Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Primary education

Join our Primary Education forum to discuss starting school and helping your child get the most out of it.

is private REALLY better?

654 replies

ChuppaChups · 23/07/2009 22:48

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

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
mrz · 28/07/2009 18:42

Report from the NFER

Grouping pupils by ability in streams and sets has no influence on their performance. It can have a negative effect on the attitudes, motivation and self-esteem of lower ability pupils. Boys, pupils from working-class families and summer born children are more likely to be disadvantaged, says the NFER. The review, based on an analysis of more than 20 major studies in the UK and the USA, throws doubt on some of the claims that streaming and setting improve pupil achievement.

The report says that while a decreasing number of schools use streaming, setting, by which pupils are grouped by ability for particular subjects, is increasing in primary schools, particularly with older pupils. The most common subjects for setting are maths, English and science.

The main findings were that streaming or setting, compared with mixed ability teaching, have no effect on overall pupil achievement, or achievement across subject areas, either at primary or secondary level. But the limited research on within class grouping in primary schools shows that it does have a positive effect on pupils' attitudes, self esteem and achievement (mostly in linear subjects like maths and science).
Streaming and setting have a detrimental effect on the attitudes and self-esteem amongst average and low ability pupils.They tend to reinforce divisions along lines of social class, gender, race and age. As a result, low ability classes often contain disproportionately large numbers of pupils from working class background, boys, ethnic minorities and summer born children.
(Streaming, setting and grouping by ability by Laura Suknandan with Barbara Lee,

BonsoirAnna · 28/07/2009 18:45

"it stresses that there is no known way of grouping pupils which will benefit all students"

"but low-achieving pupils show more progress in mixed-ability classes and high-achieving pupils show more progress in set classes."

This is the absolutely KEY issue in this debate.

Do we cater to the needs of pupils of lower ability as first priority, or to the needs of pupils of higher ability as first priority?

FluffyBunnyGoneBad · 28/07/2009 18:47

If they increase the number of grammar schools then they will decrease the numbers of parents relying on tutors to get a place for their child so it should (in theory) make it fairer. Every child should have access to this type of education, not just those who's parents live in the right area and have them tutored to get a high mark in the exam.

BonsoirAnna · 28/07/2009 18:49

You are right there, fluffybunny.

But of course, the remainder schools (whatever label they come under) will be accordingly even less desirable...

KembleTwins · 28/07/2009 18:51

No, we cater for all of them, in mixed ability classes, with well planned lessons which includes notes of G&T and SEN kids, and are clearly differentiated to incorporate the needs of the students present. It's what teachers have been doing for years, no matter what kind of school it is. Even if you do have sets or streaming, there is still likely to be a mix of abilities - top sets would be likely to contain students in the A* - C (or maybe B) category, for GCSE (am secondary teacher) which is a HUGE spread of ability. A good teacher will cater for the needs of the children in his or her class. And, before OrphanAnnie gets on her high horse about good teachers being a mythical breed, and that she's never come across one in her life, let alone in a state school, there are bloody loads of them, doing a good job. In both private AND state sectors.

pugsandseals · 28/07/2009 18:55

Anna, you hit the key issue right on the head! The government cannot decide so are leaving all schools to feel their way through in the dark.
My concern is that I think bright children left to get bored are much more likely to cause trouble/fall off the straight and narrow, than average. I think therefore that they should go with the system that that favours them, they will then also be able to show that learning is cool to those who don't have the confidence to achieve.

FluffyBunnyGoneBad · 28/07/2009 18:58

So we're back to the grammar school/comprehensive debate. I can't see why they axed them myself. I would have loved the opportunity to go to a grammar school and be able to learn. If it's not broken there's no need to fix it and all that!

janeite · 28/07/2009 19:11

Having taught for several years in a school that didn't set by ability (ie: in one class I had a girl who would go on to get nearly all A grades all the way down to a boy who, aged 11, couldn't write even the first two letters of his own name) I can categorically say that 'total mixed ability teaching' fails to address the individual academic needs of anybody and is a bloomin' nightmare for the teacher.

mrz · 28/07/2009 19:15

I'm old enough to remember the tripartite system of education (pre comprehensive) and was lucky (clever) enough to be selected for Grammar school. Many of my friends who didn't get into grammar school took entrance exams to private schools as their parents saw this as an alternative even then.

Personally I see parallels between vocational education proposals and the then "technical" schools.

FluffyBunnyGoneBad · 28/07/2009 19:18

It would be lovely to have every child in a grammar school but facing facts, some are destined to do more practical and useful jobs. There's really no need for a plumber (who earns more then me ) to do an english A'level.

seeker · 28/07/2009 19:18

Whenever people talk about grammar schools they always assume that their child will pass the 11+ - and won't be one of the 78% who are classified very publically as failures at the age of 10.

FluffyBunnyGoneBad · 28/07/2009 19:21

If there were more of them then the cut off would be alot lower (say 50%). There needs to be some flexibility to move children between the schools if their progress/needs change though.

seeker · 28/07/2009 19:25

But if the cut off point was lower they wouldn't be grammar schools, would they? The whole point of a grammar school is that it provides an environment for an arbitrarily chosen academic elite. And shows the other 78% their place in the world!

pugsandseals · 28/07/2009 19:26

I would expect DD to pass, you are right- but that is because her results at age 6 were in the top 10%.
That doesn't mean comprehensive schools are bad- I went to one and was helped in the curriculum areas I was good at and now earn as much per hour as DH who went to grammar. I agree I am the more creative one & that comprehensive school suited me while his academic ability suited grammar! It helped me form an opinion on what I was good at.
Some children just need the grammar system to get on with the academia they are good at

MarshaBrady · 28/07/2009 19:26

Grammar schools don't fix the problem for the poor children who don't get in do they.

Intelligence shouldn't be a criteria for receiving a good education.

FluffyBunnyGoneBad · 28/07/2009 19:27

78% is such a harsh cut off point though. Maybe a three tier system? Free movement between them?

pugsandseals · 28/07/2009 19:27

Forgot to say we were streamed as well which helped hugely!

flatcapandpearls · 28/07/2009 19:35

KembleTwins Tue 28-Jul-09 18:51:10
Even if you do have sets or streaming, there is still likely to be a mix of abilities - top sets would be likely to contain students in the A* - C (or maybe B) category, for GCSE (am secondary teacher) which is a HUGE spread of ability.

I dont know what subject you teach but that sounds very loose setting, as you say A*-C or even B is a huge and diverse category.

I expect my top sets to get 100 A/A and teach at an A and higher level for the whole class.

This is an interesting topic for me as I am something of a lone voice in my department who all favour mixed ability teaching in key stage 3. We have at present for key stage 3 a top grammar stream, a SEN set and mixed in the middle. That tends to work well and have man students in my middle sets overachieving. One of my SEN sets is a challenge to teach but as a good teacher with excellent classroom management again most of my pupils are exceeding expectations. Often calls for mixed ability teaching come from the fact that schools have discipline issues.

I have taught in state schools where the bottom sets were unbearable and I would not have wanted my daughter taught in them.

mrz · 28/07/2009 19:35

I've been through the "three tier" (tripartite) system there was little movement between them once children passed (or failed)the 11+ that was basically it.

flatcapandpearls · 28/07/2009 19:38

It is up to the other schools to raise their standards so they are not a poor cousin to the grammar school. My school is in a grammar school area but we do not see ourselves as inferior in any way. If I had a choice between sending my dd to the grammar or to my school I would send her to my school without a shadow of a doubt.

FluffyBunnyGoneBad · 28/07/2009 19:41

There's no answer to this, if there's three types of schools then it's harsh to move the children around and away from their friends. I liked the conservatives ideas of the 'voucher' where a parent can use it in a private school and then top up themselves, they can choose any state school for their child so will get rid of catchment areas. maybe state schools need to admit a certain percentage of children from low income families. Would equality be reached a little more if the schools had to work for the cash and promote themselves rather then being apathetic?

mrz · 28/07/2009 19:47

So Grammar schools have creamed off the top 20% (academically) and the other schools left with less able children have to match them? ...

flatcapandpearls · 28/07/2009 19:49

I dont think schools are apathetic, even "sink" schools are not apathetic.

flatcapandpearls · 28/07/2009 19:53

Because if the schools are good enough the grammars don't cream off the top 20%, they will always take some because some parents want a grammar education. But if the comprehensive is good enough it will keep able pupils and give them an education that is comparable to the grammar.

FluffyBunnyGoneBad · 28/07/2009 19:53

Sorry I had a bad secondary so my thoughts on schools are warped.

Swipe left for the next trending thread