Er no, I have no interest in your opinions because you don't come across as very bright, your argument has been consistently poor and un-supported by any evidence.
I think it's quite amusing that you are trying to position yourself as the voice of reason but then resort to personal abuse. Fail.
I'm well aware of the % of state schools rated as good or outstanding. Ofsted's standards are too low, and the schools' standards are too low.
Are you in a position as an educational professional to determine whether Ofsted's judgements are low, high or indifferent? Or is this simply another 'opinion'. And you accuse me of failing to produce evidence.
A damning Ofsted report has just admitted the very same:
It's clear that Ofsted have become very politicised. This report has been slated by a number of academics on the basis that it makes misleading use of the statistical data.
"Just 30% of pupils considered high-fliers at the age of 11 gained A grades in English and maths after being taught in state comprehensives. This compared with around 60% of those sent to academically-selective grammar schools, it emerged.
This lumps all the children achieving grade 5 in their SATS together. It's clear that the intake of an academically selective school will include only those at the upper end of the grade 5 spectrum whereas children in 'secondary modern' (ie non selective schools in selective areas) or comprehensive schools will come from across the full ability range. Therefore the comparison is not statistically valid.
The report was disclosed after league tables showed that hundreds of secondary schools did not produce a single pupil with high enough grades in tough academic subjects to win a place at elite universities.
Assuming that a place at an elite university is the appropriate aspiration for all pupils and that there aren't other factors at play here - such as parental aspirations. Schools are not the only influences on the outcomes of young people - by far the biggest influence is family and social background.
Inspectors will investigate concerns that bright pupils who are taught in mixed ability classes are failing to be stretched and that schools are entering clever children too early for GCSE exams so that they gain only the C grades that count in league tables and are not pushed to the full extent of their abilities.
If schools are entering children early for GCSEs to bank C grades it's hardly any surprise when you have a high stakes testing and inspection regime which considers a C grade the cut off point between success and failure. It strongly encourages teaching to the test and a focus of attention around the C/D borderline.
Sir Michael said the big disparity in admissions to Oxford and Cambridge, where a small number of mainly independent schools sent more students to the universities than thousands of state secondaries was “a nonsense” that must be addressed.
Again, there are much stronger influences on this than simply what state schools are doing. Why is Oxbridge attendance considered appropriate for all students - or even all bright students.
He said that comprehensive schools had to learn lessons from independent and selective schools on how to realise the early promise of the most able children.
If he had truly compared like for like the outcome would be somewhat different. Children from state schools that do get to elite universities end up with better degrees - so that group of children is not being failed by the state system at all.
Ofsted...revealed last year that just 60% of white British boys on free school meals reached the expected level in English and maths
Social deprivation, parental aspirations and cultural expectations have significant impacts on educational outcomes. This is by no means a problem which can be laid at the feet of the state education sector.
White British working class children are a “hidden problem” in schools and least likely to succeed, a study shows.
Scathing findings also found the worst performing areas were seaside towns in East and South-East England.
Unsurprising - again low parental aspirations, rural poverty, transient and seasonal employment.
Almost 170,000 pupils are languishing in state secondaries where fewer than 4 -in-10 teenagers gain a string of good GCSE grades, according to Government data.
These pupils are in schools in the most socially and economically deprived areas of this country.
For anyone interested, I thought I would give an update on the situation. I actually ended up sending my 4-year-old daughter to the aforementioned independent school this year. It remains to be seen whether it's worth it.
I only have my niece's state school to compare with, so the situation may differ from school to school, but the main differences I can see for now are:-
(1) The classes are much smaller at my daughter's school (half the size of a normal state school class).
(2) There are more after school activities on offer and it is possible to keep your child at school between 8am-6pm everyday, which is great for working parents.
(3) There is a lot more emphasis on academic achievement, to the point where I actually think it's too much at this stage. At the age of 4 they get quite a bit of homework (reading and maths) everyday and the homework is always checked by the teacher the next morning.
(4) They learn foreign languages from reception age. I don't know if this is normal, but it's certainly not the case at my niece's school.
There is the general point that the children all appear to be from 'nice' families and my daughter really enjoys her time there, but this probably would have been the case at the state school as well.
The jury is still out (for me) on whether it's all worth it...
My daughter (aged 3) has just been accepted into one of the nicest prep schools and although I'm quite happy about it, I'm (more than) slightly panicking about the estimated £200K this will cost me over the next few years. :eek: I'm a single mum and my ex-husband contributes nothing, so I will be financing this on my own (in addition to a mortgage, bills etc etc). Although I'm on a decent salary at the moment, which means I could afford the school fees, my biggest problem is that I work very long hours, so will have to pay someone to collect my daughter from school as well. I will be spending around £2000 per month on childcare and school, which seems slightly excessive . The reality of it is that I will probably have to work even longer hours in order to afford all of this.
My family think I'm completely bonkers and that I should send her to the state school just across the road from us, which would save me a fortune. My head agrees with them, but... I absolutely loved the prep school and I feel like it could give my daughter a much better start in life.
Given that most of one's childhood is spent at school, is this an investment worth making??
You can all tell me I'm bonkers
Lucky child. So she loses her dad and effectively, she loses you because you never see her - and if you sent her to private school (she's only 3!!) she will see you even less. How about thinking in terms of spending time with her rather than paying for others to educate and bring her up? I don't mean you being at home - but when you have kids, you have to bring balance into your mother-child relationship and the amount of time you spend with her instead of only focusing on her full-time education. As it is, she spends hours away, as you work your "excessively long hours". Do remember that you are a mother too and she would rather like to see you. Wouldn't you rather like to see her too?
This is probably the only reason why you shouldn't, no amount of academic success can make up for the missed time with you. You can't rely on school to provide all your daughters education, wether it be an academic education or life skills education.
I, like you wants to do what is best educationally for my child and hopefully i have done that! I'm very lucky that my child is a naturally bright child. In a way i was in a very similar situation to you. Single with no input from the father, i had a fairly decent job (probably no quite as well paid as yours appears to be!) and i have made lots of sacrifices to make sure she got the best education i could give her, this included going to a private day nursery, for her primary age schools she went into state education, but i got her into one of the best infants & juniors school in our area.... meaning i physically had to drive past 5 other schools to get her to school, i looked around lots of schools in the area but knew in my gut that, that school was the best for MY child.
I think you know in your guts what is right for YOUR child.
But as well as good schools, i believe i have had a big input into her education as i took the time with her, despite being a single, working full time mother!!
Good luck on the decisions you make, it not easy when you are the only one that is making the decisions as everything rests on your shoulders, if it doesnt work out how you would like.
Thank you. While others get on to their high horses about state vs private education, it's good that someone remembered there is a very young child here so TG for someone speaking from personal experience. Nothing makes up for a mother who wants to give her child her time and to have fun instead of getting hung up about early education. At this age, it should be very hands-on and child-led so the thought of doing maths homework is mind-boggling.
And no I'm not suggesting that everyone becomes a stay at home mum - but I do advocate remembering this child's needs too
Well, since I've started this thread I have actually changed my working arrangements so I can drop her off and pick her up from school. We spend plenty of time together.
Both my parents worked full time, yet I had an absolutely beautiful childhood and 29 years later, I'm still very close to my parents. My dad spent even less time with me than my mum because he often worked abroad, but I now have an absolutely perfect relationship with him and he's practically my best friend. I think sometimes the amount of time parents spend covered in paint and glue (which I do on weekends anyway) is exaggerated and overrated. I can't remember who made paper bunnies with me at the age of 4, but I can remember all the great holidays we spent together and very much appreciate everything my parents have done for me.
Lucky child. So she loses her dad and effectively, she loses you because you never see her - and if you sent her to private school (she's only 3!!) she will see you even less. How about thinking in terms of spending time with her rather than paying for others to educate and bring her up? I don't mean you being at home - but when you have kids, you have to bring balance into your mother-child relationship and the amount of time you spend with her instead of only focusing on her full-time education. As it is, she spends hours away, as you work your "excessively long hours". Do remember that you are a mother too and she would rather like to see you. Wouldn't you rather like to see her too?
£2000 a month could be seen as a 'package', getting the private school to provide everything your daughter needs in terms of education, culture, connections etc. Or £2000 a month could be used to supplement her life in other ways at your own discretion, not the school's. It's not necessarily a case of either or - you could send her to a state school and spend up to £2000 per month on things YOU choose to enhance her life.
All mine went private from 3+yrs, and with hindsight, the value of the benefit to the child of being privately educated before the age of 7yrs is questionable. The benefits are firmly in the camp of the parents, until the kids are 7+.
Well, since I've started this thread I have actually changed my working arrangements so I can drop her off and pick her up from school. We spend plenty of time together.
Both my parents worked full time, yet I had an absolutely beautiful childhood and 29 years later, I'm still very close to my parents. My dad spent even less time with me than my mum because he often worked abroad, but I now have an absolutely perfect relationship with him and he's practically my best friend. I think sometimes the amount of time parents spend covered in paint and glue (which I do on weekends anyway) is exaggerated and overrated. I can't remember who made paper bunnies with me at the age of 4, but I can remember all the great holidays we spent together and very much appreciate everything my parents have done for me.
Thanks for the update. Do what#s right for you and your child. It's nice to get advice but don't let people push you in a certain direction.
Thank you. While others get on to their high horses about state vs private education, it's good that ...
There are other high horses available?
Seriously plenty of children start their schooling at four. The OP started the thread when their daughter got accepted last year, and obviously she would have been younger then. She started this year however - a point you seem to have missed from your lofty vantage
Comments
I think it's quite amusing that you are trying to position yourself as the voice of reason but then resort to personal abuse. Fail.
Are you in a position as an educational professional to determine whether Ofsted's judgements are low, high or indifferent? Or is this simply another 'opinion'. And you accuse me of failing to produce evidence.
It's clear that Ofsted have become very politicised. This report has been slated by a number of academics on the basis that it makes misleading use of the statistical data.
This lumps all the children achieving grade 5 in their SATS together. It's clear that the intake of an academically selective school will include only those at the upper end of the grade 5 spectrum whereas children in 'secondary modern' (ie non selective schools in selective areas) or comprehensive schools will come from across the full ability range. Therefore the comparison is not statistically valid.
Assuming that a place at an elite university is the appropriate aspiration for all pupils and that there aren't other factors at play here - such as parental aspirations. Schools are not the only influences on the outcomes of young people - by far the biggest influence is family and social background.
If schools are entering children early for GCSEs to bank C grades it's hardly any surprise when you have a high stakes testing and inspection regime which considers a C grade the cut off point between success and failure. It strongly encourages teaching to the test and a focus of attention around the C/D borderline.
Again, there are much stronger influences on this than simply what state schools are doing. Why is Oxbridge attendance considered appropriate for all students - or even all bright students.
If he had truly compared like for like the outcome would be somewhat different. Children from state schools that do get to elite universities end up with better degrees - so that group of children is not being failed by the state system at all.
Social deprivation, parental aspirations and cultural expectations have significant impacts on educational outcomes. This is by no means a problem which can be laid at the feet of the state education sector.
White British working class children are a “hidden problem” in schools and least likely to succeed, a study shows.
Unsurprising - again low parental aspirations, rural poverty, transient and seasonal employment.
These pupils are in schools in the most socially and economically deprived areas of this country.
Nice.
I only have my niece's state school to compare with, so the situation may differ from school to school, but the main differences I can see for now are:-
(1) The classes are much smaller at my daughter's school (half the size of a normal state school class).
(2) There are more after school activities on offer and it is possible to keep your child at school between 8am-6pm everyday, which is great for working parents.
(3) There is a lot more emphasis on academic achievement, to the point where I actually think it's too much at this stage. At the age of 4 they get quite a bit of homework (reading and maths) everyday and the homework is always checked by the teacher the next morning.
(4) They learn foreign languages from reception age. I don't know if this is normal, but it's certainly not the case at my niece's school.
There is the general point that the children all appear to be from 'nice' families and my daughter really enjoys her time there, but this probably would have been the case at the state school as well.
The jury is still out (for me) on whether it's all worth it...
Lucky child. So she loses her dad and effectively, she loses you because you never see her - and if you sent her to private school (she's only 3!!) she will see you even less. How about thinking in terms of spending time with her rather than paying for others to educate and bring her up? I don't mean you being at home - but when you have kids, you have to bring balance into your mother-child relationship and the amount of time you spend with her instead of only focusing on her full-time education. As it is, she spends hours away, as you work your "excessively long hours". Do remember that you are a mother too and she would rather like to see you. Wouldn't you rather like to see her too?
4:rolleyes:
Thank you. While others get on to their high horses about state vs private education, it's good that someone remembered there is a very young child here so TG for someone speaking from personal experience. Nothing makes up for a mother who wants to give her child her time and to have fun instead of getting hung up about early education. At this age, it should be very hands-on and child-led so the thought of doing maths homework is mind-boggling.
And no I'm not suggesting that everyone becomes a stay at home mum - but I do advocate remembering this child's needs too
She was 3 when the OP started this thread, but yes she is 4 now - and still very very young
Both my parents worked full time, yet I had an absolutely beautiful childhood and 29 years later, I'm still very close to my parents. My dad spent even less time with me than my mum because he often worked abroad, but I now have an absolutely perfect relationship with him and he's practically my best friend. I think sometimes the amount of time parents spend covered in paint and glue (which I do on weekends anyway) is exaggerated and overrated. I can't remember who made paper bunnies with me at the age of 4, but I can remember all the great holidays we spent together and very much appreciate everything my parents have done for me.
judgemental, much.
Thanks for the update. Do what#s right for you and your child. It's nice to get advice but don't let people push you in a certain direction.
Seriously plenty of children start their schooling at four. The OP started the thread when their daughter got accepted last year, and obviously she would have been younger then. She started this year however - a point you seem to have missed from your lofty vantage