Children at private school, still wonder if it is the right thing though.

[whizzylala]

Hello,
I hope this is not an annoying thread for people.
After much deliberation we decided to go for prep for my DD who is now in Yr1 - she was way ahead at reception entry and the primary school teacher wanted her to miss out on reception and go straight to Yr 1 as she said she would be bored - she is a feb birthday and I did not feel this was a good solution, so opted to go private.
DS joined her at the school in the foundation class this september.
I love the school, they are both doing well and are very happy but I just get these niggles about whether it is worth all the money. We can afford the fees at the moment with a few dacrifices, but I do just think about all that money and what else we could do with it one day!
All our friends children are at primaries (not the one ours would go to) and there children sound equally happy. I know it is not all about academic achievement and part of what I love about their school is so many great facilities and opportunities. My DD is also beginning to level out with her peers in many areas of her learning now - good job she stayed in the right class.
Any thoughts, I just feel a bit confused right now! (Would be applying for reception for DS this week so I think that is what has got me thinking!)
Thanks for reading.
Whiz

Its interesting how much staffing numbers vary across primary schools.

My local (Ofsted rated outstanding) primary has, for the infants class's, one teacher per class of 30 and a two third share of a TA (2 TA's shared between 3 classes). From years 3-6 each class has a teacher and shares one TA per (3 class) year. They also have a couple of specialist teachers shared across the school.

I guess this comes down to funding which can vary greatly across LEA's.

Cortina - my dc's went to a private infants school with no endowment and relatively low fees. The school had class sizes of maximum 16 (most were much lower). Each class had a teacher and full time TA. The facilities were somewhat small and shabby but the teaching was excellent.

I will look out for Bill Claxton's book - thanks.

I would personally choose an excellent teacher in every respect over a smaller class size.
Cortina, we don't get that choice.

Unless you're saying that state school teachers are better than teachers in the private sector.

What we do have control over is the class size ... by choosing private with a guaranteed max that's to our liking vs a state school where the max could be 30 or more.

It always makes me laugh, do people seriously think the parents would pay £15k a year in my case and put up with shite teaching, there would be an outcry if the children didn't progress and teachers sacked for poor performance, ever tried sacking anyone in the state sector for non performance - not before they've had 12 months sick leave, and various warnings/tribunals you wouldn't.

No Dad at Large not what I am saying. Saying that class sizes may sometimes be a bit of a red herring.

Cortina, that's exactly what I thought you were saying. But I can't see how class size is a red herring.

What the quote suggests is that the quality/belief of the teacher is important.

Nobody disputes that. But "teacher quality/belief" is what looks like a red herring to me.

His grounds for "putting to bed" discussion of streaming vs mixed ability is that the extent of teacher buy-in is the over-riding factor. But there's no way of knowing or catering for teacher buy-in in state schools. There's no way of controlling it. So it makes a great red herring for discussion. It replaces real issues like class sizes, how children of similar ability learn better together and how a teacher can achieve more when teaching a group of similar ability than one in which there is a wide range.

Class sizes only begins to make a significant difference when you get down to around 15 per class
Er, so what about 16 pupils? Just as good as 30?

Smaller is better. Period. And unless I see some evidence otherwise, there is a smooth progression - no magic point of 15.

I think the discussion over a state V private education would depend on 2 factors. First is the quality of the schools in your area, where I live the schools are below standard, not just educationally but the behavior of the children, the only schools that are above par are the faith schools which are heavy over-subscribed and you have to satisfy the entry criteria. For that reason I actually have not choice but to go private. Secondly is the behavior and ability of your child. For example, my son is very hyper and cannot keep his concentration for a long period of time. If he is in a class with 30 students, he could fall behind and go unnoticed. A class with fewer children might best suit him. On the other hand, my niece who is in reception is in a state school is very bright and already reads complex books. Her parents have had to put the parental locks on the computer because she will google any word you say. Now this type of child is likely to perform in either type of school because she was born that way. I think everyone needs to assess their individual situation to gauge the best situation for their child.

MillyMollyMoo, I imagine it would be very difficult to sack a teacher for poor performance whatever sector you were in. There are quite strict rules around unfair dismissal & just being not very good at your job isn't strong enough grounds. There are several very poor teachers at dcs private school, parents winge about them, but I don't think anyone with half an ounce of common sense expects them to get sacked.

Well snorkie if they are poor teachers then you as parents need to make your feelings clear and do something about it, you'd be rather foolish IMO to pay for a lesser education.

Within the private sector it is very easy to manage somebody out for non performance and I have seen it done at another private school, the teacher concerned ended up on supply, say no more.

Er, I reckon it's a bit more difficult to sack a state school teacher. We're talking a sector where a job for life is the norm. You have to take photographs of kids in the swimming pool before you get sacked.

And the unions! We're not talking ATL, we're talking NUT, the extremists who want all private schools taken over by the state and an end to faith schools: "Religious groups, of whatever faith, should have no place in the control and management in the control and management of schools."

There is no obligation on private schools to recognise trade unions and half of teachers in private schools don't belong to one.

Re quality of teachers - my mum taught for many years in the private sector, and was consistently horrified by the teaching of a few of the staff, who were recognized to be a bit lazy and rubbish. She always felt complacency set in much more in the private sector, and that parents who are paying for education tend to rave about it, almost because thay have made their choice so need to defend it.
However, she would still advocate a good private school - she just feels they are variable and not always the best...

Unless they actually assult a child or another staff member it is virtually impossible to sack a state school teacher and even then the Union defend their member to the hilt, my cousin is a head in the SE and took over a difficult school, the kids were fine it was the long in the tooth staff that were the problem and whilst they remain the school and the kids will fail, aged 11, it's tragic.

Actually, I think learning to learn, regardless of the teacher's limitations is a valuable skill in itself. In many ways knowing that Mrs X isn't going to teach me this very well & thinking through what I'm going to do about it is a far more useful skill than mindlessly doing whatever Mrs Y says without thinking at all (even if you do get a better result that way). But I wouldn't be happy if all the teachers were poor - it's the inspirational ones (& I'm happy to report there are quite a few) that make school worthwhile & show kids what learning can & should be like & make them want to achieve even where the teaching is below par. So, I'm happy for my dc to put up with quite a few teacher shortcomings in some areas if the rest of their education is excellent.

I don't know many primary school children capable of independant learning, maybe at senior school you might come across a few, 6th form is the time for that not age 4-11 surely ?

Mine were both very capable of it from age 11 & in one case quite a bit younger. I suppose it depends on the child & the environment they're taught in though.

My point would be that they shouldn't have to be capable otherwise why put yourself through the trauma and expense of sending them anywhere.

Well, I agree it does seem like a waste of money on one level, but think of it like this..

I actually want my children to be independent learners and from as early an age as possible. They won't get that from being 100% spoonfed. What they need is an environment where they develop a drive to do well and a passion to learn - for this they need at least some truely excellent teaching and a particular ethos. They also need some space to try out their own learning skills, be this in extra curricular stuff and/or in poorly taught areas.

The school that seemed most likely to achieve this locally was one I have to pay for. I have no regrets about paying for what isn't always an ideal education because the dc seem to be turning out happy, well motivated & well equiped for life. Of course, they might have done that anywhere, but it seems the state alternatives here are not fostering those skills to the same degree (& subsequently the children aren't achieving as well).

I also think that anyone who think schools exist where all teaching is excellent (or even very good) is probably in cloud cuckoo land.

She always felt complacency set in much more in the private sector, and that parents who are paying for education tend to rave about it, almost because thay have made their choice so need to defend it.

Hmm, if I pay for something and it doesn't work, I complain. The more I pay, the higher my expectations and the more I complain. That's human nature.

Folk may have different levels of dissatisfaction at which they'll go to the trouble of complaining but, given enough complaints against a member of staff, a commercial entity can and will take action to ensure future business. The very fact that they can sack staff must make a difference to the quality of teaching.

I love the use of 'spoonfeeding' in relation to private schools. What it seems actually to mean is 'teaching children properly so that they know what they need to know', whereas 'not being taught properly' translates into 'helps them develop into independent learners'. I've seen far more 'teaching to the test' and 'spoonfeeding' for KS2 tests in my sons' state primary than I ever saw in my own private secondary and DS1's new private secondary - where it's fast paced and he has to get on with his learning.

I think it's very difficult to know whether the education you're receiving is 'value for money.'
This will ultimately depend on the state alternatives and, to some extent, your income. If you're finding it hard to meet the fees then, and I'm guessing here, you will expect to gain a lot from it.

For me, I am very happy to hand over my cheques, but accept that's because I've found an almost perfect school

• five mins away
• acres of green space

-small class sizes -rigourous setting -high academic achievemnt and expectation despite a mixed intake. I also accept that I am comparing it to the school I volunteer in, which is very poor indeed. I also accept, and I'm going to be blunt here, that we can well afford it

my SIL teaches in a private school and she says there are some woefully lazy teachers. She's also told me (in drunken slips!) that there's a lot of time spent covering over cracks and desperately doing activities to keep the parents happy because they pay. She told me often she feels like the kids are performing seals, which is sad. She does think they're getting a good education, and I'm sure they are in lots and lots of ways. This is a top end, very well respected academic school. Anecdotal yes, but I think it's naive to think because you pay things are bound to be better - am not at all saying they're not, and definitely lots of tangible things are, so yes nice grounds, equipment, etc, etc, but still there's a lot to be said for some qualitites that aren't necessarily so tangible..

I agree litchick. The 'value' of education is impossible to quantify especially as you never know how things would be if your dc were elsewhere. If you are happy with how your children are growing up though it's hard to be unhappy with their school.

On your list, I really like the 'high achievement & expectation with a mixed intake'. It seems to me that if the expectation is there then it seems to happen almost regardless.

I expect your SIL is right too smee. But I also think there's probably a lot of crack covering in state schools as well, especially just before inspections!

Absolutely snorkie there is - state schools definitely cover up things too.

A tangental point here but am interested in the quality of teachers. I'm not talking here about the micro stuff of class sizes and worksheets, but more about who chooses to teach. Anecdotal totally, but not long ago I went out with my SIL and the people she teaches with - so this is a well thought of and respected private school/ primary level. They were all woman, all privately educated and all have stuck within the private sector. All bar one started teaching straight from University, so it's fair to say (though maybe you'll shout at me) that they've lived relatively sheltered lives. Nothing wrong with that at all, but what I found intriguing was that none of them read a newspaper, listen to the news, etc, etc. They were laughing at me and getting me to ask questions to see if they could answer. Though I was laughing along I was quite shocked at how little they knew or cared about the world - I'm not talking detailed knowledge here, but basic stuff - eg: none of them knew who Nick Clegg was and only one could name the Chancellor. Now don't get me wrong, as I'm sure they're good teachers, but it interests me, as the teachers in my son's state primary are very obviously different. So after a massive rambly post, this is my genuine question - is there a large difference in type of teacher between the two sectors in primary teaching? And does that matter to you, because it does to me. Much as all of those women were lovely (well mostly!), I wouldn't especially want any of them to teach my child, as they just seemed rather dull.. (am now running fast to escape flames of wrath...