State -v- Private

[aim1ee]

Having experienced both I feel in a position to comment. Our views - the assumption that because you are paying independent school fees that the education and care must be better, is an absolute myth. State education is excellent; provided by qualified teachers often with teaching assistants/trainee teachers in the class together, after school clubs and sport, breakfast clubs, regular sight of books, pastoral care and parental involvement. Especially good advice on internet safety and how numeracy and literacy are taught - even parents' lessons! Most special needs and disabled children are integrated into a happy community. On the other hand we found private schools are elitest, one or two really rude and nasty parents, inadequate leadership by Heads, only one class teacher (sometimes unqualified), short staffed, absent pastoral support, inadequate school reports downloaded from the internet with a few chosen phrases slotted in, school's own policies not adhered to, expensive uniform some of which went missing, overlong holidays. Without doubt State is best.

As usual, on these threads, I read and I come out feeling the same: the best school is the one that is best for your child in an all-round way. There are brilliant state schools and brilliant private schools, and dreadful ones in both sectors, and loads and loads of middling ones ditto.

We've been faced with choosing state or private at both primary and secondary levels for dd1: first time, a local state was simply the school we liked the best, felt she'd be happiest in, and chose. This time (secondary), we (and she) have opted to try for one of each and see what choice she ends up with - she'll probably go to the private one if she gets in, because it 'fits' her really well.

But the decision (both times) will not have been made on whether the school is state or private, or even class size or facilities.

Obviously, we're extremely lucky to have the choice - I wish I had a magic wand so that everyone did. It would be interesting to see what choices people made.

Some people on Mumsnet find it mind boggling that people deliberately go state, when they could go private. Like you, Eli, I don't find it so straightforward. Eg my DC's current state secondary has such a great atmosphere, she claims that there is no bullying of anyone, she made loads of friends as soon as she joined, the teaching is fantastic, she's making such great progress academically and is surrounded by hard-working ambitious children. She comes home buzzing most days. And the fact that we don't have much money doesn't matter a jot. To move her to private, it would have to be a very very special place. I made the deliberate decision not to send her to the local (very good reputation) private (she might well have got a scholarship) once she got a place at this state school.

elibean

"the best school is the one that is best for your child in an all-round way. There are brilliant state schools and brilliant private schools, and dreadful ones in both sectors, and loads and loads of middling ones ditto."

Ditto, well said.

Lottery plus transport paid for by LA has been tried in Hull in years gone by. The education results still stayed at the bottom of the league tables. It cost a lot. Children & parents didn't like that they didn't have friends nearby. So even the forever Labour council had to recognise it was a loser.

Also, most people don't believe the research that says that small class sizes does not help.

Ideal class sizes (according to the research) are between 18 - 30. So state school classes, in the UK, are not too big.

Smaller or larger classes than that bring measurable disadvantages.

2 of my 3 DC are in classes of 24 in state schools. The other is in a class of 28. So I'm really sure 'small class sizes' wouldn't gain my DC any advantage over what they have currently.

Yes Killsandra, I've also read that 24 is an ideal class size.

Smaller class sizes only work if the teachers radically change their teaching style in response to the change numbers. Most teachers actually teach a class of 32 the same as a class of 24 or a class of 18! It's how they have been trained, and it's also their experience.

Classes smaller than 18 tend to lack "spark" there aren't enough ideas and characters in the room to keep things dynamic.

Smaller classes do give teachers a smaller work load in terms of evaluating and marking, but in class lessons from the children's perspective has been found to be no better and possibly worse.

By small class sizes, I meant 18-20 which is what there is at our independent school. I discounted all schools with class sizes below 16 without even visiting.

And as a teacher I can tell you without doubt that there is a phenomenal difference in what you can get through with a class if 18/20 10yr olds compared to 30 in a class which is the norm in over subscribed state schools. In independent schools here, there is also still a TA in my DS1s Y6 class. Not so in state. I know that's not across the board but I gave found as a parent and a teacher that the high achieving 'outstanding' graded primaries have less TA support certainly in the juniors than you find in schools in more challenging areas. So anywhere between 18-22 is fine by me.

I certainly don't believe that about smaller class sizes not being a benefit, having taught classes of all sizes. A smaller class means more time for individuals, fewer books to mark (so more time for giving detailed feedback ) and posdbly easier differentiation
Plus, for classes with challenging kids, simply having fewer bodies in the room makes a difference. More scope for arranging the seating positions to minimise problems. Much easier to keep an eye on everybody.

And there is plenty of spark in many smaller classes ime - the level of spark depends more on the kids themselves and the teacher.

3years ago my DCs primary school class size in an urban state school was 19. For years it was never over 25. The local private schools had class sizes of 28.

With council cuts now because of the condemns ideological austerity in my area state class sizes have grown measurably.

At my private high school the popular subjects had big class sizes, up to 30. There was no individual feedback or attention.

In a less popular subject (mixed ability unlike the streamed popular subjects) there was only 12/15 so we did get more teacher attention but the standard was lower to make sure the low ability kids passed rather than helping the top ones get As. I had to use my own initiative to go and buy extra books and give myself extra 'extension' work to make up for what I wasn't getting taught in class. What the f were my parents paying for?!

That's the point holmessweetholmes, the kids provide the spark, so more kids more spark. That's the theory of the stuff I read anyway. I remembered it because I found it so surprising and counterintuitive.

I think the point is that there is a range that is best. NancyJones is a teacher and discounted any school with classes of less than 16. Obviously there is a lower limit where things get a bit "limp," and perhaps it is difficult to find peers for ability grouping when there aren't many children in the first place. It's nice to not to be the only student "ahead" or "behind" and it is easier to have comrades at your pace when there are more children in the first place. So probably Nancy's limit of 16 is a good rough guess.

On the other hand, I think most of us we be pretty concerned about classes nudging over the low to mid 30s. After all, if the teacher is completely drained, it won't be good for anyone else either.

we = would

Yes, I remember having to teach myself history A'level, because the teachers at my private boarding school didn't bother to show up, and were rubbish when they did (just reading university lecture notes, no discussions, no marking of essays). Oh, and we were studying the Tudors, allegedly, but the teacher stopped altogether before we even started on Elizabeth I on the grounds that we could probably get through the exam without doing her.
Rumour had it that the 2 history teachers were busy having sex while we were hanging around in history lessons waiting for them to turn up (probably true).

I've taught very sparky GCSE classes of 8 or 10 and A Level classes of 6. And many, many larger classes with no spark at all! In classes of 30 the sparky ones can take over while the quiet ones take a back seat.

Anyway... the research shows what it shows, but given the choice of a class of 14 and a class of 30, I can't imagine that many teachers would choose the class of 30! And I know which I'd choose for my dc. (Who, incidentally, are now in classes of 11 or 12 in a little village primary and learning much better than they were at their Ofsted outstanding primary with classes of 30 before we moved).

Between me and my 3 siblings and DH and his 3, we've pretty much covered every possible type of education available in the UK and both good and bad in each.

Totally agree that the best school is the school that is best for a particular child.

DD goes to an inner-London state primary. Un-leafy, predominantly social housing in the vicinity, almost 3/4 of the pupils are FSM and around 80% are EAL. School is Outstanding and rightly so - 100% L4 and nearly 70% L5 in English, and 20% got L6 maths year before last. Two amazing HTs in succession turned it round from the failing mess it was 10 years ago.

Given the levels of deprivation, it's the kind of school that MN would use as an example of the 'rough, dodgy council estate school' that everyone wants to avoid.

Well, with HTs and teachers who believe that children shouldn't have a label stuck on them from day 1, who managed to get hold of every bit of money and every opportunity available and who have huge aspirations for the children, you can have a school that is not only turning out polite, well-behaved children who enjoy learning and are achieving, but a school that also gives the local preps a run for their money when it comes to selective secondary schools (and staff who are prepared to talk to parents about their children trying for independent schools, scholarships and bursaries).

We're leaving London, but rather than sending DD to the 99% white MC school in the new town, she's staying at her current school.

Unfortunately the secondary schools in this part of the borough are dire academically (not even a small cohort succeeding) and the ones in the new town have a far from stellar reputation, so we are almost certainly aiming at a selective secondary and probably private as selective state is not really a viable option.

No-one can say that I want my DD away from 'the great unwashed' (as a pp so nicely put it). I do want her in a school that will allow her to succeed to the best of her abilities.

DH and I have both been school governors for primary and secondary schools in our area for over 12 years - long before we had DC. You don't always need parents to be the bright, interested and motivated governors.

One of the governors at DD's primary has a child at St Paul's Boys and a DD at Bute House. Four of the governors are Oxbridge educated - only 1 of those is a parent.

Oh, the idea that private school children live in some little bubble... ha, ha, ha.

There were 11 of us in my year in my boarding house at a selective school. Of those 11, we had the following:

1 had parents who had had a very nasty divorce and were fighting over custody

1 had no idea who her father was and every holiday met her mother's new boyfriend or husband, when her mother actually bothered to have her home for the holidays.

1 boarded because her mother had severe mental health issues and was in and out of hospital and father had two other younger DC to cope with.

2 were from Forces families and were moving so often both in the UK and abroad that parents wanted some continuity.

My best friend had a pretty normal life - except for the fact that her next-door neighbour had raped her at the age of 11 one afternoon when she was home alone after primary school. She was severely messed up and without the structure, support and firm rules the school gave during her teenage years I think she would be a sorry mess right now.

In my sister's year, there were twins who had lost both their parents, grandparents were too old to look after 2 children and ferry them around to schools and so on full-time and so had used life-insurance money to pay fees.

None of us ever had designer clothes, flashy cars, lots of money or exotic holidays (except the Forces kids who got to go to some far-flung places).

I imagine there are similar sad stories in every school. Yes, those in boarding schools are removed from their situations, which can cause extra problems like feelings of guilt, but they're hardly in some shiny, happy little bubble of perfection.

Oh, of course private school children live in a bubble! My children live in a bubble, and they go to state school! They live in a nice middle class world where they are always well fed and warm, where they are talked to and cared for and considered important. They have parents who have time and emotional energy left for them who don't have to work extra night shifts to make ends meet. They have holidays and nice clothes and some of the things they want. They have bedrooms of their own and the bailiff never calls. (Well, he did once, over a forgotten parking ticket, but we'll gloss over that one!). They are surrounded by books and music and pictures and have loads of cultural capital as a given. And if they went to private school they would obviously be hardly aware that there are children for whom those things are a dream,not the nor,

Elf, 11 boardingschool kids back in 1980 are possibly not a representation of private school kids now. I agree it is bubble like.

Also agree with hakkuyt, my kids are in a similar bubble in their "naice leafy comp"

Lots of my private school friends deny the bubble exists, I wonder why? They do not want to be perceived as snobs maybe?

"Also agree with hakkuyt, my kids are in a similar bubble in their "naice leafy comp"

My ds is at an extremely unleafy non comprehensive- but he is still in a bubble. The difference might be that he is more aware that he is. I hope that's the case anyway.,

I think many parents deny the bubble exists because we don't keep our DC locked in cupboards .

They have friends, family etc that aren't all middle class.

But anyway, I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that the disadvantaged are somehow helped from their lot by the presence of shiny middle class children at their school. And even more uncomfortable with the idea that those disadvanatged children provide a useful bubble bursting tool for middle class children.

I've been the kid without money. I've been the kid doing a moonlight flit from the bailifs. I didn't have holidays and books and what have you. The presence of naice children in my life did not help one shiney shit!!!!

"I've been the kid without money. I've been the kid doing a moonlight flit from the bailifs. I didn't have holidays and books and what have you. The presence of naice children in my life did not help one shiney shit!!!!"

Well the presence of a tipping point number of naice parents might well have made a difference to your school.

The point is, though that your presence would not make a difference to the naice children in your school. That is the big middle class fear- that working classness, poverty, just general "not naiceness" is catching. That is the reality of what we're talking about here. People dress it up - as I have said before, there has only ever been one poster who had the chutzpah to actually say it in so many words. But that's the reality.

I dunno hak I don't really see how the presence of a few dentists and middle managers' wives amongst the parent body would have made much odds .

But here's the thing. Even if those naice parents had managed to turn around my school, that doesn't mean that all the working class kids would have whole sale adopted the mores and ambitions of the middle classes.

This is often something the middle classes don't understand.You value your culture so highly that you imagine the great unwashed are just waiting to be converted if only they can be shown the way.

Word- I think you are deliberately misunderstanding me. The point is that people on here seem to think that if their child comes into contact with "non naice" children, they will instantly adopt the mores and culture of "the great unwashed".....................

My DSSs went to the French equivalent of a failing comprehensive/local sink school, for four and two years respectively.

Their very shiny middle-class presence had not one iota of an influence on the 4-6 DC in their class every year (no streaming or setting in France) who consistently got mean marks of 2 or 3/20 and were biding their time to get through the system.

Oh, and my DP was that archetypal involved parent: a class rep every year and even invited to be on the school board (a very unusual occurrence in France) who knew all the teachers and the head and did everything in his power to make a difference...

Hak not remotely deliberate.

But I think I do understand you. You think it's dreadful that middle class people avoid sending their DC to school with working class people.

What I'm saying as a working class person is ... meh... on a scale of 1 to 10, the lack of dentists' children in my childhood was -3 .