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.

Really? Shallow? Because he's pleased he can now do his job without endless and often seemingly pointless form-filling. And without constant verbal abuse from students. Wow.

No. For perpetuating the myth that teachers are routinely told to fuck off in state schools.

The assumption that state (or at least comprehensive) school pupil =abusive knuckle dragging chair thrower is one you meet all too often. Not least on this forum.

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'

There are many very good state schools, and a large minority of not very good ones

There are many very good private schools, and a smaller minority of not very good ones

the poor private schools would have a smaller chance of surviving, for obvious market-driven reasons - some of them will still survive, nevertheless.

Perhaps OP bought into the modern notion that spending more money on something would necessarily produce a better product/service/outcome?

This does not always apply.

This belief sustains the not-so-adequate private schools, to which OP sent her child

This report was compiled by the Institute of the Bleedin' Obvious.

FWIW, if we won lottery, we would go private in a heartbeat - but we do not play they lottery, we prefer to save that money for our child's future, whatever it may hold.

Hakluyt - it was a throw away comment based on his own experience.

Dani - I was not attempting to offer data. This thread began with anecdote.

"Hakluyt - it was a throw away comment based on his own experience." Which you have now repeated on a very popular forum as a contribution to a debate about private/state education.........

Well my own anecdote is that I've taught in state schools for 20yrs+. I've taught in both primary and secondary in some of the most deprived areas of the country. I have been told to fuck off twice. Twice in over 20yrs. I'd hazard a guess that DH has told me to fuck off more than twice in the 21yrs we've been together!

And I will say this honestly, as a parent whose children are at independent school; there is often a veneer of polite manners from privately educated children but I have had to pick my jaw off the floor on many occasions when I've heard the appallingly rude way in which they've spoken to their parents. Of course not all, mine know better than to push that button too often, but my experience is that there is more of a difference in home/school manners with privately educated kids than you get with state educated kids.

Danimirge

What do you mean by a 'bad school'?

There are many schools considered awful by m/c parents solely because they are packed to the rafters with low achieving children whose behaviours can be very challenging. These schools may have great heads, be well managed and have talented and committed teachers, but they will be difficult places to teach and learn.

Schools consist of teachers + management + parents + children. Schools which have hugely disproportionate numbers of

• bright and hard working children
• involved and supportive parents

.. will function more effectively regardless of how talented the teaching or leadership is.

All working communities - schools included - rise and fall on the input and talents of ALL their members. Private schools drain talent away from the wider school community and diminish its overall effectiveness. They take the children who are easiest to educate and concentrate them in one setting. They marginalise and ignore those children who are the most difficult to educate. It's a system designed to perpetuate inequality.

In our area the good private schools are quite strongly selective. If your child is not bright enough to get in, the remainder of the private schools are very different from the wonderful private schools that are being talked about on this thread. There are plenty of quite dodgy private schools around.

I went to a shitola private schools. Two shitola private schools actually.

But both do well in the league tables because - guess what - they're full of bright and hard working kids.

And jeeze - the tiny class sizes. My sister remembers being in a class of 3 for physics (which she got an A in - no A*s in those days). Bright kids in tiny classes does tend to result in good results.....

Minifingers

I agree with your "drivers" of a successful school - "teachers + management + parents + children".

I don't agree that private schools drain these elements from state schools.

First of all many state schools are nowhere near a private school (7%).

Secondly, it's an insult to many parents at comps that are highly motivated and involved to suggest that because a couple of parents (7%) choose private their school is diminished.

Thirdly, teachers I speak to say it is better to have a focussed cohort than a highly differentiated one. If they have similar intake they can devote more time to those needs. Three classes of low attainers is actually less work than 1 class of each attainment level.

This idea that private schools (7%) drain the good out of the state system is false. In the "utopia" where all private schools are banned, adding 1 "Tarquin" to each class will make no difference to the outcomes for the other 29 students in that class. It merely gives the staff more work.

I have nothing against good private schools that genuinely provide excellent education to children, genuinely care for them, and are value for money.

I totally detest substandard private schools, as the GDST one we experienced, that provide no better education that good state schools, didn't care for the welfare of the children, and make false allegations to authorities. They treat their schools as businesses, and rip parents off when ever possible, eg £35 for a 6x4 school photo print.

Bad private schools can get away with almost anything, as they are out of government hands. Their complaints procedure is just for show, as their main aim is to protect their schools and teachers, as we have found. They don't even have to complete the procedure if they want, and there's nothing you can do about it.

All political parties support private schools, because they won't have to pay (£7K per child/year) for children that had opted out, to follow up on their complaints, and would use the savings on state schools (ha).

Very true, Minifingers - a school is very much the sum of all its parts. However, ime, bright, motivated and well-behaved pupils can achieve great results even with fairly mediocre teachers. Whereas it is very difficult even for an excellent teacher to get great results from poorly - behaved and unmotivated pupils. And when I say great results, I mean great results reflecting the ability of the group, not A*so all round, obviously.

Going back to Hakluyt's post, no of course comprehensive school pupils are not all knuckle - dragging chair throwers. In fact not many of them are. But a) a pupil doesn't need to be a full-on chair-throwing hooligan in order to cause frequent low-level disruption or subtly bully other kids; and b)it doesn't take many disruptive pupils to damage the educational opportunities of all the many wonderful, motivated ones.

While teaching lovely, hard - working kids (of all abilities ) in state schools, and witnessing the levels of disruption they have to put up with in their classes on a daily basis, I have often reflected sadly on what they would be able to achieve if they were transported into the very different environment of the private school where I used to teach. Admittedly it was a very lovely and successful one - I realise they aren't all like that. It is unfair. But I cannot imagine a normal state school ever being able to provide that kind of environment.

minifingers there's social apartheid in the state sector too. The state sector has plenty of parents who throw their £££ around to advantage their dc's. To get into a 'top' state school often depends on the parents being able to afford very high rents or mortgages in the catchment areas.

Yes most private school will be better than 'failing schools' on 'sink estates' etc but there is very little evidence that an able, well supported, motivated mc dc will be advantaged by going to a private school over a top state school.

I really don't think a system which educates just 7% of children nationally is 'draining' clever, well motivated kids from the state sector in any way that can be statistically significant. Surely those state schools serving very affluent catchments are doing the same? They may not be academically selective but you can't deny the correlation between being better off financially and doing better at school.

A disproportionate amount of educated, keen and motivated parents will live in the areas that have the good schools. Often, these schools will be good because of their cohort rather than their core staff and ethos. Other, less well off areas will still have plenty of interested and motivated parents though.

true Jackie and let's face it there is social apartheid even within a 'comprehensive' school . Well there is in my daughter's school anyway, with their precious few being offered musical instrument lessons and going off on ski trips to America. In one of the most deprived areas of the UK.

X posts with Jackie.
I've said it before but the biggest gulf isn't between private and high achieving state schools in affluent areas. It's between those state schools and poorly performing state schools, often in quite challenging areas.

I agree that private schools can be a law unto themselves, in a way that state schools can't get away with. People on this thread talk happily about children who are not keeping up or are disrupting being got rid of by the private school very quickly, allowing their own bright and delightful children to learn at the optimum level. There is no concern for the problems of those that are thrown out. If that happens to be YOUR child, you won't be having such a nice time.

Can we change the title of the thread to

"Good vs. Bad schools"?

The ideal must be to provide a good education to all students whereby they all leave school in the best position for work (via HE if needed).

I'm much more interested in what makes a school good/bad that politics, funding, religion etc.

mn164 on your point about many state schools not being near private schools don't forget that many pupils travel up to 40 miles to attend day private schools let alone boarding schools.

There must be hundreds of state schools in The 'catchment' of the private school near me.

holmessweetholmes " While teaching lovely, hard - working kids (of all abilities ) in state schools, and witnessing the levels of disruption they have to put up with in their classes on a daily basis, I have often reflected sadly on what they would be able to achieve if they were transported into the very different environment of the private school where I used to teach."

What was it that created the calm environment in the private school? Were the pupils just automatically well behaved or were there sanctions for disruptive behaviour?

MN164 - I hope it's not just about leaving school "in the best position for work (via HE if needed)". How about leaving school as a well rounded, educated individual, who can make a full contribution to society? I'd ideally like my DCs to leave school with an appreciation of literature (not UK only), the theatre, music, some understanding of politics and the wider world, key global issues including climate change, how to look after their finances, how to deal with relationships and sex, and so on and so on. Yes, this is supported at home, but is it not the role of schools too? Or are schools just a training ground for the workplace? In which case, presumably the state could save a lot of money by having one set of schools for future factory workers, and another for future scientists etc.

holmes - I attended a private school, and there was a lot of disruption in lessons. It depended completely on the individual teacher. Some could keep order, and some could not. I think that teachers who are bad at instilling respect and discipline in children are more likely to gravitate towards private schools.

well I attended a private school from the age 7 til 12 or 13 and it was incredibly calm and quiet. bit of a shock going on to the state school tbh....
But each school is different.

And therein lies the problem with the entire thread. People base their views on their own experiences.
I read the descriptions some people use about private schools they have visited or attended and I don't recognise that set up at all.
I don't think of classes of 6 or non qualified teachers of no outdoor space or low academic standards or any of those things. I think of 100acres, woodland walks in school grounds, highly qualified staff, high staff ratios, classes of 18-20, a pool, extensive sports facilities and the opportunity to do pretty much any instrument they chose. Assessment and tracking is vigorous but also used some NC stuff like sats papers to back up their assessments and be able to show how they are performing in relation to expected NC levels. To me that is all pretty standard when you pay so I base my experience in that.