To send my child to private school at age 4?

[confusedaboutworkingandparenting]

Wise Mumsnetters, please talk to me about private school in the UK. Or public school? What is the difference? As you have probably gathered already, DH and I went to comprehensive schools and have no experience of education options in London or the independent school system in the UK. Other children is unlikely to be a factor here so we could probably afford to pay for one to go, although of course it would involve some sacrifices. We have some good private schools nearby to us and none of the "local" state primary schools are actually that convenient, so all options involve a bit of a trek. So talk to me about private school? Is it worth it? Is it really that different to state school? When is the best time to send them? If you could afford it, would you do it? And why? And will I inadvertently turn my beloved child into a posh tw*t?! Also the holidays are so long! What do you do with them then! Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences and wisdom.

No not devoid of bad behaviour but my experience was all the parents prioritised education and were engaged and supportive eg did the nightly reading, ensured homework done. Enables class to move on at a decent pace.
It’s also a business relationship. Parents’ won’t tolerate a child repeatedly disrupting class or bullying they will be in to see the head. It’s much easier for private school to ask a child to leave.
My experience was things got nipped in bud and didn’t escalate as the classes were so much smaller. Infants was 15 in a class with a teacher and full time TA. Teachers weren’t on their knees - they had time in day to prep and mark eg in infants a French teacher took class, dance teacher took class, games teacher took class. Staff turnover was very low and no supply teachers. Much easier to keep behaviour in check.

Surely it is a no brainer. If you can afford it, private will always be better. State schools are (mostly) shockingly bad. Part of my job (university lecturer) is interviewing potential undergrads on intervew day. I can always tell without looking at their form if they are state or private. Sadly, state schools struggle to produce well rounded learners.

Having had experience of both as an educator and parent I would say if you can afford it go for it. I actually think the experience is definitely more beneficial at prep level than senior but we will keep ours in until 18 as I think changing sectors would be hard. I would also say that it is best to start young then your child is fully benefiting from the experience and not having to play catch up.
I would say though that not all private schools are equal. Make sure you visit a few and understand what they are offering and that it is in keeping with your expectations.

I don’t like the state system at all. I don’t like the bossy letters about attendance and holidays and what not - thread earlier about Y6 parents being ‘expected to attend’ a meeting at short notice is a case in point.

By all accounts according to teachers on here kids are being taught in dilapidated buildings with no glue sticks in huge classes with an endless stream of TAs teaching them. Yet ask if you should send your child to private and you get defensive ‘no point’ replies.

Go figure!

If your local state primary is ok I really don't think it's worth it. Secondary... maybe, but again depends on your area.

Part of me admires your candidness, but bloody hell - you really are part of the problem.

I personally disagree with the whole concept of private education. All it does is widens the gap between rich and poor. The wealthy parents who can afford private school are generally the ones best placed to force the government to improve the non private schools. Instead, the poor are left in failing schools while the rich buy their way out of the problem.

In what way do you see people forcing the government to improve state school? As in how do think that could be achieved by pupils parents?

If you've got a lovely little state primary in a lovely area with lots of highly engaged and prepared to fundraise for extras parents, fine, stay in the state sector and enjoy the additional private opportunities that your high income allows you to take advantage of.

But if you live in a very poor area with a high transient population, terrible health outcomes for all ages, high crime rate and the school is undersubscribed, on its knees financially, has a weak head and governing body, cover supervisors/supply teachers in almost every class with no money for things like fixing holes in the roof or paper, zero heed paid to SEND or wellbeing of staff or children and the generalised attitudes in the area are that there is no hope/no point in learning because there aren't any jobs and wanting to learn is something for other people's children are to be mocked for, use your money to give your children a better and safer learning environment. Or move.

If I'd have had the money, I would have put my children into private without a shadow of a doubt.

Plenty ways:

• involvement in parent council
• contacting local government (local councillors/MSPs/MPs)
• raising awareness of the issues in the community through their contacts
• business contacts to help with funding
• press involvement

To put it bluntly, Stacey, the single mum of four from a council estate who lives on universal credit, has far less influence than Stacey, who is married to the owner of the local law firm, and works as a research scientist herself.

Problem is that those two Staceys don’t tend to live near one another.

I am not sure there is a way around this.

I’m surprised to hear you say that you live in London, yet none if the state schools are “convenient”, by which I think you are talking about distance? In my part of zone 3 there are three primary schools within 5 mins walk of our house (2 non-denominational, one C of E) and a further four within 10 minutes (one Catholic). You don’t say how old your child is, but have you very carefully checked the council website and made absolutely sure that you know which schools are likely to be offered to you?

The reason I’m confused is that, for us, the downside of private school was the distance (15 mins by car) so it’s odd that you are in the reverse situation and I’m wondering if some wires are crossed somehow.

Going back to your child’s age, you need to get all the information together about application deadlines for private schools as you may be able to rule some out by already being too late to apply. If applying for Sept 2023 normally you’d have done all your tours and applications by now. Some have waiting lists years in advance, though that’s not quite so common now. They will then likely have an interview process.

One advantage of sending a child to a private school from reception is if it is a “straight through school” - usually the kids in the pre- prep (years R to 2) get entry to junior and senior without having to do a further entrance exam, and are joined further up the school by kids who come from state at age 7 and 11 after intensive prep for entrance exams. So unless your child has serious academic performance issues they will not have any of the stress that bright kids applying at an older age will have. It’s all done and dusted with a gentle play-based interview at age 4.

That is a game changer. If the private pre-prep school is standalone and doesn’t have an attached junior/senior school then your child will still have to do entrance exams for the next level independent schools. The private pre prep will of course prepare them but they are still on the treadmill.

I have no experience of state primary in London. Our son’s school has great facilities, a nurturing atmosphere, food and trips included, lots of sport and 20 per class. He’s bright, especially at maths, and he is challenged appropriately. I think it is well worth it. He’s only 6 so I suppose he might still turn into a twat but he hasn’t yet, and the older kids I have met are by and large not twats either. Nor are their parents, at least not statistically more twattish than the general population. I am state educated myself, though I do work with a lot of twats so maybe I have become quite twat-tolerant, who knows..

This is absolutely not true of most secondary schools.

Ive worked in many secondary schools - in a mixture of different areas - and both Stacey’s children are often in the same class. Catchment zones tend to be pretty large. And I am directly able to access basic financial information for all kids I teach (their entitlement to free school meals, and the income decile of their postcode) so I’m speaking from specific knowledge, not hearsay.

Also, having kids who are more likely to achieve the top grades attend a different school leads to dilution of grades in the state schools, which in turn makes them less attractive to future generations of well off children.

Ah yes, holidays. Yes, quite annoying. Summer is 2 weeks longer than state, October is 2 weeks not 1, Feb is same as state, Easter a week longer. It is a bit tricky, to be honest, but we mostly book him into activity camps (gymnastics, multi-sport) and juggle leave between us. As they get older and make friends you can do play days with other kids so the other family take yours one day, and you swap another day.

Secondary schools may have a mixed catchment in many areas, but given OFSTED publish the % of FSM, it’s still a teller, isn’t it?

Then the rich would either home educate with tutors, have their children educated abroad, create educational cooperatives, or do what they do now and buy up properties around the desirable schools.

You are proving my point. The wealthier parents aren’t included in this data for the state schools, since they don’t go to the state schools. Thus, it makes the school look more deprived than it should be.

We’ve used both and been very lucky with state (and private) but this is a factor.

After no access for so long in pandemic it feels a relief to not be impacted by strikes in private.

Re state - it varies a fair bit in the sector and location, catchment and house prices have an impact here

If you’re telling me that secondary schools who have an intake that is deprived don’t exist, I don’t think we will agree.

Some secondaries have a majority intake that is reasonably affluent. They may have a minority of deprivation in their intake, but the majority are middle class.

In some areas, the reverse is true.

Parents who have a choice tend to go for the school with the more affluent intake. It’s not the same as private, but it doesn’t make every school on an equal footing either.

At any rate, it’s probably true that the private school system is an unfair one, but the raw truth is people with money will always have options people without money don’t have. To put it bluntly, money gives you a nicer life. A nicer home, nicer leisure time, better healthcare (and life expectancy) and better education.

It is unfair, yet without resorting to whole hearted socialism I am not sure what the answer is!

We used to live in a deprived northern town. All talk when they got to 9 ish was what were you going to do for secondary as dire local secondary schools were not seen as an option.
Parents did the following
A very small percentage went private - fees around £12,000 a year.
C of E out of town - 2 yrs weekly church attendance & an expensive school bus pass
Catholic - baptism, confirmation, communion etc.
Try for one of two out of catchment grammar schools - tutoring & expensive bus pass
Move into catchment of outstanding schools (next council area) - only a few miles and big jump in house prices but a different world.

The ‘rich’ will do the same if there’s no private. They won’t opt for dire.

Not true. I know many people who could afford private education, but choose not to because they believe in equality. I’ve actually taught the children of three people who you would definitely know the name of, and the children of someone who owns an international business. All in state schools.

(being deliberately vague)

I would say be very certain you can see it all the way through if starting at aged 4.
It's very difficult to move them out of the private sector if finances become difficult.
If I could only afford primary or secondary I would wait until secondary.
(Based on schools local to me!)

Okay?

Sure, there are those that send their children to state school for ideological reasons, and I didn’t state otherwise. That has no bearing on the ones that wouldn’t, who would look for alternatives in the event of private schools being banned.

We’ve sent our DS to a private school. It’s our closest one so we can walk which is a huge bonus. Wraparound care is reliable and flexible and there’s holiday clubs onsite.

we are mixed race and the school is ethnically diverse so we feel ‘normal’ rather than the token BAME family.

DS is learning an instrument, has specialist teachers for drama, music, PE and art. He is in a class of 20. He has SEN and the support is great.

I’m a teacher in a nearish state primary. We can’t offer the same sort of things. I’m firefighting each day with too little resource to help the children I teach.