Is there any long term advantage in going private primary onwards vs private secondary only?

[river1]

Hello,
Not wishing to have a state vs private debate here please as I know there are good/bad schools in each sector but would be very grateful for views from those who are going private already at primary or plan to at secondary (and particuarly those who have moved private mid primary)?

DD is in Yr1 at a 'good' small village school (with mixed year groups), is fairly happy there, but I think rather unispired. There is no major nightmare forcing me to move her but I feel pretty underwhelmed (best word for it) by the scope of the curriculum, facilities and general outlook. There are no other viable state options avail to us.

I was educated privately and if money was no object my daughter would be too. But it would involve sacrifice and some stress on jobs. My parents were not well off but they made the choices I suppose i would choose to make too.

I have little doubt that if I were to move DD to the private school locally that I like, she would leave further ahead and with more confidence and self assurance and exposure to a wider non sats based curriculum, with increased focus on art, music, drama, languages etc too.

My question is - will it make any difference to her in the long run if we make the move at Yr2 or if we wait til secondary? Would she be in the same place at 18 either way? May be impossible to answer I know but I would love to hear experiences and thoughts

ps there are no selective state schools near us so educating at prep school to aim for grammer is not an option.
thank you

Time and again they are complaining about a teacher in the private school-I always ask 'why are you paying for something you don't like?'! No one has replied. It appears they would rather pay out good money than find out the free alternatives.

Yes this old chestnut again. I pay because what my DS2 gets is better than anything the state sector could offer by a million miles. Ok some teachers may be less good than others but this happens in life, but overall for him it's better.

In a minute we're going to hear about how we should be educating our children in the community and the unfairness of independent ed.

Happy, it is entirely possible that what you get is better than what the state sector locally is offering. It is also entirely possible that my DS is getting something better than what the private sector locally is offering. They are not mutually exclusive statements.

That's because it is a meaningless debate UNLESS you are comparing two particular schools for a particular child. There are good and bad in each sector, and children who would thrive in one school would fail in another, even though for another child that position might be reversed.

I only enter into these debates because I find the sweeping generalisations made ('state schools don't do stuff') maddening as I KNOW them not to be true.

Round here, for what it's worth, probably the commonest pattern is private primary to be coached for 7 years for the grammar school test, fillowed by state secondary, as the state secondaries (even the comprehensives) are better than the private options.

What my DS2 gets (its not local he boards) is better for than anything we could ever find in the state sector wherever we live. But I do agree it has to be right for your child.

Everlong I knew exactly what you meant private ed bashing by an obsessed minority.

I wonder as well, whether there is more of a gap the less parents do themselves. We are conscious of what our children do not get at their state primary and facilitate or do a lot of supplementing at home. It is extremely tiring and sometimes I know deep down that if I paid I would get the same things in one packet rather than having to do them ourselves!!!

Everlong,

I am not private school bashing. I know that some excellent private schools exist and are worth the money that parents pay for them. I also know that some truly terrible private schools exist that are NOT worth the money paid for them.

Equally I know that there are good and bad state schools - and more to the point, state schools that are good and bad for particular children. My very conventional DD may well have thrived at the state school that did DS so much damage.

All I ask is that posters look behind the generalisations to make thoughtful comparisons between individual schools for their individual children, rather than condemning or lauding an entirel sector meaninglessly.

I am entirely willing to say that MtG and happygardening and you have made good choices for your particular children, comparing the specific schools that you had available to you for your particular children - equally I hope that you would se me as having made a good choice for my children because I have compared the specific schools tht I have had available for my particular child. To say that because you have found a particular private school better for your child than a particular state school, all private schools are better for all children than all state schools is something I am NOT willing to accept. Equally I would never claim that all state schools are better than all private schools. There are good and bad in both sectors, and schools that suit particular children well in both sectors.

Then we are in complete agreement :-)

Bloody hell in the absence of ElaineRees we are all in agreement.

Was anyone ever actually disagreeing with that? I've skimmed back through the thread, and can't see where anyone said "All private schools are better than all state schools", or even anything close to that.

Both my DCs are now at private schools, but that isn't due to an anti-state bias, but a direct choice between the state schools they were at/could have gone to, and the private schools available in my area. As I said earlier, it depends very much on the child and the schools concerned.

If I had access to some state schools around the country, I would leap at the chance not to pay fees, eg I have a nephew at Hills Road 6th form college in Cambridge which is probably better than any of the sixth forms available in my city, whether private or state.

Well 'private ed bashing by an obsessed minority' was mentioned

It really is so individual. dd is in reception at a private girl's school and so far it's been the best decision we made FOR HER and in this particular school for a very long list of reasons. I have lost 'friends' because of the decision we made which surprised me because I don't see how this is anyone's business but ours.

As for the OPs original question, who knows whether this has any effect long term but being realistic, she'll have to go to state secondary (unless she gets a scholarship). So ask me again in ten years' time and I may have an idea how she fared...

girls'

I never see why it is either/or. You choose the best school for your DC. As it happens I managed it with state schools, but I can quite easily see that you can have one at state and one at private- or state and private at different times for the same DC.

I teach at an independent prep school which is why we moved our children from state to private all at the same time. Their ages were 16, 13, 11, 8 and 6 at the time. The two who moved at 16 and 13 really missed out on a lot and it grieves me. I wish I could turn back the clock and give them the same opportunities.
The one who was 11 coped because he was very academic but I regret he didn't have the years before for his music and sport.
The younger two were fine and have enjoyed and benefited from the small class sizes, music, sport and art - enjoying the broad, rounded education I wanted for all my children.

Personally, I would say, ideally, you should try to move children before Year 5. By year 7 at our school pupils have been learning instruments for four years (or more) and had years of specialist sports coaching. You can catch up academically if you are bright but you can't suddenly get to grade 5 on the trumpet and join the jazz band! Also, there is the experience of organising themselves, doing homework, doing exams. Not to mention the culture where the macho First XI in Rugby are also keen members of the Chamber Choir and the orchestra, equally happy to clown about in make up on the stage or lead a school debating team ... I find that when boys join later they are less open to the breath of experience on offer.

In my experience at a teacher I find that the less academically able the child, the more it benefits them to move early. We have a large learning support department and have a considerable number of children joining us who find academic work difficult. If they move in Key Stage 1 or Year 3 or 4 at the latest we can do a lot for them but after that they have lost so much time that the struggle is harder for them (out school goes up to 13).

Am going to log off and hide now!

You had better hide Greenwing for those of us with DC's already independent ed your not saying anything new but plenty are going to disagree.

Sorry but Greenwing, the private schools near me: a) on the whole do not cater for the less able academically, especially boys, b) you can easily have 4 years instrument tuition before year 7 (or 6 or 5) in the State system, my DCs schools have peripatetic teachers coming in from reception; c) a local state secondary has a very very popular, well known etc. boys choir, the same boys also do all the boy things.
However I would agree that year 5 is probably the best time to move, at least for girls around here it is often easier to get in at year 5 than year 7. For boys they often can't get into the feeder Grammar at year 7 from the Prep, and have to go to other schools at 13+ or if lucky the local excellent Comp (but then you have to live in the right area).

BTW at my awful comp the Captain of the Rugby team, was also annoyingly talented at needlework (and was in my class for that).

I do agree that independent day schools in particular are not good a catering for the less able infacttabs with the recent appointment of new heads at some well known virtually non selective boarding schools this is also going to apply to boarding as well. I'm sure this is caused by the obsession with results/league tables. Soon there will hardly be any independent senior school left for the likes of Tim (nice bit dim). He will hopefully find all the wonderful things mentioned by mummytime in the state sector.

Greenwing I found your post very informative as I am debating moving my children, eldest will be in y3. She does play instruments (x2) and is in a local orchestra, she is also used to performing and taking exams due to her doing ballet since 3 years old. But will this be enough to bridge the gap until age 11...or despite her doing all that is she still better off moving........just interested in your opinion really!!!