Private vs State School

silvercar

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.

Have you read what I wrote? There are private schools to suit most types of student, including SEN pupils.

Entrance to the private school of you/ your parents choice isn't automatic, I know plenty of people disappointed when their child didn't gain the place they would have liked.

PandaGirl6

pinkshoes said:

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.

Thank you, very insightful.

I can totally where you're coming from. I think being a parent not familiar with the schooling system I have somewhat restricted ability to pass judgement on a specific school and its policies. Official reports can be helpful, but not all are recent and it leaves parents guessing what support and atmosphere is feasible during classes.

If my daughter is anything like mummy, she'll be influenced by her peers, expecially going into teenage years. Fortunately for me it was cool to get good grades. We partied hard but studied harder. That's the environment that I'd choose for my child. What she does with it is out of my control, but I'd rather have her pedal on level ground than up the hill.

I have lots of respect for you trying to inspire all kids regadless of their initial attitude and can only hope to encounter such great teachers during my daughter's education. It's impossible to predict though and my opinion is based mostly on generally accepted judgement on what parents view as 'good' or 'bad' schools in the area.
Can I just call a school and ask them what would they do if a child disturbed the class?

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes to move at some point. Especially if our little one starts asking for a sibling...

PandaGirl6

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.

Looking at it while having a different background... They absolutely shouldn't exist. I'm from a country where most of the state (public) schools outperform private by a mile. There is no discrimination based on income/parents' class. But the UK has its own culture and I guess part of it means private schools do in fact exist and as a parent willing to make a lot of sacrifices I find myself asking the question of what's the best route. That's all.

pinkshoes

PandaGirl6 said:

Can I just call a school and ask them what would they do if a child disturbed the class?

Yes! I would absolutely question the behaviour policy of the school and how they deal with disruptive children. It makes a big difference in a school.

Some schools only have policies that deal with "outrageous" behaviour e.g. violence, verbal abuse, immediate disruption etc... whereas I teach at a school were all low level disruption (persistent talking over me or others, interrupting, answering back, refusal to cooperate etc... ) are also dealt with on a 3 strikes rule with clear warnings.

There are also good and bad private schools too...

Ditzy_Mitzy

A general observation: it is much preferable to be the richest pupil at a state school than the poorest one at a private school.  You have mentioned possible struggles with fees and ought to be mindful of the possibility of a bruising encounter with the class system for the girl.  Simply being able to pay for the teaching doesn't guarantee that one will belong or be accepted in those places.  

There will be incidental expenses and, more to the point, expectations of lifestyle will be placed upon both pupil and parents.  She will need to socialize in a manner accordant with her peers, can you afford that?  Don't expect to have her friends' parents stand for you taking their daughters to McDonald's (as an example) either, when it's your turn to host...

london21

From my experience as a student in the educational system.

If the school is outstanding and has good results and behaviour then state school ok.

If the state schools are not so good and I can comfortably afford private education then a good investment.

Now in my 30's and remember my experience whilst in secondary school.

My 1st school was really crap, then in year 9 moved schools and was better.

Overall I turned out great but could have been a better schooling experience. 

pollypenny

As pink shoes said, the crucial factor is parental support and involvement in a child's education. 

There are a number of pretty hopeless private schools, where the only advantage is smaller classes - often taught by not particularly good teachers. 

One test for a school is how many teachers have their own kids there. I joined the school that my children attended: I was one of many teacher parents. 

silvercar

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

A general observation: it is much preferable to be the richest pupil at a state school than the poorest one at a private school.  You have mentioned possible struggles with fees and ought to be mindful of the possibility of a bruising encounter with the class system for the girl.  Simply being able to pay for the teaching doesn't guarantee that one will belong or be accepted in those places.  

There will be incidental expenses and, more to the point, expectations of lifestyle will be placed upon both pupil and parents.  She will need to socialize in a manner accordant with her peers, can you afford that?  Don't expect to have her friends' parents stand for you taking their daughters to McDonald's (as an example) either, when it's your turn to host...

Partly true, having had that experience in one of mine's secondary schools. You need to be able to afford to keep up with the school trips etc that are unofficially compulsory incidental expenses like school trips. As for socialising, the kids soon suss out who is on their level and choose their friends accordingly. Even when there are groups of friends where one or two have seriously different incomes, they usually know and adjust for it. After all, in any grouping there has to be someone who is the most wealthy in the group.

theoretica

Also, state schools will teach standard grades and highers/advanced highers - private schools seem more likely to go to GCSEs and A levels.  Does this give a different finishing age?  I don't know, but worth looking at.

Private schools may currently have a good record of high grades and university places - but universities are being pushed hard to take more students from state schools - what may that mean in future?

I believe Edinburgh has a comparatively high number of private school places, about 1/4.

Ath_Wat

silvercar 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.

Have you read what I wrote? There are private schools to suit most types of student, including SEN pupils.

Entrance to the private school of you/ your parents choice isn't automatic, I know plenty of people disappointed when their child didn't gain the place they would have liked.

That's what I said.