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.

[Dragonflyfly]

Marsha, in an ideal world all children would attend an excellent state school and have the same opportunities. Have you considered the areas where house prices have soared, dominated by well off middle class parents, all sending their children to the local excellent state schools? This also isn't a fair system and no different then paying for private school. Your average salary family simply couldn't afford to live and send their children to these schools and would certainly be out of catchment.
Money talks.

[Nolim]

I dont think you can generalize. Every school has to be judged by its own merit.

[airedailleurs]

sunflower I would be very interested to hear which GDST school you are referring to; if you don't want to say on the thread could you pm me please? Thanks!

[Hakluyt]

I think if you compare an excellent state school to an excellent private school, the private school is going to win in lots of ways simply because of the available cash. But what people sometimes forget is that private schools are paying as part of their fees for all the fantastic extras. Similarly inclined state school parents and children do many of th same things but pay for them separately. And a school where every single parent is committed to their child's education-even if only to get their money's worth- is going to have advantages over a school where not all families are committed.

And there is also sometimes a significant cosmetic edge to private schools- once again money talks. Beautiful buildings are a lovely thing to have- there is noting beautiful or uplifting about my ds's crumbling brutalist school. And it leaks. And I think some parents are definitely seduced by boaters and barathea.............

[Sunflower123456]

The bad GDST school was NGHS.

Bad private schools should be named and shamed, as state schools.

[poppyseedhead]

It is a fact that state education is better, quote from the guardian, "Studies continue to show that when comprehensive school pupils reach university, they outperform peers from the private sector admitted with similar grades. On a more level playing field, the high quality of state education comes through." Link to full article,
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/privilige-private-schools-lady-morgan-social-mobility-academic.

[Abriata]

Hakluyt -- the facilities at the private primary schools we visited in
London were generally inferior to the facilities of the primary schools we visited (several years ago). The private schools had very small, cramped, often dark classrooms and very limited outdoor space -- if any at all. In some, the children eat bagged lunches at their desks because there is not a dining hall. The state primaries we visited were more spacious and had at least courtyards in which children could play, if not full playgrounds. We were not offered a place at a state primary within walking distance of our house and were fortunate to be able to pay for a private one.

Among secondary schools, the only state one I've seen is Pimlico Academy. It was re-built 5 years ago and is beight, spacious and state-of-the-art -- much better facilities than most private secondary day schools I've seen.

It is not the quality of the facilities but the quality of teaching and leadership that distinguishes one school from another. There are excellent state schools and their are excellent private schools (and, of course, there are bad exampkes of each as well) -- but the excellence (or lack thereof) has little to do with the quality of the buildings.

[Hakluyt]

Abriata- I did say sometimes!

Certainly where I live, the private schools leave most state schools standing when it comes to facilities and premises.

[KnittedJimmyChoos]

And a school where every single parent is committed to their child's education-even if only to get their money's worth- is going to have advantages over a school where not all families are committed.


sweeping un supported statement to make, we have no proof of this,

My personal experience has in fact been the opposite.

[Hakluyt]

"My personal experience has in fact been the opposite."

What, that schools with uncommitted parents do better? Really?

[Jackieharris]

The facilities at the private high school I attended in the 90s were awful!
Desks so old they had space for inkwells, stone staircases very worn away, classrooms in outdoor 'huts', ancient blackboards- no whiteboards let alone the smart boards schools have now, gym hall just big enough for a netball court, no lockers, cold draughty old buildings, lab tables covered in graffiti, no theatre/drama facilities, no swimming pool, music dept consisted of a room with a few small old keyboards (unless you were paying extra for private lessons), had to get a bus to sports ground.

It a world away from the new build state school my dc is in now.

[lunar1]

If they banned private schools then my children would be homeschooled. No way on earth I would put them in the state school we were offered.

It would be a different story of course if they banned discrimination based on religion as well.

[SunnyBaudelaire]

I honestly think that private schools are over-rated. Most of them exclude on the basis of IQ, and many on the basis of how rich you are.

Products of these schools have never had to play or work with anyone 'different' or with different needs.

You can see that in the products of the system tbh, without delving into personal anecdotes.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Every school is different you can't judge an entire sector on your own narrow experience.
you can say that you have found ...... but you certainly can't generalise.
There are obviously good and bad schools from both.
If you had been allocated my ds1 state school you would be saying that private was lots better as it was a step sideways from borstal.
Ds2 school however, 50% better.

[CokeFan]

In my experience, the only "support" that parents of children who attend private schools give to the school is financial. They tend to be cash rich and time poor, so they're paying for the school to provide the music/swimming/sports/theatre/after school care in addition to basic education.

Adding these children to state schools wouldn't change the teaching or facilities - you can't expect those parents to fork out for something that's "free". Motivated or not these parents can't have any influence on the teaching or management of a state school. They might increase the overall results of the school by buying in tutors for their own children but that's of no benefit to anyone else.

If your children are at a substandard private school you can remove them and find another one.
If they're at a substandard state school you can..... what?

[SunnyBaudelaire]

.... remove them an find another? OKOK I know it is not that simple.

[Hakluyt]

"In my experience, the only "support" that parents of children who attend private schools give to the school is financial. " I think that is a bit of a myth.

But even if it isn't, financial support will include enough to eat, a warm place to sleep, decent clothes to wear, an adult around when needed, a safe place to live, a quiet place to do homework, access to books and the Internet, the company of people who have been educated...........if you think all those things aren't a big deal, maybe you need to look at the lives of a lot of children in state schools.

[CokeFan]

Hakluyt how does that help anyone else's children though?

I'm not talking about how they support their own children, but how they would benefit the school. The old "close down private schools and state schools will magically get better" argument.

[Hakluyt]

I didn't think this thread was about closing down private schools, was it? I was just saying thqt one of the things that makes private schools better (when they are) is a critical mass of children from supportive homes. That applies to most schools to be honest, but it is more likely to have such a critical mass in a private school than in a state one.

Often good schools, both state and private, are good more because of the parent body than anything else.

[CokeFan]

It's been mentioned...


Mashabell "Any government that is keen to reduce man-made inequalities would not give private schools charitable status. The parents who opt out of the state system help to make it worse, because they deprive the state system of their support.

The interest of better off, well educated, articulate adults helps to make schools better. Most parents who send their children to private schools are in that group. So the state system loses out by them opting out. "

holmessweetholmes "And it is true that if private schools didn't exist and everyone had to attend their local school, then state schools would almost certainly improve massively."

[Hakluyt]

Didn't notice that. I agree that private schools should most certainly not have charitable status, and in an ideal world I think they should be abolished. But for me the interesting thing about this thread is the perception of better or worse schools. The idea that private is automatically better. The wqy people talk about how much better music and sport is, while forgetting how much they are paying for that......

[CokeFan]

Of course if you were to remove charitable status from existing private schools you'd have to close them and wind up the charity. All buildings etc. would have to be sold and I think the money would go to the government but I'm not sure about that. Either that or you'd have to change the laws on charities first. You could make it so that private schools could still exist but not charge fees, but then they'd have to raise money some other way.

If you want to make it so that education is no longer a charitable aim you'd be sweeping a lot more broadly than perhaps you'd like (sure start, scrap stores and probably lots more)

[Hakluyt]

Education is a charitable aim. Education of the children of the rich, not so much.