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.

of course it is minifingers, lets face it so many parents do not send their children to private school for the quality of the teaching but for the fact that there will be no council estate kids there.

" lets face it so many parents do not send their children to private school for the quality of the teaching but for the fact that there will be no council estate kids there."

That'll be why my kids go to Scouts where there's a total social mix then, will it?

Just because you're a social snob doesn't mean everyone else is.

Yep- Scouts. That well know haunt of the socially disadvantaged........

Come on Skylark- a couple of hours on a Friday night is a bit different from actually going to school with the great unwashed, isn't it?

Both I and my DC have experienced both state and private.

I went to one private school where there was very little interest in the children - uncontrolled bullying, disrupted lessons, an unwillingness to do anything remotely extra to help a particular child (eg I was a fluent French speaker and the school not only wouldn't teach me French, but wouldn't allow me to borrow exam papers to practise from when I took the exams early). The 2nd private school had teachers, including the acting Head, who simply didn't bother turning up to lessons, or would turn up half way through. Constantly. And their teaching consisted solely of dictating from their decades old university notes, and not reading any homework that was submitted to them - there was never a single comment. You'd think that things would have improved since I left decades ago, but it was recently engulfed in a bad management scandal and closed down altogether.

My DC's private school had its good points but was very eccentrically run by the owner, who had complete control over everything and didn't take well to any criticism. The year groups were so small that there were different ages in the same class (even at secondary) and there was no possibility of streaming. As it was non-selective, the kids tended not to be very bright, as the bright rich kids were at the selective schools, which was a disadvantage to the few bright kids who were there. The boy/girl ratio was very skewed. The teachers were on the whole very old fashioned in their teaching approaches - eg language learning for several years consisted solely of learning long vocab lists.

There is much less that you can do if you have a problem with a private school. Eg if your child is doing badly, or is unpopular with the staff or whatever, they can be expelled very easily. That is not the case for a state school - they are actually expected to tackle the problem.

Much of the above would not be possible or tolerated in a state school. My DC is currently at a state school and there is no comparison - it is wonderful and she is thriving both academically and socially. It is an unusually nice school though, not a typical state school.

wow skylark, rattled much? No I am not a 'social snob' thanks!
you will find Scouts fairly non diverse as well btw.

One of then easons I like my ds going to Scouts is so thwt he can mix with some other nice middle class kids.......

Something else to look out for is private schools closing down. I know of several private schools, including long established and well respected ones, that have closed down within the past few years, with very little notice to parents. It's caused serious problems for the children who have to find new schools in a hurry, especially those who've already started their GCSE courses. And the build-up to the closures wasn't pretty either.

I am lucky to live close to decent state schools, but if i didn't I might pay for private school.

It depends so much what your catchment school is like!

Also, most private schools are not public schools, they are not like Eton or
Harrow or Winchester. Most private schools are more like :"state school plus" (smaller classes, more sport, fancier uniform).

I feel no resentment towards privately educated people.

Neither do I think it is always an advantage.

Erm, I think you'll find Sunny is right, some people do send their dc to private schools so they don't have to mix with council estate kids.
This isn't confined to private education, many grammar school parents are like this too, some I have experienced myself.
Then there are the parents of those in the good state schools who don't want their dc mixing with council estate dc. The latter I have a lot of experience with.
That isn't being a snob its being observant.

It certainly is about social apartheid. I don't think the quality of teaching is probably that different tbh. Having taught in both private and state, I would say that private schools often insist on staff with a good degree from a prestigious university, but that does not make them good teachers. I've known many very intelligent people with firsts who were awful teachers. And some brilliant teachers who had very low qualifications.

If I were going to send my dc to private school (which I'm not - partly because I can't afford to and mainly because dh is very anti) it would be because of the kids they would mix with - high aspirations, good behaviour, a desire to learn and good parental support.

Let's face it - it's not just parents who use private schools who do this. When parents (often on MN) discuss their local schools' reputations with a view to choosing one for their dc, they talk about them being 'nice' or 'rough' or having a good atmosphere etc etc. But, like it or not, the atmosphere of a school is largely down to the demographics of its intake. A school in a 'rough' area with lots of social problems is always going to have a difficult time achieving good results, however good the head and the teachers are. Many parents want to avoid sending their dc to that kind of school, whatever the more pc reasons they might give for their choice.

holmes

I totally agree with you.
I can really relate to your points on local state schools, and this has been our experience.
There are 2/3 good schools in our area not really open to all due to crows flying and faith. All the others are pretty much the same in terms of demographics except the really rough ones with the bad reputations of which there are several.
People normally stick to what would be considered their "own sort" but if a child from the roughest part of town happened to be in a "good school" these children would be shunned by many parents.
It isn't right but the way of the world.
Everywhere is different though, and different local norms exist.
private schools or grammar are completely out of the equation here, they don't exist. They are considered to be for "those who think they are better than us".
This is typical of the area where we are.

Again?
As I always say, if my kids didn't attend the local independent day school they would attend an outstanding graded primary stuffed full of affluent MC parents. Those parents are no less interested in their children's schools and education than our parents are. They use their cash to pay for extras outside of school like rugby and piano etc. Parents who pay quite often (not always) live in affluent areas with other affluent parents many if whom use the state sector.

The link about state educated kids doing better is actually saying the opposite in that they are cleverer than their grades suggest. So if the same child attended private school they'd have higher grades.

Morethan, I live in the NW and I know the school you are referring to. You are quite correct in your description re the vast amount of children from poorer backgrounds. Poorer financially of course. Which isn't necessarily the same as disadvantaged. Those poorer kids have massively proactive and supportive parents who just happen to not earn much.

As to the op, nobody really choses a school simply because it's private. Not in my experience. I also would never chose a tiny school with tatty facilities and lack of staff. Most flourishing independent schools have all their staff qualified and 2 or 3 adults in each primary class.

"That'll be why my kids go to Scouts where there's a total social mix then, will it?

Just because you're a social snob doesn't mean everyone else is."

Yup. But the sort of parents who will go to the effort of taking their kids to scouts will generally not be the sort of parents you'll be trying to avoid by removing your children from the state sector.

And even then, I bet a lot of parents would look around a scout group and think 'thank fuck my child doesn't have to sit next to someone like THAT at school'.

Because the one thing you can GUARANTEE at a private school is that there's not going to be anyone in class who might disrupt your child's learning. If they do - out they go.

It's like privately educated children walk around in a sort of purified social bubble at school.

They might mix with a few children who are poor but very clever (the bursary students), or a bit dense (if they're in a non-selective private school), but they definitely won't mix with children who are both poor and dense, as there is no place for these children in private schools.

The only time they'll mix with poor, dense kids is when they accidentally rub up against one on the bus on the way to school.

" I bet a lot of parents would look around a scout group and think 'thank fuck my child doesn't have to sit next to someone like THAT at school"
lol yes cubs was a bit like that, only it was my son they were looking at.

Nancy - I don't know where you live, but most people in the UK, middle class or not, don't have wodges of cash to splurge on their children.

Can I remind you that the average wage in the UK is 26K?

Most 'middle-class' parents don't get near to affording private school fees.

As for after school activities - there's a big difference between the £8 a week you might spend on a drama class for your child and the £300 a week you're quite likely to be spending on school fees if your child attends a private school.

Minifingers,
I live in Wilmslow which is just south of Manchester. The average wage here is far higher than the uk average wage. Houses in my primary's catchment cost upwards of 500k. Maybe my idea if MC is different to yours. I'm thinking 2 professional parents earning 35k plus pa. We have 2 parents at our school who are both teachers (one a ht) so combined income of, I guess about 80k+? She is on same as me through threshold twice so about 33k. He is a secondary head. So 70 or 80k seems like a reasonable MC income to me.

And I have a friend who is a theatre nurse on about the same as me so a teacher married to a nurse could have combined salary of 70k. It's not 'way out there' just ordinary, professional MC salaries. I am not trying to be inflammatory in the slightest.

"just ordinary, professional MC salaries."
well hardly. I suppose it depends who or what you define as 'MC'.

mimi

They do in the area that Nancy is referring to, if I'm correct.
A completely different authority to ours but full of mc parents and lots of excellent schools.
I have met some of these parents some are lovely and down to earth, the others are snobs and downright horrible.
Yes, we have had dc hauled out of the way of my dd because she wasn't wearing a socially approved and recognised uniform.
These parents had decided because she wasn't wearing a uniform she obviously went to one of the less acceptable schools because she had obviously had time to change before the activity,
She is H.ed, doesn't wear a uniform and we had left hours earlier to attend a concert
DD is fine with it though, she's made of strong stuff and has more talent in her little finger than they have in their body.

Sorry *Nancy, missed your last post as was typing mine, slowly.
Yes, I am on the right track.
I was hearing about all the 11+ lot last night, some kids sat 5 exams.
Flipping 5 exams , the mums were really twitchy last night, is it a significant time, I wouldn't have a clue

Morethan, do you mean the 11+ as in Trafford or for the independent senior schools?
The craziness of some Hale/Alti parents furiously tutoring their already prep educated children to ensure a place as the AGSs is madness. Likewise those tutoring for places like Withington. At least at places like Manchester Grammar they have a blind admission policy so boys who do very well are admitted regardless of ability to pay.

Oh and yes, it would've disingenuous to suggest that some parents pay to avoid others they consider undesirable. I guess I do too in the sense of knowing that those who don't apply themselves or behave badly will be asked to leave. Where that child lives or what their parents earn holds no interest to me. I would jolly well expect a portion of my fees to go towards bursaries. I would like to see the bursary scheme widened. My children's education can only benefit from the intake being broader.

people spout such nonsense on here, such as:

"Because the one thing you can GUARANTEE at a private school is that there's not going to be anyone in class who might disrupt your child's learning. If they do - out they go. " (mini fingers)

Not true!

My kids have been both at private and state primaries, and one boy sexually assaulted a girl and was in lots of fights, and parents campaigned to get him expelled, but it did not happen. He was bright, he was going to get a scholarship to his next school, he was going to "perform" academically so no way was he asked to leave. Same with a bully-boy who had been kicked out of another school (state!) who then merrily disrupted the new (private) class.

The idea that kids are better behaved because their parents are richer is laughable. Also, private schools don't kick fee-paying high achievers out.

Or were you sarcastic minifingers/ In which case at my foolish rising to the bait

Nancy

Both I think. There is a private school they all seem to mention as a sort of back up for if the grammar school doesn't work out. I believe they have a separate exam.

True that you can't absolutely guarantee good behaviour, Nimpy - there are bad private schools as well as good ones. But it is a lot easier for private schools to get rid of problem pupils if they want to.

Just PMd you back but yes, if they don't pass they often opt for Chs or SGS I think. I have heard some real horror stories about one very very sought after Trafford grammar though.