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

The National Curriculum is not necessarily a bad thing. There are knee jerk responses on this subject which need to be considered. Smaller classes are not necessarily a bad thing. Neither is the national curriculum. And, actually, neither are SATS when you have no other way of telling if your dc's teacher is performing well.

sseker - all good points. At university we had big lecture hall classes; altho we did have tutorial groups of two to supplement main lectures.

Just suppose a child wanted to explore a bit further, does the (state) school help if parent is very busy? Is there a programme for those type of children? Again not suggesting that anything necessarily wrong with child having to be self motivated.

not sure what you mean, Tdiddy?

1st point is pondering the true impact of class size for motivated person

2nd point is asking whether state schools have gifted child programmes- that sort of thing.

Do you feel confident that your children are fulfilling potential at chosen school? If I didn't have school fees then I can work even less and spend even more time with them. So I am always wondering if I should do that but it always seems like the riskier option: I live in greater London so not all the state schools would suit IYWIM.

By TDiddyIsaMan on Sat 25-Jul-09 00:00:10
Question: can teachers at state school cover national cirriclm plus do other exciting stuff. We PS parents love to say that we have the edge because schools have more freedom re:cirrculm but is this a valid/relevant claim?

Of course they can but many don't because they feel constrained by the NC. It isn't a straight jacket it's a scaffold for hanging all the lovely exciting interesting things on. My school goes very much with children's interests and fits the requirements of NC to them rather than the other way. We also run after school sessions for children who want to explore more.

Take a look at Excellence and Enjoyment and the Thinking Primary (new NC for England)

I find it interesting that I am comfortable taking (career and financial) risks on a daily basis but with DCs schooling my risk appetite suddenly shrinks and I rush for obvious safety. And selfish gene emerges strong from someone who otherwise aspires to and admires altruism etc.

Because we moved countries twice fairly recently our children have experienced a real variety of education (although all state provided). We have come to the conclusion that it is home support that makes the most difference, and I really think at primary having a parent home after school can make a huge difference, probably more than the fairly marginal difference that research shows class size makes (although the research is pretty poor, and the confounders many).

We would probably have gone down the state primary/private secondary route if we had stayed in London, although partly to avoid single sex schools, which I really did not want for my children. Both dh and I (and two of my siblings - the other went to a grammer) did this, and none of us felt that the children who had been to prep/private primaries had any great advantage over us. I can't say that I see any great differences between my children's friends who have been to private either. Generally bright parents have bright kids, and polite parents have polite children.

I think that the real gap is in pushing bright but not ambitious children with parents who are not aware of their potential to really go for it at secondary level. My nephew for example has been encouraged to do some duff tourism type qualification rather than traditional A levels when he wants to be a physio, for example - yes he'd have to work hard, but judging by his primary reports I suspect he is capable of giving it a good try at least, instead of finding it really boring and dropping out to work at Wickes. A school with generally higher ambitions for it's pupils would push harder and encourage more ambition I think.

Oh, and dh who was a history teacher (secondary) said that although the NC prescribes what you ned to teach, it doesn't say how long you have to do it for. So he felt that there was lots of latitude for teaching what you really think important. Probably a more important restriction is what text books the school has purchased, and the opinions of the HoD. I live in Canada now and think to be honest they could really do with more of a national curriculum, as they seem to cover very little history at all, and given they doon't have that much of it and how important it is I think that is a significant lack. Doing fun projects that the teacher is inspired by is important, but there are some things that all children shoudl probably know about, and it does really help children changing schools if similar learning has happened at previosu schools (my poor children struggled with this a lot - especially having to do imperial measures in the States!)

Nooka- think you make some good points. The thing is that it is had to work out what the "true drivers" /causal factors are some parents revert by knee jerk to the formula of supportive home life, private school..... the tried, tested and safe formula. As you suggest PSs benefit greatly from recruiting motivated families so what you pay for a motivated peer group. But then if you have a good grammar like Tiffin (sp?), QE, Watford Grammar then are you wasting your money at PS?

PS i have considered cashing in and moving to Canada but DW doesn't like the (extreme) cold. How are you finding it all otherwise.

TDiddy - what did you think when you went to look at state schools before you made your choice?

It does depend what you mean by "gifted". There are people on mumsnet who feel that their highly gifted child has been let down by state education. But I suspect that some of them are so very gifted that any school would have a problem providing for them - you can't seriously expect a primary school teacher to be able to support A level maths, for example.

I have a very bright little boy - working about 2 years ahead of his age - and he fits quite happily into a normal primary school. But I don't consider him gifted - just at the bright end of a normal spectrum of 8 year olds.

seeker - i applaud your refusal to use the term "gifted" as it is so easily abused in these times of precious parenting.

I didn't see state primaries, but DW did. We had a choice of two and were very happy with one based on Ofsted report. But we got bumped by siblings etc. in our year but neigbours with younger and older children than ours got in. We scrambled around and found private prep school where DS is thriving. And then we eneded up sending siblings there and they are loving it and doing great.

I have been to see 2 selective state secondaries and they look great so we are applying. If he gets in then it will be a tough choice as there is a Private secondary that suits DS very well close by.

One thing nobody has mentiontioned yet is the effect learning styles have on your education choices.
I know I have been slated for saying my DD did very poorly in state because she is bright/gifted (whatever you want to call it), but there is no way state would ever have the facilities to support her very verbal and kinesthetic (touchy feely) learning style. It's all very well saying state can support bright/advanced children, but there is no way they can provide the science labs, gyms, music rooms, sports eq. etc that will help a child like ours thrive!
I am not talking about motivation (like many here presumed) but the experiences which DD needs to enrich the curriculum. There is no way state can provide that! And that is why I say children of a certain character & intelligence NEED private.
(Hope that all made sense, it's very difficult to explain)

Gosh Karise no one in state schools knows anything about VAK and have never read Howard Gardner and so know nothing about Multiple Intelligence......[sarcastic smiley]

It's never applied at KS1 though! And rarely at KS2 IME

Without meaning to offend your experience must be extremely limited or outdated. We apply it from EYFS to KS2 and we certainly aren't the only school in the authority working this way.

Must be something to do with living in the sticks then!

No, I live in the sticks.

I have more experience in teaching in primaries than you could possibly imagine! All the best teachers teach in the cities because the money is better

However, the city v rural debate is something else entirely and nothing to do with this thread!

I live and teach in the sticks

The money is only better in London but so is the cost of living so I'm afraid that argument is not valid

Are you a teacher karise?

yes- a specialist that works cross county

I send my children to state school because I want them to experience the full social and economic mix of the area in which they live.

I want them at school with poor children - you know, those kids whose parents don't have the luxurious option of that 'choice' - kids whose special needs would get them chucked out of most private schools, kids whose parents are disaffected with the education system...as well as the 'nice', middle class children like themselves. I also want them to be part of the wild racial and ethnic mix of our neighbourhood, not least because they're part of it.

That isn't the only thing I want from their education. Actually, my children are doing remarkably well, with fizzy inspiring dedicated teachers who've produced results I am very impressed by. But it is part of it.