Private vs State School

JReacher1

Also one thing to be aware of (although may be different in Scotland) is that it looks pretty much nailed on that in two years Labour will be in power. They are committed to ending private schools charity status which will likely lead to a big increase in student fees. If you can only just afford private school then you may be in trouble then. 

tightauldgit

Ath_Wat said:

zagfles said:

Ath_Wat said:

PandaGirl6 said:

Indeed.

I was educated overseas, so not too familiar with the system. However, a dear friend of mine is a primary school manager and has advised against state schools in general.

I am little bit torn, as we could either invest in extracurricular activities and tuition whilst daughter attends state school or we would have very little disposable income if she she went to a private primary.

The other option might state primary, private secondary? Does anyone have experience of going down that route, please? Are there any significant barriers?

I would change the title if you can because public school and state schools are very different things.

Also, ignore your dear friend.  Thousands of children do perfectly well at state schools.  Are private schools potentially better - yes, to an extent, you do get what you pay for.  Is an able child going to succeed in most well run state schools (which is an awful lot of them)?  Yes.  

93 per cent of UK children go to state schools.  Intake of former state pupils at Russell Group universities ranges from 98% in Queen's Belfast, down to 60% at Durham (an appallingly elitist institution) with Oxford and Cambridge hovering around 70%.  Does this show going to private school gives an edge (be that down to standard of education or inbuilt bias in the system)?  Yes.  Does it show that the state system must be avoided?  Far, far from it.

No. It reflects private schools start with more able pupils.

Not sure where that information comes from - some few are in private schools on merit, most simply bought their place.  The children of wealthy parents have not been shown to be more intelligent than others, as far as I know,.

That's more an argument you could level at grammar schools.

Staffing levels alone are going to give private schools something of an edge, especially for the less able pupils.  The very able will succeed regardless.  What private schools do well is get more out of the borderline, because they have more time and resource to do it.

Well it's fairly obvious that private schools can select their pupils and so can weed out anyone that they think might bring the school averages down at an early stage. Plus kids of wealthy parents that can afford private school generally have other advantages - they will have lots of resources at home, access to tutors or parents that can help with work, they don't go to school hungry, they don't live on council estates with bad influences around, etc etc etc. 

It's not that the kids themselves are better than any other kids it's just that the kids they have are the ones that would generally be more expected to go to good universities etc. In that sense they are more able.

pinkshoes

PandaGirl6 said:

From the research and the conversations that I've had, I got an impression that a major benefit of a private school was the culture and expectation of performing well being perceived desirable by fellow pupils.

And it seems like in some of the state schools pupils brand well performing kids nerds etc.

Of course the facilities would matter to, but in the top catchment areas these might be somewhat comparable.

I am sure bright children will learn regardless of the circumstances, but if I have a choice, I'd rather make it an encouraging environment for the little one. Not sure if this is only relevant from the secondary school level onwards though.

I teach in a state secondary school. We have a nice enough catchment area with some "rough bits".

In all honesty, the biggest contributing factor to a child doing well in school is the input and support from parents. With the right support, a child will do well in almost any school. At primary school level, I don't think it matters at all which school you send your child to, as long as you as a parent are supporting your child, taking them out to do stuff etc... 

Saying that, as much as I have high expectations of every child I teach, I also teach many children who don't give a sh*t, and their parents don't give a sh*t. Their attitude towards learning is appalling, and trying to engage them and spark some interest is exhausting. I spend ages trying to make my lessons relevant to something they might relate to and thus remember. 

I do, however, teach at a school where disrupting lessons will not be tolerated. Anyone hindering the education of others by disruptive behaviour will be removed. You need to look carefully at the behaviour policy of the school.

I pay £900 a year for a bus to send my son to a better state secondary school. Our local one has a very poor reputation and fewer extra curricular activities on offer. 

Also, for the price of a private school, you could also consider home schooling, or a private tutor along side the state school. 

I got straight As at GCSE despite going to a low achieving state secondary school.

Ath_Wat

silvercar said:

Ath_Wat said:

zagfles said:

Neither. Don't make the mistake of judging a school by its raw exam results, private schools are generally selective ie they select the most able,

Again, no, not at all.  They  take anyone who is willing to pay.  Some will also take a few of the most able who can't pay on scholarships,  to help maintain charitable status.

This isn't true. Near me there are some who have entrance exams and set the barrier particularly high. One that excels in sports and recruits on that basis. A couple of schools who are known for having a particularly nurturing environment. One that sets itself as getting outstanding results from middle level attaining children and suggests the solid academics go to the more famous school down the road. The more you investigate, the more you find.

Yes, that's what they tell people, because that makes their customers feel that little Johnny has done really well to get there.  In reality they don't take kids with SENs because they would be better off in a  private school designed for the purpose, but if you can pay, and write your name, you are pretty much getting in.  Eton claims to be selective.  What it does is test whether the pupils have been taught the things you need to be taught in order to get into Eton.  If you want to, you will have been.

Ath_Wat

PandaGirl6 said:

silvercar said:

PandaGirl6 said:

Indeed.

I was educated overseas, so not too familiar with the system. However, a dear friend of mine is a primary school manager and has advised against state schools in general.

I am little bit torn, as we could either invest in extracurricular activities and tuition whilst daughter attends state school or we would have very little disposable income if she she went to a private primary.

The other option might state primary, private secondary? Does anyone have experience of going down that route, please? Are there any significant barriers?

We did state primary, private secondary for one of mine. No problem at all. The risk is that those coming from a private primary may have a better chance of getting into a selective private secondary as the private primaries really gear themselves up to preparing their pupils for entrance exams. You may decide that some private tutoring in year 5 and 6 is worth the money to help prepare for the entrance exams. 
Having started secondary school there was no problem is settling in as the school had a wide intake and all schools spend time in year 7 ensuring that the pupils all reach a level where they can continue their education comfortably.
My eldest went to a very selective state grammar school, there were a lot of pupils from private primaries and they started off clearly having had the benefit of those schools, but the playing field soon levelled, possibly as those from state schools must have had more natural ability to pass the exams.

Brilliant, thank you all for input. I will do more research and ask my friend to do some more too (she manages over 60 teachers at two state schools now, so I think she's got a good understanding about what goes on).

The private secondary schools I've been looking at dont just admit every applicant... most of Edinburgh schools are bursting at the seams.

@Silvercar I like this approach. We might move to a slightly better area for the primary assuming that some monetary value will be preserved in the house equity and then make a decision again before secondary school. This could actually work.
Gives us some saving/investing time.

@Ath_Wat thanks for the input. As Ive mentioned, not a good catchment I'm afraid, unless we send to a Catholic school, which I don't feel very comfortable with (albeit was raised catholic... maybe one of the reasons haha).

Plenty of religious schools now really don't do a lot on the religious front.  There's two Catholic school I know of near me that I'd have no issues sending a child too.  There's no indoctrination or anything of that nature.  Having been raised Catholic could be your advantage there.

JReacher1

Ath_Wat said:

silvercar said:

Ath_Wat said:

zagfles said:

Neither. Don't make the mistake of judging a school by its raw exam results, private schools are generally selective ie they select the most able,

Again, no, not at all.  They  take anyone who is willing to pay.  Some will also take a few of the most able who can't pay on scholarships,  to help maintain charitable status.

This isn't true. Near me there are some who have entrance exams and set the barrier particularly high. One that excels in sports and recruits on that basis. A couple of schools who are known for having a particularly nurturing environment. One that sets itself as getting outstanding results from middle level attaining children and suggests the solid academics go to the more famous school down the road. The more you investigate, the more you find.

Yes, that's what they tell people, because that makes their customers feel that little Johnny has done really well to get there.  In reality they don't take kids with SENs because they would be better off in a  private school designed for the purpose, but if you can pay, and write your name, you are pretty much getting in.  Eton claims to be selective.  What it does is test whether the pupils have been taught the things you need to be taught in order to get into Eton.  If you want to, you will have been.

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about private education but what you are stating it’s factually incorrect. 

Ath_Wat

JReacher1 said:

Ath_Wat said:

silvercar said:

Ath_Wat said:

zagfles said:

Neither. Don't make the mistake of judging a school by its raw exam results, private schools are generally selective ie they select the most able,

Again, no, not at all.  They  take anyone who is willing to pay.  Some will also take a few of the most able who can't pay on scholarships,  to help maintain charitable status.

This isn't true. Near me there are some who have entrance exams and set the barrier particularly high. One that excels in sports and recruits on that basis. A couple of schools who are known for having a particularly nurturing environment. One that sets itself as getting outstanding results from middle level attaining children and suggests the solid academics go to the more famous school down the road. The more you investigate, the more you find.

Yes, that's what they tell people, because that makes their customers feel that little Johnny has done really well to get there.  In reality they don't take kids with SENs because they would be better off in a  private school designed for the purpose, but if you can pay, and write your name, you are pretty much getting in.  Eton claims to be selective.  What it does is test whether the pupils have been taught the things you need to be taught in order to get into Eton.  If you want to, you will have been.

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about private education but what you are stating it’s factually incorrect. 

Their entrance exams are not tests of ability,  They are tests of knowledge.  That is an entirely different thing.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, they are what they are.  A way for the wealthy to buy further advantage. I don't know why you think saying that is me having a chip on my shoulder, that's the whole purpose of them.  I am not saying they shouldn't exist.

JReacher1

Ath_Wat said:

JReacher1 said:

Ath_Wat said:

silvercar said:

Ath_Wat said:

zagfles said:

Neither. Don't make the mistake of judging a school by its raw exam results, private schools are generally selective ie they select the most able,

Again, no, not at all.  They  take anyone who is willing to pay.  Some will also take a few of the most able who can't pay on scholarships,  to help maintain charitable status.

This isn't true. Near me there are some who have entrance exams and set the barrier particularly high. One that excels in sports and recruits on that basis. A couple of schools who are known for having a particularly nurturing environment. One that sets itself as getting outstanding results from middle level attaining children and suggests the solid academics go to the more famous school down the road. The more you investigate, the more you find.

Yes, that's what they tell people, because that makes their customers feel that little Johnny has done really well to get there.  In reality they don't take kids with SENs because they would be better off in a  private school designed for the purpose, but if you can pay, and write your name, you are pretty much getting in.  Eton claims to be selective.  What it does is test whether the pupils have been taught the things you need to be taught in order to get into Eton.  If you want to, you will have been.

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about private education but what you are stating it’s factually incorrect. 

Their entrance exams are not tests of ability,  They are tests of knowledge.  That is an entirely different thing.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder, they are what they are.  A way for the wealthy to buy further advantage. I don't know why you think saying that is me having a chip on my shoulder, that's the whole purpose of them.  I am not saying they shouldn't exist.

They are not tests of knowledge they are tests of academic abilities.  You can’t trick an entrance exam into thinking you’re better at maths than you actually are. 

You seem to think an entrance exam to a private school is like a pub quiz 😃

silvercar

JReacher1 said:

Also one thing to be aware of (although may be different in Scotland) is that it looks pretty much nailed on that in two years Labour will be in power. They are committed to ending private schools charity status which will likely lead to a big increase in student fees. If you can only just afford private school then you may be in trouble then. 

It won't happen, not least because the state school sector hasn't got the capacity to absorb those who won't be able to afford private education.

JReacher1

silvercar said:

JReacher1 said:

Also one thing to be aware of (although may be different in Scotland) is that it looks pretty much nailed on that in two years Labour will be in power. They are committed to ending private schools charity status which will likely lead to a big increase in student fees. If you can only just afford private school then you may be in trouble then. 

It won't happen, not least because the state school sector hasn't got the capacity to absorb those who won't be able to afford private education.

I think it is a flawed policy but if Keir puts it into his manifesto he will probably have to do it.