What's wrong with the schooling here?

[Peach]

Peaches, you are so misguided. Having taught over 6000 students for 32 years in 9 schools, I can only say you are utterly and absolutely wrong.

 

Tell me in what way I am wrong )

[Ali B]

It would take longer than a post. You'd need to see first hand.

I teach in a very poor school in a wealthy area with lots of available private schools. 15-20% refugees (who are amongst the hardest working most inspiring kids I have EVER taught and they regularly set the bar high for any kid or teacher around them). We have families who are poorer than most in the area but who are worth their weight in gold.

 

I can think of five families in the entire school that fit your description of "waste of space" people and the kids are a pain so I kick them out of lessons if they don't work or affect other kids. They are dealt with.

 

One of my worst kids is super rich and has just been kicked out of a local private school after 8yrs of bullying other kids with snide remarks. They asked him to leave. In the meantime families have paid good money to have him in their kids classes and its taken 8 yrs for them to deal with him. There is a lack of transparency in Private schools bc it would affect marketing.

 

The boy is a foul mouthed and foul minded kid with arrogance. He makes everyone feel worthless and crap. I guess that's what I generally despise about private schools. A smugness that money makes you "nicer and better than others". It doesn't. It just means you are richer. And the kids and families judge people who aren't.

[Gbye grey sky]

I suspect that Peach is perhaps not expressing the point so well but in my experience how people fare when leaving school can come down to connections as much, if not more, than qualifications and hard work. Certainly in the UK it must be said that those connections can convey considerable advantages over kids going through the state systems. Who you know rather than what you know. Not the only factor as smaller class sizes are a big factor here but should not be discounted IMO.

[Booma]

It would take longer than a post. You'd need to see first hand.

I teach in a very poor school in a wealthy area with lots of available private schools. 15-20% refugees (who are amongst the hardest working most inspiring kids I have EVER taught and they regularly set the bar high for any kid or teacher around them). We have families who are poorer than most in the area but who are worth their weight in gold.

 

I can think of five families in the entire school that fit your description of "waste of space" people and the kids are a pain so I kick them out of lessons if they don't work or affect other kids. They are dealt with.

 

One of my worst kids is super rich and has just been kicked out of a local private school after 8yrs of bullying other kids with snide remarks. They asked him to leave. In the meantime families have paid good money to have him in their kids classes and its taken 8 yrs for them to deal with him. There is a lack of transparency in Private schools bc it would affect marketing.

 

The boy is a foul mouthed and foul minded kid with arrogance. He makes everyone feel worthless and crap. I guess that's what I generally despise about private schools. A smugness that money makes you "nicer and better than others". It doesn't. It just means you are richer. And the kids and families judge people who aren't.

 

 

i teach in a public school & think the level of education between pubic & private is much of a muchness in oz. both are very good. i would prefer to send my children to private though or to a public school with children from higher socioeconomic areas for the reasons you list in your post.

 

at least private schools can ask children to leave but public schools are stuck with them. also when i taught in a lower socioeconomic area with a high migrant intake from non english speaking countries i spent more time on basic english skills and managing behavioural problems than in actual teaching of the curriculum.

[Peach]

It would take longer than a post. You'd need to see first hand.

I teach in a very poor school in a wealthy area with lots of available private schools. 15-20% refugees (who are amongst the hardest working most inspiring kids I have EVER taught and they regularly set the bar high for any kid or teacher around them). We have families who are poorer than most in the area but who are worth their weight in gold.

 

I can think of five families in the entire school that fit your description of "waste of space" people and the kids are a pain so I kick them out of lessons if they don't work or affect other kids. They are dealt with.

 

One of my worst kids is super rich and has just been kicked out of a local private school after 8yrs of bullying other kids with snide remarks. They asked him to leave. In the meantime families have paid good money to have him in their kids classes and its taken 8 yrs for them to deal with him. There is a lack of transparency in Private schools bc it would affect marketing.

 

The boy is a foul mouthed and foul minded kid with arrogance. He makes everyone feel worthless and crap. I guess that's what I generally despise about private schools. A smugness that money makes you "nicer and better than others". It doesn't. It just means you are richer. And the kids and families judge people who aren't.

 

So again, what is wrong with my comment "all you can hope for by sending your kids private is a better peer group"... That is all I have said. All you can HOPE for is a better set of kids.... I've never said that is what you actually get..

Edited September 14, 2014 by Peach

[Ali B]

i teach in a public school & think the level of education between pubic & private is much of a muchness in oz. both are very good. i would prefer to send my children to private though or to a public school with children from higher socioeconomic areas for the reasons you list in your post.

 

at least private schools can ask children to leave but public schools are stuck with them. also when i taught in a lower socioeconomic area with a high migrant intake from non english speaking countries i spent more time on basic english skills and managing behavioural problems than in actual teaching of the curriculum.

 

Migrant children have 6 months automatic free places in Intensive Language schools before joining mainstream govt schools. Government schools also have funding for EAL (english alternative language) staff to continue teaching them separately. We have an EAL department with 8 staff who support/teach migrant students. And they are very effective. English lessons are split so the EAL kids have a separate class and support teacher for mainstream curriculum plus language acquisition, while the rest of the group does normal mainstream curriculum.

 

Any school private or govt that allows its unruly students to interfere with the learning of others and doesn't deal with it immediately is a failure. My ex-private student's previous private school was, because it sat on the problem for 8 yrs. There is always something that can be done. You should have had more support in your previous school with those students.

[Ali B]

So again, what is wrong with my comment "all you can hope for by sending your kids private is a better peer group"... That is all I have said. All you can HOPE for is a better set of kids.... I've never said that is what you actually get..

 

You also said

Kids at private schools are more likely to have parents with professional jobs and wealthier economic backgrounds, conversely in public schools the opposite is often true. So do you want your kids to hang out with children who know what working hard can achieve or the children whose families rely on benefits, don't work, or where being a larrikin with the police is part of the norm? Obviously there are great public schools and not so great private ones.

 

This is unbelievably offensive on every level Peach. You appear to be saying government schools are often full of spongers, lazy thicko's and criminals! Apart from being ABSOLUTELY wrong it's a very bigoted thing to say.

 

I'm not going to comment anymore as I don't think you and I will agree. We're in opposing camps on this one.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Ali B

[ramot]

I suspect that Peach is perhaps not expressing the point so well but in my experience how people fare when leaving school can come down to connections as much, if not more, than qualifications and hard work. Certainly in the UK it must be said that those connections can convey considerable advantages over kids going through the state systems. Who you know rather than what you know. Not the only factor as smaller class sizes are a big factor here but should not be discounted IMO.

 

I don't know the age of other posters children, but my oldest is 42, and I have first hand knowledge of the amount of net working that goes on between parents to further their children's career prospects and that of their friends in the private schools.This is from a service background and private schools as against state schools as mine have gone to a mix of each. Can only speak for my experience, but there is a vast difference of the 'help' parents gave to each other in the 2 systems, definitely seemed to help who you know, even if equally qualified.

 

please don't assume that I am either for against either system, I am only commentating about what I personally have been aware of.

Edited September 14, 2014 by ramot

[Ali B]

Yes Ramot and therefore there is a huge amount of potential talent in govt schools that is not being tapped because employers are only considering their mate's kids. What a waste. People often say "cream will always float". My husband says "**** does too"...

[Ali B]

We also lost a top kid from yr 11 who was told at a Military Officers recruitment interview that he wouldn't be considered unless he could have a private school on his CV. He moved for his last year of schooling which was highly disruptive for him. Not everyone can do that. Another example of how employers are losing potentially golden candidates.

[Peach]

This is unbelievably offensive on every level Peach. You appear to be saying government schools are often full of spongers, lazy thicko's and criminals! Apart from being ABSOLUTELY wrong it's a very bigoted thing to say.

 

I'm not going to comment anymore as I don't think you and I will agree. We're in opposing camps on this one.

 

I'm not in any camp nor am I a bigot. It is a fact that the wealthier you get the more likely you are to send your kids to a private school. FACT. The poorer you are the less likely you are to send your your kids to a private school. FACT.

[Playghirl]

I'm a teacher in an independent school. Daughter in Kindy at local public. Taught in uk in both. I prefer the Aussie system.

[ksarah]

This summation of research (UK + Oz) into high schools is rather interesting:

http://theconversation.com/state-school-kids-do-better-at-uni-29155

[milliem]

Peach,

people need honesty about reasons for buying private education anywhere in the world.

Couple of reasons.

They think buying something automatically = better quality. They think their kids will mix with richer therefore better people (because if you don't have money you are failures OR don't care about paying for your children.)

They think buying education = buying business contacts in a rich world with nicer richer and better behaved people. Money also buys arrogance and better drugs in teenage years.

They think private schools have better teachers, will get better results for their kids and will look after their kids better.

They think private schools will surround their kids with nice kids, better opportunities and will protect their kids better from the nasty outside world.

All of these are by and large myths but contain an element of truth, lets be honest.

Money does not and cannot buy you a life but it does give you a few extra choices.

 

Private school kids do learn to look down on others, often sneer at teachers by the time they are in yr 11/12 senior school because if teachers had real ooomph they wouldn't be teachers. Teachers are only useful to ensure grades to get a foothold in a job with one of mother/father's contacts.

Many not all learn that money buys grades (private schools often "require" staff to produce high grades because parents don't pay for Ds and Es so students are spoon-fed work. I have many friends who have worked in both systems and seen this 1st hand)

Many not all private school kids who drop out of tertiary courses because they haven't properly learnt resilience and study skills.

Many not all when faced with studying really hard, independently, can't hack it.

Many not all families that fall on hard times see the hard face of private schools who kick them out unceremoniously if cheques bounce. I have interviewed MANY weeping parents begging to enrol in good government schools they should have considered in the first place.

 

Sorry Peach. If you choose private, just be honest, you are buying privilege, nice uniform, not necessarily the best type of education.

 

As a teacher in a private school who works exceptionally hard I find this all pretty insulting. it contains many sweeping statements, prejudice, hearsay, and bias. Having taught A level Physics, Biology and Mathematics in the UK and now teaching Senior Mathematics and Science in Australia. I can assure you that I am not spoon feeding anyone. A student who is assessed at an 'A' grade level will obtain an 'A' and similarly, a student who works at a 'D' grade level will obtain a 'D'. You are implying that many of us are unprofessional by not equipping students for tertiary education. I can further add that the bond of mutual respect I experience and observe amongst senior students and their teachers goes far beyond the classroom.

 

I am not claiming that private schools are better. I am simply saying that you are mistaken.

 

Millie

Edited September 16, 2014 by milliem

[cbt1]

I have been here 18 months. I have 10 year old twins. My children have been moved by their government school from their 'Australian' year group to their 'UK' year group. And then they have moved into a very expensive and well regarded private school. From my own experience and I am not speaking on behalf of anyone else, I am convinced that the state system in our part of the UK will offer my children a far better education than any school in Australia. My husband is an Aussie but he completely agrees. There is more expected of children in the UK and the work ethic is stronger in the UK. This is just our experience.

[Ali B]

This summation of research (UK + Oz) into high schools is rather interesting:

http://theconversation.com/state-school-kids-do-better-at-uni-29155

 

Yes, this research pretty much says it all. Its current from July 2014.

[Guest]

I have been here 18 months. I have 10 year old twins. My children have been moved by their government school from their 'Australian' year group to their 'UK' year group. And then they have moved into a very expensive and well regarded private school. From my own experience and I am not speaking on behalf of anyone else, I am convinced that the state system in our part of the UK will offer my children a far better education than any school in Australia. My husband is an Aussie but he completely agrees. There is more expected of children in the UK and the work ethic is stronger in the UK. This is just our experience.

 

There is more expected of children in the UK and the work ethic is stronger in the UK.

 

I agree entirely and that's why i think the Australian system is better - children should be children and they will develop better in the long term if they are allowed to be so. Whilst I was in Perth a couple of the very prestigious private schools banned weekend and holiday homework so that children could play - hurrah! All schools should follow suit, whether you learn algebra at 7 or 17 really makes no difference in the long run.

[caramac]

The research into state v private school students is interesting. It seems that it's those who achieve the lower grades at A level who don't do as well at university. It doesn't seem to make any difference in those who achieve the high grades (A* - B).

I think a lot of effort is put into those who won't get the top grades and maybe they're the ones who struggle at university.

 

My girls have never been 'spoonfed' and are independent learners. They've always been encouraged to be so even in junior school. Certainly none of my eldest's peers have dropped out of university yet - they all seem to be having a ball!

Edited September 16, 2014 by caramac

[Sammy1]

No matter how you dress it up , schools here are behind , my kids came here and thought it was a joke , they had a right old time for the first two years doing work they done in infant school , but if you are going to live here for good it's ok coz they will be just as backward as the rest of there mates , good luck with it

 

Australia is not behind.

 

If you look at Finland they have excellent education and results and yet don't even start school until the age of seven. Australia starts a little later than the UK, but this is changing.

 

It's important for kids to know the the difference between 'there' and 'their' and an awful lot of adults that were educated in the UK get that wrong it seems. A simple point, but it illustrates that UK education is not the be-all and end-all.

[caramac]

Australia is not behind.

 

If you look at Finland they have excellent education and results and yet don't even start school until the age of seven. Australia starts a little later than the UK, but this is changing.

 

It's important for kids to know the the difference between 'there' and 'their' and an awful lot of adults that were educated in the UK get that wrong it seems. A simple point, but it illustrates that UK education is not the be-all and end-all.

 

 

To be fair, just as many of my Australian friends have problems with that! I remember my youngest (aged 10) pointing out the 'stationary' aisle in Coles only 5 years ago!

In the 70s and 80s spelling and grammar were not seen as important which was a huge mistake, but I don't think this generation have been let down in the same way.

[Ali B]

The research into state v private school students is interesting. It seems that it's those who achieve the lower grades at A level who don't do as well at university. It doesn't seem to make any difference in those who achieve the high grades (A* - B).

 

It's the opposite meaning Carmac. (See screen shot below)

Students who come from secondary schools, with overall lower average scores, at time of starting uni (tertiary) do better than those students from secondary schools who produce the high A level/AUS Yr12 scores.

 

Government schools always have lower overall results because they teach the full span from the very weakest to the most academic, so their results look poorer ON AVERAGE.

Private schools pick and choose and they do sometimes take dyslexic or Aspergers or refugee kids - but almost never. And they don't have to. Government schools do have to. So you will find in an average class of say 25 there will be 2-3 kids with issues.

 

Private school parents (some who struggle on low wages) wouldn't pay big money for a class with a blind boy, an Apergers boy, a refugee girl and 22 bright beautiful kids, because they are paying for just "bright and beautiful" plus with career contacts.

And they want results. i obviously know there are goodhearted, highly committed parents & teachers in Private schools. But I know the teachers are also chastised for giving low grades, so many are compromised into massaging grades so they don't get fired. Private schools are businesses. Government schools are social services.

 

When you get VCE results back from the examining bodies, it has a breakdown graph of how the school grading matches the final result. Anecdotally, for two years I was paired with a private school teacher in cross moderation. The post examination chart absolutely showed that she was over grading course work by 10 points. I was shown to be under grading and if anything giving harsher marks than their subsequent final result.

 

Please understand this is high level research (http://theconversation.com/state-school-kids-do-better-at-uni-29155) that is not anecdotal - so it's not "my daughter is fine and happy" and "My son's mates haven't dropped out" "we are happy with our school".

This research looks at 1000s of cases and analyses them according to strict academic criteria.

 

I'm glad a lot of children of parents on this thread are happy. But please read the research.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Ali B

[caramac]

It's the opposite meaning Carmac. (See screen shot below)

Students who come from secondary schools, with overall lower average scores, at time of starting uni (tertiary) do better than those students from secondary schools who produce the high A level/AUS Yr12 scores.

 

Government schools always have lower overall results because they teach the full span from the very weakest to the most academic, so their results look poorer ON AVERAGE.

Private schools pick and choose and they do sometimes take dyslexic or Aspergers or refugee kids - but almost never. And they don't have to. Government schools do have to. So you will find in an average class of say 25 there will be 2-3 kids with issues.

 

Private school parents (some who struggle on low wages) wouldn't pay big money for a class with a blind boy, an Apergers boy, a refugee girl and 22 bright beautiful kids, because they are paying for just "bright and beautiful" plus with career contacts.

And they want results. i obviously know there are goodhearted, highly committed parents & teachers in Private schools. But I know the teachers are also chastised for giving low grades, so many are compromised into massaging grades so they don't get fired. Private schools are businesses. Government schools are social services.

 

When you get VCE results back from the examining bodies, it has a breakdown graph of how the school grading matches the final result. Anecdotally, for two years I was paired with a private school teacher in cross moderation. The post examination chart absolutely showed that she was over grading course work by 10 points. I was shown to be under grading and if anything giving harsher marks than their subsequent final result.

 

Please understand this is high level research (http://theconversation.com/state-school-kids-do-better-at-uni-29155) that is not anecdotal - so it's not "my daughter is fine and happy" and "My son's mates haven't dropped out" "we are happy with our school".

This research looks at 1000s of cases and analyses them according to strict academic criteria.

 

I'm glad a lot of children of parents on this thread are happy. But please read the research.

 

I am aware of the research. There's a lot of it around and it doesn't always come out with the same results (unsurprisingly, given that data can be interpreted differently). Your first paragraph is at odds with the graph shown in your link. That shows that those with very highest grades at A level, whether from the independent or state sector do as well from university (first or upper second class degree), but those who may have had enormous support from an independent school to gain lower A level results do less well than their state educated peers who may not have had that support.

 

I'm aware that there are schools, in both sectors who manipulate results (and cheat) in order to gain or keep a reputation, but the very best in both sectors don't. If you don't want to use the 'my daughter's fine' etc, you can't use anecdotal 'evidence' to support your view either. Simply because one teacher is being over generous doesn't mean they all are, or vice versa.

 

You also make some assumptions about why people pay for a private education (and you're grouping all private schools together in these assumption. Just as there are wide differences in the state sector, they exist in the independent one too). Are you suggesting that children in the state sector are not 'bright and beautiful'? That's not been my experience. However, my experience (because that's what I have to draw on) is that our schools have taken girls who have significant problems, from being adopted fairly late in childhood, to severe dyslexia/dyspraxia, mental health problems, ADD, speaking no English on intake and physical disabilities which have required adjustments being made for access. These schools are not alone. I don't think most parents are as small minded as you think (although, I concede that our daughters' school in Sydney was like that. Maybe schools like that are your experience of the private sector).

 

We pay/paid because, in the end the state schools we tried didn't give us what we wanted, or what we felt our girls needed. Simple as that. However, if we'd had access to the fantastic state school our friends' children attended we'd have been more than happy for the girls to go there, believe me! Unfortunately, it's a requirement that we live within a few miles of my oh's work, so we can't/couldn't use it.

My oh interviews and recruits med students and junior drs. Where those people have been educated is completely irrelevant to his decision making. It's their commitment, experience and references which are important.

 

I haven't had time to read all the links within the link on here, but does the research take into account the socioeconomic groups of the state schools? I'm certain that those students who come from a school my friends' kids went to will do really well at university, just as those who have been tutored to get the lower grades in the independent sector will struggle. What about those at the raw ability level of those struggling students who were in the state sector? Are they at university at all? Not that they should necessarily be, if it's not the right environment for them, but perhaps following children from entry to school at five to leaving at eighteen as well as taking into account their SE group, parental involvement, childhood difficulties, how much external tutoring has been given (that's HUGE in the UK for those who either don't want to, or can't send their child to an independent school), etc might give a better overall result than crudely looking at whether their parents paid for their education or not.

 

Maybe it's already been done? If so, I'd be really interested to read it.

Edited September 17, 2014 by caramac

[Guest]

My oh interviews and recruits med students and junior drs. Where those people have been educated is completely irrelevant to his decision making. It's their commitment, experience and references which are important.

 

 

 

I think this is wrong, and the research being discussed is the reason why.

 

The end results are the product of the school, the family and the child. In selecting for university or a job, allowances should be made for the school and the family otherwise the best candidates will be overlooked. They have taken a lot of flack for it but I think it is absolutely right that Oxbridge positively discriminates - any comprehensive school pupil coming out with 3 or 4 A's is outstanding and likely to be far more capable than a grammar or privately educated child with the same results.

 

My son is being privately educated and given the results of our local high school he is likely to come out with better results but it does not mean he will be a better uni student or employee.

[caramac]

I think this is wrong, and the research being discussed is the reason why.

 

The end results are the product of the school, the family and the child. In selecting for university or a job, allowances should be made for the school and the family otherwise the best candidates will be overlooked. They have taken a lot of flack for it but I think it is absolutely right that Oxbridge positively discriminates - any comprehensive school pupil coming out with 3 or 4 A's is outstanding and likely to be far more capable than a grammar or privately educated child with the same results.

 

My son is being privately educated and given the results of our local high school he is likely to come out with better results but it does not mean he will be a better uni student or employee.

 

 

That's what I mean. He doesn't use the 'old boy network' to recruit his old public school/Cambridge mates' children. By the time the junior drs are coming to him their A level results don't matter, but their degree, their commitment , how they interview (which after seven years should have parity no matter where they were schooled) and their interest in the area they're applying to is far more important.

Of course the education you're giving your son won't necessarily make him a better student, but neither will it necessarily make him a worse one. You have to look further than simply the exam results. Perhaps if your local school has a large number of EAL children, or from a disadvantaged background, or looked after children and the school achieves 30% A*-C, that makes it a successful school. If, however, it has an intake of high achieving year 6 primary children and it only manages 30%, then it's failing.

 

I disagree that ANY comprehensive school pupil with 3 or 4As will be far more capable than a grammar or private school pupil. That's insulting to both children and teachers. There are some shocking private schools and plenty of excellent state schools which are private in all but having to pay for them. That's where I agree totally with AliB. You don't have to pay to get a good education. Fill any school with children from homes where education is valued, where the teachers and children are motivated and where poor behaviour isn't an issue and you'll have an environment where children thrive and learn. You also do have to consider how many children have outside tutoring, especially in and around London. It's a massive industry and plenty of teachers are moving from the classroom into tutoring to escape Gove's ideologies.

I simply question research. Look at all the conflicting advice you get about diet, alcohol, health... It's the same in every area. It's constantly evolving and you can extrapolate different results depending on what you're looking at.

I've spent the last three years looking at universities with our older two. Every single one claims to be best and can provide data to prove it. None of them is lying - looking solely at what they put in front of you, what they say is true. It's only when you look at how the data has been used, and by whom, that you get a better picture.

Oxbridge may positively discriminate, but they don't look simply at state v private and the allowance is pretty tiny. They want the best of the best, no matter where they were educated and they select very carefully, not just on exam results.

Edited September 17, 2014 by caramac

[jackiek]

It all depends what type of schools and in which areas you are referring to. They all can't be that bad and it is up to the child to make the most of their learning. A child may have different learning needs or interest in particular subjects once they reach high school.