Difference between private and state Post Reply

[SoConfused!]

Am with you schoolmates mum...really hope this in not really what it's going to be like as I am also gib ding these posts pretty depressing. Year 5 ...so still talking about 9/10 years old

[supergirl]

Ah ah maybe this where the french system i ve gone through will come handy!!!! Many thanks Broodje fir your detailed insights, priceless since no one as ever answered that question do openly and honestly (i pretty much ask that question to everyone). I agree with ready2pop fundamentally but i also believe in having a fair game... Gosh so tough!
But whatever Broodje describe i know (and is my forte unlike maths) so if DIY is good enough.

Please read between the line. Broodje is not describing a situation where you push a child to a level he is not, but she is saying to teach them the techniques. This what i learned when i learned in france (private secondary): depth of subjects AND techniques.

I think the conversation is very interesting. I ve learned a lot.

[papinian]

Broodje: I would like to thank you for the very insightful posts. I am a bit shocked at how much is being expected of the 11 year old, but that is I guess par for the course. You clearly are very on top of this. I feel bad for my children as I don't think I will be the same, although I have some years yet before I need to worry about it.

I don't think that we are in that much of a bubble. The new London schools atlas shows for each Council ward/local output area the percentage of children in independent schools at primary level and, separately, at secondary level. http://www.london.gov.uk/webmaps/lsa/

For secondary level and areas such as Wimbledon village, South Ken and Hampstead the percentage is over 75% (although the Lycee counts as independent for this purpose and likely contributes to South Ken's percentage). For Between the Commons and Wandsworth Common the percentage is 50% to 75%. For all of Balham it's 25% to 50%.

For primary level Wandsworth Common is still 50% to 75%. Between the Commons is lower at 25% to 50% (perhaps because of Honeywell and Belleville). On the other hand Upper Tooting and part of Nightingale Triangle is 50% to 75%.

I did not expect that the percentages in independent schools would be this high. Also, I had expected that the percentages in independent schools would be higher for secondary than for primary (because this is what the national statistics show). However, apart from the borough of Richmond-upon-Thames where the percentages in independent schools generally seem to be one category higher at secondary level, the other parts of London have the same percentage in independent schools at primary level and at secondary level.

[MGMidget]

I am finding this discussion very interesting. Thanks very much Broodje nod Papinian for your comments. I wonder how much the success story for London schools mentioned previously has been screwed by parents hysteria about tutoring or have the private school results been rolled into this success story? Given the proportion privately educated in London this could be important to know. I too am depressed about the hysteria about tutoring!

[MGMidget]

Sorry a few typos from auto correct. Thanks Broodje AND Papinian. And I wonder if the results have been scewed not screwed!

[LauraBrown]

Great data Papinian!

My eldest is in Y2 in an average Wandsworth state primary. I see very little difference between what she is doing and her peers in local private schools. I think it is a local myth that private schools are x years ahead of state school pupils.

Yes, state primary schools do not teach to the test required to enter private secondary schools. It makes me laugh that this is considered so desirable in private schools when there is so much criticism of state schools teaching to the Y6 SATS test. If people are going to need to pay for tutors anyway, not sure why you'd also pay for private school fees.

And, some more data to consider... (might be pertinent to people's questions about what impact primary experiences have on secondary results):

There was very interesting recent research that showed that children do better at secondary school where they are higher ranked relative to their peers in their particular primary school (i.e., going to a school with overall lower attainment but where your child is at the top in terms of their attainment would appear to be better than going to the school with top attainment where your child is in the middle of the pack). I must admit that I haven't read the paper in detail (lots of complex maths in there!) but it says they analysed data for more than 2 million children and the hypothesis seems to be that the confidence that comes from being at the top has a significant impact (much more pronounced effect for boys).

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1241.pdf

I also remember this article from the Guardian about children from middle class families suffering no disadvantage from going to poorly-performing state schools.

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... schools.uk

[broodje]

ready2pop,

I couldn't agree with you more! We are ruled by the "entirely self-perpetuating hysteria" and have all "gone quite mad in London." But what is there to do? I am not going to take a stand and opt out. Because you are doing just that if you don't do what everyone else does. And I am not moving out of London. So if you can't beat them, join them.

I have actually studied the results of different schools quite carefully and it's interesting how a lot of boarding schools who have a relatively broad intake achieve amazing results. Hence, my criticism of Emanuel on another thread (throw in S&C in there as well). For example, if we look at Benenden and StMary's Ascot - their results are amazing given broad intake. And they are full boarding schools (i.e not flexi/weekly boarding, limited exeats,etc) which I assume means no tutoring (or only limited) so it's the schools who have great teaching and produce results. Similarly, Woldingham (but it's not full boarding, lots of weekly). Even Wycombe Abbey is not nearly as selective at St.Paul's Girls or JAGS and their results are great. So, yes, it is a London thing but we are not considering boarding so stuck with London madness and in London you have to do what everybody else does.

With regards to your other point that a bright year old should be able to do the comprehensions I described - I can't judge. I am yet to meet such a 10 year old. I was playing with dollies and hide and seek at that age and didn't analyze literary techniques where I grew up. And in any case, I am convinced that teaching went completely downhill from those time.

Finally, what do you do if the kid is very good on on dimension but not so good on the other? Most schools are looking for excellence on all dimensions which is ridiculous - you can have a brilliant scientist/mathematician but useless at English. Does it mean they shouldn't go to a selective school and end up at Emanuel?

That's why I like StPaul's Girls - I think they really do try to select on potential and natural ability. First, you have to take a computer pre-test (CEM I think) which weeds out total unsuitables. Only then you take written tests. And heads of department reads every paper. The Head of English said he reads every paper himself and if he sees freshness/originality of thought he can live with lack of technical fluency/spelling/punctuation mistakes etc They will also look at candidates who scored really well on one paper but not on the other. Interview is important too.

JAGS's headmistress, on the other hand, was incredibly direct about just averaging out the score, taking top 120, sending offers. Done!

[ready2pop]

LauraBrown very interesting research about children doing better where they are ranked high up in their year - that was sort of what I was getting at when I asked about what effect tutoring a child to get into school and then stopping has. I'd hate to push my kids only for them to end up feeling out of their depth.

Broodje - is it really easier to get into Wycombe Abbey than JAGS these days? Wow - in my day it was the trickiest to get into and still has the most impressive record of sending them on to top unis - they get about half of them into Oxbridge.

Maybe I need to rethink my position on boarding!

[broodje]

ready2pop,

Depends on definition of "easier." For me "easier" means more predictable, more definable, plus there is a numbers game. Wycombe Abbey closes the list at 275 candidates. So there are just fewer girls sitting the tests than JAGS (where there are 500). Plus the assessment is more balanced so there is a chance for personality to shine through, all achievements considered, etc. They spend a day at the school doing a pre-tests: a computer abilitiy test (like Eton, computer adaptive by CEM I believe, can't be tutored for, not disclosed, shrouded in mystery, etc), maths, English, but also music/sports/art, how you work with other etc. Then they give you an offer conditional on passing 11+ CE at 60% (very easy!!!). So basically they take them in on the basis of that day rather than CE exam. They have to because it's a boarding school - so if a girl is very academic, but not a joiner-in, will not cope with boarding etc, she won't get it. You still need to be quite bright, but there is a difference between "quite bright, 20% top percent of national ability" and "tutored to death, has to be in top 5-7% of national ability", etc. The fact that they send a lot to Oxbridge is easy to explain - it's an academic school, but also that takes in girls who are driven, joiners-in, etc not just pure academics. The former is not really tested in SW London days schools (unless you count 20min interview) whereas Wycombe Abbey does test for attitude and drive. So if you have a quite bright 10 year old, who is Grade 4 in music, plays in an orchestra, does choir, plays in B team for hockey and netball, also likes art (I am making it all up as an illustrative example) and is a hard worker - she will get in because she will contribute to a boarding community/life, etc. They'd rather have that than a sully 10 year old who is an academic genius and Grade 8 on the violin but won't join in and can't get on with others. For selective day schools, not sure.

I think if boarding is an option, you can be a lot more relaxed about the whole thing - no need for the levels of stress that London day school process causes. HOWEVER, boarding schools are also becoming a lot more selective, and the ones that used to take in kids on prep head's recommendation alone and 50-55% CE pass, are introducing pre-tests in Yr6, increasing CE pass mark to 60-65%, etc. I guess they have increasing demand form London refugees and overseas...

[LauraBrown]

On the boarding school front (and i should declare by bias as I will be sending my children to state school although I could (currently) afford private), did anyone see the recent series about Harrow? It certainly backed up the comments above about being well-rounded - the boys essentially were not allowed to 'chill'. If not doing schoolwork, they had to be doing music or sport or 'something useful'. It made me realise that people who have been to boarding schools have been trained for constant working and focus - and I think this shows in some people I know at work (who are VERY successful as a result!). I'm not sure if this is desirable or not - the best parts of my life have involved chilling with friends doing nothing, especially as a teenager. And despite my laziness, I've still managed to become reasonably professionally successful (whatever that really means!). It does concern me that CV points must be pursued doggedly from primary school times and 11 year olds assessed on how driven they are as evidenced by all that CV point activity! I recently received a CV for a job where the person noted that they had been Head Boy of their Primary School!!

[BFW]

Maybe I am missing something ... and I am probably being completely naive about this !!! I didn't go to school in this country and in my country everyone is state educated so I do find the prospect of secondary school in the UK rather daunting !

But following this thread I had a quick chat with the headmaster at our Prep School and he told me that the children are specifically "trained" (sorry I can't think of a better word!) for entrance exams at London day schools and boarding schools and there should be no need for extra tutoring. For example next week all classes from Year 1 have exams. These are not designed to be stressful but just something that the school does to get the children used to the process of sitting an exam (the Year 1 last year had crisps and juices in the exam to make the experience less stressful) and my children do not seem worried about it all. I was told that some children might require specific tutoring in a subject (which can be done at school) but certainly not to the extent described by Broodje?

So my question is - is this standard and despite this all parents tutor anyway and don't tell the school ? Most of the parents in the school I chatted to don't tutor their children (even in year 5 / 6)... so are they all lying to me and they are actually all really tutoring ??

I find this process very stressful / depressing.... and with a year 4 kid I guess its probably something i need to think about ?!

[Mistletoe]

Almost everyone tutors in Year 6, state or indy.

The stakes are too high.

The only people who don't, and they will loudly tell you they don't, are SAHM with degrees in a million subjects who are as good as a tutor and so in effect they are.

A head of an indy school will ALWAYS say not to tutor, otherwise he is saying they don't do their job properly, but they're all tutored.

Trust me, made the same mistake myself.

The even bigger fibbers are the grammar schools.

I went to an open evening for one and nodded when the head said "you don't need to tutor a bright boy".

Absolute bollocks.

EVERY boy who passed the exam, EVERY boy, I met was tutored and for TWO years in advance.

[schoolgatesmum]

I saw a fantastic film reently called Race to Nowhere which is a documentary from America all about the pressure that children are under to ensure that they are "successful" in life. It was really scary - so many burnt out kids even suicide. Now I'm not wanting to scaremonger and this was in the States and not here, but the whole drive towards getting the best school for your child so they can go to a top Uni so they can enter a top profession is what these kids were under pressure to do. And they all had to play an instrument, be good at a sport, speak a foreign language etc. If you get a chance to see it, it's very enlightening http://www.racetonowhere.com/about-film

[AbbevilleMummy]

This is not new in the UK though.

I remember being tutored for my 11+ exams and that was over 20 years ago.

And I'm sure my parents stressed about the right school to get into, the right uni etc etc back then.

I don't think much has changed, its now just our turn to worry about it and so its become high on our agendas but it has always been there.

[AbbevilleMummy]

Also, I was in the top sets in my primary, had all the extension classes etc but still had to be tutored.