In what respect is Private better than state education?

[halfrom]

Reading many of the posts I came to the conclusion that Private wasn't always better than state.

My main reasoning is A) If an entrance exam i.e 11+ is passed and the teachers at a particular school are supposed to be brilliant teachers, then why are some under performing students asked to leave. Surely the teachers can teach them to their required level. B) Some teachers are hand picked for ability as was my dh as a leader in a very specialised subject has visited most private/ Independant schools when required. However, he has also taught joe bloggs from down the street. Hence the children had same tutor, gained same results. Joe bloggs paid far less as a school didn't charge more. A friend has dd who has private Drama and speech coaching on saturday, does exams through I imagine same board as Private schools, and is a fantastic public speaker. So how do Privately educated children gain?

I worked out I pay £38 every day of the year for my DC to go to private school.Considering what you get the fees are not THAT bad

The majority of views expressed on MN on threads such as this are so strikingly illiberal that it makes one wonder what kind of education the offending posters must have had.

@yellowtip Indeed.

@Seeker - I am glad your dd is enjoying riding. She will get pleasure from it for many years to come.

There are so many generalisations on here.

Many state schools do offer lots of sporting opportunities, ours has a yachting club, golf club, fell running, ski club as well as the many more typical ones such as rugby, cricket, hockey and football. Many state comps have a pool on site, they have orchestras, bands, musicals, plays, debating, chess...I could go on. Our comp sends four or five students to Oxbridge every year and many more to Russell group universities.

The problem is that the provision is so variable across the country, it's crazy that everyone pays the same tax to receive a completely different set of choices. I'm sure our comp would not be the same if we had the grammar system here, or even if there was a decent private school within a reasonable commuting distance.

I'm so glad I don't live in this world.

Wow, what wonderful responses and I am so glad my question didn't start a riot. I think the over riding conclusion I have is that alongside us all wanting the best for our children we all above anything else want whats best for them. I think it's a shame if people can't access good education where they live because of poor schools or catchment area, but I still profess even the worst schools work tremendously well if they are improving and the child succeeds there. We are not rich and could never afford private it's out of the question and like many I was so upset when we got the worst school ever. My son did so well here and completely reached his potential and even now people in my area are shocked when I tell them which secondary he attended. It was my intention to gain a better knowledge of the system and your views and opinions, many thanks again. I am not a professional or anything by the way, just an interested mum.

halfrom
the secret to getting a good answer is asking a good question
or
42 (for those of a certain age)

Talkin, good books endure.

Ha! 42! The answer to life the universe and everything. If you'd posted that earlier, this thread would have been shorter.

Now there is a frood who really knows where his towel is...

Strange that no one has pointed out a really key difference.

In general, private schools have more money.

This SHOULD allow for provision both of better facilities and better teachers.

It doesnt always.

A good state comp wins hands down regarding value for money, if you are lucky enough to have one. Leaves lots of extra cash which you can either spend on further enhancing your childs environment or on drink.

I know one person who told me they sent their child to a fee paying school as they could pay the fees, but could not afford to buy a house close enough to the desirable comp!

Only this country gets theirselves in such a stew about this subject.

I personally would love not to have to spend £££££££ on education. One day, when state education gets real.

The difference:

independent schools respond quicker and more flexibly to market forces. So they produce people who have been more rigourously educated, able to receive instruction, can get along with other people. (see all other posters, above)

More employable, which is what people are paying for. End of.

I live in a country that has grammar schools. So, by definition you have to have a well above average intelligence to get into those places. It is where my boy, no slouch himself but no genius either, probably would have failed to get in, because he would have messed up maths or something. (I invidulate the tests, and will mentally do them along with the kids to pass the time. I definitely failed one year).

So, his village friend who goes to grammar, and is left to self-learn, arrange his own work schedule parental support required etc etc etc, got 2 As, the rest Bs and Cs.

My son, top independent: 9 A* and an A. He is doing maths for A level.

That is what you pay for. Both wonderful boys, one talking to Oxford and the other lower tier universities if he goes at all.

Yes, some independents are not as good as some good state schools. But the international league tables show the UK constantly slipping (we are now below Estonia) and the gap between independent and government educated children getting wider and wider. It is wrong on so many levels. But punishing middle class parents for doing the right thing and insisting on the right values which is still the knee jerk position of this country, Les fukinEbdon being the latest, will fix absolutely nothing. Nor are grammar schools the solution IMO.

That sample of two doesn't prove much though does it? You will find plenty of children with 10 A*s from grammar schools, or even comps...

nlondondad it's been pointed out numerous times in the past few days, on different threads. Just not this one.

bitwobbly my eldest five who have done their GCSE's at a grammar have 51A*s and 6As between them and four are at, or going to Oxford (don't know where the fifth will end up). Just to slightly counter your point (whilst agreeing that five proves not much more than two).

There are good and bad private schools (I believe some worse than good state schools), and yes, money does not always guarantee a good education

But it may at least afford your child the best opportunity for one at the the top of the range - for example,

I recently went to an open day at major public school with my DS.

Admittedly I'm sure they chose their most talented pupils to present their musical/sporting/academic achievements, but it was evident the extra curricular/ academic opportunities and facilities were amazing.

At the end, we had a tour from a random (polite) young boarder. I asked him where he was aiming for after leaving school and without hesitation or a hint of arrogance he said "Harvard".

He had already discussed it with someone the school had hired as its Ivy League co-ordinator with links/expertise/inside track to help stiudents eg SATS/building experiences for personal statements and were forging close links with US universities.

Of course there may be state schools like that, - but not any that are local to me.

Is it a level playing field compared with the local state comp. Of course not.

So is it worth paying 30+ k a year for compared to a free education at the average or even best local state school ?

Well, I'd say you'd be paying for lot more than pure academics (eg simply comparing A levels to local state grammar school, of which there is only one locally, vastly oversubscribed), as it's also about an ambitious peer group, sporting opportunities, acres of lovely facilities, breeding of the self confidence of "yes aim for Harvard" and presenting oneself well).

Finally, and something which seems to count more and more these days than raw talent (though I am sure many parents who turned up in Range Rovers who won't admit it openly except to their own ilk), it is also about mixing in a social milieu which will opportunities for DCs to build their future network.

Top state schools do Harvard too. In fact Harvard are positively reaching out to top students at these schools including sponsoring prizes.

The two students I know who've applied specifically to Harvard are two of the least arrogant I know. Arrogance has little if anything and often the opposite of brains. Harvard comes to the student to interview, so it's all fairly easy.

Am I alone in thinking that there's a real ignorance about just how good some state schools are, and what they and their students do? It seems breathtaking that people go to Open Days at top independents and assume that they've cornered the market in everything that's good.

amber it's completely invalid to compare top selective independent with non selective state comp.

Top selective independent with top selective state and non selective independnt with non selective comp. That's the only valid comparison, if one is to be made.

It's no use comparing Harrow and Bash Street Comprehensive..

'Arrogance has little if anything to do with and often indicates the opposite of brains'.

It's the state activists again .

Gosh was that Harrow? Oh well I can see why it's pulled in an Ivy League co-ordinator then :)

And asked the same question at her state school open day, dd said "Oxford".

And they all keep the troublemakers out of sight on Open Days, that's amateur stuff.

aah, 'twas the one with "happiness lessons"...em, need i say more? (now I've risked comments on how that school is not as premier league as Eton ...etc).

Point was, not that independents have cornered the market on good education - re-read beginning of my post, but what choices are there locally for me as an alternative (other than moving and tutoring heavily for a super selective state)...there are the local state comps and ONE grammar school heavily over subscribed...and underline, the OP asked what you pay for - it's not just about academics..so comparing A level results is not comparing apples to apples...but even so, on academics alone ...if only 7% of the population go private but roughly half of Oxbridge intake is from private than overall you'd have to say odds are better academically too ...wouldn't you or am I missing something?