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 agree that schools should set more. It makes such a big difference - for all children. In many schools the bottom sets have far fewer pupils in them, as that's where most support is needed.
In my DC's school, 6th formers volunteer to give extra tuition to those who are struggling.

Most comprehensives set don't they?
There are educationalists who say that setting is counterproductive though.....

Plenty of schools don't set at all for the first one or two years, and then only set in some subjects, primarily maths.

Really? I thought most
Comprehensives set. Presumably they differentiate if they don't?

May i ask what it means to "set"?

set - to separate the children into different classes, based on their ability or level in the particular subject. In my DC's school they only set for maths and languages, but it varies from school to school. I don't know whether they differentiate in the other subjects or not. At my DC's previous, private school there was no setting and little differentiation, which is a big disadvantage imo.

Our local comprehensive only sets for maths, including for years 10 and 11. The closest thing to figures on this subject that I have been able to find is the following, somewhat dated

"Of about 18,400 classroom observations conducted by Ofsted inspectors in secondary schools last year (2008/09), roughly only four in ten represented set lessons: ...
at secondary, this data suggests that around 53%, 70% and 60% of
lessons are set for English, mathematics and science respectively.
These figures however are not based on a representative sample and should not be used to make comparisons across years.."

In my experience it is the 'middling' kids who are most likely not to reach their potential in the state sector. The state sector do their upmost to push bright kids as their status depends on it. They also support children with LDs very well (on the whole) The kids in the middle, especially those in the middle who are well behaved, often miss out.

There isn't a convincing body of evidence that setting raises overall standards.

Horse - bright children don't improve the learning of others by acting as unofficial TA's, but by speeding up the pace of the class, and by modelling good learning

The state sector do their upmost to push bright kids as their status depends on it

This is absolutely not true in our case. Four children gone through state until Y4 and the first two, the brightest, had a terrible deal.

They were not pushed at all, and differentiation was a joke. It was very painful to watch the school trying to massage the levels to fit into "progress" targets, when they and we knew it was all a huge farce.

DS2, who is very much average, faired very well indeed in the same school as they pushed him every inch towards that L3 at KS2.

minifingers - that is ideology, not research

The state sector has been very poor at providing for its most able pupils.

This is why parents with those DC vote with their feet, if they can.

It is also the reason why the government introduced the new measure for OFSTED (in recognition of the fact that the most able were being under served).

I suppose we shall see what effect this has, in the fullness of time.

Hakluyt -"Which you have now repeated on a very popular forum as a contribution to a debate about private/state education........."

Is repeating an anecdote not permissible on MN then? I've never noticed it to be so. Quite the reverse, in fact

I think that setting is vital for maths. Some children are somehow naturally amazingly good at maths, and some find it hugely problematic.

'There isn't a convincing body of evidence that setting raises overall standards.'
Minifingers, the evidence that I've read states that more able pupils do much better in sets but that the less able do better when in class with more able pupils. So you're advocating not setting 'for the greater good' basically. Likewise with your following post about able pupils as TAs.

It is not the job nor the responsibility of an able 12yr old to help raise the attainment of his classmates at the expense of reaching his own potential. That way lies the hopelessly flawed bullshit that was left wing 1970s education doctrine.
And I say that as a life long labour voter.

When our son entered the education system aged five, the state sector was the only sector open to us. It will be the case again at age eleven, excepting an unlikely event around which we, as parents, cannot make solid plans.

The state sector in the UK, and the area where we are fortunate to live, has many fantastic centres of excellence, schools which I would be very happy to send my DS to (both selective and non-selective), and luckily we live near several possible ones.

Not everyone can make that claim. Unfortunately.

However, the state system seems to fail the highest and lowest ability range, those racing ahead, and those struggling to keep up. Much has been done to address the needs of the highest achievers (but not nearly enough), but the lowest ability ranges are more often neglected.

I look upon the state and private sector as an outsider, having not been educated in a school in the UK.

The most vociferous critic of the state sector in our house, is my DH, who was educated in solely in English state schools, selective and non-selective.

It always interesting to watch the English justify ideologically a educational choice they could not exercise.

Only the OP, who chose private education for her children and found it did not meet their needs, is any real position to make a comparison.

"the evidence that I've read states that more able pupils do much better in sets but that the less able do better when in class with more able pupils"

This is apparently hearsay left wing ideology, not research!

I'll try and find a link but I remember it from my masters. It's to do with having higher expectation in the classroom and exposure to more difficult concepts with the theory that some of it goes in. But mainly teacher and school expectations I think.

Nancy - I'm not just interested in my own children.

I appreciate that this is mumsnet heresy, but there it is.

I want a fairer society and I will always argue for policies and practices I think will promote that.

Most people here seem to present choices for their children as really extreme and dramatic but actually life isn't like that.

Clever, hard working and well adjusted children who have good support at home generally achieve well where ever they are educated. Of course a top notch private school may result in a child who would have got an A in a state school achieving an A*. Maybe having a choice of more prestigious university.

But it's not the difference between a child ending up working in KFC or ending up being Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The whole 'yes life is unfair but my children come first' is just an excuse to justify elitism, snobbery and social selfishness.

Supporting and perpetuating an unfair system on the basis that it's good for YOUR kids is still crap, whichever way you look at it.

Would you send your kids to the underperformed comp instead of the closer outstanding one for the good of society?

Easy to say yes hear as words are cheap....

(hate phone spell correct)

Depends what you mean by under performing.

But I would try to send my child to the nearest school.