Asking for advice on private school

[loonnie]

My DD is not school age yet, but soon we will need to start applying and I'm not sure where to start really.

Ideally I would like her to go to a private school.

For state schools, there is ofsted. There is also some kind of body for private schools I think. Basically how can I find out if a private school I am looking for is actually good or not ? Is the independent school body that rates private schools to be trusted ?

There are some outstanding state primaries in my area, so I am not against potentially sending her there. I'm trying to compare these to the private schools in the area.

I went to private secondary school and state primary. I had no issues as I was bright when I was in primary school and as a toddler. Not so much later on, but that's another topic haha.

My DD is average for her age in terms of development at the moment. I want her to have the best chance to have a good start at school with a lot of support and attentive teachers. Would it be safest to send her to a private primary ? Or can an outstanding state primary also provide this ?

I'm not anti state schools in any way. I'm just trying to potentially give my child the best start in whichever way I can. I'm just starting my research, so totally clueless, as you can tell.

Many thanks and really not meaning to offend anyone with this post.

To answer the OP's question - as previous posters mentioned you can look at the reports from ISI. I think it is really important too look around a variety of schools and if possible talk to existing parents. However, having 3 dc's all of whom have attended the same school a massive factor is the cohort of each year and you can't legislate for that.

Advantages of private prep are definitely the wrap around care and amount of activities/sport on offer within the extended school day. Also I personally found flexi boarding super handy when my dc were a little older.

Regarding oxbridge rates from private/public schools - it is pretty clear that many of the big schools are pivoting and focusing on getting their high achievers into the big US universities.

By tipping the playing field against those who have received a better education, you will be picking less competent candidates (on average).

No, this is the point: somebody who has achieved excellent results because their parents have been able to invest a six figure sum into their education so as to ensure they receive the top tuition so they can pass exams isn’t necessarily innately more talented, clever, driven or competent than somebody who has achieved slightly less well on the back of a state education and fewer opportunities given to them. They might be: and if that’s the case, it will shine through in their personal statement and responses to questions and they will be successful.

Anyway, this is all completely off the topic of the thread and considering I don’t run the HR departments at any of the major firms who recruit this way, something best debated with them if you feel very strongly about it.

A lot of people will say don't waste your money on private for primary but getting into a good private for secondary is not always that easy, especially without tutoring. Also private schools ime often work at a different pace and standard to state which is a culture shock in year 7. The smartest people I think are those that put their child in a private primary in y6 which gives them automatic entry to the senior school. 1 year of fees well spent and a year to adapt and make friends ready for high school.

Whether half of oxbridge students come from 7% of all schools or 50% of all schools is neither here nor there in terms of the quality of their results. The results are what they are.

Yes, it is important to look at overall achievement. It’s not so impressive an achievement getting an A at A-Level physics if you’ve not really had to work for it; if you’ve been to the best schools where you’re surrounded by people for whom an A is normal; where class sizes are small; where you have extra attention if you need it; etc etc. It’s much more of an achievement if you really had to work against the odds for it. However, being a good engineer requires you to have an A at A Level physics. Just because it may have been a greater achievement to have earned a B grade coming from zero, than to have earned an A grade coming from a lot, the job requires an A. The country doesn’t need bridges that don’t stand because it’s empowering to the WC. And A grade is an A grade, and that’s just life.

FYI the independent sector is almost entirely comprised of MC kids. For every Eton, there will be 50 random private schools that vary from excellent to a waste of space all stuffed with MC kids of various economic means.

I don’t see what glib statements like “buying privilege doesn’t make you better it just makes you privileged” add to the conversation. Anyone with a basic education and a little life experience knows that…

State til 8 is an option and common round here.

My kids are in prep and it’s been a waste of money. My neighbour’s kids at the outstanding local primary have better handwriting and the teaching my kids have had hasn’t been great. We are moving them back into the state sector.

I agree this is going off-topic and I can see that this is a complex area. However I think that the point that @absolutelyanythingwilldo is relevant if, as an employer, you are looking for someone to hit the ground running and use certain knowledge/skills that have already been taught and examined in their degree/A levels. Otherwise you are still going to have to invest extra time and money bringing them up to standard. This is not so important if what is required in the job is all brand new and every candidate is treated as a blank canvas to learn a new skill.

Take my field, which needs extremely good writing skills. A junior staff member who has been examined in, and achieved high marks in, this area (Employee A), will produce work that needs less amendment than his/her peer who got a lower mark in the same exam (Employee B). Employee B is disadvantaged and could no doubt have achieved the same standards as Employee A given the same opportunities, and will in time get to the same standard at work as Employee A. However I now have to invest my time training Employee B to get him or her there. That may well be something I am happy to factor in, especially if my business will benefit in other ways by being able to demonstrate that it met ESG criteria through recruiting Employee B. However it’s a fallacy that A and B are the same quality of employee from day one.

I don't know what your financial circumstances are but if there's any chance you may run out of money, I would always advise against private primary, in favour of saving for private secondary.

Bright kids with a supportive home environment will be fine at a decent state primary.
By the time it gets to secondary it's different. Even the best secondary schools can't compete with the teacher:pupil ratios and extra help that the private sector can offer. And school work is obviously harder as you get older.

Are you likely to have more children? Will sending your DD to private school for 13 years mean that any subsequent children will need to be state educated?

I think that having to move from private to state because parents have run out of money is pretty stressful for kids, so make sure you prevent that happening if at all possible.

‘I can't believe you think that all the privately educated candidates are just the same standard as state school candidates and the imbalance must be some bug in the system.’

I absolutely do not - I think many, many , many of them are far worse but have the advantages of privilege through money, connections, name of schools, private tutors, ‘impressive’ extra curricular a to get them into too unis and top jobs.
I’ve worked with a whole host of private school educated numpties who have the confidence of Boris Johnson and the brains of a 6 year old.

Prince William is the epitome of this privilege- a completely mediocre student who got into one of the best and most prestigious universities in the world.
no WC student with his grades would have been given the same opportunities.

Anewdayanewdawn....I hope no one I know ever gets involved where your work/company is!

I just can't begin to critique all that is naïve and wrong with your post.

I looked at the most recent inspection and destination senior schools.
I then thought about convenience and how the school would fit with our lives.
I visited and got an idea of what work the the DC were doing and what I thought of the head.
I asked people I knew.

Op, it must be so frustrating for you that your post has been knocked off course!

I wish I had the ££ to pay for private.
Our private schools are not hotbeds of well connected people they are just homely, cosy places with parents who earn a bit more and sacrifice a little more!

@RayneDance you e really taken it personally, this choosing the WC, made their own way in the world candidate over the upper MC one…
in case you’re interested the candidate has turned out to be a good as we’d hoped.

But they’ll get far? That’s what the parents are paying for!

Do you not see your argument is so weak that you have to use actual royalty and claim this is a representative example?

IKR?! There’s literally only one Prince William in the world!

Great news. I'm sure someone with your level mindedness wouldn't succumb to confirmation bias and this opinion is completely objective.

I've taken it personally?

You are all over this thread!!

I don't mind. It's a perspective to consider for sure. We also have an outstanding rated state secondary in our area. It would save us a lot of money !

I don't really want my DD to come out like the made in Chelsea lot to be fair. But the private school that is local to me isn't one of the really prestigious ones. Mine wasn't either, it was more international, rather than those really well known posh ones that the likes of the duchess of Cambridge went to. I always know when I'm dealing with a made in Chelsea type, because they always talk about which schools they went to and then ask you which school you went to etc. i would never ask anyone that. We don't really move in those circles at all. Sorry if I've offended anyone, I know I'm absolutely generalising mentioning the made in Chelsea lot all the time, but that's what comes to mind somehow.

Just make the best decision and ignore what other people say. I have also found that the school I chose for my eldest child wasn't necessarily the best fit for my very different youngest child.

Also depending on finances etc don't rule out 'posh' schools - look around and make your own decisions.

Look at it this way OP, start saving money towards it now before you even need it. That way by the time your DD is old enough to start school if you've decided to go to a private primary you've got a small amount behind you to take the pressure off. If you decide to go state primary then keep on saving as much as you can and by the time she reaches secondary age you'll probably have saved most of the fees needed to get through private secondary. If you decide to skip private altogether then you'll have a nice pot of savings to blow on something else!

At the end of the day we're all trying to do the right thing by our own children for their needs. I wasn't privately educated (in fact I went to one of the bottom 20 schools in the country!) and neither was DH, but we are in the fortunate position to earn enough between us, and through inheritance, to be able to put money away so that private might be an option for us when our children reach secondary age if that is what will be best for them. I refuse to listen to people who try to make out we are some kind of awful people for considering private education. Most of the people around here that use the private schools are professionals - doctors, teachers, scientists, tech company executives - there are no aristocrats or multimillionaires, it's just not that kind of area!

I think some posters are getting confused between public and private independent schools. Public ones are very expensive, attended by the likes of Prince William and apparently a high percentage of MPs. Private schools are still fee-paying, but not as expensive and far more likely to be filled with a mix of abilities from a mix of backgrounds.

Whilst both can be seen as advantageous, IMHO public schools are far more likely to have pupils who have had extra tutors and be part of the old boys' network. I went to a very good private school many years ago. My dad was a GP and mum was out of work due to having cancer. My best friend's dad was a carpet fitter and her mum was a dinner lady. There was a politician's daughter and another who had two teachers as parents. We had the opportunity of a good education in classes of 20ish, but we still hard to work hard. For A Levels, a lot of independence was expected which looking back probably wasn't great for me. I needed more formal deadlines and structure that friends in state schools got. Yes it was a privilege but not as massive as other posters are making out.

Sorry OP, I would echo what others have said about state primary and private secondary, but also don't be too firm on the secondary school until you see how your daughter gets on for the years she's in primary. My sister would have done well in any school, she's hard working and organised so doesn't need supervision. I am the total opposite so would have benefited from a stricter education where I could get away with less misbehaviour!

‘But they’ll get far? That’s what the parents are paying for!’
yes, privilege! I understand that. I was answer someone who thought I was saying state and private are the same, when clearly they are not.
So it’s good that changes are afoot, big time.

We send DD to a prep school, the entire reason for that choice is that she is in a class of 10 children rather than a class of 30. At the point of starting primary school she especially benefitted from that ratio (5:1 adult to teacher, as there is also a teaching assistant per class).

It wasn't to hothouse her for a specific secondary school, or to avoid the local state school, it was purely based on "where do we think would work best for our child?".