Private school extras fee dilemma

Mr_Costcutter

fred246 wrote: »

. What exasperates me is that my colleagues send their children to private schools based mainly on league tables. .

That is their choice.

onomatopoeia99

fred246 wrote: »

State schools will always try and accommodate a pupil's request in the same way as a private school.

When I wanted to do a computing O level (would have bee 1982 when I was selecting O levels in what used to be called the "third form"), my state school said "no" as their try at accommodating my request.

ViolaLass

fred246 wrote: »

State schools will always try and accommodate a pupil's request in the same way as a private school.

But the state school will be under much tighter financial pressure and therefore less likely to be able to do anything. I'm not saying it's good but it's the way things are and pretending it isn't doesn't change anything.

Are you opposing private schools on egalitarian grounds or because you don't like that you couldn't afford one? Your argument is not entirely clear. If people want to spend lots on schooling, they are entitled to. It's a choice.

ViolaLass

silvercar wrote: »

The presence of disruptive pupils will have an effect. Teaching a very wide range of ability in the same lesson will also have an effect.

Yes to the first sentence, no to the second. Research shows that NOT setting is more beneficial to students.

Tabbytabitha

ViolaLass wrote: »

Yes to the first sentence, no to the second. Research shows that NOT setting is more beneficial to students.

Can you link to that because it goes against everything that I've observed and experienced.

ViolaLass

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Can you link to that because it goes against everything that I've observed and experienced.

This summarises https://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/setting-by-ability-what-is-the-evidence/

and this is what the EEF says (they look at bundles of studies to get an overall view) https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/

I can only really talk about maths as that is what I've taught but here goes:

In short, setting can help the highest achieving to go higher at the cost of lower achievers who will progress less well. If you're a late starter in maths, tough. Note that I'm not using the word 'ability' in this post.

Setting can also affect how a student's self-view in that subject. High achievers can feel pressure to remain in the 'top set' and sometimes are pushed to cover material quickly at the expense of understanding.
Those in the 'bottom' set can be labelled as thickos by themselves and others and grow to believe that maths is this magical thing that only other people can do. Bottom sets are also often given less experienced teachers when they should be getting the MORE experienced ones.

Before anyone pipes up with "My child was in bottom set and it was brilliant for them", note that this is a generality. It will not be true for every child but it will be true often enough to be important.

Also, this has nothing to do with state/private. Each are equally likely to set or not.

Also, not setting is not a solution on its own. The teachers need to be trained and supported for mixed prior-attainment teaching. It's not easy.

Malthusian

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

Can you link to that because it goes against everything that I've observed and experienced.

I'm sure he can as any fool can produce research that proves that setting is beneficial to students or produce research that proves it is not. It may not be very good or robust research but that doesn't matter, it only has to look good enough for people to post it on the Internet to support their biases.

Back in objective reality, students learn better a) when the lesson is not being disrupted b) when the teacher is able to give assistance to the brighter students rather than spending all their time with the less able ones c) when the teacher is able to move on to more advanced material because the whole class has understood the basics.

Tabbytabitha

ViolaLass wrote: »

This summarises https://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/setting-by-ability-what-is-the-evidence/

and this is what the EEF says (they look at bundles of studies to get an overall view) https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/evidence-summaries/teaching-learning-toolkit/setting-or-streaming/

I can only really talk about maths as that is what I've taught but here goes:

In short, setting can help the highest achieving to go higher at the cost of lower achievers who will progress less well. If you're a late starter in maths, tough. Note that I'm not using the word 'ability' in this post.

Setting can also affect how a student's self-view in that subject. High achievers can feel pressure to remain in the 'top set' and sometimes are pushed to cover material quickly at the expense of understanding.
Those in the 'bottom' set can be labelled as thickos by themselves and others and grow to believe that maths is this magical thing that only other people can do. Bottom sets are also often given less experienced teachers when they should be getting the MORE experienced ones.

Before anyone pipes up with "My child was in bottom set and it was brilliant for them", note that this is a generality. It will not be true for every child but it will be true often enough to be important.

Also, this has nothing to do with state/private. Each are equally likely to set or not.

Also, not setting is not a solution on its own. The teachers need to be trained and supported for mixed prior-attainment teaching. It's not easy.

I rather expected that it would show that the highest achievers were held back - that doesn't seem to matter these days, unfortunately.

ViolaLass

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I rather expected that it would show that the highest achievers were held back - that doesn't seem to matter these days, unfortunately.

I note you didn't bother to read the whole of my post.

ViolaLass

Malthusian wrote: »

I'm sure he can as any fool can produce research that proves that setting is beneficial to students or produce research that proves it is not. It may not be very good or robust research but that doesn't matter, it only has to look good enough for people to post it on the Internet to support their biases.

The EEF is a respected source of educational research. Yes, it was easy to find but that does not diminish its worth.

I'm with you in your discomfort.

As a teacher, I find the idea and practice of teaching mixed prior-attainment classes uncomfortable but I don't consider that a good enough excuse to prefer my personal prejudices above what science can show me.

It's uncomfortable but we can aim higher.