Is private at primary actually worth it ?

My experience too. The teachers also give your child that individual attention and know your child so personally. I love that they also always have time to speak to you about anything. Everyone is just on top of their game.

I think it really depends on your local state primary. If it's got a good reputation and links with the local community then probably not worth it. Save for secondary instead. We've just moved our DS from the local primary (P6/age 10) and in just 2 weeks the difference has been huge. He was in an incredibly disruptive class with multiple children with ASN and he was invisible. DD is having a different experience at the same school although to be honest I'd move her now if I could afford it after seeing the difference in DS. But the plan is to move her for secondary.

You're really speaking a lot of nonsense here. What limited social experience are you referring to?

No one can give you a generic answer as it depends on the school, the child and the combination of the two

Children arent homogeneous beings and neither are schools

My kids were at private all the way through. But we'd have preferred state fur primary but my eldest didn't get into the four nearest, very good school as they were oversubscribed. He was offered a place on the other side of the borough. I had never heard of it so asked around and it was uniformly considered ok but not desirable if possible to go elsewhere. My son was not academic (though couldn't really tell then) and I'm glad we decided to go private as he would have sunk to the bottom. A bit hyper the school he was at were able to deal with it.
But if your primaries are good send them state and then revisit as they get closer to secondary age.

Yes it is imo. These are foundation years. A good solid foundation, really does shape a child for the later years. I have friends whose kids are in really good state schools, and they openly admit that it doesn't even come close to the private schools that they know of. It's not only about the academic side , it's also about the individual attention they receive when they are so little.

I think people think paying lots of money for something automatically means it will be better. Of course sometimes it is, but in many cases kids will thrive at state schools and wouldn’t have done any better at private. If you’ve money to burn I guess it makes little difference, but otherwise I think it’s a completely unnecessary expense in a huge number of cases.

You can't polish a turd.

Schools work with what they've got.

A selective prep will take very academically able children. They will "manage out" anyone remotely difficult, behaviourally or academically, leaving an easy to teach group.

They will have parents who can afford enriching activities like music, sport and drama.

An academically able child from similar, comfortably off parents, will thrive and do well in most state primaries.

A less able child, perhaps with learning difficulties, would not come out with high grades from either.

I think the children who can benefit most, are the overlooked middle, for whom the smaller class sizes and absence of disruption can provide a marginal gain. Its not huge and I think you can achieve as much & more supporting your own child at home.

We never thought it was and started ours in state primary. However due to some mild SEN issues with our younger child we decided to move both into private. I simply couldn’t believe the difference in just a few months. Both happier, more confident, more rounded children. It’s very noticeable when you compare them to their peers. It wasn’t what we planned due to the cost but now I would hate to move them back into state as the difference has been huge.

Yes, it's social aspirationalism and anxiety.

This. There is no answer to your question, OP. Our catchment primary is excellent (one of the reasons we chose to live here). My kids are really happy there and are thriving. The majority of kids walk or cycle to school, it has a real community feel and being there means we have all made lots of friends locally that we wouldn’t have met if they had gone to any of the private schools near us.

My friends who have sent their kids to private school for primary have done so because their local primary schools have various issues (being oversubscribed with too many kids for the space, limited outdoor space, lack of wraparound care, behavioural issues…). They saw a clear benefit of private school at primary age. We didn’t.

Maybe.
probably not for the “ way ahead thriving what ever “ kid or the “ definitely needs extra help “

but for the quiet “ not quite hitting what they could achieve “ or for a boy to thrive in traditionally “ girly “ areas eg you’re a flute playing boy or boy who sings in a mixed school you’ll end up fighting for yourself in a really girl dominated world - some boys are fine , others not - in an all boys prep they are surrounded by boys that may do the same. My lad didn’t sing at primary but was a chorister for instance and that “ tribe “ sustained him but the alternative would be a move to prep at year 5 ( he’s grown up and still singing )

My DC did state primary and independent secondary. The primary was lovely, he wouldn't have gained anything more from the independent prep (my choices might have been different if the primary wasn't so good).
If I was doing it again though I probably would have moved him at year 6 rather than 7, to avoid all the SATS palaver.

It totally depends on the child and on the (private) school, and also on what the best hope you have for a state primary if you don't go private.

• not all private schools are automatically better than all state schools. Look carefully at the schools.
• For some private primaries, the only real benefit they offer is keeping your children away from poor children. You may or may not value that. Having had classmates from a wider variery of socioeconomic backgrounds can be an advantage.
• Some state primaries are absolutely brilliant.
• Some private schools literally only have decent results because they only accept pupils who are going to do well whatever happens, and they don't add much real value. It's not easy to identify which these are.
• For ages 4-7 the most important factor influencing outcomes is NOT the school, but how much engagement the child gets with reading and number practice outside of school with their parents, plus number of books in the house and the amount of time the child sees their parents choosing to read for pleasure (not just reading bedtime stories or doing school reading practice). A child who gets all these things will thrive even at a not particularly great school. A child who doesn't get these things won't do well no matter how good the school is.
• Increasingly starting from y4 and ever more significantly in y5 and y6 many state schools have to focus on getting all the below-average students up to a minimum-acceptable standard for SATS. This can mean able pupils get REALLY bored

Unless the state option is genuinely terrible, I would normally advise to stick with state for at least yR-y2 and potentially for as long as it suits the child stay put for y3 and y4 as well but would move to a private at y5 at the latest if you are in a position to do so and have access to a good quality private that is genuinely adding value.

For us, my child started in state school but was very shy, doing ok with school work but was basically lost in the background of children with SEN and boisterous behaviour. Often the classes were doubled up for certain activities so nearly 60 kids and he was becoming less and less confident but as he wasn’t causing an issues the teachers did t see it as a problem.
We moved to private and his confidence has soared and attitude to school work is so much better. He just needed the time to be given a small amount of encouragement and hes a different person. So happy we moved, nothing to do with social circles for us but every child is different.

Probably useful for some children with SEN if the private school specialises and can offer them the best support. Other than that, I really don’t see any reason for it. Most state primaries are brilliant in my experience. Secondary schools are the issue in this country- teacher shortages, for example, are only affecting secondary education because no one wants to teach teenagers.

It can be.

The smaller class sizes can make a difference in themselves. There are (generally) better resources (more books, materials, onsite facilities, sports provision and specialist teaching). Often more co-curricular activities (staff run clubs, usually free; external providers charged separately).

Some state schools will offer more than others; some private schools less. You need to see what your local offerings are like.

You also need to think about what you value in an education. The results at the end of it? Or what the journey is like getting to that point?

Also the security of your finances - and whether you're of the view that "as we have it now, we'll spend it now", or whether you are confident that if you save/invest, it will still be there if/when the time comes.

Final thought, as the Jesuits said "give me the boy until he is seven, and I will show you the man" - some think that the earlier years, during which attitudes to learning are being formed, are the crucial part. Others give greater weight to the public exam years at the other end.

There's no right answer.

I can only speak for my children, but for us, definitely. My daughter is flying in school, well exceeding expectations in all subjects and being encouraged to explore topics independently and present findings to her teachers. That's not to say that she wouldn't have done well at the state primary school, but not AS well.
Also, it's not just about academics. There seems to be a higher expectation of all the children, there are masterclasses from subject experts, and more flexibility around extending the children's learning. The sport and extra-curricular offerings are amazing too, for all years, even from reception.

It depends on the primary.

I was lucky enough to get mine into one of the best ranked state primaries in the country so there was no point in paying for a private school. Had they had to go to the CofE village school I'd have had them in the private sector without a second thought.

I think that is the major drawback. Short of where a child has special needs, there are strong social reasons not to go state, or a child is truly exceptionally gifted in something like music or sport, the sorts of things learned in primary school are ultimately the same things that reasonably educated, involved, and consistent parents can support at home and bolster with extracurriculars. Paying tens of thousands of pounds for it seems overkill. That changes at secondary, and secondary is also where you’re more likely to encounter serious challenging behaviour, bullying, and lack of pastoral care that does make a difference and which private can often provide better.

You mean to say you think it unlikely that a family who can afford private education lives in Harehills? Because it happens all the time. 😜

MY friend lives in Knightsbridge and her son got allocated a place in Jaywick. Fummin she was.

It's worth it if you want the social status and don't mind having a more limited social experience for your child.

Educationally it is usually completely pointless (this applies right through for the majority of kids).

Depends on a lot of things but for us the answer was definitely no for the following reasons
Could save money
Got a place in a good State Primary
Kids were much more streetwise and mature at 11 than a lot of their peers who had been at prep
No knowledge gap and integrated fine socially as well
Kids had a wider range of friends, many of whom they kept in touch with through school and DD actually reconnected with quite a few at 6th form college.
State Primary until Y7 was certainly the right decision for us

Out of interest - what is this area? And how did the ‘rioting’ affect the primary school? And how often are these ‘riots’?