AIBU to send my little one to a "rich" school?

Why not move nearer the "rich" school? If you can't afford to then your child could find themselves the poor pupil and thats not nice.

We are an affluent area and our state primary is wonderful for well behaved middle class children that will easily get into grammar schools.

Awful for SEN children, it’s almost like they don’t bother as they know parents will do all the leg work to get them into a different school 😑

2 classes per year is a big school? Wow our local one is 4 classes per year in primary. And 6 in secondary.

I will go to the bigger school mainly because as time goes on, being limited to having no after school care or wrap around care would be a logistical nightmare with work. I can see why if the school is small, doing these thing might not be budget friendly if less people subscribe to it so I’ll go for the bigger school for that reason alone really but the distance is a lot

Passionate staff, an easier journey and already being in the school nursery, so presumably having at least some children move up with her, would win for me. I wouldn’t overthink the extracurricular stuff, I should think you are lucky enough to be able to give your child some lovely opportunities such as zoo trips, swimming etc anyway. Mixing with children from different backgrounds is likely to benefit her in the furture.

Yes, I know. But I don't know what the situation is where OP lives. It may be very different from nationally.

Why don't you try the 'poor' school and then you can change in the future if needs be. My daughter changed schools in P3 (Northern Ireland). I'm a primary school teacher and she originally went to my school but the travel and longer days were a lot. She now goes to a school that is 10mins walk away and all her wee friends live close by. My son goes there too and I've made friends with the mums who also live close by making playdates, barbeques, parties etc super handy. From my experience with new kids starting in my class, they settle in and transition usually quickly and easily (I teach P2).

their PTA pays for many things this means the parents pay for it.

Go to the closer school. 15 mins drive + 15 mins walk sounds exhausting!

As for accomodating extra curriculars, you may find that many of them move to Saturday mornings for school age children. Reception is exhausting for the first term at least, so you may want to cut back for a bit anyway.

The national average of FSM in England is just under 26%.

I’d go for the bigger school. I think money does have an impact on schools. The primary my DC goes to is in an affluent area, they get to go on trips to science museums, school discos with hired entertainers, lots of clubs, large selection of reading books to take home, no shortage of resources, good teachers, and they get a lot of money from PTA fundraising, it paid for all new IT equipment and play equipment for the playground last year. Some of the schools in other areas near here don’t get some of this.

I disagree with most people, for a sensitive child I think a smaller school is often easier - and caring, passionate staff are pretty much the most important factor there is IMO! It's also really nice to have the option to walk to school and all her friends are likely to live nearer.

She probably won't want to go to after school clubs when she first starts anyway but when she does the chances are that the things she'd like to do might not be offered anyway. DS went to a tiny school and they still managed to offer several clubs, Ofsted would not be impressed if they didn't!

Differentiation just requires a good teacher to put in the work, it doesn't need loads of resources. Making sure she is stretched academically will come down to individual teachers rather than how much money is available.

Schools get additional funding of £1.5k per FSM pupils. The school with additional FSM pupils will have more money.

The lack of resources and no substitute teachers has nothing to do with the demographic of the families. Schools are funded per pupil. Less pupils, less funding. Some things don't cost double just because you have double the students. For example, they won't have double the number of toilets or kitchen staff, more maybe but not double. Highly unlikely they have double the office staff. The extra money is then available to use elsewhere in the school.
You'll have to decide which is right for you and your child, small with less opportunities and you maybe do more out of school yourself, or bigger and impersonal so you maybe feel she is less supported. I'd say if that's how it felt when you visited it would be a no for me. Two class entry isn't that big really, there are bigger, so it shouldn't feel impersonal. The PTA shouldn't need to fund things, and you can't rely on that. Next year they might all leave then there's nothing!

We try to avoid using supply teachers if we can, not for budget reasons but for consistency for the children. If we can cover from within with staff who know the children then we will.

I disagree with the sentiment that a child who is academically bright will flourish anywhere. Not given the right environment will make that child struggle to actually succeed, given the challenges that state schools face today.
i would choose the second, bigger school. It’s not only about the academics, it’s about the entire school experience.

Sorry ignore missed your later post..

Which school is your catchment school?
You may not have a choice in schools..

If it is 'poor school, check if the 'rich' school is oversubscribed. If so, then you are not likely to get a place being out of catchment.

How do you know the school can't afford a substitute teacher?
This all seems odd to me. I've worked in schools. FSM children get more funding and that makes up more than what a PTA does in my area. The extra-curricular activities were always run by school staff anyway and weren't chargeable. It may be different where you are looking but unless you are certain don't be assuming dance club at school would be anything like ballet at a dance school. They also all had trips, including residential trips and even trips abroad.

School based extracurricular don't really replace out of school extracurricular.

They are usually short sessions, happening for a few weeks, having waiting lists etc. Good for trying something new but not an in depth experience for a keen child. Its not something to base a decision on really.

Its an awkward question really because while it shouldn't make a difference, the demographic of families does effect a school ethos. A school can be fantastic for all sorts of reasons but its only really beneficial if those reasons match your needs.

Doing extracurriculars outside school would be exhausting for the little one, not for me

While this may be the case now, it probably won’t be so much of an issue in a few of years. Both of mine were shattered after a day of pre school. Both of them have just spent the last 2 hours charging round soft play with their friends without issue.

Unless a school was dire, I’d personally always go for a school I can walk to. I think it’s so important for health and community. Going with that logic (alongside being very impressed with the senior management team and their approach to both behaviour and inclusivity and flexible wrap around care), in a similar situation to you we went for the school with a much higher % of FSMs. No regrets. Despite the SATs results being not quite so good, my kids love it and are thriving. This: The bigger one is 10-15mins drive and then probably a 10-15 min walk/cycle as there's nowhere to park around there would be my idea of hell every morning for the next 7 years.

Only you know what your priorities are though.

How is the rich school 'aiming high'?

Don’t rule out extra curricular activities that aren’t run by the school. As she gets a bit older she may want to do tennis, ballet, drama etc.

The finances may not be as clear cut as you think. If more pupils are on FSM, they will have pupil premium which means the school gets additional funding for them. Whilst that funding is designed to be spent on the pupils who benefit from it, how that is interpreted can vary. For example, it may be that, if there are several children, the money is pooled together and used to pay for an additional TA in a class. Or it may be that it actually pays for those children to go on school trips or participate in enrichment activities meaning that that school actually provides more than a school where parents are in the position where they don’t qualify for FSM but are not affluent enough to pay for school trips, ballet lessons etc themselves.

Do bear in mind, too, that after school activities provided by the school are rarely at such a high standard as external
clubs. For example, at my DC’s school, “dance” was offered and they did a different style of dance each term but it was very generic. It wasn’t comparable to the ballet, tap, modern etc lessons offered by outside providers. Similarly, the KS2 children could do a sports club most days after school but the coach was the same teacher every day & for every sport. The level
of coaching just couldn’t be as good as external providers. Many kids did a mix of school clubs and out of school clubs so you still have the logistical issue. Plus there are the simple facts that your child might not get a space in the school club or might not like the teacher running it and so on.
That said, I would always go for a two form entry school over a one form entry school just because there is more variety. There are 59 other children for your child to find a friend amongst rather than 29.