Did you take DS/DD out of state education into Private education? If so what reasons?

[minipops1974]

Im sure this line of thread has been done lots of times - Its something at the back of our minds and just wondered if anyone has done it - and if it paid off..
Hope you dont mind me asking...

A lot of the London preps do good scholarships and bursaries. Ds's doesn't offer either until secondary.

I did the bare minimum in a class of 3 and got away with it for years.

Of course, not everyone would think that there's anything wrong with doing the bare minimum, if you can get away with it. I know plenty of adults with the same attitude...

We moved DS (6) this year. Our local school was considered excellent, but it was so over-crowded. We just were not happy with the large class sizes, and there was no outdoor space other than a very small concrete playground. Also, the school had been given a lot more pupils than normal in DS's year so they just didn't have the basic equipment for them e.g. chairs, tables, books.

We found a lovely independent school, and I spent a several visits talking to the staff to ensure that it was an environment I felt DS (and later on DD) would be happy in. It has a strong emphasis on sports and drama / music activities. Although it is strong academically the amount of homework is the same as DS's old school.

I knew we made the right decision when DS came home after his first week and said 'Guess what mum, I have my own chair and no-one else can sit in it unless they ask me first'!

If you do move your child you need to be willing to put effort in to helping him with the transition, making new friends etc.

rabbit I found even in grammar school I could stay in the top 5 by turning up which suited me as a teenager

mrz - my dh always had the same attitude. Got a bit unstuck at university, but it didn't stop him doing what he wanted - not everyone with a good brain wants to work it hard! Society lets people with good looks take advantage of their natural luck, but disapproves of anyone who takes advantage of their cleverness by being lazy!...

DD is at local independent school (yr3) and we've noticed that a lot of children are joining from state when they go into Yr4 and move up to prep. "State til 8" seems to be a popular motto. This allows parents to save money whilst they are still small but then they move on if required.

Luckily spaces become available because other children move on to boarding at this age which frees up some room.

I have moved dd1 this year from local primary to a prep school. Her primary had fairly low expectations generally and believed in 'learning through doing' which I haven't got anything against in theory. In practice it meant never really getting good at anything as there was never enough chance to keep practising anything taught - for example they didn't believe in worksheets and a practical maths play activity in year two just didn't offer the same chance to use numbers enough. Most writing activities were optional and my dd generally opted for the playmobil and dressing up options and spent most of the day doing these. She is bright enough but her lack of practice at writing really shows at her new school. I know lots of state schools are better than hers was but sending her somewhere where she actually does some work each day is a blessed relief...

I'm confused by this idea that children who are not achieving their potential in state schools need to be shifted to private schools

Are we saying that private schools operate as remedial teaching centres for dim middle-class children who need the smaller class sizes? That doesn't seem to tally with the image cultivated by most private schools of a culture founded on academic excellence, does it?

Or are we saying that private schools are more likely to tell us what we would like to hear about our children? That would make sense. They are businesses, after all. That's the biggest difference between a state school and a private school. One is designed to educate children - the other is a business where children and education are the products.

GSSS -

GreenStinking...
It might be controversial but private schools are rarely businesses- they are charities. The reason is because they are not motivated by profit - whatever you might like to believe - this is the case.

Some state schools are great, some private schoolsa re rubbish but my experience is of a state school made no effort to actually teach a child to their potential. My dd came top in the year for her literacy work in her dreadful state school. She is average at her new private school. It has nothing to do with how 'dim' she is and everything to do with an ideology that stifled real learning that governed her state school education.

Not all independent schools are solely for academically inclined children - people move children from schools to other schools for many reasons. Similar to the experience of a previous poster, as soon as we moved DS he came home from his new indie simply glowing and fizzing with the buzz he got from being with other childrne who wanted, like him, to learn, a culture which was not obvious in his primary. It doesn't matter what level the children attain, the eagerness to learn is the most important thing to us as parents.
The clue to the chief benefit from independent schools is in the name, they can respond better to the interests and needs of individual children because they are....independent.

According to DS's teacher, he would be getting on much better at THAT PARTICULAR state school if he was a bit more dim.

Bizarrely, the HT is "anti-academic" and there is no provision for stretching the more able to reach their potential. In her words "they can look after themselves". DS's teacher thinks he would do better at a private school because the private schools in our area tend to move at a faster pace and are more competitive. She is not advocating we move him because he is "dim"; it is because he is bored.

I am sure he would be equally happy at the other outstanding state school in our area as they really encourage their more able pupils. Unfortunately, DS has been on the waiting list for the past 3 years and is still a long way from getting a place.

GSSS, I think that the reason that parents end up turning to private after state is simply that by going private you have a wider choice of schools, and that you have a greater chance of finding a school that suits the needs of your children, whether they are dim or bright, sporty or creative etc. Usually parents who have already been through at least one school experience with their dc have a fair idea of what they're looking for when they move schools, so their sense that there has been an improvement is more to do with knowing their child rather than being sold a story by the school.

If you are one of the many many lucky people who feel that their child thrives most in their local state school, then you're fortunate. Personally I've seen loads of very good state schools, but with very different characteristics, some which would suit my children, and some wouldn't. The reality for the state schools though is that unless I lived on the doorstep or got a reference from God, then I wouldn't actually have any choice over which school the dcs go to. Our luck is in the ability to pay which simply extends my choice of school. Of course it doesn't guarantee any particular outcome for the dcs.

Agree about some HT's not being that interested in stretching pupils - at our state primary where DS1 was, the(new) HT has a big chip on his shoulder about indies and so is the only one in the area not to take advantage of a G&T programme offered by a local indie, because he loftily says 'we stretch them enough here' [hhmm] - they so don't... [hsad]

I've been thinking about the idea that children are 'products' in independent Schools. As a teacher at an independent secondary I find that idea as bizarre as it is ignorant, its insulting really - the idea that unlike in state schools, teachers in private schools don't have the best interests of the children at heart.
I do think that the fact fees are paid can often make a difference to the mentality of the teachers though. That is in so far as we must answer to the parents for the education we provide and be responsive to what the parents want. I suppose that is a kind of product of 'the market'. But private schools are not businesses and I could not teach children if I thought I had to have another agenda other than their best interests.

an ideology that stifled real learning that governed her state school education.

that's quite a powerful statement camicaze...can you expand?

(I have often wondered that myself, that's why I am asking, as I keep telling myself that I am just paranoid).

I'd add my voice to emy72's - it isn't my experience of state school at all. I spent a year at a village primary in the UK, which was a state school, and no-one was rstricted from learning. The same applies to my DDs schools - and what I hear of the other primaries and middles in our town doesn't suggest that there is an ideologically-driven push towards stifling learning going on anywhere.
What does worry me is the immense varation in practice that seems to exist both in state and in private education, and the idea that very bright children don't need 1 to 1 is shocking - they do often need motivating. As Mrz said, it's so easy to lurk under the radar and just coast, and come a cropper later.

camicaze do you not think teachers in state schools have to answer to parents too?

Expand - once I get going I'm hard to stop...
I can try to explain but first want to make clear that I'm really not saying that all state schools 'stifle real learning' but I am saying that my dd's did.
I suppose ultimately all the play that went on (in yr 2)didn't open up the world to the children and it also stopped them acquiring the skills that require lots and lots of possibly boring repetition (e.g. maths) because activities had to be active and fun. Also the way the classroom was organised meant activities had to mainly be unsupervised but couldn't be worksheet stuff as the teacher was not allowed to have all the class on a formal task at once. Also there was only one free table and chairs anyway.
The 'learning through doing' ideas meant the children chose the topics they wanted to learn and so there was alot of repetition of fairytale style themes which were fine in themselves but my dd was thirsty to find out about the world. I was so jealous of friends with kids learning topics like 'The Celts' which a child wouldn't know to suggest.
Although the 'active learning' curriculum should theoretically free up children to discover for themselves it actually seemed to straight jacket them as they couldn't discover much without the teacher and anyway discovery for my dd was endless playmobil and dressing up, which she did at home anyway. Yes - that was the one worst feature, the fact that the 'learning activities' were optional so my dd only did written work once a week on the compulsory day and the playmobil etc the rest of the time.
Yes, you can learn about gravity from the marble run but chances are the naughty kids are busy throwing the marbles and there would be no follow through in terms of good teacher explanation taking the idea of gravity forward as that would be too teacher centred.
It was anti -intellectual because there was a strong idea of what children at that age should want to learn and do (mainly active)and little chance to feed intellectual curiosity. The head teacher culled all 'unsuitable' books from the library. This meant all books that were beyond what she considered to be the childrens' comprehension. That really offended me.
For those with kids at more traditional infant schools it will sound bizarre but the fact is that the goal of making education more child centered is common, mainly in state education and schools with curriculums like my dd's are not at all unusual.
Not sure if I've managed to explain but the school seemed to cater for a chid that had no ability to think beyond the concrete or sustain concentration. It was an irony that they claimed to be child centred but would not provide the sort of teaching that many of their children needed. Finally in real terms my dd's progress in English and Maths was notably slowed down and that is inevitable - if you spend much less time doing the stuff its not a surprise that you don't get better as fast. The gossip is that the kids from this primary are very underrepresented in the top sets at the local comp and that wouldn't surprise me at all.

Mrz - of course state school teachers have to answer to parents but I don't see the same quick response to parental demand (rightly or wrongly).

My argument about 'stifling learning' was in the context of a resonse to the idea that I moved my child to a private school because she was'dim' and would get on better in one. I moved her because her local state school was crap and 'stifled learning'. Many, many state schools provide a great education...

Sorry that sounds sarcastic. Really I do not think state school education is poor - just schools like my dd's.

Actually camicaze, what you've described sounds horrendous, and I would have changed schools too in that situation (though not to private, couldn't in a million years afford it) . My DD2 was in Yr 2 last year and was working on a theme for every half term - they did Africa, the Great Fire of London and a lot of other topics I've forgotten, all really interesting though - and within that, they did a lot of very real learning involving writing, reading, numeracy, science and art. IMP that's how creative learning should be handled - and my DDs school does not cull any book for being too hard but caters for the whole range, from children who need support to children who just seem to find it comes naturally (I'm not arrogant enough to think taht it's my brilliant parenting that makes my DDs bright, it's luck of the draw )