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.

Also worried me that the school feeds into a secondary school where only 36% get 5 GCSEs. When I asked the head about this and whether any of the children went anywhere else, he just said "we must support our local secondary school".

One last rant before I go.

It's about social segregation and little else. Snobbery if you like. Recent statistics showed that those who got the best jobs got them through friends, not because they were the right candidate for the job. It's not what you know, it's who you know.

The segregation in schools usually happens because people are scared their little Johnny might end up mixing with little Ali, or little Kev, or little Tyrone. This is very evident in most inner cities.

Mainstream schools have come a long way though, I think they get the better teachers and have the better curriculum. At primary level I would say that state schools are definitely better than private.

Dozer, I would ask some questions...the Head should be able to explain the SATs, or if he/she can't, yes, I would worry too.

Had to at Magdalene's description of Oxbridge people - my family is full of them, and I honestly don't think they are exceptional. Bright yes, capable of logical thought, definitely (helps getting in). I got into Oxford then roundly failed my A levels (I was one of those privileged 'underdogs' with a family in tatters at that age).
Or maybe we're exceptional and I'm undervaluing us

Dozer in answer to your last posts, I think at that age it is far more important that your dcs have a good social life and for that reason I would choose the local primary - try to get a few friends dcs together so they have a connection.

I wasn't talking about opting out of learning to read and write. I was talking about less academic children being given the opportunity to opt for a more voccational path at 14yrs. That would have given at least 3yrs of secondary academic work to decide if it's for them or not.

In terms of slipping down league tables, that is very much percentage issue. The majority of children in this country are still achieving as high and as well as they ever did. However, whereas 30yrs ago even the poorest families valued education as a top priority, that instict has fallen away in many families. Certainly not all of course and I have taught children whose parents can barely afford school shoes yet education is a priority in those families. But it is a huge problem in this country as a whole.

Magdalene, whilst I respect your viewpoint I feel we are never going to agree as your statement about education being less vital for Oxbridge students showed me. Education (and teaching) to me is not just about learning to read and write and make academic progress. It's about equiping young people with the necessary life skills to go out and become valuable and valued members of society. Even the gifted child needs guidance in that.

I am not aware of anyone on this thread, or in real life, teaching Maths in a solely cross-curricular way. I certainly teach it as a stand-alone subject.

But you are shooting yourself in the foot a little with arguments about maths - maths is nearly all about the application of skills, not knowledge (beyond the basics of number bonds to 10 and times tables)...

You clearly believe that the falling down the league tables for science (at the end of secondary) is due to sciences not being taught separately in primary.

Funnily enough, those now coming out of school will have been in primary school at the height of National Curriculum-led discrete subjects..... so it is possible to construct the opposite argument, that it is in fact early discrete teaching that has caused the drop in standards... the impact of cross-curricular learning in primary on secondary results will take 6 years or so to feed through....

As a scientist, I suspect the drop in science results is due to:

• Science SATs at the end of primary focusing on written work with no practical assessment. Schools 'teaching to the test' meant that in many primaries there was very little practical work being done. Science SATs were abolished a couple of years ago - it will be interesting to see whether in 4 - 6 years' time there will be an increase in standards as a result.

• The predominance of 'double science' rather than 3 separate sciences in secondary.

With regards maths, I also think the Numeracy Strategy was/is one of the best educational directives introduced within the last 20years.

I have seen time and time again how it has made basic numeracy accessible to almost all children. It is not at all teacher led, traditional, formal methods. Rather it relies on securing a child's knowledge of place value before anything else. It makes sure every child understands what they are doing and why. I had no problem with maths at school but as a teacher I can clearly see how setting out an addition in a formal way could confuse many kids.
321
+242 would had led me to say to myself 2+1 is 3 and 2+4 is 6 etc whereas now children are taught 300+20+1 so instead of seeing the tens digit as a 2 they gain a clear understanding that it's a 20.

I'm probably rambling here but the numeracy strat with all its games and lack of written recording at infant level really is, without a doubt the best way to teach young children maths. Far, far superior to the written methods we learned with.

SF, Just for interest, do you mean the old or new strategies 1998 or 2006)? I'm wondering because if you mean the 1998 ones then, allowing time for implementation at the start, the first children taught 'from the beginning' like this should be emerging from secondary schools over the next few years. It will be interesting to see whether it has an impact on results...

1998 ones, our DD1 started year 1 in 1999, now finishing up secondary, GCSE, big talks at the time about strategies and implementation, 57 children in DD's year out of 90ish, were fast tracked in maths and did their GCSE maths year earlier, out of 57, 45 got A*and 12 got A.

I was talking about 1998 but I didn't really see the later one as too much of a shift change. Though 'unit plans' were a bit of a palava!
I genuinely believe, hand on heart that it made a huge difference to how some children saw and understood maths esp basic number work. It was also fun to teach and fun to do. I loved all my washing line activities and when we first used arrow cards with Y3s back at the start you could really see some of them finally 'get it'.

I loved it! I've given up teaching and now work as a TA at infant level. I do the little groups of maths intervension and some 'number counts' stuff. Fab!

And I can spell intervention

I can't help thinking that the different teaching strategies that may (or may not) be used in state or private schools are a bit of a moot point.

Whilst my children are firmly and happily settled into the State system, life could very easily have panned out in such a way that I would have sent dc1 private automatically. Indeed, if I hadn't have had dc2 (as I feared a second child wouldn't arrive) then I would have carried on with my well-paid job and fees would therefore have been perfectly affordable.

Why choose private automatically?

Simple. Statistics. Mnetters will argue them until they're blue in the face but there's no escaping the fact that statisically a child in a private school is likely to do considerably better. Now, I'm hopeful that the main reason for private outperforming state is largely down to the parents and children involved rather than something fundamental that the schools are doing differently. But I wouldn't take the risk that I might be wrong if I could easily afford otherwise. It's called hedging bets. Most kids come out of a good private school with a string of A's. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous.

But I do so love having my children at a local school with all their friends living in walking distance. I wouldn't now change the way things have panned out for anything.

Some good points MrsMIPP, but to say that most children who are being schooled in private setting leave school "with string of A's" it is simply not true, there is plenty of state schools around country who do damn good job with their pupils and these pupils leave secondary school with bagful of A's. I am pretty sure all of us here on MMN'S agree on the importance of the parental input and family setting and support, so if you can imagine, if all us really properly supported our children on every level we can(us being, normal, intelligent, capable parents that we are, caring and loving) there will be almost no need for any child to start private school, but rather only local community school in true community spirit. There in nothing wrong with state schools in fact, so what if you have to give a bit more support and help to child, it gives you opportunity to spend bit more time with them and get into the depths of their beautiful young minds.

There are also private schools where the strings of 'As' are distinctly un-stringlike. Mine was one (or at least, my year was).

Fully agree, just because they are private schools it doesn't make them automatically excellent, in fact state or private parents needs to take the full proactive charge and be involved as much as possible in the child crucial school years only to ensure everything is on the right track, leaving it up to the school to enforce and make sure is just not good enough.

But the reality is that privately educated DC are absurdly over represented at the best universities and later in the highest paid and most influential jobs.

All the studies show this to be true.

This doesn't mean of course that no state schooled pulils will achieve those things or that every private schooled child is guaranteed their future. But statistically we are where we are.

Whether other factors come into play in addition to the private school (affluence generally, educated parents, interest in DC's education) or whether those factors are actually more influential is difficult to say...as MrsMipp alluded to.

Or whether it's just that most of the kids who were always going to end up at well-rated universities and in well paid jobs are the same kids who get sent to private school?

I suppose what I'm saying is that some parents will look at the stats and take the option which looks the most likely route to sucess.

And I guess we all do these things everyday. We know that we might still get lung cancer even if we don't smoke, but we want to take the path most likely to protect our health. Or we know that in a motoway pile up at ninety, that seat belt probably won't save our lives...but we don't take the chance...

irksome that indeed is the question.

I look at DC's peers and see a bunch of lovely kids who have the very best start in life. They live in a beautiful area with low crime and high employment. Their parents are educated and engaged in their lives. They have material wealth and all the security and enjoyment that that brings.

That is before they even step foot inside their school. Would these children have had the same lives wherever they were schooled? I guess we'll never know.

I'm going to wager that they would.

(and that they'd be a lot lovelier if they weren't segregated by wealth, actually).

I am not know it all and all I can do it is to go by my own experience, so I speak for myself and my DD, there is certain amount of pride if a child did very well and have been schooled in state school rather then private sector, I take pride in the fact that we did not have to pay for his education and he succeed so well, I don't know what the future holds for him, but I hope that him and children like him will be rewarded with a good job which in turn will give them secure future. That is all we want for them, isn't it?

And oh, come on - so the vague chance that your child might get demoralised by all the poor kids at state school and only get 10 as and a B rather than the 17 A*s you want for him at private is on a par with lung cancer or a motorway pile-up? State schools = fags and driving with no seat belt? Really?