Who is in the right re educating DC? (1st world probs)

[butterflynight]

I have recently inherited a fairly large sum of money & potentially want to put it towards DCs education. However DH & I do not agree on how we should allocate it as it's not enough to pay for both DCs entire education.
DH thinks we should pay for private prep that preps DC for 11+ & then send them to grammar school. He thinks this will be cheaper & that grammar school kids are more appealing when applying for uni/jobs.

DC1 is in an outstanding local primary (reception) & I love it. I think it's a waste to spend the money on prep when we have a fantastic state primary on our doorstep. Plus I wouldn't want to put DC through a grammar school unless they could cope with it & we won't know that for a while yet. I would rather do state primary & then move them to private secondary even though it will cost more & have less cache.

Completely understand this is a 1st world problem & I do not believe private is necessarily better then state. DH went private but I went to catholic schools so it's new to me. Who do you think is BU?

You will not qualify for a bursary if your have have capital or significant equity in your home.

I assess bursaries for our school.

Bursaries are rarely 'very generous' and the application process is invasive.

Bank statements
Mortgage statements
Details of investments
Outgoings scrutinised etc.

You would be expected to exhaust capital and remortgage prior to being offered a bursary unless it's a school like Whitgift or Christ's Hospital who charge based on parental income.

Ttbb- your last post is wrong/misleading in practically every particular.

moany as I thought.

Yes again bursaries in SW London schools are few and far between. I think the problem is that on the one hand the state primaries in our area are really very good. And with a minimal injection of cash for sport/music/travel you could supplement so easily. And if you tutor them and they are somewhat bright there are enough secondary schools around to absorb those who want to get in. (Despite the competitive craziness every year suggesting otherwise).
The only reason I would do private secondary is because of where we live. The grammars are super duper competitive. And the state comprehensives are so-so. And in that situation if I could afford private then go for it.

It depends on where you are in the country. We have about 90% paid off our mortgage and I have been reliably informed by a leading private school that (subject to exam results) we are likely to qualify for a significant bursary based on our earnings. They do not count equity in a property if the total value is reasonably low for the area and the property is not excessively large for your needs, and it is your only property. We are in a different bit of SW London.

I actually hate assessing them butterfly - I feel so shit about making judgements about whether they are spending 'correctly' or don't have a great enough need.

However we have families applying who live in mortgage-free houses worth in excess of £1m, investments worth many tens of thousands and it's just not right to offer someone in that position discounted fees.

We do take into account the area that we are in: modest 3 beds are in excess of £700k so look at equity reasonably and don't expect people to be mortgaged to the hilt.

I'll be honest, if you like the state primaries near you and they are doing a good job for your son then I wouldn't change. The areas you are talking about moving to have excellent state schools at all levels.

The areas you are talking about moving to have excellent state schools at all levels

Erm, some parts of Kent don’t have great secondary moderns, which is the state secondary option if you fail the 11+...,.

Sorry Taffeta - I was thinking Kingston and Sutton. I freely admit I don't know about Kent schools.

Kent is “a risk” at secondary, unless you can definitely afford private.

We have kids in state and private. Since you've already started in state and are happy I'd revisit it when DC1 is 6 and you can consider preparing for the 7+ exam and moving them in Year 3. Being in London puts an entirely different spin on it than anywhere else in the country because the schools are so selective and places so scarce. Some of our friends with kids in state were very happy in reception but as they moved on in the school became far less happy with how formal it became and how fast all in the name of SATS.

In my experience the 7+ is far easier emotionally on the kids. By 11 the school is breathing down their necks to do year six SATS and you'll be preparing them for the 11+. Go have a look on the evelenplus forum website and read some of the posts. They also have real opinions on where they go for secondary school at that age which adds a whole other dimension. If at 11 you have one who would suit a grammar sit them for the 11+ for the grammars. If not then carry on with private.

The advantages for us of private school have been smaller classes so far more individual attention and no "invisible middle" of kids that are just left to get on with it. The extracurriculars are woven throughout the curriculum and are part of school life that's far richer. They are incentivised to bring out the best in your individual child. State schools are incentivised to please ofsted and pass SATS. Those may or may not be the best things for your kid.

If you have good local schools, I'd save the money and pay for uni instead so that they don't have any debts.

If your DH went to private, how much difference did it make to his career? I'm assuming not a lot if private school is only possible via an inheritance.

Defenetily agree with you. That's our plan too, state primary private secondary. Think they will get the most out of it that way.

moany I completely agree with you.

Thanks shiggle I would defo like to see DC develop first & see what's best for them.

Yellow Never thought of it like that but many of my friends were privately educated, some are teachers, doctors etc but I wouldn't say their education was a waste because they didn't earn mega bucks. In SE London in the 80s & 90s private happpened to be the best option for my DH.

We could stretch to paying it ourselves but it would be a BIG sacrifice eg me potentially having to go to work full time.

"They are incentivised to bring out the best in your individual child. State schools are incentivised to please ofsted and pass SATS"

Such ridiculous sweeping statements. It would be wrong of me to say "private schools are incentivized to get as much money out of parents as they can...... but it's just as true as your statement.

From experience, if you want grammar, then a private prep is indispensible unless you have great tutors available? Some grammar school areas don’t but Buckinghamshire and Kent definitely have great 11 plus tutors available.

From experience, if you want grammar, then a private prep is indispensible unless you have great tutors available? Some grammar school areas don’t but Buckinghamshire and Kent definitely have great 11 plus tutors available.

If your children have motivated, supportive parents and you like the local state schools why would you spend that money on 'name' schools just of the sake of it?

We sent all ours to state primary and secondary - they went to great universities and are in good professional employment (of the type associated with name schools). You could put the money toward helping them get on the housing ladder or their higher ed costs and cultural enrichment. All of which would be far more useful to them long term.

Save the money for university.

Save it for uni. Secondary education isn’t worth much (unless you are going to Eton or Harrow) The uni education is what will affect his future most and finance at that stage can make all the difference.

From experience, if you want grammar, then a private prep is indispensible unless you have great tutors available? Some grammar school areas don’t but Buckinghamshire and Kent definitely have great 11 plus tutors available.

You need neither an exceptional tutor nor a prep school education to pass the 11+ in Kent, from my experience.

We are going to stick with our primary for now & see where we are in a few years. Thanks all.

I'd suggest saving it for university fees etc. By that time they will have more of an idea of what they want to do professionally. Rather than spend it all now.

It’s all very well saying that it should be saved for uni (I agree that’s a huge expense now) but each school affects your chances of going to uni or to a better uni, so it can all have a knock on effect. Secondary would have a bigger impact on uni than prep/primary though.

I am going through similar wondering about sending my son to prep at 7+ age. I always thought I’d only do private education at secondary (if necessary) but am not happy with the narrowing of the curriculum at the moment and the particular catchment school he would go to in particular has some large flaws. He’s not doing amazingly at the moment athough he seems bright and I think he might do well if pushed a bit more and in smaller class sizes. Equally, I have a huge respect for the way state schools deal well with SEN and support and their expertise - my only real concern here vs. private is that state are now handicapped by massive underfunding.

In your case, since the state primaries sound good and are serving you well, OP, I think you’re right to wait. It sounds like their track record for private selective secondaries is good.

"It’s all very well saying that it should be saved for uni (I agree that’s a huge expense now) but each school affects your chances of going to uni or to a better uni, so it can all have a knock on effect."

In what way?

I wouldn't bother with private primary. There are some great state primaries around. Secondary however I would go private if possible. I'm discovering how bad even 'good' state secondaries can be currently and how little money they have which is badly affecting the standard of teaching. I wish we could afford it.