How important is a "good" education?

[Nena7]

With secondary school looming (my son is in Year 5) I have been thinking a lot about education, learning, development, opportunity and life experiences recently.

I have been wondering about the value in sending your child to a highly demanding school (grammar/private). As long as the child is happy, stimulated and achieves the required results to go to university, is there a benefit beyond that?

Don't get me wrong (and I don't know what the answer is, hence this post) I do believe education can change lives however in a western society, before the age of 18, is there a benefit in "stuffing" a child with academic learning, demanding long hours of school/home work, rather than engaging in hobbies/interests/life experiences/personal development outside of school?

If your child goes to a "normal" state school with kids from all walks of life, is happy, achieves but perhaps not excels (but sufficient to go to university), has friends, has a caring home life, has hobbies, is well adjusted and is exposed to various life experiences, other cultures and languages, is that child then more disadvantaged than someone who has achieved more academically, at a private or grammar school?

I am really interested in hearing all aspects and perspectives, thank you!

Have a look at the Oxbridge underachievers thread! I feel that it's what school is right for your child- and also what the culture is- does it encourage effort, having a go, not having to fit in- academic success isn't everything but access to opportunity and role models is crucial

OP I think you need to unpick this a bit.

First, not all selective schools have long hours and lots of homework

For a bright kid, the extra academic demands will probably only be in line with their ability.

However, what it can ensure is that the very bright don't sail through school. Always top. Always being praised for their cleverness.

A good selective school should normalise the child's ability and allow them to develop endurance, pragmatism, wide interests.

Indeed we are in that exact position.

DS1 (yr 9) doesn't fit in state comp, square peg, round hole.. Struggles with friends, smart but not achieving / engaged. Recently went to see an alternative private school, with lots of square pegs. He expressed interest in transferring.

He will survive but not thrive in comp, gsce's will be ok or do we/he take the plunge....

I went to the exact same comp, so sort of know it. It's ok, good, nobody gets beaten up.

Go and look at your local schools!

Do not judge on their labels, look at what they are really like. Some "normal" Comps are amazing places (and offer the advantage of offering lots of different opportunities). Some Grammars are rather dull, others are fabulous for the right person. Some privates at nightmares (in lots of different ways) others are wonderful.

You need to know your child, your family and get to know the schools. However children also grow up a lot between 10 and 16. So your book work who wants to be a Doctor, may become a Goth who wants to be a Rock Musician. Trying to control teens too much doesn't end well in the UK (those of my friends who were most controlled by their parents as teens are the type on the Stately Homes thread now - or the Oxbridge underachievers).

I've often wondered this.

I went to a standard comp and a fairly ordinary university. I know work very happily in my 'dream' job, alongside lots of people who went to expensive schools / Oxbridge etc.

I'm not sure what I would have done differently or better if I'd had a "better" education.

Although clearly if I'd had a better education I wouldn't have written know rather than now !

Thank you for your thoughts, opened up my thinking already!

I guess Moid1 nailed it, "survive but not thrive". So if a child "survives" academically (even if they possibly have the potential to thrive), but thrives as an individual, would they be disadvantaged compared to someone who thrives academically (in secondary school)?

Thanks again!

Good education is vital. But there is no one thing that makes an education "good". The environment and approach you need for a look-before-you-leap nerdy type may be quite different from that which suits a have-a-go sporty type.

Whether you can secure the right setting is a whole separate can of worms, but I try to get away from the notion that there is one identifiable "good" (which can be tricky when looking at school admissions/transfer).

I blow really hot and cold with this. I went to a sink school, but got decent exam results and have done pretty well in my career by the standards of the people I grew up with. I do think sometimes I would have aimed higher if my peers parents had different jobs IYSWIM, but that would have been achieved by sending me to a school in a better area, not necessarily a better school.

I do think it's necessary for the education to be "good enough" but after that I think there's a massive gap where it might be a bit better but it doesn't really make much difference unless it's absolutely the best and even then, it has more to do with the people you meet than the quality of the education.

What goes on at home is still by far the biggest influence on a child's happiness and prospects IMO.

If we go down this route then

DS1 (yr 9) - progressive, alternative arty school private, lots of space for personal growth
DS2 (yr 7) - sporty, strict, 'no where to hide' private

Or they could have gone to the local comp, where DS1 already struggles and DS2 would have got on with everyone, done sport and no doubt hang around the bus station
IE: nothing would have really changed they would have behaved like they have done throughout junior / primary school.

For me personally education is not just about exam results. This weekend I listened to my very bright very math/science orientated DS talking about Palladio and the four books of architecture, the effect converting to Christianity had on the Emperor Constantine and architecture, and a painting by Gioto. Last term amongst other things he chatted with enthusiasm about First World War artists, the opera Don Giovanni, the book One day in the Life of, and The Merchant of Venice. None of these things are related to exams either public or school they are just being learnt about because they are there; what better reason? They probably won't influence his chances of getting into Uni. or getting a job in the future but I believe they just add meaning and quality to life. That is what I think education should be about as much as exams results.

It really depends on the school. I keep reading about all the pressure put on kids at selective schools - but my two, at very selective independent schools, have always had less homework than their friends at the local comp who seem to get hours and hours of what I'd call make-work.

When my daughter started in year 7, parents were given clear instructions that the school wanted to know if any HW set was taking them more than 20 minutes. They had an absolute maximum of 3 sets per day.

Apart from that, my big issue is "stimulated". I went to Oxford having gone to my local comp, so I guess you could say my education went just fine. I'd say that spending five years hiding from everyone including the teachers that I actually liked learning and thought maths was dead cool was pretty darn miserable. I've not been back through the doors since I took my last O level. My daughter has already been back to the school she left in July more than that!

As far as meeting kids from all walks of life goes, Scouts is great.

I think there are great differences between state schools and there are equally big divisions between independent schools. I think a number of state schools do not broaden the educational experience for the children because they teach a strict syllabus designed to pass exams. They have a relatively short school day so extra learning is not really available although clubs and sport might be. I think a good education includes the opportunity to do more than the curriculum and acquire a good general knowledge.

You say in your OP 'as long as the child is happy, stimulated and achieves good enough grades to go to university' as though this were a given for all children in all schools and that all private/grammar is doing is offering something over and above those requirements.

However, I don't think it is at all a given that every state school provides those things. And that is one of the reasons people choose grammar/private.

The right fit is how a child gets a good education.

I went to one secondary school (not in the UK) and while I did well I wasn't inspired and school felt like a chore. I transferred to another school for my final year and my grades jumped from B to A* and I loved school. It really ignited a joy of learning. That joy made school effortless. I took more than double the number of required subjects in that year because I loved learning.

That school was the right fit for me and totally changed my life trajectory.

I'm a bit biased because i went to a private school for three years and a state school for four, and I without question got a much better education in the state. So I agree with the PP that it does depend on the school.
There is some evidence that most of the so-called advantage of private schools is actually the advantage of their pupil's home backgrounds. Once you normalise for socioeconomic backgrounds, the grade leap disappears, and in some subjects state schools actually get better results. Anecdotally, the quality of teaching was generally higher at my state school, though there were obviously exceptions both ways.
If anything, I think it's the opposite to your OP - private schools tend to have better opportunities for sport, music, drama etc. Though I'd argue you can DIY a lot of that advantage out of school AND have money left over for holidays, theatre etc.
www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/nov/private-schools-lose-gcse-results-edge-after-socioeconomic-adjusting

I think it’s important to pick a school that suits the child whether that be state or private. I placed great emphasis on the staff, culture and values when picking a secondary school. For me it was more important my child could thrive in an environment and was happy so she could achieve her best academically, rather than being tied into a super academic environment with lots of pressure.

I think good teaching is important, mainly because children spend 25+ hours per week in school. That time should not be wasted, in my opinion.

Good behaviour is also important, to create a safe and happy school (and to allow good teaching to happen).

Everything else would not be that important to me. Even down to which subjects are taught - so long as they are taught well, I don't think it matters much.

I think our current school system is very focussed around passing exams. So I would say that no schools offer a good education, as so much of education will take place outside of them.

Anecdotally, private schools can offer more opportunities than state schools, but often within a limited sphere. For example, our local private schools offer more hours of sport than the local state schools but they stick to traditional football/rugby/cricket/hockey/netball etc. the state schools offer more variety but fewer hours, and of course you can get more variety altogether by going outside of school.