Is private at primary actually worth it ?

Other than the cost the only downside I can see is they mix with a more narrow section of the population - this can also be a positive though.

I sent my kids privately all the way through. It was worth it for us, and the best decision we’ve ever made. We were in a position though that it was walkable from our house and we could afford it without giving up holidays etc.

Positives for us were - small class sizes, high academic standards, varied sporting, arts, music and language options, specialist teachers for IT, music and languages - genuinely something to nurture the talents of each individual child. Also high expectations for manners and behaviour etc. and great facilities that unfortunately state schools can match.
The also provide great wrap around care 7:30-6 if needed and holiday clubs to cover holidays that aren’t state school holidays if you need it.

We also found the pastoral care fantastic as as the class sizes are small with additional TAs any areas of struggle academic or social were supported quickly. One of mine struggled socially (nothing major) but they helped her talk about her worries and build great friendships. There is also zero tolerance for bullying and that makes it a much more pleasant environment.

The children came from a diverse background but with parents who signed up to the positive ethos, being involved and valued education.

Lastly for us it took all the stress and worry out of years of tutoring or prep for the 11+ as this was just part of school and they knew nothing about it. This in itself was worth every penny compared to the stress I’ve seen some 9-11 year olds under!

As a previous poster said I have also heard primary school teachers say that private at primary is more important than at secondary - to give them an excellent foundation. I really have found this.

The confidence in public speaking, being themselves but kind and caring, giving back to the community has been great. But for me the key thing is that they develop a love of learning and a desire to get involved in all sorts of things along with a belief that if they work hard they can do anything has really set mine up for success in later life.

I guess it depends on your child, on the what the state offering is like, and whether your area has an 11 plus in year 6 that you want them to pass!
It's worth it where i live. The state primarys are good, but the secondaries are poor, with the exception of the super selective state grammars. And if you attend a state primary it's very hard to pass the 11 plus to ensure entry to the grammars. And the private secondaries are more expensive than the private prep schools AND they get far worse results than the grammars.
Therefore, all things considered, private at primary is worth it, to get a good, free, secondary education.

There is no 'one size fits all answer'.

For many pupils with SEN, there needs cannot be met in the state sector, and an independent school is more appropriate.

Private primary has been vital to my dyslexic DD. She is working at Age Related Expectations and is reading at the level for her age.

If she was in a class of 30, with 5 EAL, 5 with SEN, noise and disruption daily, she would be behind in everything.

it was for us because our DCs were thoroughly unhappy at the SATS obsessed village primary. The local prep school was much more child friendly with subject specialists and fun breakfast and after school clubs. Didn’t bother at secondary level as local grammars were decent and socially mixed.

Most schools admit for year 5 instead of year 6. As year 6 is a crucial year prior to year 7 admission.

I sent my kids privately all the way through. It was worth it for us - but we could afford it.
We valued small class sizes, high academic standards, high expectations regarding manners, behaviour etc. Mixing with children from similarly motivated backgrounds, from families where education is valued highly.

I have heard a primary school teacher say that private at primary is more important than at secondary - to give them an excellent foundation.

However, my own adult kids are highly unlikely to be able to afford school fees at primary (big question mark over whether they’ll be able to afford it for the senior years too but that’s some time away). They will probably move to a catchment area of a very good state primary and be prepared to support the school in every way they can. One of my kids is married to a catholic so that may well help too.

OP. If you can do it and still ‘have a life’ then do it. If it means huge sacrifices that will suck all the joy out of life then I’d focus on doing whatever it takes to get into the best possible state primary, in your shoes

I'd think about what secondary they are going to after and what will make the smoothest transition.

If they can go up with friends, that would be nicer for them.

I think every child is different, some will thrive with the attention focused learning and some will also thrive learning on their own independently.

I agree with you, my DD was similar to your DS, the shy type, so in state primary among 60 kids she was like a needle in a haystack and only mingled with close mates, her strengths were not nurtured as too many kids to focus on. She also was not motivated and attitude to work was low, only wanted to play. I think state is good for reception till year 2 when they are new and adapting to the school system from nursery there is a lot of playtime. But from year 3 (KS2), they need a solid foundation in my opinion. I just moved my DD to private in year 3 and I am seeing a whole different person, a positive shift in attitude towards very positive, when she comes home she wants to do homework, I do not need to ask her. I see her confidence growing too.

Sorry I posted on wrong thread @pleasedeleteit can you help?

You’re right about football, it’s not stuck up enough or elitist enough for prep schools but I do enjoy watching my nephews team of peasant like comprehensive school students absolutely thrash the local prep at it to the point the kids are crying. Apart from cricket and rugby and potentially swimming, the other sports aren’t even worth mentioning because they’re hobbies at best, or just something posh kids compete against each other in a selected bubble. And often with cricket and rugby, students are selected to attend schools on scholarships and their talent in these sports has nothing to do with the school itself. Look at Adnan, on Freddie Flintoff’s ‘Field of Dreams’ for example, he only attends Stonyhurst because he’s good at cricket, I also know several kids at boarding school picked from their lowly primaries due to their rugby abilities, most schools brag about their sporting prowess but the best kids are on full scholarships and arrived at the school already elite level

Is it an automatic run through from primary to secondary? If the secondary school is your ultimate aim then it may be worth it. My DC are at run through schools and the 11+ is fierce - however, we avoided all the stress by starting in the primary with a guaranteed place in the secondary.
In the primary they did lots of sports and music clubs, none of which were available at our local primary and was important for us. We, as parents, would not have had the time to take them to the various sports and music clubs to give them the breadth of opportunity that the school gave. So for us it was worth it for a happy and stress free childhood.*

*not saying that this is not achievable in the state sector, rather if a particular private secondary is the aim.

Your comment is profoundly ill-informed. Football is the only sport that is as you have described, and I think the only professional sport in which privately educated players are underrepresented. For the obvious reason that many private schools (and parents) don't value it. It wasn't available to my children until they were thirteen, by then they were invested in other sports which they played at school against age-specific county sides, and later for their Oxford colleges.

Rugby, hockey, cricket, fives, rowing, polo, swimming, cross-country running, and tennis are some of the other sports that you might want to bear in mind. Private schools (and universities) are effective routes to elite competition in these. Footballers don't go to university.

"Across a variety of school sports, it has been found that 53% of national school competitions were won by state schools and 46% by independent schools, despite 86% of competing schools coming from the state sector."

www.suttontrust.com/our-research/elitist-britain-2019/

Clocking off in the middle of the afternoon 👌😂 this post has tickled me. Tell me what sports your kids played nationally at then or what academies they were signed to? If kids are elite at sport they’re not fucking about on their school teams til 6pm no matter how posh the school is, they’re leaving school early to go training with proper teams

See my dd is in a year group of 23 kids, and the money we aren’t spending we did 11+ tutoring since y4 with an amazing 1-1 and this is a state school . My friends son has just left a catholic village primary in a class of 18 with literally one point lower than highest possible score in his 11+ if kids are going to do well on 11+ it will happen despite the school they’re in as that’s sort of the point of the 11+
dd is in y10 at mixed grammar and there is no difference between her and those who went to private primary preps, in fact a lot of them struggled socially

In genral I think it has zero impact on final outcome ie. Where they end up at 16, unless your child needs A LOT of extra support and just wouldn’t cope in a state primary but even then paying for a prep isnt a magic wand and if you put the work in with your child they will thrive anyway

round here, a sort of semi rural collection of large villages ,the private prep which is small and not ‘that’ expensive, gets thrashed at sport weekly by high achieving local primary schools which have amazing sports teams, kids on national teams, playing for man city etc, full of really confident outgoing kids. the state schools also have forest schools, do loads of trips etc. even my DD’s when in nursery had chickens,goats, a nursery therapy dog, went horse riding and swimming on a minibus for a minimal fee. That’s a state school. The kids are outside loads and have an idyllic education tbh and it’s free. But I’m aware not all choices are like this and it just depends where you live however I’d never stay in a shitty area with bad schools and spend money on private prep i’d just move to a better area with better primaries. Secondary is a bit different

For us yes, children in private since reception. Smaller classes, already doing 11 plus level work 2 years earlier, great pastoral care. However those it really seems to benefit are those with SEN. 1/3 of the class have these and they get a lot of attention. I think they would be lost in a larger state school. Mine haven't got SEN issues so sometimes I do feel the balance of attention isn't fair but on the whole, it's worked out for us.

@ChristmasCwtch apologies for the late reply, but I’d be interested in your experience of moving DC in to prep. I’m thinking of doing this for my DS for year 2; he’s at an outstanding primary in a very nice area (no grammars nearby) but we’re underwhelmed with the state primary and his teacher has changed halfway through the year. Could you say anymore about what you’ve found the prep to be like and if your DC were affected by the move?

I would just like to add here that being say, an Oxford or Cambridge qualified mathematician, doesn't make them a good teacher.
If you want to know about a school, ask the parents (ignore the snobbery element, most private school parents are doing what they perceive to be the best they can for their children) and ask the children. Of course, look at results but a child's happiness is paramount.

I would be interested to know why you have such a biased view. It's extremely inaccurate.

I forgot to say that it is important that there should be an equal proportion of male teachers.

As Another76543 said - and also worth every penny in my view. But it depends on choosing well, and not only looking at schools that cater for the whole 3-18 yrs as the original question suggests, because you can't predict what your children will be like at 11 or 13. You would need to decide on whether they will take the CE/scholarship route at 13, or if they will do the 11 plus, because a 3-11 school takes away the choice.

My children went to three different pre-prep/prep schools from 3-13, because the first two in one way or another proved not to be up to scratch, but we reckoned that all of them had multiple advantages over all of the state alternatives (ranked as "outstanding", for what that's worth).

Forget class size although (unlike for secondary education for which there is no evidence) there is some evidence that class size is important at this stage, and forget social cachet and all that sort of nonsense. What you should get is:

Subject-specific teachers with degrees in those subjects from decent universities. The school should list its teachers and their qualifications in its promotional literature and a few MPhil/PhD/DPhils in the right subjects is a good sign. This was the first filter that we applied when shortlisting schools.

Latin and ideally Greek. This is evidence that the school governors/head are prepared to invest in subjects that have great educational value, even though some parents might not regard them as essential.

A long school day. Rather than clocking-off in the middle of the afternoon there should be an 8.30 to 5.30 or 9 to 6 school day with competitive team sports every afternoon on the school's own on-site grass pitches. There should be match reports in their promotional literature to give you an idea of the ethos of the school, matches played against similar independent schools involving some travelling, and there should be no matches against local clubs - because they won't be good enough - if the school is doing it properly.

The extracurricular stuff is a given.

A list of leavers' achievements in scholarship exams and future schools.

The benefits of a good prep school are lifelong, and probably greater than from secondary education, which is much shorter and too late: "Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man."

In my experience, it was worth every penny. Having said that, there are some private schools I personally wouldn’t pay for. It’s worth it if you choose a good one.

Our school offered a lovely childhood - huge grounds with forests etc where they could run around. The environment was very different from any of the state schools in our wider area. Above all, the children were happy.

They had opportunities for music and sport which isn’t generally available in the state sector. They did a lot more sport and had competitive matches against other schools. The music especially meant they had an opportunity to perform in lots of concerts (formal and informal), which gives self confidence. They can now stand up and perform/speak etc confidently and with few nerves. Perhaps there are some state schools which offer this but I haven’t come across any personally.

Academically, the classes are smaller which means that every child (even quiet, well behaved ones) get attention. They were set for maths and English which meant that every child learns at their own pace. They were stretched academically and not just allowed to coast along. Another positive is that private schools aren’t burdened with SATs and the narrow curriculum.