State or private for secondary?

Traalaa: Can I just reiterate that I was quoting my friend. She made that comment because she has seen the difference over the five years from her eldest starting to the youngest starting and having to be removed. The school in question has an excellent reputation for pastoral care and for dealing with bullying effectively but boys of 11/12 who were making threats of a violent sexual should have been expelled, not given a detention.

Just going back to one of your earlier comments about your friend's DD attempting suicide, I agree that bullying can happen in private schools too. It is one of the reasons why I would never send DD to one of the super-selective girls' schools - private or grammar - even if she could have passed the exams. I think those schools are very pressurised and peer pressure can be enormous. I also think that you can get more bitchiness in some girls' schools, although obviously not all of them are like that.

The secondary education thread is full of references to private schools where bullying is rife. Bullying happens in all schools. It is how the school deals with it that counts.

btw Cleo, I'm not saying some schools don't have those problems or denying what happened to your friend's son. That's really sad and must have been very difficult for her. What I'm trying to say is the reason isn't that the kids are from poorer backgrounds. Kids often need help and that's what the PP money is for, but a good school puts support in place for kids who need it. Most kids don't any extra support. They just need a good school to thrive in. My friend's just moved her boy from a school in a nice middle class to one in a much more deprived area. Her son's far happier, simply because it's a kinder, better run school and he feels safe there. Each school's different, but it's not the background of the kids that dictates how good they are.

Cleo, problems with bullying, etc are usually down to school leadership and core values. Schools in v.deprived areas, with some v.troubled kids don't have those problems. One v.close to where I live is lauded for not having such problems. It makes me more than a bit queasy when you intimate that the reason for the increased in bullying/ bad behaviour at that school is due to PP kids. That does seem to be what you're saying. 'The intake has changed and is bringing the school down.'

CandyCrush a PP has touched on this but it is worth comparing subject choices available at GCSE and A level between the different schools for this year and next. I think that will become even more of a distinction between state and private in the next few years. The trend is already apparent in excellent state schools that I know (not in your area), funding is now restricting what they can offer outside the mainstream GCSE/ A level subjects including choice of languages or quality of resources for music, DT, drama etc. I would be worried about the effect of this narrowing of the academic curriculum and perspective, it puts a lot more onus on parents to supplement outside school. It is a factor that would push me towards private now (as well as extracurricular opportunities ) should I be choosing for a reasonably academic DC and would not have been so much of a consideration a few years ago.

Traalaa, I'm not certain why you think my quoting my friend about the effect of the increased number of children on Pupil Premium is offensive. She has noticed a big difference in behaviour/bullying in the five years since her eldest child started at the school. It has got much worse. This is a Christian school (I'm not saying which denomination) and had good reputation. My friend used to go on and on about how wonderful it was, but the intake has changed and is bringing the school down.

NWgirls, you are absolutely right to concentrate on the A/A*s.

CandyCrush, you would be amazed at the number of people in North or NW London who rent for a year close to an outstanding state school. They don't move, they rent within about 100 yards. This is offset by their renting out their own property. It's no hardship - if they live in a £1.5m house, they just rent something similar.

If you move house, you will worry about Sod's Law - would it not be just your luck when they hire a new, wrong Head or Ofsted rates it Requires Improvement out of the blue and turmoil rips it apart with staff leaving in droves etc... Or the catchment shrinks that year and you had not moved quite near enough. Something bad like that could happen - even a 10% chance is scary.

My guess is that for at least one of your kids you would succeed in either getting a place at a great state school (say partially selective or perhaps even have a go at QE in Barnet?) or a great independent. For the other one NBH may also work out OK. (Moving for 6th form could be the plan in that case).

There is a lot of "option value" in not moving and instead waiting until you see all application outcomes before you write a big cheque. During that process, you will also learn a lot about schools and how well they suit (or not) your kids. What you thought or preferred when he was 8 or 9 may not be the same at 11. Choice has value.

Otherwise, although NBH (Hampstead/Rosslyn Hill) has its issues (especially turnover), we will definitely apply there for DD2 who is 9 - but hoping she will also get an offer somewhere better, like DD1 did.

We (also) really don't want to move, and are not happy with local state secondaries - but will watch them carefully and may change our mind. We also went for state primary and love the multicultural and social mix. But DD1 (who is at a good but not superselective independent secondary) now has great, positive, hardworking friends/peers; so I would not worry much about ethos. And as we hoped, their attitude is rubbing off on her. That culture is very different from what we perceive and hear about at our poor-to-mediocre local state secondaries)

Stamp duty would feel like a huge waste, it really is money down the drain which you don't get back. BTW, I highly recommend a large offset mortgage (with lots of "slack") to help sleep well at night if paying fees.

Final point: With bright kids, you should look primarily at % A+ at GCSE rather than % A-C. (A-C becomes meaningless for all good private schools - with all at 100 or 99 it tells you nothing, and some state schools focus a bit too much on getting Cs). And when comparing state school results, look at the stats for high and mid achievers, not just the headline figure.

Good luck!

When making a choice I would be wary of being swayed by league tables. They mostly reflect how the selective the intake is and how ruthless they are at weeding out after prep, pre and post GCSE. Many children are being tutored to keep up at some of these schools.

I think you are right, Naughtyb0y. The top privates are hugely over-subscribed. There are new prep schools opening all over the place but it costs a phenomenal amount of money to open a new senior school. Therefore middling schools which were always fallback schools are now getting applications from very bright children and the academic results are rising steadily. In my borough 25% of children are privately educated and as a result a number of SW parents are now looking at schools in North Surrey - Epsom College, Reeds, Notre Dame, St John's, etc.

Sometimes the turnaround is very fast, CandyCrush. North Bridge might doing very well in three or four years time.

Hi there,

I am at the opposite end of the country but, as a parent of very bright children, I am an advocate of the best education I can get. My DD1 went to private from reception to year 2. We are now at state (Y3 & R). The difference is massive but it isn't because of money, it is because of a lack of imagination and constrictions set by the education authority. I have to say, it is so frustrating as a family to adjust from private to state and there has been very little support for DD as she has had to adapt. Thankfully we are keeping up her level by homeschooling as she has been educated 2 levels above her state peers.

We worked twice as hard to fund her education and had no holidays in the 3 years she went but it was 100% worth it. We are currently trying to get back on track so we can send our children back. The whole system works for us and is far more flexible than state. We get so much more support as parents at private school and it makes working so much easier.

That said, if you can find a really really good state school, I'd go with that. I'd rather not pay for education - I don't think I've met a parent who would...... Although, lots of parents do spend more money having their children supported with their education in terms of after school clubs and tutors. Quite a few have said that after all the extra running about, lost wages due to dropping off at 9 and picking up at 3.30 and the cost of after school clubs (either at school or off site), they haven't actually saved compared to paying for private. You're also talking about a £100k moving bill too...... Well, I'd rather earn 40% more, not move and use that saving to pay for private...... I compared my financial outgoings with my SILs and I was earning 40% more and had more me time because DD was being educated and entertained from 8am to 6pm 5 days a week.....

Forest have had a generous scholarship pot for donkey's years, but they still trail waaaaay behind Bancrofts (their local competition). They are a fairly big school and the more places you have to fill the harder it is to be "picky." I also think they haven't been very good about knowing who to offer scholarships to.

That said, historically, they have "punched above their weight" in terms of getting children into medical schools and oxbridge considering their exam results/league table status. Meanwhile, Bancrofts get fewer DC into oxbridge/medical school than they should given the glittering GCSE/A-level results.

Both Forest and Bancrofts have/will have new heads, btw.

Cleo, that's awful that the poor child to have to go through that. Horrendous that the school didn't take action to sort it too. Clearly that is a very bad school, but it is just one example and I do find what you say about children on pupil premium more than a little offensive.

Just to counter - again ridiculous as it's just one example - I have a friend who's dd, at a rather elite London private school, was bullied so much she attempted suicide. The school failed her too, as it was reported to them several times and nothing much done - the perpetrators are still in the school and as in your example barely punished. One example though does not provide a valid reason to tar a whole sector. It's a rather ridiculous way to argue. You must realise that surely?!

Most schools - both sectors - will have very good pastoral care and a zero tolerance of bullying. There will always be examples of schools that fail at that, but I think largely schools these days do a good job: private and state.

Yes, It sounds like, given your priorities, you've made the right choice. I just sometimes think some chose forest for the sake of being private. As one mum put it; "...it's about the cohort, not the results!" Not just that snobbery but not realising that a large chunk are kids of Essex cabbies, which is totally fine, just don't think what they have in mind!!!
I think (as in almost every case) it depends on the child. My biggest reservation regarding less academic privates is lack of high achievers at the very top of the spectrum which states, as well as top privates have. Forest are obviously addressing this by offering such generous scholarships. This will surely, given over subscription of top privates, improve the results until it becomes more academic.

Traalaa: You are right - we'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't think all the children on all the estates are rowdy. Many of them aren't but the quieter ones I know have told me some of the things that go on and I'm horrified.

With regard to the situation which I touched on before, this involved bullying of the worse kind, had been going on for six months, and had terrified the poor child into silence. When his mother, who was distraught as you can imagine, found out she removed him immediately. Then she had someone from the LA saying they'd take her to Court for not sending him to school.

The bullies were 11 and 12 years old and threats were of a sexual nature. What did the school do? Absolutely nothing. I am afraid I count detention as "nothing" in this case. My friend contacted her MP who said it was very serious and she would take it all up with the school but nothing happened. The little thugs are still there and probably have a new victim.

Even more appalling was that my friend's elder son knew what was going on and he didn't tell her either. Apparently "you don't tell" because (his words) "nothing is ever done about the bullies and it just makes it 100 times worse."

This is a "good" school with 72% A-C but my friend said the children who now attend the school include a much higher percentage for whom the school receives the pupil premium - and she is pretty certain this will apply to the bullies and the school doesn't want to lose the cash.

Her son now goes to much nicer comprehensive school in another (outer London) borough. He is happy and doing well.

And, yes, when I've driven past that school and another comprehensive in the same borough at 3.00 lots of happy cheerful children are coming out.

Naughtyboy, once that work is done the area will look soooo much better. It shouldn't matter, but I am sure that it will give the school a little boost too! We are all so sensitive to our environments. The boys will get a buzz from being in town near all the action and feel quite special if the area looks cared for.

Candycrush I am talking about the state grammar Latymer which is in Edmonton. I never looked at it or considered it because we are just out of catchment. I just know from parents at different after school clubs with whom I mingle and gossip that it is preferred to our closer state grammar because it is coed, more racially diverse, and has a wider range of extracurricular activities.

You got me thinking, so I tried to Google the racial mix of the grammar schools and couldn't find any statistics at all.

We were almost in exactly the same position a few years ago. When our kids were younger I thought 'people must be mad to pay for private, state schools are fine here' as our kids were (and still are) absolutely fine in a state primary.
Then we had to find a secondary school for DS - he's now in year 6. So first we looked at state secondaries. We were in catchment for an outstanding faith school that everybody was raving about, but still would have to move to have a chance of getting in, and several good/outstanding other secondaries. We visited all of them and were only put off by one, the rest seemed fine. Then I compared the figures on the DofE website a bit, and found out that in terms of results, the faith school wasn't so fabulous as it seemed, at least not for high achievers. (For low or middle achieving kids it would be great however, really good results.) So not worth moving for, in our case. Then I found out that some of the secondaries we were considering didn't offer more than one MFL (which is really an issue for me) and others had mixed ability teaching all the way to GCSE for all subjects except maths, which we didn't want either. At that point we decided to look at grammars and private schools, including some of the ones you mentioned. DS then passed the 11+ for a grammar school, got an offer from a top private school and a scholarship from Forest, a good (but not top) private. The grammar still didn't offer all the subjects we wanted, and was quite far, and so was the top private. So in the end we chose Forest: it's close and offers everything we want, curriculum wise, and thanks to the scholarship the fees are managable for us too.
If you can afford the fees, you simply have more choice. Look very closely at all the schools you are considering, state and private, and ask yourself: if they would all cost the same, which school would be the best fit for this particular child?

@candycrush I'm sorry if I've started to sound evangelical. I think it's party because, I've not been without my own concerns prior to connecting with many kids and parents there (one boy grade 8 piano and rejection a place at city boys!). I'm 200% reassured not but perhaps without that association I may have not had the conviction which would have been a huge oversight for us.
Am in LOVE with the school and my sons found a gorgeous group of boys. Best of luck and do check out my last post re roundabout ;)

@80K girl. Thank you for this. I do care about pollution and as the mother of a chronic asthmatic, I was compelled to google the pollution levels which are not great. However, I the process, I discovered imminent development plans to pedestrianise half of the roundabout, which is of great interest;

The 1970s roundabout at London’s technology epicentre in Old Street will cease to exist, with one side being paved over to make a large pedestrian square with seating and trees.
The radical re-design will begin next year when the north-western arm of the roundabout on the Islington side of Old Street will be paved over to create a new public space. The Tube station will have a new entrance installed centrally – where the island stands presently.

Anecdotally I hear that private educated children are at a disadvantage when it comes to university selection.

But I am in Scotland where there is not the predominance of independent schools.

Naughtyboy it sounds like a great school, I had never even heard of it before. I appreciate you giving your experience and positive point of view. It's always great to hear about new places and opportunities.

I would say that City boys is on the river and City girls is in the Barbican, both nestled away from the roads where most of the Nox/Sox (diesel particulates are). I've never thought to pick a school based on pollution, but for people who care and are "in the know" on this stuff, it may make a difference. A friend who has a phD in environmental engineering, with a special interest in indoor air quality told me that road pollution is very localised.

Also, Latymer School is seen as very "blond" (that's the euphamism that I have heard for white around where I live) for a London grammar school. Most have much higher minority intakes. When it comes to the steep competition of grammar school entry some cultures are more prepared to succeed in the tournament.

@coffeeismy.. Sorry but what do you mean by 'attempts to make it happen'? It's been granted outstanding in every single area and results have surpassed many privates throughout the country. Presumably you make it happen for more white, middle class parents? (For the record, I'm white middle class).
I don't mean to sound ranty but I can't help but feel frustrated by some misconceptions of this school.