issues, as my eye is very trained now!

As I said I have only seen one private school out of 6 that delivered what I would class as first class in terms of facilities, teaching, opportunities and academic choice. The others were very comparable to what our local state school delivers, and I would not invest thousands to get what I can get for free!

Incidentally, class sizes was not a differentiatior in any of the private schools I visited, none of them had classes smaller than 24 children, with one teacher and a TA, which is not a huge difference to the 28/29 my children are in.

"This is because you can get a school delivering very little and achieving great results - I would say this is true in both sectors."

I agree very much with this. Some schools operate draconian admissions procedures and most of their added value is going to be the fact that all the children in a class will be bright, due to selection, rather than through great teaching.

I have to throw in my own experience of a state school and an exceptionally able child. My ds is currently in Y4 and whilst I would say that not every year has provided him with an ideal learning experience (which I think would be very difficult), his state school have bent over backwards in a very thoughtful way to keep him occupied, inspired and he has had an excellent school experience, one which he loves with creative teachers. He has also learned many other useful life skills, including patience.

FWIW I have looked around a good many secondary schools already, state and private. I have seen very mediocre teachig in some private schools, uninspiring, drilling of already bright children in order to get the required quota of A* s. I have also seen some very good ones. It's simply not possible to make a judgement about all state or all private schools based on very narrow experience.

I know that in my area, I could not pay for the quality of education my ds is recieving. He has had at least 2 teachers who I would class as 'exceptional', who have understood his speed of progression, provided activities where they can, have been honest when they can't, but called in additional expertise from secondary schools. This may be different at secondary, and if we need to pay to get the right school, then we will. But it will be because it's right for ds.

I'm sorry people have had negative experiences, but even if you have, please listen to those of us who have also had very positive experiences.

You did not read my post properly DaL. We do NOT have a great range of ability in maths and literacy.

I said that we set for maths and english. In fact over KS1, we set 8 ways for literacy!
The top children in my set are writing at a 3B/A level at 7 years old.

'You teachers don't even try! All children have the same target for progress and this takes no account of the fact that children's natural ability to progress in different subjects varies as they grow. '

Now you are really talking out of your arse.... we set a challening target in Year 2 to progress by one level in Y2. The child leaving Y1 on a 2B will expected to be a 3B, the child leaving on 1C, will be expected to be 2C.
If the child expected to be a 3B, is a 3A by the end of the year - all well and good.
We teach to the next step... we don't wait for others to catch up with the brightest - we may be waiting for ever.
Of course we realise the speed that the brightest children are progressing - it is our job to do so.

You are very ignorant.

And to the person who says they may be able to move a level a week - FYI there are 10 levels, level 9 and 10 being about A level standard. I don't think I could move even the most capable 7 year old to A level standard over the autumn term.

Those targets are 50% higher than what you're expected to do so full kudos to you for setting those targets.

"If the child expected to be a 3B, is a 3A by the end of the year - all well and good."
Don't get me started on that 3A artificial ceiling for KS1 and 5A for KS2! I've ranted and raved about it in other threads.

(And, yes, I know teachers have the discretion to mark a child above 3A in teacher assessments ...for all the good that does)

My problem isn't with you, it's with the system.

Oh FGS! There IS NO CEILING!!!

I don't see your point in your last post, if you are aware that higher levels may be reported.

Levels are pretty inconsequential.

A teacher's job is to teach to a child's capabilities and think of the next step in his or her learning.

I think you may be out of touch with 'the system'.

"Oh FGS! There IS NO CEILING!!!"
Hmm, the last time someone challenged me on MN about this a few weeks ago, it was a teacher. I asked her to link me to a public example of stats or records showing children scoring outside of those ceiling figures.

She was very confident she could find some, but later sheepishly got back to admit that it's not publicly recorded - not in league tables, not OFSTEDs, not anywhere.

The system doesn't give a damn about the top kids who can achieve outside of L3A at KS1 or L5A at KS2. Personally, I believe well in excess of 10% of children can score past those ceiling figures given the right environment. Some teachers might do the higher assessments, others might avoid it to "help" colleagues in future years. (Under reporting of ability starts in reception with the baseline assessment - nobody asked any of my three children if they could read the time, for example, or whether they knew their five times tables. In due course the school took full credit for teaching them all that! ;) )

"Levels are pretty inconsequential."
I agree with you there, but you don't have a choice. As a teacher you're expected to follow the curriculum and target the levels. It doesn't matter if little Brian's brain is currently good at language but a bit slow at maths and is going to reverse in a couple of years when he becomes quicker at picking up maths. You can't adjust accordingly. To make sure it can keep tabs on you and measure your perfornance the system requires you to plod on targeting x levels of progress per year per subject. Flat. Measurable. Convenient.

Some, like Ken Robinson, argue that this is in conflict with the job of educating.

DAL - I'm with you and Ken Robinson on this. Children are despatched according to date of manufacture into the factory system.

Gordon - My daughter was at L3 at the START of Year 1 in maths and reading, they haven't bothered with her, she's literally bored to tears (just been in crying a few minutes ago at the thought of having to spend another day in that place).

It's not an esoteric debate we're having it's about children's lives and happiness.

'I agree with you there, but you don't have a choice.'

You're wrong.
Admitted, I don't have a choice about reporting levels in the vast swathes of paperwork that have to be completed over the course of the year. BUT..... the levels I report are secondary to the progress that the children are making as regards 'next step learning'. Yes, I have to provide levels for school development purposes 3 times a year BUT levels are not the essence of the day-to-day job. Levels are just an overview of each child's progress.

I teach to objective. If I have a child in my maths class who knows how to add HTU, then I extend them to THHtu, or introduce another method. Likewise, if another child can only add TU on a number line, that is what they will do. I'm not constantly thinking.... hmmm got to move them to a 3B, and oh dear, they're staying at 2A..... I'm assessing for the next step learning for each particular child.

Of course the levels are still on my mind because of my performance management targets, but they don't influence my TEACHING. The only influence on my teaching is each child's individual progress.

The 'system' may not care about reporting levels over L5 but that does not mean that teachers and headteacehrs don't care, or provide for those pupils.

In my ds's year there are a number of very bright children, all of who had officially achieved 4a's at the end of Y3. They are still learning. On our end of year report, there are actually spaces to put children at up to Level 9 ( and this is a primary school).

Teachers do have to teach the curriculum and have a responsibility to all the children in their class, but they can provide different workschemes. Examples of things that have been going on in our primary school are G&T Sports courses, philosophy lessons, young journalists, orchestra, choir, maths club, chess club. My ds is just about to go out for a whole day, with his class teacher to a county wide 'exceptional mathemiticians' day with his teacher.

Some state schools fail some kids, So do dome private. My own experience is like corys - I don't believe ds's current school has in any way failed him. They may not always know exactly what to do in every maths lesson, but they have provided such a wide range of opportunity for him and all others that he does not have time to be bored.

cubscout

My daughter wanted to do chess, she enjoys chess, they wouldn't let her because she's 'too young'.

No one knows the true picture across all schools but given:

1. There's no incentive to teach the top 5-10% of kids
2. There's 30+ in a class, with a huge range of abilities

I would suspect that my experience is more common than yours.