Everyone who lives near me and can afford it seems to be sending their kids to private schools…

[sanssucre]

That's it really, I guess I've just been really surprised that none of them has even considered the local primary schools. DD will start school next year and I'd just always assumed she would go to one of the decent primary schools nearby (there are several and I'm confident we'll get into one).

Thing is, we could actually afford to go private (it would mean some sacrifices but it's do-able), we've just always wanted her to have local friends, go to a nearby school, mix with a wide variety of people etc so I haven't explored the independent option at all. However, in all honesty, the fact that so many people in a similar financial situation to ours haven't even bothered to look round the state primaries is making me wonder if I'm being hopelessly optimistic. But seriously, is it really worth spending thousands of pounds a term to teach a 4/5/6-year-old? I'm not being sarcastic or judgy, it's a genuine question, I just honestly want to know what can be so terrible about a reasonable state primary school that so many people wouldn't even give it a second look.

I appreciate that my post might raise a few heckles. I know we're very fortunate to be able to afford private education if that is the way we choose to go. I also understand that this is a very contentious/emotive issue but I'd be really grateful for some honest opinions.

rabbitstew - sadly at my child's school 20% of children are not achieving level 4 in maths and english and this has been the trend for a while. I really don't understand why this can't be achieved if they are being taught well. Or perhaps they aren't. Perhaps it isn't really about the creative curriculum but more about how it is taught. It is an interesting debate because I have spoken to parents of the lower income bracket who really want a more traditional approach of education for their children and it's the media types (not directing this at you at all) who want a more laid back approach. Perhaps schools could have a bit of both??? I think traditional teaching actually can be done well but also badly depending on the teacher! I wouldn't want lots of worksheets etc of course! Also it's interesting to note that on the continent, children are given text books at age 8-11 - does this happen here?

Of course there are children from state schools who get into Oxford but it is mainly from the private sector. I think this is due in part to private schools having the time to prepare children more for the interviews.

zlaya - attainment is rising all the time because GCSEs and A levels have been dumbed down.

Again, no offence intended!

Dear Magdalene, do you actually have a sixteen year old in the house going trough GCSE at the moment? Are you talking from personal experience and do you actually have the opportunity to look trough the revision books?

And my point was also that cross curricular teachig and the creative curriculum is certainly not limited to state schools.

I will conceed however, that when done badly it can be a disaster and a bad teacher could probably get away with teaching in a traditional format far easier than they could by planning cross-curricular. But, and it's a big but, I genuinely think that the number of bad primary teachers out there is really quite small. Certainly far too small to allow a generalisation about state education on that basis.

And TW2K is right, the number of state educated kids going to Oxbridge has not gone down but has sadly remained static. But I don't believe it's as simple as that. Where we used to live, the school catchment was very affluent. The primaries were outstanding and the secondaries were high achieving. I would say that from secondaries such as those, kids who have the ability and inclination to go to Oxbridge and RG universities, do so. I think where we're falling down is by not nurturing such aspirations in kids from more deprived backgrounds. I'm not suggesting the quality of teaching is poor but their whole environment not least their home environment and peer pressure make such a task massive in comparison to what it would be at secondaries with a very different demographic.

I have taught in deprived areas and so often seen bright kids whom we've worked so hard to inspire at primary school hit 13yrs and completely switch off. Poverty of aspiration is the real issue needing to be tackled by government as it affects all of us in society and sees so much potential wasted.

Back to the strange issue of not even looking at the state option then all I can say is more fool them! As a parent who chose the vibrant independent over the bland 'outstanding' state primary then moved as chose the 'good' state primary with the great feel over the bland and uninspiring prep school, then what can you say other than money doesn't always go hand in hand with sense.

Magdalene, 80% level 4 is not suggesting to me that such a school is poor. In a class of 30, that would mean 6 children are working at a level considered below average for their age. I would say that is statistically pretty standard for the population.

Of course many schools will get 90%+ L4s but that could just mean another 3 of those 6 who they've managed to prep well enough for the test. Or many schools may get 80% one year, 90% another then drop to 85% again. That is the nature of different classes with different abilities.

Of course, many schools don't have SATs results which show this because of intensive prepping. This is why, IMO, SATs results need to be taken with a pinch of salt as some HTs place far more importance on them than others.

And no, no no to exams being dumbed down. Pass rates continue to go up because,
1)Teaching has improved vastly in the last 20yrs
2)Children are being taught (very accurately) how to pass the tests. When I did mine in the late 80s, you were taught the subject and taught how to apply it instead.
3)20 or 30 years ago only the top sets were encouraged to do the academic Olevels and then take Alevels. Many others were encouraged to get themselves on a trade training scheme. These days, almost all children are encouraged down the academic route.

I'm not suggesting teaching to the test is the best thing but the exams have not got easier, pupils and teachers are simply more aware of how to do better in them.

Perfectly put together SPOTTYFROCK, there is so much in this bundle of educating children at primary and secondary level that is simply pointless to try and generalise, I agree that they are poorly preforming schools in the country at all levels, but they are in the minority and to say "just because child is state educated such child will not be able to get in some of the top universities in the country it just simply isn't true" Certainly where we live local grammar school is managing to surpass local private school in GCSE results and A level points in the last five years, bright and able children are just that, regardless of sector that they are being educated in. We are proud of our boy for doing so well and if does make it into Cambridge, he certainly won't be the first one to do so coming from state school. we should applaud these underdogs and say well done and show respect and give recognition to teachers who were teaching and preparing them.

Perfectly put together SPOTTYFROCK, there is so much in this bundle of educating children at primary and secondary level that is simply pointless to try and generalise, I agree that they are poorly preforming schools in the country at all levels, but they are in the minority and to say "just because child is state educated such child will not be able to get in some of the top universities in the country it just simply isn't true" Certainly where we live local grammar school is managing to surpass local private school in GCSE results and A level points in the last five years, bright and able children are just that, regardless of sector that they are being educated in. We are proud of our boy for doing so well and if does make it into Cambridge, he certainly won't be the first one to do so coming from state school. we should applaud these underdogs and say well done and show respect and give recognition to teachers who were teaching and preparing them.

So sorry about double post, I need privately educated computer, this one is not doing very well at all

magdalene - I think the better schools are to a certain extent doing "a bit of both." Phase teaching at my dss' school has allowed for a certain amount of setting to take place within the context of the creative curriculum and for good communication and maintenance of data between teachers at the school so that a child's progress can be properly tracked and areas of their learning not get accidentally missed out altogether as children move from year to year. Maybe my point of view is a bit skewed because my dss are at a school where the creative curriculum does seem to be done well and where their emotional and social development has been well nurtured in addition to (rather than instead of...) their academic ability, and my nephews and nieces have been at French schools where the more traditional methods of teaching were done badly and no interest taken in their social or emotional status... but I do think that the problem is not so much with the methods as with their method of deployment. Yes, the creative curriculum and cross curricular teaching is a huge ask for teachers, but the results of it being done extremely well are better for most children than traditional teaching methods, in my biased opinion. Although having said that, my dss are like me - little academics at heart and would no doubt happily lap up a more formal style of teaching if done well, too.

zlaya, why would he be an "underdog" though?

I thought that if results are the same, Oxbridge take State rather than privately educated kids?

Dear CHANDON, I didn't mean it in a derogatory sense, more in a positive sense, some of these children are viewed in our society as "underdogs" as clearly visible from some posts on this tread and yes if results are good enough, providing your interviews also went well they will be happy to have you.

grammar school DC are not the underdogs. Indeed of the state schooled students at Oxbridge, grammar schooled pupils make up the majority.

It is state comprehensives that are absurdly under represented at these universities.

WORDFACTORY, when I say underdog I mean underdog, this is the child who spent his primary years in inner city London very mediocre school, we did not always live where we live now, nor did we have what we have now, our son would be one of the very few ones in our extended and large family to attempt any university let alone Oxbirdge .

Lots of sense, Spotty and Rabbit. And saves me racking brain to say much of the same

But you see, Zlaya, I would still not class your son as an underdog. You simply cannot underestimate the huge importance of parental input in a child's upbringing and broader 'education'.

The fact that your son has supportive, interested parents who nurture him and want him to do well gives him a huge advantage in life over those children who, for whatever reason, do not have the same secure and supportive family set-up.

It is wonderful that your son has done so well but he is reaching his potential in no small part down to you.

if you look at past o level papers and compare them with GCSE papers then you will see that GCSEs are much easier. That has been the aim of new Labour - nobody must fail. More and more children are going to university but is that what's needed in society? Don't we need skilled electricians and plumbers etc? Not everyone is cut out for academia. No offence intended!!

Of course state school children go on to good universities - I was just talking about Oxbridge in this instance. And of course grammar schools will be able to surpass private school in terms of their results. I was talking about children who are in COMPREHENSIVES.

I would never right off a school without seeing it: how can you judge a school without being inside? At the end of the day though we are all entitled to choose what we deem is best for our children.

zlaya - it is clear that your son has done very well and as the other parent has said this is mainly down to the home environnment. All I am saying is what happens to the children who don't have those advantages at home? And because there are fewer grammar schools competition is so fierce for places. This means that bright poor children who don't have access to a tutor or have the support from their school or advantages at home don't get a place.

Spottyfrock - I would expect the school to work damn harder to ensure those 6 children get their level 4. How can they catch up in year 7? And yes, it is hard to get a clear picture as lots of parents get tutors for Sats tests.

But Magdalene, how do you know the school hasn't worked its hardest to get those children to a secure level3? Reaching a good L3 may well mean that those children are reaching their potential and if you disagree then you are contradicting your own statement that,
'Not everyone is cut out for academia!'

Just a quick point for magdelene - doctors (and I have taught them at university level while they were training) do not use specific subject knowledge they learned in primary school. They use specific subject knowledge they have learned at university and on the job, underpinned by basic knowledge gained at secondary school.

Whether they learned 'biology' at the age of 7 or did a topic called 'The Human Body' or 'How our bodies work' or even 'Keeping healthy' will make not one jot of difference to the precise subject knowledge about anatomy, pharmacology, biochemistry or physiology, not to mention their years of 'apprenticeship' during their clinical training, that they bring to their job today.

I was a research biochemist ... I did no science at primary school, did not do the first year of secondary at all, and didn't do A level biology. However, I got a Cambridge First and a PhD on the basis of what I studied at university so lacking facts from earlier in my education clearly wasn't a problem. The skills of 'curious looking', of independent study, of research, of following a question right up to the end regardless of where it led - those were skills and attitudes I did get from my 1970s 'topic based' primary education.

It is an interesting point that cross-curricular teaching needs better teachers and better teaching, and I think that in many ways it is true. Interestingly I discussed this thread with a private school teacher friend and she said 'oh no, I wouldn't do cross-curricular, it's too much hard work to plan it like that. With subjects i can just pull out my file from last year and teach it again'

Oh and GCSEs where introduced in 1988 so whatever you think of New Labour I'm not sure you can give them credit for replacing Olevels with GCSEs.
However, I agree that we force too many children down the academic route at secondary level. I think we should allow children to 'branch off' at 14 and begin to learn a trade or skill which would see them so much more ready for life after school and 16. Kids should, of course, be given a choice in conjunction with their parents but why do we make them sit there for 2 more years being drummed with French, RE and a level of science that has no interest to them? No wonder so many of them are bored, disillusioned and switched off from society by the time they reach 16.

Teacherwith2kids, DH is a lawyer. He works for a bank now but when he worked for a large firm of solicitors he was on the graduate selection panel. One of the 'no-nos' for them (very snobby firm) was students who had done ALevel law. In fact they also looked more favourably upon students who hadn't even done law at university but instead had done history, a science or a language followed by a conversion course.

So here was one of the oldest law firms in the country taking the view that the best 'lawyers' would be those that studied law at the latest possible opportunity. That seems to tie in very well with your own experience.

I know that the (very few) children who leave dd's school with a level 3 are absolutely as Spotty suggested - children who would not have been expected to reach that at all. The levels mean absolutely nothing in terms of how well the school has done, unless you look at value added, and at the individual children within the cohort and their individual issues.

Also, I agree that the 'underdogs' - IMO - are the children who have the least parental support. Or in some cases parents who actively (although not necessarily deliberately) get in the way of their childrens education and well being.

There were definitely a few 'underdogs', by my definition, at my comfortable independent girls' school in Oxford

Magdelene,

Have you ever heard of special educational needs? Do you have any understanding of the level of such needs found in the classroom? To say that a school is 'failing' with 80% Level 4+ is to totally misunderstand education. It depends on where those children have progressed from.

It is unlikely, for example, that the child I teach who has brain damage resulting from meningitis will achieve Level 4. But he will almost certainly make Level 3, with the help of daily 1 to 1 input and very targeted small group teaching. And that will represent AMAZING progress from his starting point in school. Equally I have a child who will leave Year 3 at a level 1c. He has exceeded our wildest expectations, having been totally unable to read, write or count to ten when he arrived at the beginning of the year. I won't go into the details of his background, because it's not at all pleasant to read. he will not make Level 4 in year 6 - but again, the school (the only safe place in his life) will have done everything that can be expected of it and more.

However, in other schools and other classes, 80% Level 4+ would be a major failing of the children by the school...

Not everyone is cut out for academia at secondary level - doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught to read and write though!!! In the Netherlands people who do vocational training still get a chance to study foreign languages and are given the basics in writing and arithmetic and Geography etc. A bit like the English Bac.

The dumbing down is a result of both governments but it was Blair's aim to get more and more children to university.

Teacherwithtwokids -knowledge is still important at primary level. And why have we slipped down the International league tables for Maths and Science then?

Of course doctors use the subject knowledge they learnt at university but they would obviously need the maths taught at primary so they can go on and get the required GCSEs and then A Levels. It's as if primary is seen in isolation to secondary level. The stages are all important.

Cross curricular does sound like much more work for the teacher and I don't see the point of 'reinventing the wheel' every year.

I am afraid we're just going to have to disagree but some really interesting points have been made.

I think people who go to Oxbridge are exceptional and in some ways their education is not as vital as they teach themselves anyway. Could be wrong there though but have met lots of Oxbridge people like this!

With the SATs, our local primary school has 25% of kids at level 3, which does worry me. SEN is around 9% (1% with statements). Below average kids on free meals. As a parent is quite hard to ignore SATs, Ofsted league tables etc. since this (apart from "gut instinct" looking round) is some of the only information available.