If your Y1 child is at a private school, what book band are they on?

[applypie]

curious to see how far privately educated childred are actually ahead already after only a year of school.

My ds attends a primary which a lot of people avoid out of sheer snobbery [in my opinion]. The school has a large percentage of children on free school meals etc and certain people will drive to other schools to avoid it.
It's a great school - in mine and my child's opinion.
The snobs are missing out - as are their children.
By the way ds is a fluent, happy and expressive reader. [Year 2].

Lockets
we feel the need to mention that it is a rational choice not to go private, to counteract the Xenias who will tell us that all state school parents made inadequate career choices and therefore can't afford private.

Sorry, PFL, I did see your post. I was just talking about my own and friends' experiences, and didn't mean to suggest that it applied to everyone across the country.

You can't win on MN. You and I had free-reader children (mine private, yours state); another poster says schools that have free readers are conning parents - so that's both of us told.

I wouldn't expect to see a big difference in book bands. A lot of the reading is done at home after all. I would expect to see a difference in letter formation and numeracy though because there is likely to be less one to one attention in state schools due to large class sizes (clearly there will be exceptions) and parents are less likely to teach these things at home.

Oh, and OriginalPoster, I'm baffled by your comment ("If the people who choose private education directed their influence and skills on improving patchy state education eg lobbying MPs, exposing poor schools, writing about it etc, sponsoring schools, supporting careers advice, much could be done.") I fail to see how I could do much to improve our patchy state provision. If I mentioned one of our poor schools on MN, there would be a whole host of posters saying that they know someone who goes there and got ten A*s and who really understands how real people live.

I personally think all schools should be private and that all parents should be allowed to vote with their feet and steer clear of the crappy ones which would then necessarily be forced to close down. That would be my ideal world. What does the state know about educating people?

Damsel, I don't even know where to start .......

Oh go on Hippo. You know you want to.

My dd was a free reader in year one. Her school was recently in special measures and she is not g&t.

It's just that you seem to have no idea about the notion of a public good, and that in some instances the state is there to stop self-interest getting in the way.

I'm sure you don't really mean that all schools should be private and therefore only open to those available to pay? Surely even you have to recognise that an educated population has benefits far and beyond those individuals?

If you mean that we should have complete free choice in schools, then that is kind of what we have at the moment and it is a disastrous idea. Great for the successful schools (according to an imperfect league table) as they will have the sharp elbowed moving postcodes, renting houses and finding religion .... but for the others, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that they will fail.

A couple of people in the catchment go private or fight to get into a neighbouring school, a few other people worry and follow suit, and before you know it's slipped even further down as even more 'conscientious parents' fight to get into a better school. Eventually, there are no bright children with involved parents left, and then it gets closed down or put into special measures. Meanwhile, 2 miles away women are flailing themselves on MN that they live 50 yards from the school with a sibling and still can't get it.

What actually needs to happen, which would have the greatest benefit for the county as a whole, is for there to be no private schools and very little choice. That way, every school would have its fair share of bright, enthusiastic children with affluent, educated parents. The child's ability and the parents' pushiness would make sure the education provided was the best it could be.

But people will always act in self-interest - that is what the state is for (allegedly) and that is what it knows about education.

Damsel

Would you also privatise healthcare? Tell me more about your ideal world, would all schools/hospitals cost the same, or would the better ones be for the richer people?

I do mean that all schools should be private. Or maybe something slightly different. Think about the nursery grant. Why shouldn't parents get something along those lines for the whole time that their children are in full-time education? We never sent ours to nursery, but used the nursery grant to pay part of the Reception class school fees. Why shouldn't all schools be privately run, but paid for by some kind of school grant that parents can use wherever they choose? No parent wants their child to go to a rubbish school, but that's what many are condemned to. Those schools should be shut down due to lack of demand.

It's a complete myth that the abolition of private schools would mean an influx of bright, enthusiastic children into the state system (you're begging all kinds of questions by saying that, BTW. Are all private school children 'bright and enthusiastic'? Not if you believe MN). If my children's school were abolished, I'd get together with other affluent, educated parents and set up my own school (or would HE). One reason we chose to send our children to private schools is that we don't agree with the state dictating what our children should be learning or how their teachers should be teaching it. That wouldn't change even if all the schools were done away with overnight.

I'm not so sure that the state is there to prevent people acting in self interest, either. When I think about the people who represent the state (politicians of all hues), I really don't feel that they can start telling me how best to educate my children.

The point, OriginalPoster, is that people could choose. At the moment, it's not choice: it's a postcode lottery. If you could genuinely choose to go somewhere superb or somewhere crappy, you'd choose superb. Obviously. At the moment, crappy provision only exists because people have no choice but to use it. The state over-funds a crappy service in health and education.

Having discharged myself from hospital with IV antibiotics because it was the noisiest, filthiest, most disgusting place, I would privatise healthcare too. I had been nil by mouth for two days before someone - my mother - gave me a drink. I couldn't speak to ask for one. Yes, I would privatise it.

or maybe fund it better?

So what happens when everybody 'chooses' to go to the really good school in the town? What happens when that school is full? Increase its class sizes? Does it build more buildings? Maybe knock a few houses down to make way for the extension?

or do they just put the fees up so that less people can afford to go, thus solving the over subscription problem.

Damsel
Are there any services at all which would be state run in your ideal world? I'm wondering where you'd draw the line? I'm sure you'd agree that the state run Justice System acts to prevent people acting in self interest.

I have just moved my ds from a state to a private into yr1. He is reading Ginn purple (almost done with them) and was on blue ORT at the end of last term...I think the next level is green?
I moved him because he is bright and was not being catered for adequately in his 'good' state primary. At the moment, he's not doing anything particularly impressive as far as I know in year 1, although the difference is that he's being read with every day, he's doing maths every day and there is a lot of emphacis at the moment on cursive writing at the moment. For me the big motivation for moving him is that I didn't want him going to the local boys state secondary, which is most probably where he would have ended up if the grammar route didn't work out. At his prep all the boys always go to really good secondaries. I actually get the impression that the difference between state and primary becomes more apparent late in year 2 and definitely in year 3, when the boys are really pushed much more academically, certainly at our prep.
HTH.

I just find it sad that a school with passionate teachers and an excellent Head [primary my ds attends] is avoided as its catchment area is considered 'disadvantaged'. In the past the school struggled but is now a 'good' and a continually improving school. It would be to the schools advantage I am sure if some parents who send their children 'else where' [as more middle class catchment] sent them to their local school. It would be great if these parents who make such strenuous efforts to avoid their local school actually supported it rather than swoon and tut at the sight of the few mothers that [horror of horrors] smoke outside the school and dress differently to them.
It saddens and infuriates me.

What an informative and amusing thread. Seems to be a lot of defensive state school parents on here. I think things must really depend on where you live. Where I live you cannot hope to compare the private and state schools. If you want to be sure of getting your child into a good secondary then you go private. Just one of the local state schools is outstanding and that still only really feeds into the failing state secondaries with a few children getting into the counties selective comprehensive. It has none of the facilities you describe and they are just about to build a huge industrial waste disposal facility next to it! I think the real shame is how the quality of state schools vary in all things..another postcode lottery. That is why I think that people pay round here if they can.

I think that Maarias hits the nail on the head. In private schools there tend to be a lot more focus on teaching handwriting, including how to form letters properly. Also more focus on numeracy in small groups at the correct ability levels and same for reading. In most state schools this simply is not possible, the classes are just too big and there are too many disruptive children. These children can be either extremely disruptive taking up all the teacher's time at the extreme end of the scale. However, in many state schools it is more likely that there is a continuous low level disruption. This is exhausting both for the teachers and the other children in the class and severely affects the learning of the other children especially if these children stay in the same group year in year out. I think that the impact of low level disruption is often not fully appreciated by parents. Also, most parents will be totally unaware that this is going on in their kids' classes as many teachers are very reluctant to be frank about its impact. Let's be honest if you work at a school, put lots of effort and time in, are passionate about teaching then you don't want to make your school look bad and you definitely don't want to lose good pupils. Teachers are therefore unlikely to tell parents and parents are unlikely to find out unless they work in the school. Many teachers who are also parents and can afford it, send their children to private schools, which is inconvenient for them (drop off and pick up times), expensive, but ultimately in the best interest of their children.

Goingbacktowork yes, it's almost as if different posters live in different countries. Our nearest private school is a long way away, and is not academically strong. All the professionals ( eg, high earning dual PhD parents) here send theirs dcs to the state comp, which sends four or five to Oxbridge every year, and loads to RG universities to do competitive subjects. The top stream is very able, all the teachers have proper degrees in their own subjects. There is an excellent autistic facility, and great out of school activities. It is totally nonselective, so the league table results aren't fantastic, because there are dcs who will never be academic even with good teaching, and for some of the profoundly learning disabled they will simply learn life skills and basic writing in a caring setting.

So it is easy for me to say private is not necessarily better. I do feel passionately that state schools could work for everyone, if these good schools were replicated. I also believe that would lead to a less devisive society.

I agree with the postcode lottery, sadly. We're lucky to be in an area with wonderful state primaries, and the only reason most of the kids in prep school are in prep school at all is that parents are worried about secondary education and their child's potential to get in to highly selective private schools without prep geared specifically towards them.

As a result, our primaries are very mixed, and very good. Both my dds are in state primary, and although the facilities are not on a par with a top prep school across the road they are more than adequate. For our own circumstances, we actually preferred state education at primary level because we felt the social and pastoral education was as important as the academic, if not more - we may well feel differently later on - and in our area, this is best served by our state primaries.

What makes me is the huge anxiety most parents around here seem to feel about their children's future - hence battling for places, putting huge pressure on themselves and their children to get into whatever they consider to be the 'best' schools to prepare their kids for something 20 years hence at the expense of the here and now. IMhumbleO.

dikkertjedap-
There are 'distracting' children in my ds class and he is easily distracted. He is 'learning' to not be distracted - not always possible I am sure when you are 6.
However - a useful skill to learn.
[The teachers try hard to deal with disruption].

Yes, OP, I tend to agree. If only!