[The Polymath]

(Original post by PythianLegume)
Just check the average results nationally and private schools do enormously better. If those in your area do not, then there must be some sort of difference in your area or the schools there.

True that.

Quote me if you've been to both good private and good state schools and can comment on the comparison.

Personally the private school was clearly better: ithad better results, had more resources, better teaching, a more independent environment at an early age (which affects students positively and imo increases chances of Oxbridge/top unis).

[jennifex]

(Original post by roh)
My parents teach in state schools. They could afford to send us to private school but that would be massively hypocritical of them and would not say an awful lot about their own professional ability 'my teaching is good enough for other people's kids, but not my own' that somehow their own work isn't actually the 'best possible start in life'. They weren't on 'their high horse' they were simply backing their and their colleagues own professional ability.

Your parents are standing by what they provide in the state system, and no doubt they are excellent teachers. However it is a fact that some state school teachers are not excellent... honestly some are downright awful. It's not that there are not good teachers in the state sector, there are thousands of highly dedicated and excellent teachers who teach in state schools. But even so, private schools are much less likely to employ those teachers who are not up to scratch than state schools.

[Fallen]

(Original post by boba)
I went to a comprehensive school but the classes were set by ability, so you would have "set 1" "set 2" ect, and people on the C grade boundary would never even be in the same class as people on the "A/A*" boundary so therefore couldn't take all the teachers attention. is this not standard if not it should be

Yes, they have sets, but until last year there was only one top set which was people looking at B-A* grades. It was only with much struggle that my mum managed to set up an A/A* set. Even then she gets additional funding to give private tuition to people who could get a C with lots more work, no such thing exists for high achieving pupils.

(Original post by :)ella)
it's a bad thing because I want to do well academically beyond sixth form, so learning to work independently is important to me. I saw you made a point earlier about state schools being obsessed with getting everyone a C and I do have to agree there - I found that quite frustrating. But I'd still say overall I think state schools prepare you better for the future but thats just my opinion.

But it is important to remember that private schooling doesn't stop you from learning independently. Without false modesty, I work exceptionally well independently. There could definitely be an argument that people who can't work independently will do better at private school than at state school, but people who work independently are not disadvantaged by private education. In fact, at my school we were very encouraged to do extra work and we all did a lot of private study around our interests.

I also disagree that state school prepares you better for the future. Lots of people seem to be of the opinion that privately educated individuals live with the fairies and don't know what is happening in the 'real world'. All I can say is a lot of students don't seem to understand how much harder working at careers is than education, but I haven't noticed more from one sector or another.

One thing my mum has to do every 2-3 years is come up with a new and exciting way to teach children. She now has to do at least 4-5 activities in her one hour lessons to achieve OFSTED 'Outstanding'. This gives the impression to students that things are constantly going to be new and changing. In reality we are all going to spend long periods a day doing exactly the same things. Having spoken to my mum obviously quite a lot, one of the things I appreciate most about my education is the fact that lots of lessons where "Sit down, silence, look at the whiteboard". We didn't have any of this smartboard crap or weird exercises, I much prefer learning in silent concentration. Of course we did group work and what have you, but "shut up and listen" lessons where a staple.

[:)ella]

(Original post by PythianLegume)
Just check the average results nationally and private schools do enormously better. If those in your area do not, then there must be some sort of difference in your area or the schools there.

But those tables are based on % 5A*-C which doesn't tell you that much.
Also private schools try and discourage kids from taking exams if they're borderline C/D because it'll make their results look bad whereas state schools would try really hard to get that kid the best qualifications possible.

[boba]

(Original post by Fallen)
Yes, they have sets, but until last year there was only one top set which was people looking at B-A* grades. It was only with much struggle that my mum managed to set up an A/A* set. Even then she gets additional funding to give private tuition to people who could get a C with lots more work, no such thing exists for high achieving pupils.


But it is important to remember that private schooling doesn't stop you from learning independently. Without false modesty, I work exceptionally well independently. There could definitely be an argument that people who can't work independently will do better at private school than at state school, but people who work independently are not disadvantaged by private education. In fact, at my school we were very encouraged to do extra work and we all did a lot of private study around our interests.

I also disagree that state school prepares you better for the future. Lots of people seem to be of the opinion that privately educated individuals live with the fairies and don't know what is happening in the 'real world'. All I can say is a lot of students don't seem to understand how much harder working at careers is than education, but I haven't noticed more from one sector or another.

One thing my mum has to do every 2-3 years is come up with a new and exciting way to teach children. She now has to do at least 4-5 activities in her one hour lessons to achieve OFSTED 'Outstanding'. This gives the impression to students that things are constantly going to be new and changing. In reality we are all going to spend long periods a day doing exactly the same things. Having spoken to my mum obviously quite a lot, one of the things I appreciate most about my education is the fact that lots of lessons where "Sit down, silence, look at the whiteboard". We didn't have any of this smartboard crap or weird exercises, I much prefer learning in silent concentration. Of course we did group work and what have you, but "shut up and listen" lessons where a staple.

thats terrible sometimes out school would go on a bit about "how lucky we were to be there" and we would all think yeye, but sometimes now I hear things like this and think we really were.
In ours the year was split into three groups, and each group had 3 sets which roughly translated to set one: A*/A set two:B/ comfortable C set 3:foundation paper trying very hard to get a C. That was in maths but most subjects were the same except english and I think engineering which had 4 sets per group.
We could also stay back after school 2 nights a week if we needed extra help, there would be a teacher per set level for this but if you went to the set one thing there could be people from any of the set ones there.(although in reality there was only ever 2 or three people there each time)

now I'm not trying to argue that my school was the best in the world and no private schools are better ect because thats just silly, but if they could manage this why can't most state schools

[:)ella]

(Original post by Fallen)
Yes, they have sets, but until last year there was only one top set which was people looking at B-A* grades. It was only with much struggle that my mum managed to set up an A/A* set. Even then she gets additional funding to give private tuition to people who could get a C with lots more work, no such thing exists for high achieving pupils.


But it is important to remember that private schooling doesn't stop you from learning independently. Without false modesty, I work exceptionally well independently. There could definitely be an argument that people who can't work independently will do better at private school than at state school, but people who work independently are not disadvantaged by private education. In fact, at my school we were very encouraged to do extra work and we all did a lot of private study around our interests.

I also disagree that state school prepares you better for the future. Lots of people seem to be of the opinion that privately educated individuals live with the fairies and don't know what is happening in the 'real world'. All I can say is a lot of students don't seem to understand how much harder working at careers is than education, but I haven't noticed more from one sector or another.

One thing my mum has to do every 2-3 years is come up with a new and exciting way to teach children. She now has to do at least 4-5 activities in her one hour lessons to achieve OFSTED 'Outstanding'. This gives the impression to students that things are constantly going to be new and changing. In reality we are all going to spend long periods a day doing exactly the same things. Having spoken to my mum obviously quite a lot, one of the things I appreciate most about my education is the fact that lots of lessons where "Sit down, silence, look at the whiteboard". We didn't have any of this smartboard crap or weird exercises, I much prefer learning in silent concentration. Of course we did group work and what have you, but "shut up and listen" lessons where a staple.

But if you're saying that you're not disadvantaged by going to a private school, why not save the £20000 and go to a state school?
And 'sit down shut up' lessons have been proved by many educational studies to be not as good for learning - they teach more memorising than understanding. I can contrast the two extremely well because my two biology teachers have completely opposite teaching styles and I know which one required more revision!

[roh]

(Original post by jennifex)
Your parents are standing by what they provide in the state system, and no doubt they are excellent teachers. However it is a fact that some state school teachers are not excellent... honestly some are downright awful. It's not that there are not good teachers in the state sector, there are thousands of highly dedicated and excellent teachers who teach in state schools. But even so, private schools are much less likely to employ those teachers who are not up to scratch than state schools.

Yeah, I had the odd dire one but those are the ones that prepared me best for uni in hindsight, because they made me an independent learner. And talking to friends/relatives who go to/went private they still seemed to complain about teachers. I can see the advantage class size wise, but an averagely committed kid (I certainly didn't bust a gut at GCSE) should be able to cope in anything up to 30 I think. Obviously if you know your child is a slacker private may be more appealing.

[Billton]

The reason I am unsure is because there are probably 5/6 grammar schools within 10 miles which each offer a fantastic platform for a good education, yet would save me £10K per year.
There's no way I'd send my daughter to my previous school. Havoc broke out everyday. My future children's schools would have to actually enforce discipline.

[laura1234]

I think it depends on where you live and the type of schools available, for example I went to a state school in a good area who's exam results beat those of the nearby private schools (98% A*-C at GCSE) so for league tables and exam results there wasn't any point going to a private school, I think this was down to the strictness of the teachers and the selective entrance requirements for those living out of the catchment area, it was rare that there was ever any trouble and those seen to 'damage' the school name were thrown out instantly (the headteacher pretty much tried to run the school like a private school anyway). However it's obvious that it many cases private schools can offer something state schools can't therefore if you live in an area where the state schools aren't so great and you can afford to send your child to a private school then it's worthwhile.

[PythianLegume]

(Original post by Billton)
The reason I am unsure is because there are probably 5/6 grammar schools within 10 miles which each offer a fantastic platform for a good education, yet would save me £10K per year.
There's no way I'd send my daughter to my previous school. Havoc broke out everyday. My future children's schools would have to actually enforce discipline.

Like I said before, a grammar school system helps to prevent the culture of having to pay significant amounts of money for a decent education. In general there is no point going private if a grammar is an option (although if you are super-rich and can afford a world-class school like Eton then it still might be worth it).

[Fallen]

(Original post by boba)
thats terrible sometimes out school would go on a bit about "how lucky we were to be there" and we would all think yeye, but sometimes now I hear things like this and think we really were.
In ours the year was split into three groups, and each group had 3 sets which roughly translated to set one: A*/A set two:B/ comfortable C set 3:foundation paper trying very hard to get a C. That was in maths but most subjects were the same except english and I think engineering which had 4 sets per group.
We could also stay back after school 2 nights a week if we needed extra help, there would be a teacher per set level for this but if you went to the set one thing there could be people from any of the set ones there.(although in reality there was only ever 2 or three people there each time)

now I'm not trying to argue that my school was the best in the world and no private schools are better ect because thats just silly, but if they could manage this why can't most state schools

I don't really know, I suppose the funding isn't there and, in my eyes, when it is there it is mis-spent. I find the constant new initiatives to be stupid and expensive. Along with smartboards. My school had two of them, I only used them in D2, and thought they were an astronomical waste of money. I actually prefer whiteboards over them, why should thousands be spent by our government on devices that now can write almost as good as pens?

Another thing is that my mother is the only person in the department with a proper Mathematical degree, and she has now been drafted in to teach some Physics because she is the only one with a Physics qualification as well! She did Maths and Physics joint honours. What is even worse is that because of the system, to teach Physics she also has to teach Chemistry, and now has a split class once a week teaching them Chemistry (which she hasn't done since school herself). It honestly just baffles me.

(Original post by :)ella)
But if you're saying that you're not disadvantaged by going to a private school, why not save the £20000 and go to a state school?
And 'sit down shut up' lessons have been proved by many educational studies to be not as good for learning - they teach more memorising than understanding. I can contrast the two extremely well because my two biology teachers have completely opposite teaching styles and I know which one required more revision!

I did not mean "sit down shut up" in an authoritarian way, perhaps I misrepresented what I meant. There was lively academic discussion and questions (either for clarification or for out-of-syllabus knowledge) were encouraged, but there was none of this fad with using technology for technologies sake, or having group discussion when it just wastes time. We had fun, interesting, and interactive lessons, but none of the stupid and petty disruptions that sinkhole class time at worse schools.

I was advantaged in other ways. I loved working in an environment where everyone wanted to succeed academically and we shared knowledge we gained outside of school with each other. I actually find is vaguely similar to university, where there is no stigma on academic achievement and we are all truly passionate about what we do. Lets put it this way, I barely revised for any of my exams and came out with very good grades. I will leave it to you to infer whether that was because I memorised the material, or I understood it.

[:)ella]

(Original post by Fallen)
I don't really know, I suppose the funding isn't there and, in my eyes, when it is there it is mis-spent. I find the constant new initiatives to be stupid and expensive. Along with smartboards. My school had two of them, I only used them in D2, and thought they were an astronomical waste of money. I actually prefer whiteboards over them, why should thousands be spent by our government on devices that now can write almost as good as pens?

Another thing is that my mother is the only person in the department with a proper Mathematical degree, and she has now been drafted in to teach some Physics because she is the only one with a Physics qualification as well! She did Maths and Physics joint honours. What is even worse is that because of the system, to teach Physics she also has to teach Chemistry, and now has a split class once a week teaching them Chemistry (which she hasn't done since school herself). It honestly just baffles me.


I did not mean "sit down shut up" in an authoritarian way, perhaps I misrepresented what I meant. There was lively academic discussion and questions (either for clarification or for out-of-syllabus knowledge) were encouraged, but there was none of this fad with using technology for technologies sake, or having group discussion when it just wastes time. We had fun, interesting, and interactive lessons, but none of the stupid and petty disruptions that sinkhole class time at worse schools.

I was advantaged in other ways. I loved working in an environment where everyone wanted to succeed academically and we shared knowledge we gained outside of school with each other. I actually find is vaguely similar to university, where there is no stigma on academic achievement and we are all truly passionate about what we do. Lets put it this way, I barely revised for any of my exams and came out with very good grades. I will leave it to you to infer whether that was because I memorised the material, or I understood it.

I'm not saying state schools are better than private in every single way because I agree with a lot of what you say; I'm just not sure that it's worth all that money when there are lots of advantages to going to state schools as well. It would obviously be great to go to a school where everyone wants to learn but equally in the workplace you'd have to work with all sorts of people and it's great to be able to work in an environment where people have, shall we say, different attitudes to work.

I'd say my sixth form is a lot more like a uni than a private one - the relationship with teachers is friendly and fairly informal, we're allowed to use our free time as we wish rather than in forced study, we can dress how we like rather than smartly and we don't immediately have someone nagging if we're behind on work - it's up to us to keep up, read ahead and make sure we've covered everything on the syllabus.

[boba]

(Original post by Fallen)
I don't really know, I suppose the funding isn't there and, in my eyes, when it is there it is mis-spent. I find the constant new initiatives to be stupid and expensive. Along with smartboards. My school had two of them, I only used them in D2, and thought they were an astronomical waste of money. I actually prefer whiteboards over them, why should thousands be spent by our government on devices that now can write almost as good as pens?

Another thing is that my mother is the only person in the department with a proper Mathematical degree, and she has now been drafted in to teach some Physics because she is the only one with a Physics qualification as well! She did Maths and Physics joint honours. What is even worse is that because of the system, to teach Physics she also has to teach Chemistry, and now has a split class once a week teaching them Chemistry (which she hasn't done since school herself). It honestly just baffles me.


I did not mean "sit down shut up" in an authoritarian way, perhaps I misrepresented what I meant. There was lively academic discussion and questions (either for clarification or for out-of-syllabus knowledge) were encouraged, but there was none of this fad with using technology for technologies sake, or having group discussion when it just wastes time. We had fun, interesting, and interactive lessons, but none of the stupid and petty disruptions that sinkhole class time at worse schools.

I was advantaged in other ways. I loved working in an environment where everyone wanted to succeed academically and we shared knowledge we gained outside of school with each other. I actually find is vaguely similar to university, where there is no stigma on academic achievement and we are all truly passionate about what we do. Lets put it this way, I barely revised for any of my exams and came out with very good grades. I will leave it to you to infer whether that was because I memorised the material, or I understood it.

but our school didn't get any special funding, I guess its probably a lot to do with the bolded part about not using the money effectively. Also the underline part, what?? maybe its also a lot to do with hiring staff that are actually qualified. now not every teacher had a degree in exactly what they taught, I know of business studies teachers with economics degrees, maths teachers with physics, physics teachers with electrical engineering even. but they were all somewhat relevant and they all actually new what they were doing.
I was about to suggest a sort of scheme where crap state schools are mentored by better ones but then I remembered our school actually was part of something similar until the school we were joined with mutinied and refused to implement any of the suggested changes.

I think I will just stick to feeling incredibly lucky for receiving the education that I did for free.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by Amhorangerdgerriug)
Anyone who says a state school education is superior is simply delusional. There is so much snobbery from judgemental, 'high-horse' parents who send their kids to state schools, who try to justify their (perfectly legitimate) decision not to give their kids the best start possible in life - unless of course they can't afford it, which is an entirely different matter. I have experienced both private and state schools, and the gulf is massive. Public students do not live in a bubble, very few are actually snobs and they are almost all very well mannered and polite due to the discipline enforced by their school.

My experience of state school was living in fear every day because I was an above average student and was threatened daily for trying to make something of my education. My fellow students were primarily obnoxious wannabe gangsters who spent their time beating each other up and dragging their knuckles along the floor. The idea that you get a more balanced education, learning about society is absolute *******s; it is simply the excuse of the parents who decide to send their kids there. At my school there are kids from all different backgrounds, about 30% are on scholarships and others have parents who sacrifice a large proportion of their income to send their offspring there. Unless you have experienced private schools, I'm afraid you have no right to comment, and vice versa.

When I said this I got negged to hell and back. I've been to Grammar, comprehensive and private... If people are truly after this real life experience with hard work then Grammar is the only alternative not a comprehensive. Such a shame labour removed so many and blocked them off in the 1950's

[meenu89]

If I can afford it my kids will go private.

[Parente]

(Original post by Fallen)
My mum teaches Maths at a comprehensive and has to do exactly this. It is all about getting people up to a C grade, so who really gives a crap about people on a A/A* boundary?

Seems like you are doing pretty well though, so congrats.

Cheers haha, Yeah it really annoys me I want to get to the top but I think its unfair that a lot (Not all) dont give a crap about the better candidates. IM just trying to get as much work experience as possible so that if my grades are a bit of a let down, at least I have experience as compensation

[Fallen]

(Original post by boba)
but our school didn't get any special funding, I guess its probably a lot to do with the bolded part about not using the money effectively. Also the underline part, what?? maybe its also a lot to do with hiring staff that are actually qualified. now not every teacher had a degree in exactly what they taught, I know of business studies teachers with economics degrees, maths teachers with physics, physics teachers with electrical engineering even. but they were all somewhat relevant and they all actually new what they were doing.
I was about to suggest a sort of scheme where crap state schools are mentored by better ones but then I remembered our school actually was part of something similar until the school we were joined with mutinied and refused to implement any of the suggested changes.

I think I will just stick to feeling incredibly lucky for receiving the education that I did for free.

Well the school in question is either OFSTED "Outstanding" or "Good" (Good is second best iirc?). I am not exactly sure where the funding comes from. Schools (except acadamies and free schools I think which are govt-funded I think) are funded by local counsils, so it is possible the funding has come from them.
But this is not a failing school at all, it just has a completely different focus to

[jennifex]

(Original post by roh)
Yeah, I had the odd dire one but those are the ones that prepared me best for uni in hindsight, because they made me an independent learner. And talking to friends/relatives who go to/went private they still seemed to complain about teachers. I can see the advantage class size wise, but an averagely committed kid (I certainly didn't bust a gut at GCSE) should be able to cope in anything up to 30 I think. Obviously if you know your child is a slacker private may be more appealing.

Yeah, kids are "able to cope" in state school, obviously. But making you an independent learner doesn't excuse the fact that your teacher was bad! A good teacher would have prepared you for uni by enthusing you and encouraging independent learning in that way!

I wouldn't want to imply that I look down on state schools; my little brothers go to state school and do fine (apart from the bullying which seems to come part and parcel with being a high achiever in a state school! ) but I do sometimes wonder if their grades would have been better in private school.

I think it's personal preference at the end of the day, and depends where your priorities lie for your kids, but I don't like it when people try to turn around their horrible experiences in state schools (bullying, poor teachers) and make it seem like they were somehow beneficial. Nobody wants those things. Private schools aren't perfect but they are on the whole better in those respects.

[Debbie_xx]

Speaking as somebody who has been privately educated, I did feel that my education was benefited by the smaller class sizes on offer- I was even able to have 1 on 1 A-level music lessons with a fantastic teacher who has inspired me to take my music studies further by applying to study music at university. My parents openly admit that in an ideal world that they would have sent me to my nearest state school, but given the far from ideal results and behavioral problems that are rife at the nearest schools, coupled with the fact that my mother was bullied mercilessly and denied any form of learning assistance to help with her severe dyslexia at an awful local state school, they decided to look elsewhere- and, before people pounce on me with the usual "over-privileged, snobby, private school" stigmas, I have a scholarship place at my school, which I am incredibly lucky to have as it has enabled me to have the chance at receiving a fantastic education that my family would have otherwise been unable to afford.

[ergo30]

(Original post by Debbie_xx)
Speaking as somebody who has been privately educated, I did feel that my education was benefited by the smaller class sizes on offer- I was even able to have 1 on 1 A-level music lessons with a fantastic teacher who has inspired me to take my music studies further by applying to study music at university. My parents openly admit that in an ideal world that they would have sent me to my nearest state school, but given the far from ideal results and behavioral problems that are rife at the nearest schools, coupled with the fact that my mother was bullied mercilessly and denied any form of learning assistance to help with her severe dyslexia at an awful local state school, they decided to look elsewhere- and, before people pounce on me with the usual "over-privileged, snobby, private school" stigmas, I have a scholarship place at my school, which I am incredibly lucky to have as it has enabled me to have the chance at receiving a fantastic education that my family would have otherwise been unable to afford.

I really do feel for ya. I went to all three private,grammar and state but the best for me was grammar education. My grammar has alright facilities and offers a good education but that's just my experience.