What makes an independent school better than a state school?

What factors of an independent schools supposedly makes it better than state schools?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Scroll to see replies

I go to a comprehensive state school and one of the things that annoy me is that there is no push for the higher ability pupils.

All the focus is one getting the D grade students to a C. Once you have a C the teachers don't care about pushing you higher.

(Note: there are no grammar schools in my area so we have a very big mix of ability)

My understanding is that at independent school there is more focus on each child and making sure they succeed since the parents are paying £££££ for the school.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 2

Octohedral

Everyone gets higher grades. This is great for the A students, but it can lead to B and C students feeling stupid when they're clearly not.

The reasons for this are;
- Smaller classes (20-25 or less instead of 30).
- Higher expectations, academically and socially.
- Selective intake.

Better facilities and teachers may be true of the higher end public schools, but lower end private schools often suffer from a lack of government funding, and are by no means rich. This still means better than average facilities though.

The main difference is the atmosphere of expectation and willingness to learn, across the board (as opposed to from a select group). If your parents are paying for you to be there you have more pressure on you to do well, and you are basically taught from a young age that you will be going to university, and anything below a B is a failure.

Also, from the band of parents who can only just afford it (before it becomes a social obligation), the people most likely to spend the money are the ones who care about education. I have state school friends who are much richer than me, because their parents decided to spend the money on a better house. In some ways they have a point - education at a good state school is not much worse than at a lower end private school. However, I'd definitely go with a private school for my children, given the choice.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 3

contradicta

I think selective intake is the key any school that only selects highly achieving pupils will end up with better results that schools that let everyone in.

Reply 4

hothedgehog

There is a general culture and expectation that you will do well academically. This is assisted by good teachers and small class sizes as well as better facilities in witch to learn.

You will also find the extra curricular side of things is much better with sports teams, music and other clubs being common. You will get more opportunities at a private school for things like both school trips too.

Essentially, culture and extras are what makes a private school stand out.

Reply 5

Kvothe the Arcane

Stricter rules?
From what I understand, even at VI form, pupils at (some) private schools actually have to use their 'frees' to study.

Reply 6

Futility

Private schools generally hoard the most talented teachers due to being able to offer a higher salary. They also usually have better facilities due to investment of funds generated from tuition fees. Class sizes in private schools are nearly always smaller, and the work ethic and competitive environment typical of private schools is conducive to quick and effective learning.

Reply 7

Joinedup

Original post by Futility

there was a study a few years ago which found salaries weren't greatly different iirc... The state school teachers had a load more government b/s to deal with.

Obviously being able to select which pupils you let in is a massive advantage, quite likely the crucial one.

Reply 8

Futility

Original post by Joinedup

there was a study a few years ago which found salaries weren't greatly different iirc... The state school teachers had a load more government b/s to deal with..

Having done a brief search, I can't actually find any statistics comparing state and private school teacher salaries. In any case, whether it's due to better pay, less governmental interference, greater freedom in teaching methods or less marking (due to smaller class sizes), there's little doubt that private schools tend to attract a lot of the best qualified and most experienced teachers.

Original post by Joinedup

Obviously being able to select which pupils you let in is a massive advantage, quite likely the crucial one.

Not all private schools are academically selective though. In fact, the majority are not. Conversely, there are also some state schools (grammar) which are selective.

Reply 9

cambio wechsel

Original post by Joinedup

Obviously being able to select which pupils you let in is a massive advantage, quite likely the crucial one.

you'll never meet anyone with the money to pay who was frustrated in his want to privately school his children.

Reply 10

username878045

Original post by Futility

Not all private schools are academically selective though. In fact, the majority are not. Conversely, there are also some state schools (grammar) which are selective.

They are still socially selective, though. And it's a fact that richer pupils perform better in school.

Reply 11

cambio wechsel

Original post by PythianLegume

They are still socially selective, though. And it's a fact that richer pupils perform better in school.

I think very few independent schools can today afford to be socially selective in one sense of what this can connote - though it'll likely be a while yet before a footballer's son is enrolled at Eton. The determining criterion, then, is finances. Increasingly this is having the result that if you for some reason were to want your child to be educated in an environment where some significant proportion of his classmatees do not have English as a first language then you can look at LEA schools in Bradford or Tower Hamlets or at some of the more storied boarding schools in the land.

Reply 12

Joinedup

Original post by Futility

I was thinking of green, machin, murphy & zhu. (2010) competition for private and state school teachers.

Not all private schools are academically selective though. In fact, the majority are not. Conversely, there are also some state schools (grammar) which are selective.

selection isn't just lining up the 11 plus / entrance test results and going drawing a line across when you've filled the intake.
There's been a move over recent decades to mainstreaming children with Downs syndrome, and learning disabilities. This may be a social good but they've got to go somewhere and it's probably not a fee paying school tbh.
some non selective academies use stealth selection (allegedly).

there are teachers with phd's, is there any evidence that they are any better at teaching, it's not obvious that they should be imo... though that paper above does categorise higher teacher qualifications as higher quality (annoyingly)

Reply 13

Connor Carnegie

Original post by PythianLegume

They are still socially selective, though. And it's a fact that richer pupils perform better in school.

Hello, I go to an academy that was once a state school. The school is about average and my area's average income is probably about the average or lower when you take into account the cost of living in south london.

Anyways, I know that my school still maintains funding from the government, however I am also aware that academys have a greater deal of independence from the government, the school has been able to introduce income related pay and sack bad teachers, apparently they had to wait 6 months whilst being a fully state run comprehensive, we used to have some pretty awful teachers, who they simply couldn't get rid of. So yes I do think greater independence can be beneficial but it does leave it open to abuse and declining working conditions for teachers, but then again do teachers really have a right to moan, they seem to be relatively well paid when you take into account holidays and self satisfaction that many get from doing the job. They are also strongly unionized.

Aside: My main gripe with teachers is the overwhelmingly leftist bias that the profession has, it is somewhat expected with the strong union power and the vast majority being employed by the state. The problem is the bias I've experinced in school, for example in English in year 9 we had to evaluate news papers my English teach went on and on about the daily mail for it's bias, then she went on to praise the writing of the guardian, only briefly mentioning its blatant bias, add a spinkling of mudslinging at Rupert Murdoch and anti 'corporation' rhetoric and you have a sucessfully indoctrinated class of twelve and thirteen year olds.

Reply 14

Joinedup

Original post by cambio wechsel

you'll never meet anyone with the money to pay who was frustrated in his want to privately school his children.

if you're charging parents thousands per year, that's selection.

Reply 15

roh

Original post by Octohedral

Also, from the band of parents who can only just afford it (before it becomes a social obligation), the people most likely to spend the money are the ones who care about education. I have state school friends who are much richer than me, because their parents decided to spend the money on a better house. In some ways they have a point [B education at a good state school is not much worse than at a lower end private school

. However, I'd definitely go with a private school for my children, given the choice.

I'm sure if you're comparing the best and worst, say top 10% and bottom 10%, the state would be better. Remember there are some pretty poor private schools out there, as they get caught in the circle of poor results>falling rolls>less funding, and some very good states, places like Latymer or Wilson's.

Original post by Futility

They don't pay more, my Dad would take a sizeable pay cut to go and run the local private school ditto my Mum taking the same job as she does currently there, the appeal is in the longer holidays and relative lack of need to discipline students regularly. Incidentally my parents never wanted to (both 'top' grads).

Reply 16

roh

Original post by Connor Carnegie

Aside: My main gripe with teachers is the overwhelmingly leftist bias that the profession has, it is somewhat expected with the strong union power and the vast majority being employed by the state. The problem is the bias I've experinced in school, for example in English in year 9 we had to evaluate news papers my English teach went on and on about the daily mail for it's bias, then she went on to praise the writing of the guardian, only briefly mentioning its blatant bias, add a spinkling of mudslinging at Rupert Murdoch and anti 'corporation' rhetoric and you have a sucessfully indoctrinated class of twelve and thirteen year olds.

They're really not allowed to do that, you can make a complaint if it's that much of an issue for you. My Mum's fairly Left wing but if she ever does article analysis she keeps a note of what paper's used. For broadsheets she rotates Guardian>Times>Independent>Telegraph, then back to Grauniad, and for tabloids Sun>Mail>Mirror very deliberately.

Reply 17

Connor Carnegie

Original post by roh

I know that they are not allowed to do that, but I'm hardly going to put myself ( a 12 year old) against my degree educated English teacher, with her job on the line. Who wants the hassle, I would just be creating problems for myself.

Reply 18

roh

Original post by Connor Carnegie

You don't have to do it, your parents, and their lawyer if you want, can. Yeah she's going to fight it, but if you believe that strongly she shouldn't be doing it then fight back.

PS. Were you born post millenium? ****inell I feel old.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 19

username878045

Original post by cambio wechsel

I didn't mean socially selective as in only taking the nobility. I meant socially selective in that they only take those rich enough to afford (barring a few bursaries, but the bursary pupils will be academically selected).