why do private schools do better than state schools?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by sabian92
True, large classes are a nightmare. My entire GCSE experience was in large classes with people who didn't want to bother.
I hated it and came out of it with 1 C, 5 Ds, 2 Es and an F. Probably my attitude of "if I don't like it I won't bother" didn't help either
I hated it and came out of it with 1 C, 5 Ds, 2 Es and an F. Probably my attitude of "if I don't like it I won't bother" didn't help either
Even though people do say I can't achieve anything, I try my hardest to achieve and work at home to do so. My English class at one stage had 32 people in. Luckily, there are only 22 now as they decided to create 2 new English classes to reduce class sizes.
Original post by Ilyas
teaching at my public school was terrible. We'd often have supplies, unmotivated teachers etc you get the idea. Also, students at public schools are generally poorer and have had rougher upbringings and this rubs off on to other pupils until being a 'badman' is the norm.
Are you sure you don't mean state school?
Inculcated values, competitive teaching opportunities, more spending control, better facilities. It's better in the obvious ways, entrance exams wouldn't really be a reliable factor.
Original post by Octohedral
Really? When I went to a state school (before going to a private school) I'd never even heard of private schools. There was just 'school', and a vague knowledge that some small part of the population went somewhere else.
That said, expectation plays a huge part. At state schools Bs are seen as good, at private schools they are seen as a failure (in general). It can actually be a disadvantage to go to a private school for a few pupils - because it is selective if you are at the bottom at a private school you will feel stupid, wheras nationally you are probably average. If you expect to get high marks, and are expected to, you are far more likely to get high marks.
That said, expectation plays a huge part. At state schools Bs are seen as good, at private schools they are seen as a failure (in general). It can actually be a disadvantage to go to a private school for a few pupils - because it is selective if you are at the bottom at a private school you will feel stupid, wheras nationally you are probably average. If you expect to get high marks, and are expected to, you are far more likely to get high marks.
I obviously want to get as many B's or above as possible. That is what I am predicted anyway.
Private schools often have selective entrance requirements, so they're mostly taking pupils who are likely to do well to begin with.
Pupils who go to private schools tend to come from families of rich, educated people and high achievers, and are more likely to see this as the norm. They're less likely to be satisfied with average or mediocre achievements, and are more likely to consider education to be a priority. (e.g. a pupil from a family of Oxbridge graduates might consider it of paramount importance that he gets into Oxbridge himself, so that he lives up to the norms and expectations that are naturally upon him - whereas a pupil from a family of people who left school at 16 might be overjoyed just to get into any university, because even that by itself will do his family proud.) Their parents are also likely to give them more encouragement and put more pressure on them with regards to their studies, and bring them up in such a way that education is their main priority, and their life revolves around it - because that is how they are likely to have been brought up themselves.
Similar to the previous point - even if a person does not come from a family of high achievers, if he goes to a private school (e.g. on a bursary or scholarship), he will be surrounded by other people who are from families of high achievers, or who are high achievers themselves as a result. They're then less likely to be satisfied with average grades, when everyone else around them is getting brilliant grades. (You can see this in the way that many state schools propagate the idea that a "good GCSE" is any grade from A* to C, and that an acceptably successful student is one who gets at least five of these. Whereas in most private schools, a person who only got 5 C grades at GCSE would probably have the worst grades in his year, and would probably also be asked to leave.) How hard you work will depend on how important you think it is to do well, and also how high you set the bar. And a person whose friends are all getting 12A*s won't set the bar at 5 C's.
It's possible that to some extent, the intelligence required to do well at school is simply inherited. People who can afford to send their children to private school are likely to have highly paid jobs, which require intelligent people to do them. And so their children might just turn out to be naturally more intelligent. Although this is probably a weaker point, as intelligence alone is certainly not enough to succeed with GCSEs and A-Levels.
Private schools have the money to pay for good teachers, better learning equipment and resources etc. and the parents of private school pupils are more likely to be able to pay for extra tuition, books and learning resources at home, and may be able to help educate the children themselves. Again, I think this is a weaker point though. Money and resources alone aren't enough to succeed with GCSE's and A-Levels either - your teachers and parents can't sit the exams for you.
I think the main reason is the one discussed in my two largest paragraphs - that pupils are more likely to work hard if they have high aspirations. Everyone wants to be successful, but different people have different definitions of what "success" is. But it will usually depend on who you're surrounded by at school, and at home. If you're always surrounded by highly educated people, then "success" will probably mean getting a good education, and you'll want to work harder towards it.
Pupils who go to private schools tend to come from families of rich, educated people and high achievers, and are more likely to see this as the norm. They're less likely to be satisfied with average or mediocre achievements, and are more likely to consider education to be a priority. (e.g. a pupil from a family of Oxbridge graduates might consider it of paramount importance that he gets into Oxbridge himself, so that he lives up to the norms and expectations that are naturally upon him - whereas a pupil from a family of people who left school at 16 might be overjoyed just to get into any university, because even that by itself will do his family proud.) Their parents are also likely to give them more encouragement and put more pressure on them with regards to their studies, and bring them up in such a way that education is their main priority, and their life revolves around it - because that is how they are likely to have been brought up themselves.
Similar to the previous point - even if a person does not come from a family of high achievers, if he goes to a private school (e.g. on a bursary or scholarship), he will be surrounded by other people who are from families of high achievers, or who are high achievers themselves as a result. They're then less likely to be satisfied with average grades, when everyone else around them is getting brilliant grades. (You can see this in the way that many state schools propagate the idea that a "good GCSE" is any grade from A* to C, and that an acceptably successful student is one who gets at least five of these. Whereas in most private schools, a person who only got 5 C grades at GCSE would probably have the worst grades in his year, and would probably also be asked to leave.) How hard you work will depend on how important you think it is to do well, and also how high you set the bar. And a person whose friends are all getting 12A*s won't set the bar at 5 C's.
It's possible that to some extent, the intelligence required to do well at school is simply inherited. People who can afford to send their children to private school are likely to have highly paid jobs, which require intelligent people to do them. And so their children might just turn out to be naturally more intelligent. Although this is probably a weaker point, as intelligence alone is certainly not enough to succeed with GCSEs and A-Levels.
Private schools have the money to pay for good teachers, better learning equipment and resources etc. and the parents of private school pupils are more likely to be able to pay for extra tuition, books and learning resources at home, and may be able to help educate the children themselves. Again, I think this is a weaker point though. Money and resources alone aren't enough to succeed with GCSE's and A-Levels either - your teachers and parents can't sit the exams for you.
I think the main reason is the one discussed in my two largest paragraphs - that pupils are more likely to work hard if they have high aspirations. Everyone wants to be successful, but different people have different definitions of what "success" is. But it will usually depend on who you're surrounded by at school, and at home. If you're always surrounded by highly educated people, then "success" will probably mean getting a good education, and you'll want to work harder towards it.
As someone who attended a state school up north and then taught at one of the top private schools in the country (not Westminster etc. but close) I would personally rate the following as the reasons for the gap (in order of importance!)
[Note: this is edited from a post I wrote about the difference between Oxbridge intakes so it might not read that nicely with bits missing, but most of the arguments are the same]
1) Intake- plain and simple, the top private schools are highly selective. The very best (from those who can afford it) will generally choose to attend the best schools and are joined by the very best from those who can't afford it but get bursaries (which are becoming more and more available). Those who are intelligent when they join at 11+/13+ are unsurprisingly more likely to still be achieving high grades at A Level.
2) Attitude- that of the school, students and parents in equal measure (or maybe leaning towards the latter two). The school expects the students to achieve high standards. The students are constantly exposed to competition with other high flying students and this means they want to be the best. I struggled to imagine this when my friends at uni told me about this attitude but you have to really work to stand out and naturally want to be recognised when you are talented at something. For the parents, not only are they encouraging high ambitions from an early age but in general they are much more actively involved in ensuring their child is working hard- an influence that should not be underestimated!
3) Teaching- largely as a result of the intake being taught and partly as a result of being able to attract the best qualified graduates who are entering teaching. Top sets contain students of such a high calibre that it is easy to go far past the syllabus and develop a sense of rigour and need to defend your arguments from a very early age. Bottom sets at these schools DO contain students who would be in top sets at the vast majority of state schools and therefore it is not difficult to see why the top students at state schools are not put in a position where they can be fully stretched or exposed to a full breadth of material.
[Note: this is edited from a post I wrote about the difference between Oxbridge intakes so it might not read that nicely with bits missing, but most of the arguments are the same]
1) Intake- plain and simple, the top private schools are highly selective. The very best (from those who can afford it) will generally choose to attend the best schools and are joined by the very best from those who can't afford it but get bursaries (which are becoming more and more available). Those who are intelligent when they join at 11+/13+ are unsurprisingly more likely to still be achieving high grades at A Level.
2) Attitude- that of the school, students and parents in equal measure (or maybe leaning towards the latter two). The school expects the students to achieve high standards. The students are constantly exposed to competition with other high flying students and this means they want to be the best. I struggled to imagine this when my friends at uni told me about this attitude but you have to really work to stand out and naturally want to be recognised when you are talented at something. For the parents, not only are they encouraging high ambitions from an early age but in general they are much more actively involved in ensuring their child is working hard- an influence that should not be underestimated!
3) Teaching- largely as a result of the intake being taught and partly as a result of being able to attract the best qualified graduates who are entering teaching. Top sets contain students of such a high calibre that it is easy to go far past the syllabus and develop a sense of rigour and need to defend your arguments from a very early age. Bottom sets at these schools DO contain students who would be in top sets at the vast majority of state schools and therefore it is not difficult to see why the top students at state schools are not put in a position where they can be fully stretched or exposed to a full breadth of material.
Original post by tazarooni89
Private schools often have selective entrance requirements, so they're mostly taking pupils who are likely to do well to begin with.
Pupils who go to private schools tend to come from families of rich, educated people and high achievers, and are more likely to see this as the norm. They're less likely to be satisfied with average or mediocre achievements, and are more likely to consider education to be a priority. (e.g. a pupil from a family of Oxbridge graduates might consider it of paramount importance that he gets into Oxbridge himself, so that he lives up to the norms and expectations that are naturally upon him - whereas a pupil from a family of people who left school at 16 might be overjoyed just to get into any university, because even that by itself will do his family proud.) Their parents are also likely to give them more encouragement and put more pressure on them with regards to their studies, and bring them up in such a way that education is their main priority, and their life revolves around it - because that is how they are likely to have been brought up themselves.
Similar to the previous point - even if a person does not come from a family of high achievers, if he goes to a private school (e.g. on a bursary or scholarship), he will be surrounded by other people who are from families of high achievers, or who are high achievers themselves as a result. They're then less likely to be satisfied with average grades, when everyone else around them is getting brilliant grades. (You can see this in the way that many state schools propagate the idea that a "good GCSE" is any grade from A* to C, and that an acceptably successful student is one who gets at least five of these. Whereas in most private schools, a person who only got 5 C grades at GCSE would probably have the worst grades in his year, and would probably also be asked to leave.) How hard you work will depend on how important you think it is to do well, and also how high you set the bar. And a person whose friends are all getting 12A*s won't set the bar at 5 C's.
It's possible that to some extent, the intelligence required to do well at school is simply inherited. People who can afford to send their children to private school are likely to have highly paid jobs, which require intelligent people to do them. And so their children might just turn out to be naturally more intelligent. Although this is probably a weaker point, as intelligence alone is certainly not enough to succeed with GCSEs and A-Levels.
Private schools have the money to pay for good teachers, better learning equipment and resources etc. and the parents of private school pupils are more likely to be able to pay for extra tuition, books and learning resources at home, and may be able to help educate the children themselves. Again, I think this is a weaker point though. Money and resources alone aren't enough to succeed with GCSE's and A-Levels either - your teachers and parents can't sit the exams for you.
I think the main reason is the one discussed in my two largest paragraphs - that pupils are more likely to work hard if they have high aspirations. Everyone wants to be successful, but different people have different definitions of what "success" is. But it will usually depend on who you're surrounded by at school, and at home. If you're always surrounded by highly educated people, then "success" will probably mean getting a good education, and you'll want to work harder towards it.
Pupils who go to private schools tend to come from families of rich, educated people and high achievers, and are more likely to see this as the norm. They're less likely to be satisfied with average or mediocre achievements, and are more likely to consider education to be a priority. (e.g. a pupil from a family of Oxbridge graduates might consider it of paramount importance that he gets into Oxbridge himself, so that he lives up to the norms and expectations that are naturally upon him - whereas a pupil from a family of people who left school at 16 might be overjoyed just to get into any university, because even that by itself will do his family proud.) Their parents are also likely to give them more encouragement and put more pressure on them with regards to their studies, and bring them up in such a way that education is their main priority, and their life revolves around it - because that is how they are likely to have been brought up themselves.
Similar to the previous point - even if a person does not come from a family of high achievers, if he goes to a private school (e.g. on a bursary or scholarship), he will be surrounded by other people who are from families of high achievers, or who are high achievers themselves as a result. They're then less likely to be satisfied with average grades, when everyone else around them is getting brilliant grades. (You can see this in the way that many state schools propagate the idea that a "good GCSE" is any grade from A* to C, and that an acceptably successful student is one who gets at least five of these. Whereas in most private schools, a person who only got 5 C grades at GCSE would probably have the worst grades in his year, and would probably also be asked to leave.) How hard you work will depend on how important you think it is to do well, and also how high you set the bar. And a person whose friends are all getting 12A*s won't set the bar at 5 C's.
It's possible that to some extent, the intelligence required to do well at school is simply inherited. People who can afford to send their children to private school are likely to have highly paid jobs, which require intelligent people to do them. And so their children might just turn out to be naturally more intelligent. Although this is probably a weaker point, as intelligence alone is certainly not enough to succeed with GCSEs and A-Levels.
Private schools have the money to pay for good teachers, better learning equipment and resources etc. and the parents of private school pupils are more likely to be able to pay for extra tuition, books and learning resources at home, and may be able to help educate the children themselves. Again, I think this is a weaker point though. Money and resources alone aren't enough to succeed with GCSE's and A-Levels either - your teachers and parents can't sit the exams for you.
I think the main reason is the one discussed in my two largest paragraphs - that pupils are more likely to work hard if they have high aspirations. Everyone wants to be successful, but different people have different definitions of what "success" is. But it will usually depend on who you're surrounded by at school, and at home. If you're always surrounded by highly educated people, then "success" will probably mean getting a good education, and you'll want to work harder towards it.
Totally agree with you. And grammar schools totally filled that gap.
Original post by RibenaRockstar
Totally agree with you. And grammar schools totally filled that gap.
wish i went to a grammar school... but there were none near my house and there was a really good catholic state school
. which is ludicrously strict 
... i once got accused of throwing a glue stick at a teacher because the table was on a slant and the glue stick rolled off and fell on her foot as she was walking past! also, 3 lates means a detentionOriginal post by JPL9457
wish i went to a grammar school... but there were none near my house and there was a really good catholic state school . which is ludicrously strict ... i once got accused of throwing a glue stick at a teacher because the table was on a slant and the glue stick rolled off and fell on her foot as she was walking past! also, 3 lates means a detention
. which is ludicrously strict ... i once got accused of throwing a glue stick at a teacher because the table was on a slant and the glue stick rolled off and fell on her foot as she was walking past! also, 3 lates means a detentionLots of very good comps fill the gaps too, and faith schools especially
Could be that the type of parents who want to send their children to private schools are going to be a bit pushy.
Also, as others have mentioned public school =/= state school.
I went to a state school and I don't feel disadvantaged in any way, but then that was in East Sussex so probably a world apart from a state school in east London for example.
At least I don't live in a bubble, like a lot of the privately educated people I know.
Also, as others have mentioned public school =/= state school.
I went to a state school and I don't feel disadvantaged in any way, but then that was in East Sussex so probably a world apart from a state school in east London for example.
At least I don't live in a bubble, like a lot of the privately educated people I know.
I think there's two main reasons.
1) better discipline - you're not going to pay x thousand pounds a year if your child is going to waste their education, so most kids that end up in private schools are those that actually want to learn.
2) success breeds success - the fact of the matter is, the kind of people that can afford private school fees are predominantly clever people who went to good universities and got good jobs. Clever parents also tend to bring up clever children (usually). Thus it's not much of a surprise that the people that go to private schools do tend to be more intelligent on average than state schools, which are obliged to take everyone from the complete genii to the idiots.
1) better discipline - you're not going to pay x thousand pounds a year if your child is going to waste their education, so most kids that end up in private schools are those that actually want to learn.
2) success breeds success - the fact of the matter is, the kind of people that can afford private school fees are predominantly clever people who went to good universities and got good jobs. Clever parents also tend to bring up clever children (usually). Thus it's not much of a surprise that the people that go to private schools do tend to be more intelligent on average than state schools, which are obliged to take everyone from the complete genii to the idiots.
ye i know a school which was not a faith school but changed to church of england so that they could get less savages in the school... did not work. a boy was stabbed in the head with a pencil http://www.crosbyherald.co.uk/news/crosby-news/2012/11/29/pupil-arrested-after-classroom-pencil-stabbing-68459-32326291/
Just thought I'd be contrary.
A mixture of reasons really
1. Smaller class sizes and higher pressure for good results
2. A higher concentration of children from middle class homes who have been shown get better grades due to more encouragement at home to do well and more help from parents who have often been more successful in their own education
3. They often have entrance exams
1. Smaller class sizes and higher pressure for good results
2. A higher concentration of children from middle class homes who have been shown get better grades due to more encouragement at home to do well and more help from parents who have often been more successful in their own education
3. They often have entrance exams
Original post by RibenaRockstar
Totally agree with you. And grammar schools totally filled that gap.
True. In the area I live in, the schools belonging to the King Edward VI Foundation seem to dominate the academic rankings, and most of these are grammar schools. They're well on par with, and usually exceed most of the other private schools in the area - even though the parents who send their children there don't necessarily have that much money.
I think the main key to success is hard work, which will come from any child brought up in a culture of hard work.
Original post by JPL9457
i once asked a friend who moved from a private school to my state school and he could not put his finger on why private schools usually do better than state schools. the only reasons i can think of are that: a lot of private schools require an entrance exam, which means that they do not get any very unacademic people; intelligence is somewhat inherited, usually the really clever people i know have some really clever parents (although i know someone who is on As and A* at GCSE and his dad is a postman who left school with no qualifications); the pupils will be more willing to work hard and lastly, private schools are less likely to have disruptive pupils.
are there any other reasons that i have missed out?
are there any other reasons that i have missed out?
I can lay it all out for you crystal clear. And for all those bob-heads who try and spin up Private school as public school, for the purpose of my argument I will refer to fee paying schools as Private schools and LEA-administered non fee paying schools as state schools.
1) Attitude:
Having been to both, the general attitude towards education and studying at a private school is completely different, almost all students are focused on their education, their subjects, what career they want to study, which universities they would like to go to.
Conversely, at a state school you'll find a significant proportion of 'coasters' and people who don't really want to be there but have to, less so when you get to Sixth-Form College but still a significant minority. Academic achievement is second, third or the last priority for most people and other aspirations such as social acceptance, partying, being a clown - Usually take dominance.
2) Class sizes:
At my current college (state school), the average size of my classes are about 18-20 to 1 teacher, while this is not a terribly bad ratio, it does mean that you won't be able to put forward all your ideas / questions in lesson time and in order to really iron out any problems you have you'll need to take your initiative and arrange / meet / hunt-down your teachers.
At a private college nearby classes are limited to under 10 students and often there is an additional 'support' teacher also present in the room who will be walking around and helping you with your work and such, obviously with such a smaller number of pupils the teacher can give more time to each student for personal help and support, it's a numbers game.
3) Resources:
Most state schools are hard pressed for cash, you'd be lucky to be using your own laptop / pc during IT lessons and will usually have to share between 2 or sometimes even 3. This is often not the case at private schools where due to the high-fees which are charged the school can afford to have an ample amount of laptops / PC's.
I use computers for this example but it often applies to anything from mini-whiteboards to practical equipment in science lessons and art equipment.
NB:
This is not a hard and fast rule, there are a fair few 'private schools' out there which are below average and easily trumped by the better state schools. But when you start looking at the more prestigious private schools (which often means they are more expensive) then you see a clear cut away from the same league as state schools.
Original post by Ilyas
teaching at my public school was terrible. We'd often have supplies, unmotivated teachers etc you get the idea. Also, students at public schools are generally poorer and have had rougher upbringings and this rubs off on to other pupils until being a 'badman' is the norm.
I think you mean comprehensive. A 'public' school is a posh type of private school ie a boarding school type thing. Places like Harrow and Eton are public schools.
Original post by pink pineapple
Are you sure you don't mean state school?
Original post by redferry
I think you mean comprehensive. A 'public' school is a posh type of private school ie a boarding school type thing. Places like Harrow and Eton are public schools.
Sorry about that. Yes, i meant state school.
after watching freedom writers, i got the impression that stress has something to do with it. from something so serious as being homeless to your parents divorce which happened years ago, pupils can not concentrate as well when stresses. particularly in freedom writers, the kids were worried that somebody of another ethnicity would draw a gun out on them or beat them up.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is it not considered "cool" to have went to private school anymore?
- is going from a private to a state school a big change?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- My parents are going to put me into state school for a levels so uni admissions easie
- Contextual offer debate
- Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain
- Anybody else sometimes feel guilty about having attended a private school?
- Widening Participation Rant
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- Why are state educated people looked down on?
- cambridge history gcses
- Why is the GSCE system so unfair and how it is disruptive towards teenagers
- private school IGCSEs
- Private schools
- Is grammar school actually better?
- Fitting in at Exeter
- Is it worth resitting any of my gcses with these results?
- Does LSE favour private school applicants
- opinions on scrapping GCSEs?
- international admission
Latest
Posted 15 minutes ago
Should I accept my offer at LCF or wait another year and apply for CSM again?Last reply 26 minutes ago
Virgin/O2 Technology Placement - Virtual Assessment and embarrassing questionLast reply 32 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 39 minutes ago
What games did everybody play on their computers at school or when they were youngerGaming
11
Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Veterinary Medicine Applicants thread 2024 entryLast reply 1 hour ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 17 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 15 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 17 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
