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 I’m not saying that’s wrong just responding to a poster who thought all state pupils got same and only additional was pupil premium or ehcp funding.
Of course there are very good reasons they may decide to allocate funding this way.

It’s not necessarily push to top but wanting the best for the specific child.
The few small private schools near me definitely pick up the additional needs/needs a bit of extra attention market but not so bad to qualify for an ehcp.

Funding is complex, because not all state pupils get the same between geographical areas, either - though there has been some reduction in the extent of variation. I apologise if I over-simplified my point.

The conflation of ‘technically good’ with ‘non-deprived’ schools remains problematic, however - to judge schools by their intake, not by what they do with their intake, is a really concerning, but very common, fallacy.

Girlswithgoodbodieslikeboyswithferarris · Today 11:46
Your last sentence is the crux of the issue. People are individualistic and are willing to tread over other children to push their own children to the top. Which is sad, but not unexpected.

They simply want their child to have a halfway decent education whether they are top, bottom, or middle. And that is not sad.

Its almost always worth it if tou can afford it. Different people will have a different cut off level to determine if they can afford it. I'm happy driving around in an 11 year old car and less fancy holidays. The sacrifice will be more for some and some people won't be willing to make the sacrifice that i make. Some will never be able to afford it no matter what cut backs they make unless their child is lucky enough to be awarded a full fees bursary.

If you want to spin it that way, sure. Parents are looking at it in a ‘let’s screw over other kids’ though, they’re looking at it as not being willing to put their child/ren into a failing school, with all associated problems, and hamstringing their education and opportunities. Not when they have the ability to access an alternative.

Here, they compare schools which match their own demographic. So a school in the outskirts of Glasgow might be being compared with a school in the highlands, because it is the most “similar” school in terms of the demographics. They also compare it against a made up school with exactly the same build up as that one (eg how are they performing against how they should perform) rather than comparing it against schools nearby. It’s far fairer.

They measure loads of metrics - how well children on free school meals perform, how well the most affluent and least affluent perform, how well people with SEN perform, how well those in the care system perform.

They also compare these against loads of standards - not just exam grades. They look at exam grades obviously, but also look at positive leaver destinations (so job/college/uni) and so on.

I remember a tool like that for England - haven’t seen it for a while. I’ll have a dig to see if it’s still around. Thanks for the reminder! The court of public opinion may not be swayed so easily, however…..

Some ridiculous comments here about state school. There are many poorly performing private schools out there. Choose wisely. I recently saw an ad on FB for a private prep. On closer examination the school has a grand total of 30 pupils. Not where I would send any DC.

I honestly think these people are throwing money at a problem which doesn’t need to be a problem.

Statistics show that, even in the same school, those from more affluent areas perform better than those from less affluent areas. Poverty isn’t contagious - and nor are bad exam grades. I reckon many of those kids who achieve 5 highers (the equivalent of what you need to get into medical school etc - top A level grades I think) would do so at a private school or a state school - and all sending them to a private school does is make the state school look worse.

Girlswithgoodbodieslikeboyswithferarris · Today 09:02
Not really. Education budgets are set by local authorities, but that is divided up between schools based on how many pupils go there. Decreasing pupil numbers actually means larger classes, less teachers, less resources (because collectively buying resources is cheaper in larger quantities, and resources eg textbooks, non consumable stationery can be shared between multiple classes)

So if a school got £2k per pupil and had 1500 pupils, they would have a budget of 3 million, but if 300 of them went to the private school, they would only have £2.4 million. They might need to cut two teachers out, meaning class sizes increase, and each department has £1000 cut off their budget, so no textbooks, no new pens, no technology.

Decreasing school roles is a big, big issue for schools - whether that is due to a decrease in birth rate, out migration, or people not sending their kids to their local school.

Yes, I can see more children attending a school means a bigger budget for that school.

But the bigger school budget following from taking in the ex-private school pupils,
would be paid for by the state and therefore would be a bigger burden on the state (even given what you are saying about it not just working in a per capita way).

It isn’t as though the ex-private school pupils would be donating their now unused fees to the state school they attend instead.

If what you say is true, what is wrong imo
is the state/council not ploughing that money they save (by pupils going to private instead of state schools) back into the state schools.

It wouldn’t though - a pupil from a more affluent background costs the school less than a pupil from a less affluent background, because the school is required to provide less for them - for example, they wouldn’t get FSM, they would be less likely (statistically speaking) to require intensive input from pupil support/supported study, they would come to school better resourced (eg having their own pens and pencils, they would have access to a laptop so the school wouldn’t need to provide them, they would be able to use Google classroom for homework rather than being given printed resources)

It would be great if the money was ploughed in but realistically, that isn’t going to happen.

You read some right rubbish on MN but this is up there with the best.

Cant be bothered to address it all but a few highlights:

SEND nationally isn't 30%. Most of the kids in my state class on the SEND register get no more support from me than others but toddle off to do something like speech therapy with a TA a few times a week. They are not disruptive, far from it. Apart from a bit too much chatting, I've not dealt with a single instance of poor behaviour since September.

My class has 16 children. The other classes around 20. This was the same at the last school I taught at and we don't anticipate it changing soon. Our budget is fine for this.

I've dealt with children being mean to others. I've genuinely never dealt with an actual case of bullying nor racism. Parent View questionnaires consistently show that parents don't think either bullying or racism is an issue.

Depends on other factors though, doesn’t it? ‘Bright kids will do well anywhere’ is a simplistic trope. Environment absolutely can impact outcomes, and one that isn’t focused on academic achievement, and/or one where children are bullied if they work hard, or the attention of teachers is taken up by ‘problem’ students, will have consequences for pupils.

Thankfully, parents with the means are free to decide ‘to throw money at it’ if they deem that to be in the best interests of their own children, despite the fact that you disagree.

Of course it depends on many factors. And yes, it’s simplistic, but it is also generally true. And those parents who are best placed to demand change withdrawing their kids from state schools means things will never improve in state schools.

I’ve yet to come across a school which doesn’t focus on academic achievement, by the way. Not saying it doesn’t exist; but I’ve never seen it. Academic achievement doesn’t just mean how many kids get the top grades though.

I’m at the far end of the process with my own children - I see them at higher education institutions of internationally -renowned quality and their choice, courtesy of a total of 4 state schools between them.

When I was at the other end, yes, of course I fretted. I saw peers and relatives making very different school choices, and worried that ours were, by comparison, ‘failing’ our DC.

I can completely understand why parents choose private schools ‘just in case’; ‘for security’; ‘because that’s what people like us do’; ‘because I can only see average results, not the results for my type of child’. In the current climate of school funding snd teacher flight, we also might have made different choices.

We do, ds is also very shy and sensitive but quite academic. It has suited him to be in this type of schooling. The individual attention he receives is so worth it. The headteacher makes it a point to teach a class for a term to get to know each and every child. His teachers are always available, always. I don't want ds having to deal with difficult or disruptive children and our school has zero tolerance on bullying. We are also in the NW 'hot house' type of school which gets a bad rep but the pastoral care is exceptional. My experience is of 2 independent schools and many friends who's kids are in both private and state schooling.

That seems to be working on the assumption that private school parents have a duty to support state schools over their duty to their own children (from their perspective).

State schools shouldn’t be supported already for the pupils that are there, not reliant on the hypothetical support of the parents of pupils that aren’t.

I’m not actually sure what you are trying to say in the last paragraph?

@whumpthereitis agree with this. My academic and sensitive child will absolutely not thrive as he is, if he was in a state school. As you say we are ensuring certain things for our ds. I'm horrified when I read threads on here about bullying. I'm not saying this doesn't happen in private at all, there's just a lot more intervention and repercussions immediately. The biggest load of nonsense is that a bright child will flourish anywhere.

That the focus should be on ‘let’s improve for the students we do have’, rather than ‘this is the fault of parents who don’t state educate, they’re letting us down’.

Well obviously. But often, those who can’t afford to send kids to private school are those who are less able to campaign for change. Which is what my original point was.

Sure, but that doesn’t mean that private school parents have a duty to do it for them.

It’s quite sad that you think that way. It’s everyone’s responsibility to speak up for those who can’t speak up for themselves.

I don’t feel sad about it at all, but if you want to then feel free I guess.

No, it’s not the responsibility of private school parents to prioritize supporting state schools over the educational opportunities of their own children.