[Architecture-er]

Not sure how much of an advantage private schools give, since no-one in my family has ever been. However the extra-curriculars seem far above and beyond anything at state schools, so would definitely consider it..

But I'm on placement at the moment, and by total coincidence there's a girl on placement with me, who's from the same home town, goes to the same university (albeit one year above), but went to a private school. So technically, my family 'won' in that regard, since both of us have achieved the same academically, despite us paying nothing, and her parents paying goodness knows what.

[willbee]

My experience of most state schools is that if you're doing well, you're generally left on your own. Focus is put on the under-achievers and misbehaving kids so that everyone passes the subject if possible. Any A-grades are a plus, but the hard-working kids aren't generally well-rewarded for their efforts (and get less attention from the teachers).

The picture of the school in the article promoting state schools does NOT look like the average state school IMO. If it's an academy, it'll get extra money than most, but also have someone donating money who gets a say in the curriculum (such as promoting certain subjects over others). At private schools, the kids are generally put at the centre, so decisions are made in their best interests so they can continue to attract parents to send children there. All schools are run like businesses, because they are, but private schools ensure better education, and often give students a harder work ethic than is required at a state school (e.g. through higher expectations / level of homework).

I was lucky enough to do GCSE and A-level at a Grammar school (though actually I hated it, because I needed more support and was essentially ignored by most of my teachers, because there is a reverse attitude where focus is on high-achievers, who make up the majority of students; but tbf, that's what the 11+ is for).

I would've deffo done better at a private school, but that was not an option for my family. If I could afford to send my kids to a private school, I would. They generally get good grades and opportunities, and leave school with more chance to get decent jobs and uni places than your average state school student. I do think most privately educated people are more hard-working as well, but I think they also have more incentive.

all personal opinion though. (but I've been to 11 different schools and feel my experience is good enough.)

[Amhorangerdgerriug]

(Original post by roh)
I'm not saying they have to, just that they can look around plenty of different schools and come to the same conclusion. Even looking at league tables that could be the case, in Birmingham the top school is King Ed's Camp Hill, ahead of the independent KES.

It's not always automatic that the local private school is better than it's state equivalent when you weigh up the various pros and cons, even excluding cost.

Absolutely right, but, in most cases, it is true.

[RastaMannn]

not really bothered, depends how hard you work. a guy at my school, a state school, got over 10 A*'s at GCSE and looking for 4 A's at sixth form. My cousin went to a state school and got 1 A* and 3 A's at sixth form. there is a private school about 8 miles from my house. my friend, who goes there, got only 1 A* in her GCSE's, majority being B's. shows how it can boil down to working hard at home, not suprising, after hearing so much about bad teachers.

[rmpr97]

(Original post by willbee)
My experience of most state schools is that if you're doing well, you're generally left on your own. Focus is put on the under-achievers and misbehaving kids so that everyone passes the subject if possible. Any A-grades are a plus, but the hard-working kids aren't generally well-rewarded for their efforts (and get less attention from the teachers).

Agreed, I go to a state school and it's like this. Although it's a very high achieving state school in inner city London (83%), they get this by come exam time putting high focus on the lesser able students and giving them intensive tuition whereas the high achievers, like me are generally left to do everything ourselves.

Even when it comes to small things like incentives, there's generally more incentive for say a lesser able student to improve, as come end of year, they'd be rewarded, via a small prize, compared to the consistent high achiever who very rarely gets something to commemorate this.

Example, although a very small and petty example it still stands as it is the general motto for state schools, we did a physics module and at the front of the assembly the teacher gave praise to people who went up a grade, fair do's. Although someone else (I won't say who for not seeming to boast ) who went from a disappointing B, went to 100& and nada.

[ellasmith]

In my experience, half of my friends including my boyfriend are privately educated, while the other half (including me) are state educated.

Old traditional private school students really do look down on state school people. I've had rude remarks from my boyfriend and his friends and family about me being at statte school. Private school pupils feel like they have the edge over state school students because they are more "civilised, well rounded, and better educated" (this is actually a quote) and they are "Overall will do better".

While statistically, those who are privately educated are more likely to go to university, this might not be due to the fact they went to private school, but rather the morals of their middle/upper-class families. Not to be rude, but lower class families can't afford for their child to go to private school, and they just send their child to the nearest state school. Some (not all) working class families don't really push their children in academics, rather they push them into skilled labour jobs that don't require any qualifications that one would need for university, or simply don't push them at all. Parents are also role models for their children, so if these generalised families in question are on the doll and getting in street brawls their children will probably end up like this (However, some state school students do have lower middle class parents, good morals and ethics to look up to, and not all children from low income families end up like this, they sometimes better themselves). In contrast to private school students who have hard-working and successful parents to look up to.

The majority of state school students are made up of working class or lower middle class students, where some students lack the drive and encouragement to go on to university and get a 'respected' job. Some of these students know they aren't going to go to sixth form or college and feel that school is a waste of time so they mess around and put a bad stigma on state schools being full of 'chavs', 'gypsys' and 'wasters'

It is arguable private schools will have much better facilities, teachers and less pupils in their class which will benefit the student in their education, in comparison to state schools. However, for me, it comes down to the student them self and their self drive and self motivation. I've done the best out of all of my private school friends a-level wise and university wise (with the exception of one going to Oxford).

I do also find that most private school pupils have no manners (well, the ones I have come across) they're incredibly narrow-minded and have no clue about the real-world per say, and just adopt misogynist and corrupt conservative political views just because their father and grandfather do and they don't really have any idea why they support those views, but it's right because daddy and grandpapa do.


Overall, I can't generalise my observations or views to ALL private school students. But I think both sectors are equal apart from one pay their way into 'im better than you' status. My point is everyone can do well in life if they just have the right drive and motivation and while extra support and facilities can aid this route, one can do well without it.


PHEW rant over.

[Freiheit]

(Original post by willbee)
My experience of most state schools is that if you're doing well, you're generally left on your own. Focus is put on the under-achievers and misbehaving kids so that everyone passes the subject if possible. Any A-grades are a plus, but the hard-working kids aren't generally well-rewarded for their efforts (and get less attention from the teachers).

(Original post by rmpr97)
come exam time putting high focus on the lesser able students and giving them intensive tuition whereas the high achievers, like me are generally left to do everything ourselves.

Even when it comes to small things like incentives, there's generally more incentive for say a lesser able student to improve, as come end of year, they'd be rewarded, via a small prize, compared to the consistent high achiever who very rarely gets something to commemorate this.

These two posts summarise my experience perfectly.

[anarchism101]

It varies a lot from school to school and area. I've known people from the schools that fit the stereotypes, as well as incredibly snobby state schools and not snobby private schools.

What I would absolutely recommend you do not do is send your kids to a private school that is legally a for-profit company rather than a charity. Kids' education can be wrecked just because of a stupid decision by the owner.

[cl_steele]

Either/or, Which evers best be it state or public, doesnt make much difference so long as my kid gets as far as possible in life.

[harrietx123x]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
The anti-public article seems to imply that all private schools are like Eton, i went to a private school in Manchester and had plenty of contact with the "outside" world.

• there were more Asian people than there were white
• I'm not rude to waiters
• the bus i took to school had students from state schools and we got on fine
• I know plenty of African-Caribbean swear words
• the school offered numerous charitable programs that were aimed at the local community

My main beneficial experiences of private school were having access to fantastic sporting facilities, top notch teachers with a ton of experience and knowledge and supportive head of years who took an active interest in my progression and helped advise me on extra work i could be doing to improve. I can say with complete confidence that if you can afford to send your kid to a private school then you should, they are completely worth it.

I know this is the Guardian so it shouldn't really be taken that seriously but:

[public school boys who get good jobs] are only there because of connections and an entitlement and self-confidence that is not matched by their ability to do an excellent job.

Is just a perfect example of what kind of article this is, the guy is a self righteous left wing zealot with no clue on how 95% of private schools function and frankly i feel sorry for his children because he is letting his ignorance and prejudice rule how they should be educated and could be depriving them of a better education and a better overall educational experience.

Completely agree with you. People seem to be under the illusion that all private schools are the same at those right "at the top". I went to a private school where we were all very down to earth. Yes, the facilities may be better (this wasn't the case at my school), but it doesn't mean the students are given a ridiculous advantage to those in the state system.

[im so academic]

(Original post by roh)
I'm not saying they have to, just that they can look around plenty of different schools and come to the same conclusion. Even looking at league tables that could be the case, in Birmingham the top school is King Ed's Camp Hill, ahead of the independent KES.

It's not always automatic that the local private school is better than it's state equivalent when you weigh up the various pros and cons, even excluding cost.

A school may be higher up on the league tables, but it doesn't make it a better school. Many, many state schools cheat the system by entering their students into "soft" qualifications so it improves their point scores.

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Not sure how much of an advantage private schools give, since no-one in my family has ever been. However the extra-curriculars seem far above and beyond anything at state schools, so would definitely consider it..

But I'm on placement at the moment, and by total coincidence there's a girl on placement with me, who's from the same home town, goes to the same university (albeit one year above), but went to a private school. So technically, my family 'won' in that regard, since both of us have achieved the same academically, despite us paying nothing, and her parents paying goodness knows what.

*******s. Perhaps the other girl did many other extra-curriculars during her time at school? Perhaps had other opportunities that she took part that you didn't? Perhaps she was exposed to more ideas? Perhaps her grades don't exactly show her potential fully?

Private school is not just a way of buying a university place.

[roh]

(Original post by im so academic)
A school may be higher up on the league tables, but it doesn't make it a better school. Many, many state schools cheat the system by entering their students into "soft" qualifications so it improves their point scores.




*******s. Perhaps the other girl did many other extra-curriculars during her time at school? Perhaps had other opportunities that she took part that you didn't? Perhaps she was exposed to more ideas? Perhaps her grades don't exactly show her potential fully?

Private school is not just a way of buying a university place.

Given the A Levels they offer are: Art, Biology, Business, Chemistry, Computing, DT, Economics, English Lit, French, Further Maths, Geography, German, History, Maths, Music, Physics and RS (Source) I doubt they've got it on the fiddle. Seems to be largely academic subjects.

Also, regarding doing better than counterparts in private schools me and my sister, particularly, have frankly battered our privately educated cousins of the same ages at GCSE, A Level and the extra curriculars (music, dance, sprt and stuff like debating) we have done. This is because we work harder than they do and don't feel we're entitled to good grades, private school doesn't just automatically get you good grades.

[yonex83]

We must change the system of upbringing: the upbringing and not the education! The education might be good and teachers of various subjects may also be good, but there is no upbringing! There is no such subject; there are no people that know how to bring up children or who work on the upbringing. There is none of that.

Just think about what will happen in the next generation. It won’t even exist. Nobody wants such a generation. It is why people don’t want to have children today, to create a family. What for? So that what we see today will continue to happen? Why have these unhappy children?

If your children are important to you, then get together at the school and decide what more you can do with them within its framework. However, you simply don’t care about them, you only drop them off at some organization called “school,” the “department of education,” and that’s it. You let them work with the kids. This must not happen!

We need to get together, not to develop competitive skills, but to develop mutual support and understanding that in today’s integral society it is precisely cooperation that gives rise to success.

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by im so academic)
*******s. Perhaps the other girl did many other extra-curriculars during her time at school? Perhaps had other opportunities that she took part that you didn't? Perhaps she was exposed to more ideas? Perhaps her grades don't exactly show her potential fully?

Private school is not just a way of buying a university place.

If you had better observational skills, you might've noticed that I included that caveat in my post, dearie.

[PythianLegume]

I would just like to say that as a Grammar School pupil, I feel that have the equivalent of a private-school education for free. People wouldn't feel like they 'had' to pay for their child's education if they had the option of a grammar school education.

[im so academic]

(Original post by PythianLegume)
I would just like to say that as a Grammar School pupil, I feel that have the equivalent of a private-school education for free. People wouldn't feel like they 'had' to pay for their child's education if they had the option of a grammar school education.

Yet many people think its elitist.

[PythianLegume]

(Original post by im so academic)
Yet many people think its elitist.

But so is private schooling .

[:)ella]

I was offered a scholarship to a private sixth form based on my gcses but I turned it down. I genuinely believe that my state school could offer me a better and more rounded education. My classes are small, my teachers are fantastic and I don't think being spoon fed is the right preparation for university. I got better gcses than my friends at private schools and I think my state school did me proud, and is continuing to do so.

[PythianLegume]

(Original post by :)ella)
I was offered a scholarship to a private sixth form based on my gcses but I turned it down. I genuinely believe that my state school could offer me a better and more rounded education. My classes are small, my teachers are fantastic and I don't think being spoon fed is the right preparation for university. I got better gcses than my friends at private schools and I think my state school did me proud, and is continuing to do so.

You did better than some people at private school? Looks like we have proof that state schooling is better then.

Do you have any evidence that private schools spoon feed any more than state schools? For one, their high Oxbridge acceptance rates would suggest the opposite is true, given that Oxbridge will reject those who obviously rely on spoon-feeding.

[im so academic]

(Original post by PythianLegume)
You did better than some people at private school? Looks like we have proof that state schooling is better then.

Do you have any evidence that private schools spoon feed any more than state schools? For one, their high Oxbridge acceptance rates would suggest the opposite is true, given that Oxbridge will reject those who obviously rely on spoon-feeding.

Exactly.