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.

There is no grammar system here, and our school is not over subscribed, so children come from up to 15 miles away.

Again, we're lucky re distraction. There isn't much in dd1's Y3 year (too soon to tell for dd2). 25 in the class, a well bonded, happy bunch of kids who have known each other for the most part since nursery age. Very mixed backgrounds, all equal in school, no topdogs or underdogs in the classroom.

I would be very interested to know how many people who talk about " crappy" state schools have actually been into one.

Wow, OP, a compliment to the comp.

Or are they basing their views on Waterloo Road?

There is a big difference in my view between 'distracting' and 'disrupting'. Most children will be distracted at times, that can be quite easily dealt with. But low level disruption is continuous, every minute, every day. It saps energy both from the teacher and children - it is very difficult to deal with and very hard to tackle especially if parents of the 'perpetrators' are in denial or simply don't care.

Op - I've never paid much attention to reading scheme levels. I know she's in the top reading group but I also know she reads far trickier books at home. I like the reading schemes for checking comprehension but I don't really bother much beyond that.

Also I'm sure many private school pupils are 'ahead' in reading and writing at this stage but what difference it makes at 'A'level time I'm not sure.

Nice to see there's no MNers with thick kids.... all these "free readers" at age 5, wow.

Mine became "free readers" at school in Y4 - local comp with "satisfactory" rating - but strangely, despite their obviously poor development, are reading at a fantastically high level, and luckily still enjoy it.

As for behaviour - I see many private school pupils who are not at all well behaved.

Also the reading scheme thing is very operant for private school parents as they like to see they are getting some bang for their buck.

I am not a precious parent - as a state school pupil I learned to take responsibility for my learning in spite of other puils. DD1 is the same -she is independent and motivated, she knows she needs to work hard and does not expect to be spoon fed. This will serve her well when she gets to university.

Operant ? Important

Agree normantebbit - this idea that there are no behavioural problems in the private sector is a myth IMO. I went to the local comp but spent my gap year with a girl from an extremely well-known private girls school. I was at the things she told me.

"Also I'm sure many private school pupils are 'ahead' in reading and writing at this stage but what difference it makes at 'A'level time I'm not sure."

ha ha ha! Have you seen a comparison of A level results between state and private schools. Are you aware that private school pupils are 7% of the cohort but get more than half the starred As?

I just wanted to know whether private school pupils were already ahead after only one year at school. Reading is so important for accessing the rest of the curriculum that it's got to be a good indicator. But hardly anyone answered the question except defensive state school parents. Which is fair enough becuase no-one wants to feel their child is being left behind already for financial reasons.

Maybe the private school parents were reluctant to answer the question, OP, because it might demonstrate that their DCs were not actually any further ahead after all.

As for a-level results, meh. Selective schools will always get better results, but that tells us very little about the outcomes for individual students.

Oh come on apple pie- you have more brains than that surely. private schools are selective.

I'd say the emphasis on reading schemes ^in private education allows parents to measure 'how well they are doing' and thus justify the money.

Applypie

The children in private schools are likely to do better because

by definition their parents are interested enough in their education to decide to work to pay for it.

Their home environment is also more likely to support learning as the family are investing in it.

The parents will tend to have higher earning jobs, and on average will be more academic than the general population. Their dcs are therefore likely to be on average more able.

Many private schools also select on ability.

There are obviously many exceptions to all these points.

So it is no miracle that the results tend to be better than in the state sector, where there are all sorts of families with widely varying attitudes to education, incomes and living conditions.

Here's the point, the fact that the results of the school are not as good as the private sector does not mean that the teaching is necessarily superior at the private school. It's just that a group of children who are more challenging to teach have been eliminated by selection, whether academic or financial. The remaining group are artificially selected and are pokey to do well anyway.

I have confidence that my dcs can do well in a state comp. The fact that there are children there who are disadvantaged will help them to understand the challenges many people have to face in life, and broaden their outlook. To me, that us an important aspect of growing up and learning to have a part in society

Pokey? Likely

Weird thread.. It's like asking how long is a piece of string.

FWIW in my dd's y1 class, the ability spans from blue to orange. Same teacher, same English speaking background.. The top were not readers joining the school.

So basically it's all pretty boring - just kids progressing at their own rate.

Should have added - this is a state school.

Actually your comments are very telling. What the private school gives you, which is less important in State schools is that element of competition right from the start. Within the class and, more importantly, with the rest of the world.

You don't care about your child's progress on and of itself, just in relation to those with less financial means.

I can see you rubbing your hands with glee that 'they are already ahead' after only a year. That's what counts.

I have to say that's not how I want to raise my children, even if they may be less 'successful' in your terms.

And then I look at the government and how they were schooled and it all becomes clear. They have never had to interact with a mixture of groups or needs. They have no idea how to solve problems that they have never met.

I may be a daft old liberal but your posts have depressed me beyond belief.

At that age I think it hugely depends on their developmental readyness. In most of Europe they wouldn't read at all! Because they are not taught, and that's how it should be.
Answering your question, I have friends in state and private sectors who's children were 'free readers' by the end of reception (aged almost 6), and others (mostly younger boys) hardly read at all. DS (now 6 and in Y2) reads ORT Stage 8/9 which I believe is about average, but he a reluctant reader and will not read anything but his reading books - I feel sad, he was too young.

'in and of itself'

I once had a young man in my good state school secondary school lesson, he was thinking of becoming a teacher and observing lessons. He told me that he has never been in a state school and that he was very impressed by the behaviour and enthusiasm of the students - I was shocked and angry . He seemed to have expected complete chaos and without any learning going on!?

Is it a little bubble of their own privately educated kids live in, without any sense or experience of how everyone else lives?! Do they only socialise with themselves??

Incidentally, I find it ironic that you comment on "defensive" state school parents, having started a thread to try and persuade yourself that your own choices are better! I guess you feel the need to justify the expense by denigrating the alternatives!

Hippo

*And then I look at the government and how they were schooled and it all becomes clear. They have never had to interact with a mixture of groups or needs. They have no idea how to solve problems that they have never met.

I may be a daft old liberal but your posts have depressed me beyond belief.*

Exactly, and that doesn't just apply to politicians, but increasingly to medics, lawyers, architects, and other professions that are overpopulated by privately educated people.

Even the lack of empathy for 'disruptive pupils' in lessons, if we could live in their shoes for a a few months, I'm sure it would be abundantly clear why they are acting out in class. These children need understanding, these complex problems are everyone's, and impact on everyone, including those who are attempting to live in a private ark.

hungryhippo, I am right beside you being depressed.

This is one of the reasons I (actively) chose the local state primary, which nurtures other thing besides competitiveness (though no, they are not one of the schools that give prizes to all on Sports Day, competition does exist and flourish to a degree).

My siblings and I went to private schools. There was some good in them, some not so good, a variety of achievers and a very wide mix of behaviour: just as much so as in dd's school, tbh.

SO much also depends on which state school, which private school. Its all so much more complex than the OP's question suggests - and about to become even more complex, probably.