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.

magdalene - what is wrong with living in London is that, particularly with regard to children's education, it appears to stress people out more than anywhere else. And having lived there myself as a young adult, I just wouldn't have liked to have children there - a personal thing on my part. I love visiting London for day trips, but I would hate to live there all the time now that I have a family. I think there is more of a social-classes-sticking-together-for-protection feel about middle class parents in London than there is outside London, and more assumptions made about state education that may possibly be applicable in London but don't make as much sense to people living outside (except maybe to commuters who work in London and talk to London parents, and think the only good schools within commuting distance of London are the ones all their friends are desperately trying to get their children into).

Basically, I just prefer living in a town that has the facilities I need, but also the countryside immediately around it and which is on a scale where I get to know people reasonably easily, without feeling claustrophobic. My experience of growing up in a tiny village put me off that sort of lifestyle, too, so I guess you could call me a bit fussy!!! And also lucky, because I actually had the choice to end up living exactly where I wanted to - even if I gave up my career in London to achieve it (no great loss, since I hated the lifestyle the career entailed, anyway, once I had children to consider).

Magdelene,

I didn't say that all private schools had the problems I described, in the same way as I didn't say that all parents had all the reasons I described.

I was just saying that it cannot be generalised - not all private schools are good, and in particular they may not be good for a particular child. Not all state schools are good, and in particular they may not be good for an individual child.

Why do you say that mixed ability teaching doesn't work? All classes, in all schools, contain a mix of abilities - all children are individuals. In many schools - state and private - this is acknowledged and catered for through planning differentiated activities within lessons. In other schools - more rarely, in my experience, in state schools - children are taght as a single group, without work being tailored to their needs. There is no such thing as 'single ability teaching' - talking to a colleague who teacher in a hyper-selective grammar school [state], he still 3-way differentiates in every lesson to best teach every child in the class.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with uniform - I am in favour of a plain, cheap, easily available uniform for everyone as it reduces the likelihood of children being teased for having 'the wrong clothes' or 'not the right labels'. I just don't subscribe to the view that a unique tartan dress with a uniform trimmed with gold braid, or flannel shorts up to the age of 13, or whatever, show that a school is 'more disciplined' than the school down the road which has grey trousers or skirt, white polo shirts and navy sweatshirts. It is a surprisingly common thing to hear parents say 'oh, x is a much better school, the children look so smart in their uniform, whereas in y they're just in grey and navy', while anyone with any knowledge of education knows that school y in fact produces vastly better results.

On the SEN children - in my class I have 9 SEN children. One of those has an SEN he was born with, another has one he developed through illness in babyhood. The remainder have SEN which are linked to their family / domestic circumstances in some way. These are not children we have low expectations of, far from it, but children who have far more going on in their lives than school which gets in the way of their learning directly (through absence, or through untreated sight problems, or continuous dental pain) or indirectly (through their attention in school being diluted because of worries about what might be going on at home, acute anxiety, lack of parental support for education etc).

I have very high expectations of these children within school. They make, in the main, good progress and receive a lot of support. I cannot make their home life different or better except in the cases which are so acute that we call in social services.

Teacherwithtwokids - why can't the private and state sector work together more instead of all this political point scoring? There are many things to be admired in both but the state sector reject any ideas from the private sector because of their own prejudices. I do find though (not in your school) that the state sector makes a lot of excuses for bad bahaviour (oh, he's from a broken home etc etc) and that should stop. And I think the curriculum patronises working class children; apparently subjects are taught 'cross curricular' because children from lower income backgrounds wouldn't be able to cope with single subjects. How prejudiced is that?

Mixed ability classes when you have a whole spectrum of abilities and interests? Why not put the children in sets for academic subjects and mix them up for the other subjects? The weaker ones would get the attention they need and the more able would be challenged. Why is this such a contentious issue?

I am pretty shocked by the parents' attitude to the type of uniform their children wear - I've never come across that but perhaps I've been a bit sheltered! I do have an issue when so many children flout the uniform rules though - what else are they getting away with?

Yes, you can't change children's home lives but you have to raise the bar even higher in that school so they have a chance to break the cycle. It can be done but requires a dedicated, strong leadership and excellent teaching (not necessarily ICT, interactive whiteboards, 'creative curriculum', personalisation, etc ).

Magdelene,

I can't really be bothered to refute all your statements as they seem to stem from an awful lot of misinformation - do you work in school? How do you get your misinformation about cross-curricular learning / sets (how would that work when a full year group is 20?) / excellent teaching (excellent teaching IS personalisation - understanding EXACTLY what each child needs to do to move forward, and teaching them so that they do so)?

"Why not put the children in sets for academic subjects and mix them up for the other subjects?"

All the state schools my children have been to DO do this...

dd's state school has excellent relationships with one of the country's top independent schools down the road. The boys from the latter share their music and chess knowledge with their younger counterparts, and our youngsters go swimming at the boys' school. Most private schools run clubs, share knowledge, etc as part of their community/charitable status. I think a lot of state and private schools work together very well, am sure we are not unique!

And, a big 'yes' to excellent teaching and strong leadership. Understanding childrens' issues (in private as much as in state education) is not the same as using it as an excuse - and it is very very important IMO.

State primaries around here do single subject maths/English as well as incorporating them into a more creative curriculum. Which, by the way, is not about lowering standards to suit impoverished students but, as far as I understand it from some of our Borough's leading educational lights, simply a happier, more interesting way to learn the same material. Did I get that wrong?!

teacherwith2kids, I used to teach myself. In fact, I was on the AST programme so when it came to choosing a school I felt I knew what I was looking for.

I was very disheartened to discover that our local catchment school had such a tiny catchment so everyone in the class would come from houses worth 400k+ and very often 1m+. Secondly they are graded outstanding and get around 70% Level 5s with almost every child getting L4+. It soon became very clear that that was everything to them and I found it very depressing. A school with their catchment can achieve those results without much vitality and enthusiasm and no real interest in any other aspects of 'education' other than the narrow academic side. Sadly, this was the case here.

In contrast, the local independent sat on 70acres and whilst it had excellent academic results, their enrichment programme was fantastic. They showed parents sample lesson plans and worksheets are only really used as a stimulus rather than to be filled in. Oh and on the website, the teachers' names were linked to their individual info which not only told you about their degree but also which professional development training they'd been on recently. My children were flourishing there and we were all sad when relocation meant having to leave.

My point is that just because you have an 'outstanding' school on the doorstep it doesn't mean it's a better school. Therefore, it shouldn't be assumed that to still pay means you're just a snob. I taught in the full range from schools in special measures through to outstanding graded ones. I can say that those on the up where very often the most exciting and energetic places to be both as a child and a teacher.

Yes, magdalene's comments do appear to be very uninformed. Our state school sets for maths and English and teaches in phases to increase the opportunities for this (eg for maths, children can be set for ability over 2 year groups, rather than just within their own year, whilst remaining for the vast majority of their time with their peers, which is better for them socially and emotionally; likewise, there is some phase teaching for phonics, grammar and punctuation). Our state school gets involved in sports tournaments with local private schools and sometimes borrows facilities, and the state secondaries get involved in music competitions, debating competitions and sporting competitions with local private schools. Teachers from the schools do peer reviews for each other and share expertise. The creative curriculum is not designed to make things easy for stupid people... it can make the curriculum seem more exciting and relevant, though, as it connects the facts the children have to digest and understand to the world around them rather than isolating them into "biology," "chemistry," "physics," "history," "maths," "English," "geography" etc. It mainly requires an awful lot more imagination from the teachers, so teachers as well as children don't need to become jaded by years of teaching the same curriculum. And it requires teachers over year groups constantly to share information about the children, share ideas and expertise and keep themselves well informed on individual children's progress, so that good levels of progress can be maintained for children at all levels of ability. And I love the weeks the school does from time to time where children can mix between the year groups and get involved in different activities in each classroom around the school. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be a teacher at my children's school - it must require a colossal amount of hard work and commitment to maintain the standards they have set for themselves and the children. Maybe we are lucky that there are some exceptionally good (and expensive) private schools nearby that have more than enough money to share their goodwill and expertise with the local state schools (other private schools in the area have bitten the dust over the last 10 years), but there is no lack of sharing. The school has changed a lot in the last few years - it hasn't sat back, unwilling or unable to change or try to better itself, or make excuses. But then, it is a very mixed area, rather than an impoverished one or a wealthy one: there are children from very challenging backgrounds mixing with children who are better off. On average, though, children enter the school performing slightly below the national average. This is far from being the case by the time they leave the school, but the most noticeable thing is how confident the children are by the time they leave school and what a strong attachment and pride they have in their school.

I've always said my DCs will go private (if I can afford it at the time) but I think that's because I was privately educated, including nursery and primary school.

Sorry point to that post was I think there's often a correlation between privately educated parents and the decision to go independent. Not necessarily a better decision but more a trend.

Spottyfrock,

It's OK, I agree with you about the 'outstanding' school thing. That's why my children go to the 'good' primary with the amazing atmosphere, 4 plays a year, exceptional arts and design, loads of trips and visitors, competitive sports, use of the nearby private school's swimming pool etc rather than the 'outstanding' primary which did none of these things...

And I teach in a school that clawed its way from borderline special measures just before the last Ofsted inspection, made it to satisfactory for that inspection and is now straining its utmost to be good or better, and know that in terms of focus, energy, drive and enthusiasm it is a MUCH better place for children to be than many a school graded higher.

It is, however, small. Streaming is trickier when there are only 20 in a year group, which is why I differentiate very tightly WITHIN the classroom for all lessons.

Our school was "good" at last inspection, too.

Not all state schools use setting. I did not mention streaming. Teacherwith2kids - I didn't know you had a year group of only 20 although I still feel there would be quite a range of abilities there too! When I talk about state and private schools sharing knowledge I am really talking about sharing teaching and learning expertise (which in some cases is quite different). And, of course schools need to recognise children as individuals and cater for their needs. I don't dispute that. Cross curricular learning is happening at my DD's school and they are using the 'creative curriculum'. Are you saying that you are for cross curricular or single subject teaching? I feel that cross curricular learning is superficial and you can't really go in the same amount of depth as single subjects.

Sorry to have a different point of view!!!!

And I meet a lot of state educated parents who would sell a kidney to put their children through private education. I also meet a lot of privately educated parents who choose state education. Could it be a case of 'the grass is always greener?'

Elibean - does your school do single subjects such as history, geography etc?

Magdelene, yes, 21 children in the year group still span a range of abilities from NC 1c to NC 4c (9 sublevels) - I'd agree, quite a range. I'm just making the point that 'setting' is not usually a viable option for schools which have a 1 form intake or less, which is why we use in-class differentiation so carefully. I split all Maths and Literacy lessons 4 or 5 ways for that reason.

I am neither for nor against cross curricular learning. In some cases, it can hugely engage children in their learning - combining history (the Victorians) with geography (the expansion of the Empire) with D&T (Victorian inventions), art (William Morris) and Literacy (biographies of eminent Victorians) gave one class a huge buzz, and not having to introduce the background to the learning each time meant that we got a huge amount more done of each subject. However, we still taught Maths, French, ICT and RE separately that term as there was no advantage in 'forcing' a fit. Equally, the term we did India as a topic we taught Geography, RE, Art and Literacy in a cross-curricular way but taught other subjects separately. Children do find it much easier to make links between what they are learning in cross-curricular studies, it makes their learning deeper and allows much more time to teach special areas of each subject (e.g. in Literacy I did not have to talk about the different Hindu gods who appeared in the myths we werre studying - they were covered in RE. So we had more time to concentrate on Literacy skills). But it's not the be-all and end-all - if a subject doesn't fit, we teach it separately.

magdalene - I'm sure you could go more in-depth in specific lessons, which is no doubt why some private schools teach this way even before the age of 10 or 11. However, I'm quite happy for my child (pre-secondary level) to, eg, relate their geography, creative writing, history, science, etc, to the seaside for a few weeks, rather than to be learning about market gardens in geography, the Tudors in history, electrical circuits in science, and so on, with no active link between them. I think the links to an engaging subject can work very well for most children and help avoid a child developing a distaste for a particular subject as a result of one or two isolated bad experiences early on that then turn them off listening in those lessons for the rest of the year. I would expect more in-depth work to be done at secondary level, so would want a more traditional separation of subjects for my children by then, but really don't see the need for young children to do this - somehow I feel it makes the subjects seem less relevant to daily life and more limited to theory. Obviously, different people have different opinions - there is no absolute right or absolute wrong in education, as with most things in life.

I also don't think that cross curriculum teaching is limited to state schools and I know it was a fundamental part of the curriculum at my children's old independent school which in many ways was also fairly traditional with excellent academic results.

Subjects such as art, history, geography and literacy lend themselves well to such an approach. In fact, my experience was that many aspects of literacy can be quite dull yet can be brought to life by putting it in context. I remember once teaching letter writing to a class of Y3s. We were looking at Children during WWII so we wrote letters as if between billeted children and their parents. The work produced was fantastic! Our ICT work was 'combining text with graphics' so we made wartime propaganda posters. We made gasmasks and cases in D&T too. To top it all off and for no reason other than the sheer fun of it, we ended the term with a VE day party. We drank watery squash, ate fish paste sandwiches and listened to Vera Lyn.

It didn't for one minute occur to me to try and squeeze maths in there too. Nor science that term. Some terms we combined, others we didn't. Teachers don't do it to make their life easier; in fact it's probably more planning. They do it because it puts the learning into context esp literacy which I must say can be pretty dull otherwise.

I'd be interested to know whether any schools always combine all their subjects into their creative curriculum, regardless. I would have thought it would be more or less impossible to do that, but where it makes sense, I prefer the approach for the reasons stated above.

We are in your situation OP, and we sent ours to the local primary for the past 3 years.

This COULD have worked out brilliantly, but in our case didn't. That was bad luck though. Both my DC are unfortunately in classes with a couple of highly disruptive and violent children. Both got hurt a few times in random attacks (furniture throwing, etc) and both get so much disruption through kids "flipping out" the who class needs to be evacuated 2-3 times a week. Kids have to wait outside for the child to calm down until the child is perceived no longer being a threat to the rest of the class.

The school is "highly inclusive" so they do not exclude kids for this sort of behaviour.

The disruption is only in the 2 years my DC are in, so parents in those classes are considering alternatives if they can, but the other parents are all very happy with the school.

So it could have worked, the teachers are great, but we were unlucky. This could also happen in a private school, but I imagine these sort of kids to be dealt with more effectively.

Chandon - sorry to hear that. Are you thinking of moving them? Or do you think things will change?

We possibly shouldn't be looking to the Balkans (Croatia) for good examples. After all, they have lots of ethnic tensions that possibly cause more problems (like wars!) than the waterpolo makes up for.

It is interesting how people always admire the lifestyles of people on the continent (although only in holiday areas - no one ever thinks 'lets live like the Muscovites'.

But, you can have this lifestyle here... we do!

Modest house (hence modest mortgage), huge garden, two part time jobs.

Lots of countryside freedom for the children.

Local school (not popular but good) therefore only one car. One car used moderately, therefore need for less money and more time.

More time to drink the good wine drunk in our south facing garden.

You don't have to be part of the rat race.

builder - sounds like you've got a very nice lifestyle

Builder, what a stupid thing to say!!!!!