However, here are two additional factors that you must promise me never to mention out loud in the state staffroom...
Firstly their teachers tend on average to be better academically qualified in the subjects they teach than their state counterparts and they haven't all had their heads filled with nonsense on a PGCE course. The standard retort that they wouldn't last five minutes in a tough inner city comp is also true however.
Secondly private schools still teach in a fairly traditional fashion and insist on a high standard of discipline, which funnily enough leads to success, both academically and in employment. In the state sector however, we have embraced every fashion, fad and barking lunacy with an enthusiasm which makes me want to hold my head in my hands and weep tears of despair. (Group work, discussion, peer review, poster making, self expression and varied mediums of learning spring to mind, but these are only the tip of the iceberg). Why not just mix up a random selection of words and invent the next one yourself.
See, I told you not to mention them.
17 comments:
I went to a comprehensive state school, 30 years ago, in a suburban area. Discipline was pretty good, but the school had lots of 'types' that were always in trouble or playing up.
My daughter is lucky enough to be in her 5th year at a private school.
I asked her last night whether, when there was a fight at her school, all the pupils shouted 'scrap, scrap, scrap' as they did in my day. She looked at me as though I was mad and said 'I've never seen a fight at my school.'
There's the difference - discipline and respect.
In the majority of small private schools that you have never heard of, the amount spent per pupil is probably less than in a state school. The reasons for their success are:
1)Disruptive pupils can be expelled without the 'they get one of ours, we get one of theirs' swap that makes the exercise futile.
2)Classes tend to be of similar ability. You can successfully teach huge numbers if this is the case.
3)Most important of all. Parents. They understand the importance of a good education, by definition, and only in the most extreme circumstances will they take their child's side over the school.
I've just invented, the "co-educational free-thinking alturistic behavioural-assertive teaching method".
It's all about teaching kids together in a free-thinking (untaught) manner that puts good deeds at the heart of its philisophy and uses a form of cognitive-behavioural theory to encourage children to put forward their views in an assertive and relevant manner.
I don't know how successful this will be (as I'm not a teacher and so am best placed to create new teaching methods), but if possible could I please have a grant to explore my idea?
Observing that private school teachers wouldn't last five minutes in a tough state school is as relevant as observing that Lewis Hamilton wouldn't last five minutes in a banger race. It may be factually accurate, but it does rather cast the person making the observation as an idiot.
I have also seen state school teachers who thought they could transfer to a private school and fail miserably. They failed to realise that in a private school, there is no union, and just as more is expected academically of the students, more is also expected of the teachers. In the private schools where I've worked here in the USA, an end of term report that says "A good term's work" = an exceedingly lazy teacher who is unlikely to have their (year-to-year) contract renewed.
I'd say that nearly all of the virtues of private schools as listed there are equally true of the old grammar schools - they certainly are of the one I went to in the 1960s.
I've no idea what the few remaining grammar schools are like nowadays, but the reality is that for the vast majority of parents who want that standard of education for their offspring, their only realistic option is to pay for it.
Agreed.
And in the 1970's I got a better education for free, than you can pay for today ....we were studying calculus and entropy at the age of 15
Mixed ability teaching is an obvious nonsense and three generations of children have now been betrayed.
Shirley Williams should be taken out and shot and Anthony Crossland should be dug up and shot too.
Wendy - Did we go to the same school? Memories of the 'scrap' chanting came flooding back...
The difference then though was exactly as Pete described, namely better discipline in the classrooms and higher academic expectations.
The freedoms still enjoyed by independent schools translate into a different mindset. When we decided to publish our "Sound Foundations" basic literacy materials six years ago, we wrote every state school in Norfolk, and every independent school in East Anglia, asking if they would be willing to trial our programme. We got one reply from a state school, but they bottled out as soon as they discovered that our books weren't aligned to the National Literacy Strategy. We got six positive responses from independent schools, and Barnardistion Hall (a non-selective for-profit school) agreed to give it a go.
It proved such a success that local authority reading advisers in Suffolk got wind of it, and with the help of a Daily Telegraph article, it took off. Barnardiston now enjoys a reputation as one of the best schools for children with learning difficulties.
Events have also vindicated us in that our material does indeed conform to the Rose Review on early reading. Yet even now, the great bulk of our sales to state schools are confined to local authorities where we have support from special neeeds advisers or educational psychologists. Heads are just too cowed to do anything that does not enjoy official approval.
Independent schools have not escaped New Labour's 'teach-by-numbers' mentality altogether. The 2002 Education Act gives the Secretary of State almost unlimited powers to regulate independent schools. As much as I admire and like Michael Gove and Nick Gibb, I fear this is off their radar. And the independent sector itself has been cowed by Dame Suzi Leather. When I spoke at a 2006 conference at Wellington, I was depressed to hear independent school head after another spouting New Labour pieties, in hopes that their schools would escape clossure by the new Roundheads.
The freedoms still enjoyed by independent schools translate into a different mindset. When we decided to publish our "Sound Foundations" basic literacy materials six years ago, we wrote every state school in Norfolk, and every independent school in East Anglia, asking if they would be willing to trial our programme. We got one reply from a state school, but they bottled out as soon as they discovered that our books weren't aligned to the National Literacy Strategy. We got six positive responses from independent schools, and Barnardistion Hall (a non-selective for-profit school) agreed to give it a go.
It proved such a success that local authority reading advisers in Suffolk got wind of it, and with the help of a Daily Telegraph article, it took off. Barnardiston now enjoys a reputation as one of the best schools for children with learning difficulties.
Events have also vindicated us in that our material does indeed conform to the Rose Review on early reading. Yet even now, the great bulk of our sales to state schools are confined to local authorities where we have support from special neeeds advisers or educational psychologists. Heads are just too cowed to do anything that does not enjoy official approval.
Independent schools have not escaped New Labour's 'teach-by-numbers' mentality altogether. The 2002 Education Act gives the Secretary of State almost unlimited powers to regulate independent schools. As much as I admire and like Michael Gove and Nick Gibb, I fear this is off their radar. And the independent sector itself has been cowed by Dame Suzi Leather. When I spoke at a 2006 conference at Wellington, I was depressed to hear independent school head after another spouting New Labour pieties, in hopes that their schools would escape clossure by the new Roundheads.
Chalk -
your self-serving smugness is becoming irritating.
1. You were, by your own admission, not a very good teacher.
2. You taught in, by your own admission, some truly horrendous schools.
3. You are now becoming a little out of touch and are propagating some concerning myths about contemporary state education from a somewhat dubious knowledge base. There is often truth in what you say but lately your anecdotes and armchair educational philosophising is becoming radically at odds with what is really going on.
If you ask a shit teacher in my school they'll tell you the kids are animals/the state system's awful/there's no support etc etc. If you ask me I'll tell you that they're great and behaviour in my class is excellent (and my pupils achieve brilliant results that compare very favourably to private school results, particularly on a value-added basis and this is in an inner-city comp).
This is a note to readers to take Mr. Chalk's posts with a fairly large pinch of salt.
Private schools also succeed because the parents want them to. They are paying money and want value and frequently, if not satisfied, can take their custom elsewhere. There is no doubt that this focuses the minds of the staff as in any other business.
Another reason is that most of the parents adopt a similar attitude towards their children. If a child gets told of at school and admits this to his parents, he'll simply get another one at home.
Conversely, a young friend, teaching at a state comprehensive, frequently has parents complaining about his actions to the head, even before the class has ended, in spite of school rules banning mobile phones. I doubt if he will be staying in the state sector, as a maths teacher, that much longer!
Hmmmmmm.... shall I send my kids to a shit school because one of its teachers' self-esteem causes him to see it as super, or shall I send them to a place that charges for the service because it CAN? They can charge because they're better. Those that aren't, close. Not something that happens much in the state sector.
Hellholes keep their chins up by stating the simple truth that they're doing the best they can with what they've got. But that doesn't mean I want my kids educated there.
I've worked in various capacities in one of the lowest-achieving comps in the country, and would have home-educated before I'd have had my children's time wasted like that.
Frank,
Exactly why our little girl goes private...
Most of the state schools in England are crap...even the small percentage of state schools that manage discipline are pants, because the curriculum and exam system i.e. GCSE's is laughably easy.
Our child is still in primary school, but already we have a independent secondary school marked out for her.
The three primary schools and two secondary schools in our catchment area have really uninspiring Ofstead reports (which in themselves are optimistic to begin with) the kids that shuffle out of the school kids of the two primary schools are scruffy, loud, unruly yobs: I'd rather sell our daughter for medical experimentation than she her life chances ruinned at 'Shit Hole High.'
Oh yes; Anonymous 13:00 - you are an idiot - just thought you'd like to know as you clearly arn't aware of it yourself -went to the local comp did we?
Hmm - seen friends go to private school and seen their kids go as well
I got a much better education at a state school without any of the false airs and graces - I also got to go sailing all weekend which they didnt!
RapidBlue,
I'm afraid you've just fallen into the obvious trap of assuming that 'Private' schooling is all about 'airs and graces,' it all depends on the school; there are bad private schools too.
The point is, however, that as parents we get to choose which school our daughter attends. There are three private primary schools in our borough and quite a number in the neighbouring authorities which are commutable.
We chose, the one we liked, not the crapy, local authority school that happend to be nearest to our house, regardless of whether we liked it or not (it has a crap Ofsted report, and is populated by chavs).
As for the airs and graces; where?
Yes, there are a couple of snobby private schools in the next borough, but we eschewed those for exactly that reason - choice you see! Something the state won't give us.
Our daughter's private school is populated by upper working class and lower middle class families; I see dad's in oilly blue overalls, uniform polo shirts; emblazzend with the names of electrical contractors, Firemen, and nurses picking up their children from her school.
Being a snob is every bit as bad as being a yob, and we wouldn't send our child to any school with that ethos.
Many working class parents now aspire to send their kids private because they do two things many state schools don't; educate and discipline children.
I received an appalling education in the late sixities / early seventies at my state primary, but a fantastic one at my state secondary school. If the curriculium and exam system, and discipline were worth a damn at most state schools we would be more than happy to send our child to one.
Private education is no guarantor of success in life, but a state education, as it currently stands, is very often, but not always a guarantor of mediocrity at best.
Thank you for callng me an idiot.
Unfortunately for you, I am, quite categorically, not an idiot.
I am an outstanding and incredibly well qualified teacher who achieves consistently excellent results.
In response to your rhetorical question/insinuation I was educated at both state and private school for a variety of reasons (house moves etc...).
In my (considerable) experience, the quality of education that your child receives is largely down to quality of the teaching staff in their school. In one private school I attended (I went to two)a bin full of rubbish was put on a teacher's head during a lesson. Behaviour was awful in at least half of my lessons simply because of poor teaching.
In the inner city comp where I currently teach, have not once even had a piece of paper thrown at me. The difference is that I am respected by my pupils and that they are punished accordingly when they do something wrong. Granted there are many schools where this doesn't happen but far fewer than you might imagine. To assert that only a 'small percentage manage discipline' is simply nonsense.
Frank was, by his own admission, a pretty ineffectve teacher. He also taught in some truly crap schools. On top of that, he didn't even really teach a particular subject and just covered sickness and absences where necessary which further undermined his credibility, not to mention limiting his specific subject knowledge and, by extension, his ability to actually teach something well.
Taking such a person's experiences as an accurate reflection of the contemporary state system and using them to support and propagate your own unfounded opinions is simply laughable.
Your local school might well be 'shit hole high' but I can assure you that they are not all like that by a long stretch of the imagination.
Post a Comment