is private REALLY better?

[ChuppaChups]

just out of interest, i would appreciate some OPINIONS on this area as i am seriously considering the move to private from state. The main reason being is we are now financially able to do so.

So, is it better and why?

Thanks

OA a few pages back it was argued that qualifications for teaching weren't important...

Would it not be easier to turn every school into a grammar school, the children then sit an exam before they start the GCSE's, the ones who are clearly unable/not willing can then be steered into vocational GSCE's, the rest can do academic. There needs to be some flexibility to move the children between the two, this way it will remove the need for tutors and everyone will start off at the same level. Just a thought, don't flame me!!

Hurt by who? But not all state schools are like that OA, you must know that.

Hurt by the other kids, I doubt the teachers knew that went on, but equally when the teachers did know about violent behavior there was nothing they could do about it anyway and this was 20 years ago, I can't believe it's any better now.

It's no better now Annie. I posted above (somewhere) about the bullying/violence my son has recieved at school.

Just out of interest, how many of you would agree with streaming according to ability?
Would this help improve education for all?

UQD not so, no drastic reduction in numbers of Grammar Schools in NI but still a perceived need for change (by some) to a system that is 'elective' rather than selective - all in the hope of achieving parity of educational opportunity.

Streaming is also crap. My senior school was streemed, in theory it's a good idea but if you stick a bunch of bright children together in a class that consists of those that want to work with those that don't want to be at school then you have a disruptive class. My education was blighted by others that didn't want to be there, the disruption made it really difficult to learn.

Streaming is great and even though I went to private school it wasn't until they streamed properly that I could really enjoy and benefit from the classes.

Imo smaller class sizes and streaming would solve some of the issues with state education. Making state education better, rather than removing private is a far better solution.

We had streaming across all classes in my junior school from 2nd to 4th year (Y4 to Y6 in new money), at the secondary school where I was for two years in English, Maths and French, and at grammar school in some years for Maths and French (there was a "top" group for French and a "fast" group for Maths who took the O-Level a year early so we could do Additional Maths in Fifth Year/Y11).

Generally I think it was a good thing. I think it depends how you look at it. If I had a child who was struggling, I might prefer him or her to be in the "bottom stream" where they had a chance of getting the attention they deserved and also of coming top of the class occasionally.

Is streaming the answer to all our problems then?

streaming and smaller class sizes.

I don't think it's the answer to all the problems, because there will still be parents who see the B/C stream at St Cuthbert's LeafyLane as preferable to the A stream at Bash Street.

Streaming
smaller class sizes - probably help but not too small
teachers teaching the bottom set rather than sending them out with a TA would help too
parents supporting/working the school rather than blaming -certainly

But if the state education you get is excellent than why would you care if they privately educate their children?

There is a state school near here full of parents who are lawyers etc typical private school users who are using state because they think it's good enough. (still not on really though is it because it is excluding others who can't afford the house prices).

But if all state schools were as good as this one, then why give a toss about the 1% that would still go private?

I think I probably wouldn't be bothered if it was just 1%. That's a resounding vote of confidence in the state system. Private schools would be seen as a slightly eccentric aberration for the filthy-rich.

But the national level is 7% and in some regions it's as high as 25%, which means the question occupies a lot of the chattering classes. And by being presented as just one of a range of "choices" on offer, as if it were the choice between a 23p can of beans and a 25p can of beans, it gets a disproportionate amount of attention.

"I might prefer him or her to be in the "bottom stream" where they had a chance of getting the attention they deserved and also of coming top of the class occasionally."

Would you really bearing in mind the behavior of the bottom sets ? If my child was in bottom set at my old school i wouldn't have sent them at all a middle class or even child with working parents would have been crucified.

Goodo, so state needs to improve until 99% use it. Then private will be an eccentricity.

It is possible for state to attract the middle classes as the school near here has achieved that. The parents chose state even though they can definitely afford private.

So.. the only solution is spend more on education, bugger ID cards etc. It is possible to have a good education system, other countries manage it.

The only problem of course, is it's impossible for any individual to change this, but in theory it could be done. Focus the ire on the people at the top, not the people reacting to the crappy situation.

'A disproportionate amount of attention' - who from? Who are the 'chattering classes'?

MarshaBrady it really doesn't matter how good state is (or for that matter if private option was very bad). For some people the idea that they are paying for something makes them believe that it is superior.

But that's fine.. why care if the two schools are equally good?

If it isn't superior then they are merely deluded -rather than basing their decisions on the evidence that something is better.

Two excellent schools - equally good, one state, one private. You chose state, do you still care if others take private or even if they think it's superior (and are wrong). Why?

I don't care at all people are free to do as they wish as far as school choice goes. I just think there are huge misconceptions out there.

I think you'd be surprised how many people pay because they "have to". Not because they are snobs and think something is superior but because their children are frightened seeing their friends attacked on a daily basis by the SEN child and the teachers are powerless to prevent or indeed deal with the issue.
We've had 4 years of state education at an ofstead outstanding school and if I could save my money and have a fortnights holiday and finish my bathroom and get a new roof I'd much much rather spend my money on that I can assure you.

So streaming and discipline then?

I suppose we also have to consider that the nation in in huge debt- so we need to keep our ideas cheap!

If we can prove our theories then we can also prove all the money spent on closing failing schools & reopening them as academies (different teachers, same awful kids) was a waste of time too then!

OA in my post I was speculating that all else being equal some people will still pay because they see something with a monetary value as being better than something for free.