Learning to read....state vs private,which is correct?

[Chippychop]

My friend has just told me her ds who has just started reception in a private school is learning words and has homework 3 to 4 times a week. Nothing major just recognition small words "I" "am" etc. My ds who is the same age but at a state school, doesn't seem to be doing anything word related and comes home telling me he still hasn't learnt to read yet(bless he thinks it's as easy as turning on a light switch). Which way is best? Will private school always be ahead of the state system?

mrz true but that is only for reception year. After that they can pretty much do what they like. The benefit of not being tied to the NC is immeasurable and one of the many reasons I made the educational choice that I did.

An intelligent child from a supportive background with intelligent, well educated parents who went to good state schools is likely to do just as well in life as a child from the same background who went to good private schools, imo - only the financial cost to the parents in the former case will have been considerably less. I don't think how much homework you are set or how many words you bring home are any indication whatsoever of the quality of the education being provided. You have to use your own intelligence as parents to see beyond that.

"PinkCanary - BUT when they go to school at age 7 children are expected to read, write and know maths. So what's done here in UK in Reception and year 1 is done there at home or kindergarden."

Not necessarily. I started school in Sweden when the school starting age was 7 and most children did not attend nursery (but Sweden was top of the world in education): we started with the letters of the alphabet. But were then expected to be fluent readers by the end of the first year.

My Swedish nephews have gone to school under the more recent system where they can start school at either 6 or 7 (parents decide) and most children will have attended nursery first. But my nephews did not know how to read when they started school: there was no formal teaching in nursery which was very much about crafts and practical skills.

But again, they are expected to have learnt to read fluently within the first year: and dn's school teacher was a bit concerned because he was the only child who hadn' got there (he has more than caught up since).

(ps reference supposed to be to the child going to good state schools, not the parents having gone to them!).

rabbitstew, I couldn't agree more.

We go to a state school and my child was tested on the high frequency words at the end of the nursery year - she brought home reading books in the last term of nursery year.

We didn't know she could read in the nursery, but the teacher found out and gave her reading for her appropriate level/ability.

In our school - in the Foundation Stage, there's only reading books given out for homework.

In Key Stage 1 - we get reading books plus 10 spellings per week.

Written homework for us starts in Key stage 2 and I don't know how much we get because we're not there yet.

Some schools have no homework at all. I don't think the difference is necessarily due to state v private. Some schools will set homework from nursery year - they are all different.

rabbitstew, I know this isn't a state Vs private thread but it's not all about how well they do.

I'm fairly sure that at our local very affluent, very high achieving state secondary my kids would probably get very similar A-level results to what I would hope/expect them to get at the indie school we've chosen.

Even if I knew for sure they'd come out with exactly the same results, I wouldn't make different choices.

I pay for the experiences they get each day not for any academic advantage nor to keep them away from the local kids many of whom are far more well-heeled than I.

myredcardigan, the affluence of the state school should have little to do with the quality of the education, either - just an influence on the sort of people attending. And maybe you misunderstand what "how well you do" means. I don't mean it will enable you to become an accountant or banker. I mean, I don't think a child in a state school with supportive, educated parents inevitably misses out on anything. I have siblings who were educated privately - I was the only one of my siblings to be entirely state educated (albeit we all ended up in the state sector). I do not think I missed out, albeit I had to be more self-disciplined and self-motivated to access some things that my siblings were offered through their schools. I did actually have more freedom to choose what I wanted to do, though, and more free time to do it in. My experience of private schools via my siblings was that you spent so much time in them, doing academic work and extra-curricular activities, that you either became moulded by them to a certain extent or marked out as a trouble maker. I am sure that does not have to be the case with all private schools, of course, it's just my experience - and everyone wants something subtly different out of education, in any event.

Well, my dd - within a state school reception - was doing all the word tins and reading thing most nights, probably by December. (It's hard to remember now).

Luckily, she learned to read pretty quickly (finished reading scheme before end of Year 1) so we have a more relaxed time at home now; she just curls up and reads her own books.

You have to remember that private schools have to be seen to be doing a lot - even if it isn't the right way to educate - because it's the more formal teaching that people generally pay for.

Also, reading isn't really 'taught'. It just happens,and with some children quicker than others. I know of children who have plodded through every reading book and have learned a lot more slowly than others who have read very few books.

rabbitstew, I agree with you to a certain extent especially that affluence does not automatically equate to outstanding (though in our local case, it does).

Though from my own state educated experience plus my teaching experience, I would say that state schools often offer less freedom. My 6th form experience was that bright kids were pushed into academic uni courses. A straight A student suggesting she wanted to be a designer (not me but good friend) was told not to be so ridiculous. She did law and hated it!

Again, our local primary school is a 'hot-house' for L5s at Y6. It is push, push, push. Sadly, league tables and SATs have made many state schools that way. I see it at work constantly.

I wanted a different experience for my kids.

Civil, I have to disagree that most people are paying for formal or pushy teaching methods.

I've noticed on MN that lots of parents who don't use the private system just assume that those who do, chose it either because they are elitist or because they want their child pushed. It's simply not true for most of the parents I know.

myredcardigan - you are clearly doing what you believe is right for your children where you live. Where I live, my local state primary is far from being an academic hot-house focused on SATs (that one is the over-subscribed one with a middle class intake on the other side of town...), and far from being in a highly affluent area (nor is it in an impoverished area - just very socially mixed). My children go to school happy and come out happy, they feel secure and supported at school. I believe I am doing what is right for my children at this stage in their lives, too. This does not mean I think the state sector is always the best option for everyone with a choice, nor that I am adamant my children will remain in the state sector forever. It just means that it is right for me, now, and that I do believe that some people avoid the state sector for the wrong reasons.

My children are at the local state primary with a fantastic reception class. I had virtually no idea my DS1 was learning sounds and letters at this stage of reception. My DS2 is already writing in the class and telling me about it. So I reckon the feedback you get depends on the child, not necessarily the school!

My children could already read, write and add fluently before they started school. That's probably why I'm happy with the school they are at - they don't just do reading, writing and adding up, which would soon become very dull for my children. Which just goes to show that every child has different needs and every school has a different approach - if you are lucky enough to have a choice, you can match the right child up with the right school, whether that be private or state.

Also at the stage being discussed here (early years), there are no SATS - "end of Year 2" SATS were abolished years ago; primary schools have only the "spring of Year 6" SATS and even then most schools boycotted these last year and they're likely to stop altogether.

re the OP, neither is better. Individual schools will have practices that push a little harder formal learning in some cases and allow a little more play-based learning in others. Mostly it's the quality of support at home that will make the difference in speed of learning to read, whenever that takes place.

Well quite, rabbitstew! We all need to make the decision based on our own local circumstances. It's just that as a teacher I see so many schools constantly pushing the academic side of things because unfortunately, that is mainly what they are judged on.

The irony is that in our area, going to the school my children do means mixing with a far more diverse range of kids. All colours and faiths and a few kids on bursaries. Local school almost entirely white with catchment houses costing 500k+.

But again, that is our area and can only really be taken into account in our decision.
And anyway, we are moving in the next few months to a very different part of the country so all the angst begins again!

"Though from my own state educated experience plus my teaching experience, I would say that state schools often offer less freedom. My 6th form experience was that bright kids were pushed into academic uni courses. A straight A student suggesting she wanted to be a designer (not me but good friend) was told not to be so ridiculous. She did law and hated it!"

At the boarding school I attended briefly in my teens, my announcement that I wanted to be an archaeologist (not a professor of archaeology, just an archaeologist) was met with sharp intakes of breath. One can see their point of view: archaeologists don't tend to earn the kind of money that pays school fees. I am now married to an archaeologist and have just noted our combined incomes pre-tax are less than school fees of said school would be for our 2 children. So yes, I do see where they were coming from.

In other words, I don't think it's necessarily the case that all independent schools are happy for their pupils to choose freely.

Imo the posters who said it's more about individual schools than the state-private divide are spot on.

Have noted definite division of priorities between the different state secondaries we've been visiting over last few weeks: some seem very proud of academic results, others downplay the academic side and talk more about vocational. The school we are hoping ds will go to seems to have a very good balance.

And have no doubt at all that if we had visited a number of different independent schools we would also have found a range of different attitudes and expectations.

I don't think the private sector is elitist and there are a huge range of private schools out there! It isn't just eton you know! And parents have a choice how to spend their money. What makes spending money on education more abhorrant than spending it on designer clothes, flash cars etc? Parents have different reasons for choosing private over state - smaller class sizes, they have a quiet child that is getting overlooked in a class of 30, better behaviour or they want a more traditional approach to teaching...

Jaded, I totally agree - we are looking into the possibility of a private school because our son is summerborn and a bit shy and lacking in confidence. We are currently looking at a school that has less facilities than a state school but have class sizes of 12-14. And they said that we could hold him back a year if he is struggling because he would be the youngest in his class.

"there are no SATS - "end of Year 2" SATS were abolished years ago"

Not strictly true, Dandydan - they were changed from their previous test-score-or-nothing form in 2005 to continuous teacher assessment backed up by meaningless tests, which teachers in general are much happier about,but they weren't abolished completely.

(sorry have not read whole thread but...)

My DS1 has just started Reception in a private school and is learning letter sounds.

Friend's DD started in a state school & she is on letter sounds & meant to be learning some words by sight, just as you describe for the friend's DS.