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.

" 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"

Something like that Nancy!

Yes but I guess if your only experience is what is local to you and that's a converted house with a crappy 1970s shabby extension and a teeny tiny bit of concrete to play on and where school is more interested in attire than attainment then I can totally see why that environment would pale in comparison to the vibrant urban state primary up the road.

oh yes i remember a little school in Hove like that, a couple of houses knocked together, and the teachers were told to source materials and textbooks themselves from charity shops. LOL.

Some posters seem to have attended top public schools, or send their kids to one. I'm guessing Millfield?
Several of the private schools around here have no outdoor space except for a small concrete playground. They have to minibus their children out to someone else's sports grounds, which they rent. The same with swimming. This includes private schools with decent reputations.

Things have improved though. My granddad attended a top public school. When he left at 18 he went straight into the trenches. He preferred the trenches.

Millfield is not a 'top public school' lol.
No I went to a girls day school in north London, the clue to its name is in the area mentioned.

I wouldn't say Millfield was a top public school.
But no, my kids are at a large day school in Cheshire. We actually have a lot of choice up here so crappy ones don't really stay open.
Sunny, 4 letter acronym? Top girls day school in the country, is it not? Withington Girls, up the road from me, always in top 3 itself, tries hard to emulate your school.

4 letter acronym yes...haha, happy days.

Wherehestands

Of course you are right. Schools should be much more than HE and jobs.

That said, I had two very different observations to add:

1. I can't help thinking that "jobs" must remain the primary focus as there are currently 20% NEETs all across England (and the UK).

data.jrf.org.uk/data/neet-england-reg/

2. A number of London public schools are clear that their aim is to get students to the university course of their choice. This is held up over and above all the other "guff" about rounding the individual etc.

The point is, there are loads of not very good private schools around. There are also plenty of private schools, whether poor or good in other ways, that have very poor facilities.
And whether good or bad, the private school your DC attends will be far less accountable to you than the local comprehensive school is. If they don't like the parent or the child, you are in trouble.
My DC's state school doesn't have acres of grounds or millions of extension activities. But it has some grounds and some activities, academically it is top notch, behaviour is great and the atmosphere is fantastic. My DC came home the other day announcing that she has started to write a novel. And spent the evening working on it!

MN - I can well believe that. I went to an open day at a private school a little while back. In a discussion about GCSE options I was told that of course the point of GCSEs is to get the children to the university of their choice. And there was I hoping that the point of going to school (at secondary or otherwise) was to learn stuff! I don't want to see all those years of a child's life being just about 1) getting them into a good secondary, 2) having achieved that, getting them into a good uni, and then no doubt 3) getting them into a good job. They should enjoy the journey and come out truly educated. I didn't get that from my (private schools) at all, have spent my life feeling poorly educated (despite the professional job), and hope that my DCs do better.

Oh, SunnyBeaudelaire (love the toothy name)- I have 2 at your old school. The elder has one more year before she is ONL and I am so grateful for everything the school has contributed in making my girls who they are. It is exactly what indie education should be.
That having been said, all of my DCs went to a pre-prep that looked a lot like what Wherehestands describes and it was fab. It wasn't about the facilities but small classes and lots of individual attention. We looked at our local state option before committing ruinous amounts of money and I just couldn't get my head around the lack of ambition and low expectations. There was no G+T provision and it was much less ethnically diverse than the indie school we eventually chose.
We make our choices based on what's available, our own educational experiences and our priorities. Had we bought a house in a different catchment, we might have chosen differently.

"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."

Of course it's significant if that 7% are taken almost wholly from the top ability band, who nationally make up about 30% of the total!

In my area private schools take 15% of all students. In my children's school (which is in the poorest part of the borough) the top 3 or 4 students in a class of 30 will go off to grammar schools and private schools at the end of KS2. Almost all of the students who do this will have had substantial tutoring and will make up 90% of the school's students achieving at level 6. Another two high achieving children in each class will go to very oversubscribed and high performing church schools.

This absolutely distorts the intake of children into the local comprehensives.

Cokefan - the kids were just naturally well-behaved. When I went there for my interview, I racked my brains for a question to ask at the end (as one does). I said 'What is your sanctions policy?' They went and said 'Um - we don't really have one'. I had been working in a London comprehensive and was utterly baffled and astonished at the thought of not needing a sanctions policy . Plus I actually ran out of stuff to do in my interview lesson because they were just so damn quick! I had expected that, and thought I'd planned way too much stuff!

There were a few teachers for whom the kids were a bit chatty, but this rarely caused a problem as they were all so bright and got great results anyway. Lower than a B at GCSE was very rare even in the bottom sets.

"and I just couldn't get my head around the lack of ambition and low expectations"

Well, it helps children develop ambition and high expectations if they are working alongside other children who have ambition, high expectations, and the resources at home as well as school to achieve this.

"and it was much less ethnically diverse than the indie school we eventually chose."

Why is ethnic diversity good, but economic and academic diversity bad?

What is really depressing is that all 5 state schools I've taught in have been considered good schools. Some have been rated outstanding by Ofsted. So it's not as if I'm comparing a great private school with failing comps!

Ask yourself why so many parents of the brightest children are voting with their feet.
It would be wonderful if every comp set pupils for every subject from the start and properly valued and nurtured the brightest. Sadly, that isn't what most comps do. Don't you think that many, if not most of us, would have preferred to take up the education we are already paying for with our taxes? I live in a London borough with 24% indie educated children. The borough is a yearly disaster with too many children for the number of available places. The indie schools are keeping the already over-crowded state sector from total chaos.

holmes- you would undoubtedly find the same in selective state schools. It is one of the functions of seletion.......

"
"It would be wonderful if every comp set pupils for every subject from the start and properly valued and nurtured the brightest. Sadly, that isn't what most comps do "

Two things. Why do the brightest deserve valuing and nurturing more than the less bright? And "most comps"? Where do you get that "most" from?

The more academically selective private schools will have a higher proportion of brighter kids than most comps but there are loads of private schools that will take anyone with the £££.

Why should my child be a TA? How utterly disgusting that idea is that a bright child should be obligated to pull up those around them! It isn't their job and they are highly likely to be on the receiving end of abuse for being 'swotty' or 'the teacher's pet'.
Economic diversity is a good thing and the indie sector knows it. Hence, scholarships and bursaries. Ethnic diversity was important to US and our one state option didn't have enough.

" Why do the brightest deserve valuing and nurturing more than the less bright?"
Good question Hak. Why are the 'best' schools said to be the ones that cream off the brightest and best, whether state or private. My DD has had learning difficulties. Does she not deserve a 'good' school.?
Actually her comprehensive has been really good with lots of small group work provided for such pupils, now she has 16 plus reading level after starting secondary with the level of a 7 year old. The teachers say she is a pleasure to teach.

So maybe we could stop talking in terms of the 'brightest and best'?

it is because the UK has an unhealthy respect for "natural brightness" and looks down its nose on the hard workers, even if they get the same result.

The "naturally bright" should have an easy ride, and forget about the rest.

The BEST schools, IMO, are those who don't select (neither on "brightness", nor on "money) and get GREAT RESULTS anyway.

A good school gets the best out of its pupils regardless of natural brightness.

"Why should my child be a TA? How utterly disgusting that idea is that a bright child should be obligated to pull up those around them! "
What a very odd post!

Numpy i agree that the best results are those which great results for all pupils. However in practice having the best results can only be achived by having more resources. A student in a class of 15 can get more support than one in a class of 30.