Has this board always been dominated by questions about private schools?

[minifingerz]

... and the Education board?

I'm sure I remember this board being relevant to most parents even as recently as last year.

Wouldn't it make sense to have a separate board for private education, rather than having these ones silted up with queries about fee paying schools, given that it's of no relevance to 93% of UK parents?

mercifulTehlu My DC1 has had three of his teachers leave and go to private schools. One is my imediate neighbour so has made for some interesting chats.

Thanks Hocus (several steps behind in the thread). I wondered if you were commenting on something that was only apparent once he had started university. Yes I agree, teaching quality of a kind that is appropriate to the type of pupil is the most important factor. Sometimes however a teacher is n't necessarily one that is good at being thorough with an exam syllabus but still generates excitement and more knowledge about their subject than another teacher who might deliver the exam grades but put pupils off their subject through boredom. The former teacher is more likely to be assessed as a bad teacher by box ticking assessment.

DS said to me that the teaching he had in 6th form was very akin to the teaching he has had (thus far) at university - would I have thought that at the outset ?

MumTrying - hmm, yes exactly! Trouble is, there aren't enough private schools for all the teachers who want to work in them . I always think it's a bit unfair that many people expect teachers to base their career decisions on lofty principles, whilst other people who work in shops, offices, wherever are fine to just quit at whatever time of year they like, work for whichever company they fancy etc. Ultimately it's a job that you do, hopefully to the best of your ability, and get paid for. We're not saints - we want to work in places that have decent working conditions.

Merciful - I don't think people do blame teachers for choosing to work in private schools. In fact anyone who knows what teaching in the state sector can be like would probably feel they would do the same.

It's just those of us bemoaning the intense unfairness of our divided education system feel sad and worried for children whose education is affected by the teacher brain drain abroad and into the UK private sector.

You feel especially sad and frustrated when you realise that those who are currently making the lives of teachers in state schools unbearable (the Tory party) mostly have no personal stake in the system as the vast majority of them have opted out of it for their own kids.

And there is no consensus of voices saying 'our system needs to be fixed' because the most articulate and influential have also largely opted out of it for their own kids

mini everything you say also applies to the unfairness of the provision of state education. Great teachers might well be leaving good state schools for private, but the problem is far greater when it comes to attracting and keeping good teachers at crap state schools, because they're also understandably going to the better state schools too.

Same for parents, you don't see anyone deliberately seeking out a place at the worst schools. Parents in the state sector always opt for whichever they consider best for their child amongst their choice. Just like private parents do. Except unlike the former, the latter aren't hypocritical about it.

And given the state sector is so much bigger, the impact of unfairness is much greater. The tiny handful of kids at private missing from the 2 nearest comprehensives aren't the reason they aren't desirable. It's the much bigger groups at the postcode/ religion comprehensives nearby who leave those other 2 with uneven cohorts ability wise/ socio- economically/ Sen etc, little parental influence, parental support wise etc. And yet in rl I find those who have gone private, rather than taking advantage of the good state schools open to them but not others, aren't the ones refusing to acknowledge they are benefiting from unfairness. A much greater unfairness.

Imagine a education system with no private schools, grammar schools academies or free schools ETC !.

'Zero choice for parents' A monopoly of mediocrity sounds wonderful....

Every child had to go to their local school controlled by the local council or education authority. Despite the proclamations of some, the same children would still be the ones getting the best results .

The poor children from the least educated backgrounds would still come bottom !

This is the reality of comprehensive education, it has had no improvement in educational outcomes for the bottom 20% than the Modern system it replaced.

"This is the reality of comprehensive education, it has had no improvement in educational outcomes for the bottom 20% than the Modern system it replaced."

Do you have any evidence for that?

And it is impotent to remember that thee is no difference in outcome for high achieving kids who live in wholly selective areaand and those who live in wholly comprehensive areas.

"'Zero choice for parents' A monopoly of mediocrity sounds wonderful...."

There are almost no private schools in Finland and they outperform us educationally.

Non selective schools, mixed ability teaching. Hardly any testing. Fewer teaching hours.

Useful insights in this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2557974-Anyone-in-Finland-or-has-1st-hand-experience-with-the-schools-there

"mini everything you say also applies to the unfairness of the provision of state education."

No it doesn't.

The typical private secondary school spend per head in the uk is 13K to 15k. The typical spend per head on state school kids is 7K. Private school kids have loads more money spent on them, more teaching time, smaller classes, and protection from the disruptive children slowing down the pace of learning.

There are a TINY number of highly selective state schools which have few or no children on free school meals. The VAST VAST majority of even high performing non-selective state schools have 20% to 30% low achieving children in them, and outside London and the Home Counties most state schools have significant numbers of children in them who are both poor and low achieving.
There is not a single mainstream private school in the UK which takes children who are both poor and low achieving. Most state schools have both in fairly hefty numbers.

As for Finnish schools - I don't think many private school parents actually WANT equality of opportunity for all children.

Why would they? The current unfair set up is hugely advantageous to their children.

Our local private school charges about £10,000 per annum (plus 25% of pupils are on bursaries) so I don't understand how each child there could have 13k to 15k spent on them. Even my maths tells me that doesn't add up!

" Parents in the state sector always opt for whichever they consider best for their child amongst their choice"

Yes ALL parents can do this, which is why most non selective state have ALL KINDS of children in them.

mini I'm not arguing that private has advantages. It does. I'm just pointing out the fact state schools are far from being equal. It's not just a few top state schools and a few dire ones and the rest much of a muchness. The truth is that a system that should be fair has huge discrepancies in what it offers.

A none selective state system would have similar intakes and similar schools. But nowhere really has that. Because where we don't select on ability, we select on religion and postcode.

I am fascinated by the Finnish system. It sounds amazing. The problem here is that no government is going to have the guts to take the system apart and start from the beginning. Any results of changes made by any government are not going to be apparent until years after they've been put in place, by which time the party might well no longer be in power, so why would they bother? Every government just goes 'What can we do in the short term to make it look like we are improving the education system?' 1) Throw money at it 2) Meddle with the curriculum 3) Make teachers more accountable while giving them less time and freedom to do their jobs. Great. I think the recruitment/retention crisis is going to have to get even worse before anyone does anything about it, and even then they are just going to do the wrong things (again and again and again and again...).

merci

here you go

www.oph.fi/english/education_system

straight from the horse's mouth, although presumably "reindeer" would be more apt

Would a 16 year old comprehensive educated schoolgirl have this level of confidence and eloquence ?

16-year-old who shredded 'In' campaigners' arguments named as Lexie Hill
The schoolgirl silenced Liz Truss and Diane Abbot on BBC Question Time
Miss Hill launched a fierce attack on arguments for open European borders
Labour's Diane Abbott slammed 'myths' in negative immigration arguments
But the top politicians refused to engage with claims made by schoolgirl
By TIM SCULTHORPE, MAILONLINE DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR
PUBLISHED: 16:33, 26 February 2016 | UPDATED: 21:21, 26 February 2016

5k
shares
5.8k
View comments
The Brexit-backing 16-year-old who shredded the arguments put forward by 'In' campaigners on BBC's Question Time last night has been revealed as a grammar schoolgirl from Dorset.
Lexie Hill left Environment Secretary Liz Truss and Labour's Diane Abbott speechless with a powerful outburst on the current affairs programme.
Miss Hill, who is set to take her GCSEs this year, stopped the politicians in their tracks with a fierce attack on open European borders.

Miss Hill, from Poole, Dorset, recently finished her mock GCSE exams at Parkstone Grammar School and wants to study Maths, Chemistry, Biology and Economics at A-level.

Read

-3465928/Young-woman-demanding-Brexit-win-control-border-silences-politicians-fierce-defence-points-based-immigration-system.html#ixzz41OofgZBj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook and eloquence ?

You feel especially sad and frustrated when you realise that those who are currently making the lives of teachers in state schools unbearable (the Tory party) mostly have no personal stake in the system as the vast majority of them have opted out of it for their own kids.

And there is no consensus of voices saying 'our system needs to be fixed' because the most articulate and influential have also largely opted out of it for their own kids

I think it is fair to say that people using private education don't think the state education is good enough. If they couldn't opt out, I wonder if their priorities for "fixing the state system" would align with yours. Abolish private schools, and you might find a group of powerful, vigorous parents attempting to change the state system in ways that you do not agree with or approve of.

*There are almost no private schools in Finland and they outperform us educationally.

Non selective schools, mixed ability teaching. Hardly any testing. Fewer teaching hours.*

Much more homogenous population. Much smaller wealth gap.

Funding per head much higher than the UK: typical class sizes are less than 20. (If funding per head and class sizes were the same in the UK, I for one would be less likely to look at private schools.)

Whole cohorts, i.e. average scores, outperform UK cohorts on PISA tests. Yet this fact on its own doesn't tell you about high achievers (although the performance of the latter is available in more detailed PISA data). Most Finnish academics talk of their frustration when at school at having to wait for the rest of their class to catch up, and being asked to act as student teachers.

And schools are selective from 16 onwards i.e. students are divided between grammar and secondary modern type streams.

Looking on to universities, Finland outperforms the UK by some measures (e.g. percentage of population with university degree) but certainly doesn't outperform the UK in terms of the number of world top 100 universities (per capita), the number of international research grants obtained (per capita), the impact of research,....

PirateSmile Sat 27-Feb-16 18:50:29 Our local private school charges about £10,000 per annum (plus 25% of pupils are on bursaries) so I don't understand how each child there could have 13k to 15k spent on them. Even my maths tells me that doesn't add up!

That's a rare find if there are no added extras. Do many private schools offer all inclusive fees? Out of interest is that a primary or secondary school as, from what I understand, fees are higher at secondary schools.

Do you know what the average wage is in this country?

When you say 25% are on bursaries, you do realise that it means nothing. If you said 25% on 50% or higher bursaries then that would be impressive. I would have to ask where they are getting all that money from though if the 25% is pretty standar year on year.

School is secondary and in NW England. Their results are better than schools like Dulwich apparently.

A post for the OP, going right back to the opening post.

State secondary offers are out. And, as predicted, the first page of this topic is now solidly dominated by threads about state schools.

Yes. And that'll be the case for.... oh, a few weeks. Understandably as the vast majority here have their children at state schools. And then the board will revert to questions primarily about private schools. Like the Education board today. 7 out of the first 10 posts are about private schools. On the day that the state school secondary offers come out.

Not so sure.

The board is cyclical. So next up, if this year continues to follow the pattern of previous ones, will be appeals, then GCSE option choices, then the exam season, plus getting new year 7s ready for the move up and uniform buying.