constant battles on the subject of private versus state education, so why didnt anyone mention this before?

[vvvodka]

dc just been put into private school. and they do games. lots and lots and lots and lots of games. and i dont have to scout around for decent footie, or karate or whatever, they just do it all at the school, coz the school organises it. he now does about six hundred percent more sport than he ever did in his ofsted outsdanding state school.

and he meets a bigger variety of people. more skin colours, more accents, more cultures, just more variety of everything. not just in his school, but also in the schools that they go off to play matches against and that come to their school to play matches with. in dc1's entire seven year career at the outstanding state primary, he never once met another childf rom another school in an event organised by the school.

so far, i am very very pleased with it. i just am surprised that no one ever mentioned it on the state versus private threads on here. or maybe they did, and i had tuned out at this point? or is ofsted fibbing about that particular state school being outstanding?

vvvodka, were you seriously expecting that lots of other parents of privately educated parents would be piling in to say something along the lines of "oh yes darling now you've seen the light" along with perhaps a few state school hardnicks who might say "goodness me we were totally wrong in our assumptions about private schools, they really are wonderful" and maybe a few others saying "oh I must work harder and then maybe my dc can join yours in utopia"

Because otherwise I really fail to understand how you could possibly imagine that your thread would be any different from the 101 other threads that have gone along pretty much the line of this one.

Because it isn't really a surprise that your school offers more than the standard state school - did it not market itself that way? After all private schools need to offer fairly hefty inducements to get parents to pay for something that they can get for free.

As for the "surprising" ethnic diversity, did you think that only white people could afford to pay? There are rich people who come from different ethnic backgrounds, in fact quite a few - it totally depends on the ethnic and social mix of the area the school draws from (and what else is on offer - the single sex/religious affiliation is sometimes an additional draw). Plus if it's a boarding school or plays against other boarding schools then the rich kids from overseas are very sought after by public schools.

Oh and as for Ofsted, it would be very unreasonable if it had to include schools like Eton (or any very well funded private school for that matter) in it's rating system for state schools, as very few state schools would have the same facilities. Doesn't mean that the previous school wasn't very good (and in any case many competitive sports only really get going at secondary age)

Oops

Actually depending on which press you read, and whether you've bothered to look around the schools or not, I think that more people are starting to take hold of a viewpoint that state is as good as if not better than private especially for value for money. The Times in particular seems to have an axe to grind - the number of articles of private school parents "downgrading" their child's school to either day school or even state has multiplied over the last 3 years or so. Another article this week about a parent leaving prep school for the delights of his local state primary, expressing surprise and delight that his son will still be taught. Tons of money has been piled into state schools - the education budget under Labour has soared. There are hundreds of shiny new buildings. In many cases state schools have improved significantly over the last 10 years. This is good news for the country overall.

But the premier independent schools have also improved. They have continued to invest in facilities. They have continued to invest in their curriculum. They have continued to seek opportunities to challenge their pupils and to prepare them for life. And again the top tier independent schools have continued (albeit with Charity Commission stick) to widen their social catchment, and their involvement with local primary schools.

I can fully understand how the average Times reader might in fact be surprised at the difference in richness of the experience on offer between independent and state.

And yes, this thread is a bit like reading a "I've just been on a Mark Warner holiday, and it is actually better than a Haven holiday park". But after a while, once you have read so many articles about the wonders of Haven and how shoddy, amateur and holiday-camp-like Mark Warner are, you can come to believe the press and the vociferous claims of those who wouldn't go on a MW holiday if you paid them to.

I guess the main difference if that unlike the Mark Warner example, top independent schools are fighting to get children in who could not otherwise afford to go. The bursary schemes in the best schools are improving by the minute with some of the top day schools aiming to get to needs-blind admission within the next few years. Of course, that doesn't get nearly as much cover in the press.

" Having been v anti private mine moved there a couple of years ago (scholarships) because they "wanted harder work" (weird but true)and I was astonished at the difference and did think, well, nobody told me that."

Interesting, because my school has been hit with a number of credit crunch refugees, and a number of previously privately educated children are now on roll.
A lot of the parents have said how they are struggling with managing the work expectations in a larger class with less support. Some of them have come from a class of 15 to one of 30, and lack the independence they need to complete tasks set. Some are stunned at the reality that not everyone has a pony or a volvo, or that there are some who don't speak English fluently but are better at something they thought they excelled in.
We're coping with a lot of fragile little egos at the moment, parents and children included!

A lot of the parents have said how they are struggling...

I meant they and their children. I must have thunk it and not rit it.

I should hope they do offer lots of extra sports, you are after all paying for it.

For the majority of people in this country there isn't a choice to go private, most people only have the means to afford state.

Our local private school offers a huge range of activities and they also charge £7k per term out of reach for the majority of the population.

what I find much more interesting than the tired old state/private chestnut is the astonishing differences between state schools - even among supposedly outstanding ones

My dc go to an 'outstanding' primary which has a (very few) sports clubs after school and that's pretty much it. The year 5s have an activity week at a PGL type place, there's a day-trip to France further down the school and that's it as far as trips go (obviously standard day trips to museums etc, but no more than 2 a year, and usually only 1). There's no orchestra, not even a recorder group, there's precious little drama, not many opportunities for art, no meaningful G&T provision, sports fixtures with other schools are few and far between and the school's sports teams seldom get beyond the first round because they're not picked by ability.

And yet, 18 months ago, OFSTED inspectors came in and told us the school was outstanding. If I didn't come on MN and hear about all your fabulous state primaries, like the OP I'd be none the wiser.

I don't understand how there can be such vast differences between schools which are allegedly outstanding? And it's nothing to do with comparing state with private, obviously you'd expect private to have better facilities if you're paying for them, but comparing state with state. Depending on where you are, your experience of state education can vary so wildly that we might as well not be talking about the same system

Because teachers are not paid to run after school clubs, so if they run one it depends what they're interested in doing as to what is offered.
Because running any sort of competitive team involves weekends and evenings, again not factored into pay for state school teachers and few parents are prepared to make that kind of commitment every week for years.
So the difference between state schools is linked to the individual teachers at the school and what they are prepared to do above and beyond the job. And if you don't have that, you don't get the activities. Likewise when the teacher moves to another school, who will pick up the reins?

Shock you mean if you pay for it you get more opportunities than if you don't?

Really?

So the 7% of the population who can afford/wish to send their children to private school are actually getting something for their money for their individual children?

Well that's a relief isn't it?

It's all very easy really - look around for the best school TO SUIT YOUR CHILD, state or private, work out which is available to you - scholorship, bursaries, distance to travel etc, time of afterschool care, and choose what suits you best.

vvvodka - surely you'd looked into the school before you sent your dc there, so why do you seem so surprised about the amout of sport??? You already knew that.

I can't help thinking vvvodka knew exactly what sort of thread was being started here and is secretly loving the little debate that has begun. I am, and I promised myself I would never post on one of the state vs primary threads but I am sucked in now- so here goes!!

I have taught for 12 years at one of those 'outstanding' state primaries. We do a few free after school clubs - netball, football, cross-country etc, and an annual inter-school athletics tournament. Each year gets professional coaching in a sport like rugby, gaelic football, hockey etc for one half term during the year on top of the usual weekly dance, gym and games lesson provided by the class teacher. The year 4s have a weekly swimming lesson.

In addition, we put on a Christmas, Easter and end-of-year play, teach French and Italian, and have a class mass and class assembly for parents once a year. Violin, recorder and guitar lessons are provided to those who want them and there is a school choir which puts on a couple of concerts a year.

There are some other clubs (drama, gym,) parents can pay for after school too.

Sometimes we paint, sew, make models and generally get very messy while having a lovely time.

Oh, and the national curriculum gets taught.

I don't know how this compares to other state schools but I do know all this takes a lot of (often unpaid) extra time from all the staff. Thank you very much to everyone who regularly post positive comments about state primaries, it really cheers me up and makes me glad to work in one, because sometimes you read something that really does make you wonder why you bother.

Oh, and we don't get three months off in the summer either!!

Forgot to mention that we get £1700 per child per annum from the taxpayer to run our school. When I was on the finance committee of our governing body last year that was the lowest amount in our LEA because we are considered to be in a leafy suburb and not many of our children claim their free school meal (although a lot are entitled to one) which all goes into the government's calculations apparently. Other state schools get double that or sometimes even more. I think we provide quite good value for money. I have no idea what private school fees are but I imagine they are a bit more than £1700 for the whole year?

lol at this thread is much funnier than usual private vs public threads. particularly enjoyed the 'i wanna mix with the common people' holiday in India concept and the bingo hall owners. am still chortling away (not overly taking the piss btw, has cheered me up this evening)

Our village school only has 60 pupils but they have done Football,tag rugby,lacrosse , tennis badminton,cricket, rounders netball,hockey, cross country , swimming , trigolf (not sure what that is) karate, gymnastics dance athletics field and track events over the past year .
We also have 12 after school clubs in subjects as diverse as chess, knitting ,orchesta and karate all free except karate at £2 per session.
They have the opportunity to learn brass , strings or woodwind instruments in school hours at about £50 per term.
Added to that we have class sizes as small as 12

Depends on the area pyjamababe. Oop North you'd expect about £1700 per TERM, and daahn South perhaps £3000. It does vary though.

£1700 does seem very miserly.

Do you get anything extra for maintenance and buildings - will the LEA bail you out if the roof falls in?

morocco that one made me PMSL as well. Still laughing in fact. I told my friend who works for Oxfam as well. The look on her face was like this

perhaps you wouldn't find it so funny if you had experianced it yourself I really dont see poverty as a laughing matter

Neither do I it is the fact that someone believes that going to India for a few weeks is experiencing poverty. That is just ridiculous. I have ben to india for over a year and worked there actually.

No it isn't ridiculous, there is a lot to be gained from going for a few weeks and it certainly gave these girls a different percpective on life and made them reaslie what they had and where they were going.

To ridicule the experiance is rather sad, laughing and shock

You would realise surely what these teenager experianced and would have gained from travelling their, they would not gain this from staying in there western world home country.

The current name for it seems to be poverty tourism, and opinions are divided on it.
Wikki
"Poverty tourism or poorism, also known as township tourism or slumming is a type of tourism, in which tourists travel to less developed places to observe people living in poverty. Poorism travel tours are popular in places like India, Ethiopia, and even places that have had natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis. After Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana became a big poorism site.

Critics say poorism is likened to a kind of voyeurism, exploiting people less fortunate, snapping pictures and leaving nothing in return. Some poorism tours do use portions of the profits to help out however."

A bit like those politicians who live for a week on benefits because it puts them in touch with the less fortunate.

Well said Goblinchild I know someone who works with these teens. They are presented with a sanitised version of what is really happening - they are of little help. Some of them take up a lot of time with their tears and tantrums. In return the charity gets a bit of money. Sad really.

On the other hand maybe it does open their eyes a little bit. who knows.

Piffle. You tell yourself that if you wish to blow thousands on it. Or send your kid to the STILL FREE state primary school and get involved.

At our school the kids can do:

Music (lessons, orchestra, band)
Choir
Football
Cricket
Rugby
Swimming
Netball
Orienteering
Cross-country
Craft
Art
Chess
Cookery
and many other things the wonderful teachers and parents offer...

most with inter-school competitions. They have, most terms, one or two visiting workshops with musicians, artists or drama performances. Two shows a year and a music concert. Last year the juniors did Homer's Odyssey.

They built toilets, I dont see that that is snapping pictures and leaving nothing in return. They slept in the outhouses at the school they worked and dug and got involved - it may have only been for a short time, but it seems that that short time is viewed as laughable.

I have travelled for extended periods of time but would view someone travelling for a short time as laughable, they will still gain something from this and it will open their eys to a hugh world if nothing else and appreciate what they have in their own country.

Oh yeah, and French and German classes. An IT club. A bank, run by the kids. An outward bound residential course in Year 6 where they do all manner of climbing, canoeing, caving etc..