Private vs State School

Ath_Wat

JReacher1 said:

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 😃

No, but an entrance exam will test for whatever you design it to test for.  And generally private school entrance exams test to see if you've been taught the the things they want you to have been taught.  

Ath_Wat

DE_612183 said:

I bought a small house in a good area and sent the kids to private school - they are both in their 20's now and always say how glad they are for the sacrifice that we all made for them to have a good start in life.
They spent a few years in state and a few years in private so they know the difference.

All bar about one friend they have from school are all from the private school they attended and have both helped in small ways with their futures.

Whereas my kids didn't need the extra advantage, so went to state schools and got good grades are are now at good universities.  Including, oddly enough, the second worst university in the UK when it comes to taking state school pupils.  So now all the money that would have been wasted on paying for a private school is waiting for them once they get settled to be a house deposit.

zagfles

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.

Like other said, not true generally. Even those which don't select through exams will obviously select through socio-economic status based simply on the fact that richer families are more able to afford the fees. It's a well established fact that there's a correlation between socio-economic status and performance in school, there are differences of opinions as to why, some would say nature (ie hard working/intelligent parents did well at school, got good jobs, therefore higher socio-economic status, children inherit these traits and so do well as school), others nurture (richer parents more able to provide a better environment & facilities etc).

But it doesn't matter what the cause is, the fact that the correlation exists means that you can't compare raw results of private schools with state schools, even if they just take anyone who can pay. Which most don't anyway, they go a stage further and select on ability as well as socio-economic status giving them a double advantage in terms of raw results. It doesn't mean the school is necessarily any better.

zagfles

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.

If they're like the 11+ they're more a test of ability not knowledge, more so than later exams, eg GCSEs.

zagfles

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...

Very true, I've heard it said you should be able to afford twice the school fees in order to pay for all the extras, like school trips and the required "fashions" etc. One of my uni flatmates who I'm still in contact with went to a private school, he says they made life intolerable for kids from "ordinary" backgrounds whose parents scrimped to afford the fees, when they didn't turn up in all the expensive clobber etc on school trips. He's OK now but he freely admits he was a right snob at school!

Ath_Wat

zagfles 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.

Like other said, not true generally. Even those which don't select through exams will obviously select through socio-economic status based simply on the fact that richer families are more able to afford the fees. It's a well established fact that there's a correlation between socio-economic status and performance in school, there are differences of opinions as to why, some would say nature (ie hard working/intelligent parents did well at school, got good jobs, therefore higher socio-economic status, children inherit these traits and so do well as school), others nurture (richer parents more able to provide a better environment & facilities etc).

But it doesn't matter what the cause is, the fact that the correlation exists means that you can't compare raw results of private schools with state schools, even if they just take anyone who can pay. Which most don't anyway, they go a stage further and select on ability as well as socio-economic status giving them a double advantage in terms of raw results. It doesn't mean the school is necessarily any better.

If they are not better, with a staff to pupil ratio about half that of state schools, and far better resources, they are doing something wrong (and some are - some pay staff significantly less than they could get in the state sector and are consequently rubbish, but that is not the norm).

The question is how much better, and for whom?  And generally, the more able a pupil is, the less they need a teacher's individual attention. It is, as has already been said, those who struggle somewhat who will react best to the extra time and attention they will receive in private schools.

zagfles

Ath_Wat said:

zagfles 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.

Like other said, not true generally. Even those which don't select through exams will obviously select through socio-economic status based simply on the fact that richer families are more able to afford the fees. It's a well established fact that there's a correlation between socio-economic status and performance in school, there are differences of opinions as to why, some would say nature (ie hard working/intelligent parents did well at school, got good jobs, therefore higher socio-economic status, children inherit these traits and so do well as school), others nurture (richer parents more able to provide a better environment & facilities etc).

But it doesn't matter what the cause is, the fact that the correlation exists means that you can't compare raw results of private schools with state schools, even if they just take anyone who can pay. Which most don't anyway, they go a stage further and select on ability as well as socio-economic status giving them a double advantage in terms of raw results. It doesn't mean the school is necessarily any better.

If they are not better, with a staff to pupil ratio about half that of state schools, and far better resources, they are doing something wrong (and some are - some pay staff significantly less than they could get in the state sector and are consequently rubbish, but that is not the norm).

The question is how much better, and for whom?  And generally, the more able a pupil is, the less they need a teacher's individual attention. It is, as has already been said, those who struggle somewhat who will react best to the extra time and attention they will receive in private schools.

Is the ratio better? When you include TAs? My daughter was in a class (primary school) with about 5 SEN pupils who all had their own dedicated TAs, but they helped out with the whole class, when picking her up or needing to discuss anything it'd often by the TAs I'd talk to, they were just as aware of her progress/issues as the class teacher. The ratio in that class was 5 pupils per teacher/TA!!

Anyway, even if your child does need more individual attention, it'd be far more cost effective to pay for a private tutor as and when in any subjects they're strugging with. They probably won't need it in all subjects or all the time. Or do it yourself if you're capable, I did with mine in maths, not that they needed much anyway...

But anyway, the point is that the better results private schools get is likely to be far more down to selection (acedemic/financial) than the quality of the school IMO.

Then if you get universities who want to "widen access" or boast they take a high proportion of state school pupils, or don't want people to see them as "appallingly elitist ", your kids could end being disadvantaged because they went to a private school.

Katiehound

Private schools are able to nurture pupils if they have a specific ability- such as music.: sadly a minority subject in most state schools

State schools have to take all pupils, they can not be selective except at secondary level where the 11+ exam stills exists (as it does in this area)

In all cases if the parents have the time , energy and enthusiasm  to encourage and help their children that will have a marked effect. Part of this is an expectation and the belief that education matters.  Equally important is to have inspiring teachers- and they don't only work in the private sector.  Private schools have the advantage of smaller class size, very likely better science & sports facilities but a child who has aspirations will do well whatever.

sheramber

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.

Private schools in Scotland no longer have charitable status.

PandaGirl6

zagfles said:

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...

Very true, I've heard it said you should be able to afford twice the school fees in order to pay for all the extras, like school trips and the required "fashions" etc. One of my uni flatmates who I'm still in contact with went to a private school, he says they made life intolerable for kids from "ordinary" backgrounds whose parents scrimped to afford the fees, when they didn't turn up in all the expensive clobber etc on school trips. He's OK now but he freely admits he was a right snob at school!

It has crossed my mind, but by secondary school time it might be less of an issue for us.
We don't eat at McDonald's anyway. Ha! Mainly for health reasons.

I've read other forums with conflicting opinions on the subject and came to a conclusion that it is unpredictable. It seems like pupils from very diverse backgrounds attend the school I've been looking at. Might just have to get a tutor during the primary to increase her chances of getting a place later on. By secondary school, ski holidays would be affordable. No brand new cars though! 

I've heard kids can get bullied for anything. If the bully wants to find a reason, they will. Could be financial status, ethnicity (which will play a huge role for us), looks, ability etc. You just never know.

The private school I was looking has great results but is not very elitist - a couple of my friends graduated from there and they are very kind and down to earth.
State school can be brutal too and it seems it can be much more difficult for a school to expell a misbehaving student, considering they would need to find an alternative for the pupil.
As I've mentioned, might just move to a good catchment for now 👍.