why did you choose private school at reception?

[mumat39]

Hello

there are so many comments on Mumsnet about the fact that Private school from reception age is unnecessary so I was wondering why those parents that chose the private route did so?

We have a few good state primaries locally but all go to Y2 only. there seem to be fewer junior schools and even fewer secondary.

There is a good private school nearby that goes from reception through to a level, so for a number of reasons that is the one I'm leaning towards. But as there are so many views that inthe early years its not money well spent, i'm windering why this one is still popular and what ultimately are the reasons for parents to choose private over state.

I am genuinely confused so any views would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks.

I agree...excellent post!

I think, sadly, that people who were privately educated are also v over-represented in the science and creative fields mentioned by olguis, as well as the stereotypical areas mentioned.

They're certainly not over represented in well paid IT jobs.

I work with hardly any privately educated people.

Most of the people I've worked with over the last 15 years aren't English, but most of the English people are neither privately educated, nor are sending their kids to private schools.

I'd have to agree that pin the UK privately educated people are very overrepresented in

• Top ranks of professional services (Big 4 accountancy and Magic Circle law, management consultancy)
• Politics and top ranks of the civil service
• Investment banking/ Asset management etc

But, here's where I mainly disagree with olguis, that's actually also true in the US and most of SE Asia and India too. It's far from being a peculiarly British phenomenon. The only difference is that we layer class onto the rich/poor divide whereas other countries just serve it up vanilla.

Also, you dont have to go to private school to have received pronouncation. There does seem to be this odd myth that all state school graduates look and sound like an Eastenders reject, and everyone who went to private school speaks like the Queen and looks like Kate Middleton. Far from it.

I work with a lot of privately educated people. I'm not but people think I'm posh because of my accent. There is an assumption people make from my accent that my education is better than it was (state grammar).

Contrast ds who is at prep school. He should have the same accent as me but delights in dropping his 't's at every opportunity, eg butter becomes bu'er. He also says things like sumfink rather than something. He thinks its cool.

There is an assumption people make from my accent that my education is better than it was (state grammar).

Its a shame that you feel there was something missing from your education

I don't think there was anything missing from my education, only that the general perception is private/public school is better. In my office there are those who are public school educated but you'd never know it other than they have an innate confidence. Then there are those who like to let everyone know they went to public school and are complete a*s as a result.

It makes me laugh that people think I'm posh as my accent is technically a regional accent in the sense that it is the same as others where I live, but it sounds posh. My actual background is anything but posh.

I'd add that I went to a primary school in the middle of a large council estate with 42 pupils in my class. We had good facilities - large playing field, outdoor swimming pool, lovely landscaped grounds. Ds is in a class of 14 in an old house with huge playing fields and woods. I couldn't imagine sending him to the type of school I attended but it clearly didn't do me any harm.

I think early years can be more important than later years - give me a child until he is 7 etc.

My reasons for going private were:

• better academics - being selective, the pace was much faster. There were one or two children entering in years 5/6 and they invariably had to go to remedial classes to catch up, particularly in maths
• better language teaching
• much much better music - music is an integral part of their experience and all children learn one or two instruments, choirs, string quartets etc
• much much better sports - this was a big one for DD who is super-sporty and very healthy for DS
• better wrap-around care

I did go to the local 'outstanding' state primary and my overwhelming thought was 'over my dead body'. So I paid. But it was very much worth it. Both my DCs are at secondary now, and they've built on the skills that they developed at primary.

Better academics is true. A boy left ds's class at the end of last year and moved to a local good primary school. His parents soon discovered that what the prep school said was correct (boys working two years ahead). Means that their ds is bored at school and repeating work.

Realife is right about other countries having private schools and those children doing well too. I don't agree that we uniquely have class issues too. India with its caste system is much much worse than the UK in terms of mobility. We even have Indian caste discrimination in England imported over here in some cases.

True Xenia but I think there is a common misconception that you have to be from a certain class to go to an independent school. The other parents at ds's prep are the same as those who chose the local state (at least ime). Difference being about £1000 a month!

I think you're right, there is that misconception. My secondary school was private, but was very mixed in terms of backgrounds and which areas people lived.

My prep school was probably 'posher', but I think that was more to do with being a small school in a fairly middle/upper class area, with pupils pretty much exclusively from that area.

Of course and the very academic private schools my children have gone to are crammed with children of all kinds. Indeed my daughter was one of only 2 in her class with 4 English born grandparents. Immigrants work harder and want to do well and are more likely to make family sacrifice to pay fees.

Olguis, that's a really interesting post. I'm just wondering whether it is just the whole 'class' thing that has a negative effect on the English education system? What do they do differently on the continent?

I know in countries like India, there is a huge importance placed on the value of education and I know that kids as young as 3 or 4 are 'taught' and that India produces a huge number of very ighly accomplished academic people, who not only excel academically but also manage to speak english really well and seem to have a strong work ethic and are happy to travel overseas to 'better' their opportunities. Their is also alot of importance placed on the honour of the family and if a child does well then that is very much a reflection on the parents and family.

I was chatting to one of the mum's at DD's nursery and I mentioned that I wished that there was a bit more structure to the day. She replied that I need to be carfeful that I didn't 'push' DD too much. I didn't mean that. I just meant that in a class of 28 young children, a bit more structure wouldn't be a bad thing. Alot of private nurseries that we saw seemed to organise the day into free play as well as organised activities that the children would be allowed to choose for themselves, from what was available on that day. They would then be encouraged to try the next station after the snack time of circle time etc.

Am I wrong to think that a bit of structure is such a bad thing? And does wanting this for DD make me a 'pushy' parent?

Where did the principal of not pushing kids come from. So many people have said that children are like sponges to the age of 5 so why are kids not 'taught' a bit more at that age. I agree that play is very important and that socialising and imaginative play is also important so please don't have a go at me for asking. I am genuinely interested in this.

Also, I have seen the 'give me a child until he is 7...' phrase mentioned in one form or another on MN many times and I don't know where it comes from or what it means. Can anyone help me with that? I have googled it and have found various references to Jesuit orincipals, but on glancing through these I'm none the wiser.

Sorry to veer this subject slightly off my original question, but it has kind of moved in that direction and i am very interested in this so any thoughts would be appreciated.

Many Thanks again and apologies for any silly typos. It's late and i'm going slightly cross eyed.

I come from a different country and having had a different life experience I have developed a slightly controversial view on the subject.

I believe that in a lot of affluent countries, parents do not feel the intrinsic need to push their children for survival. They know they can provide for their children (either through the state or through their own wealth, etc) and therefore they feel the most important thing for the children is to be happy.

My mum had illiterate parents who had emigrated to the city for work and they pushed the children hard because they wanted a better future for them. Children used to walk to school with no shoes and no food, often inadequate clothes. They didn't have books in the home or a space to sit and do their homework in silence or even any tutors or other help.

Schools were more geared to this culture and teachers with huge classes via a "traditional" setting were able to turn these children (not all of them of course but very many) around via the education system and the support of the parents. By support of the parents I don't mean parents spending hours on their homework as they could not read or write and were too busy working, but supporting the school via ensuring their children took it seriously.

I know it is only anecotdal in a sense, but I know in my mum's generation so many children in her school ended up becoming doctors, lawyers, and other professions from a family that could not read and write or feed them properly.

I think we have a double phenomenon in our society; families are overprotective and schools are too. Children from all backgrounds are not expected to exert themselves in any way and too much importance is placed on "play". I know it's a controversial view, but I really do believe in it.

Then suddenly when the children are older we expect them to change into responsible hard working adults and it becomes a shock to see that this is often very difficult to encourage/enforce, when they have been used to a life of play.

I do not feel we have a successful system right now - I am not saying going back in time is useful as times have moved on but I would definitely be pro a system where we place more expectations and rigour on children from a younger age.

It'sonlyyearfour, That's an excellent post.

And, for what it's worth, I agree with you. I too know that what I think is controversial, but I don't understand why?

thanks mumat39, I think it is probably because they are minority views and as such not always thought that palatable!

I think you're spot on too. I fear seriously worrying economic times are ahead of us in the West. This and significant global competition for jobs will mean education assumes a whole new status & priority in the future. We'll look back at the days when we could afford to 'let them be happy' and weep. I hope I'm way off. What do you think?

The Jesuit motto "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man", is based on a quotation by Ignatius Loyola. My take on this quote is that the early years shape a value/belief system that is ineradicable through later life.

There's a good documentary series called Up which tests the explicit assumption that each child's social class predetermines their future - looking at the children at the age of 7 and seeing what they grow up into.

Is that 'seven up' or something else? On the plus side or may become 'cool' to learn in the future the way it is in parts of Asia?

If you have no ingrained study habit by seven I would think this could be inculcated later?

That should read 'on the plus side IT may become cool to learn'.

it'sonlyyearfour, that really is a good post and sums up my belief too. i was starting to think that maybe i was way off the mark as i really don't understand why we have the system we have. i am in a bit of a pickle to be honest. i was looking at private schooling for various reasons including hoping that my dc's would be 'challenged' at least. Dd is like a sponge and often only has to have something explained once before it sinks in. she then has the ability to digest the information and explain it in her own words rather than regurgitate it. Ds is 2 years younger and not the same as his sister and seems to take longer to pick things up, which is fine as he has other strengths. So I'd want a school that will challenge and bring out the best in them whatever that is for each of them. Both DP and I were lazy at school and just 'coasted '. I was like my Dd when younger but learned by parrot fashion. i was therefore lazy as it was all to easy for me. I never learned to learn so that is important for us. What I'm in pickle about is whether state or private would be best for that.

I couldn't say whether state or private would be better (I don't know your area) but an academically selective senior school would be good for her (so a grammar or an academic private school). I know it was for me, because for the first time I was really having to push myself to do better than others.

I know people don't like to say it, but competition is one of the things that makes you kick up a gear!

So, you'd want to find a junior school that will prepare for the exams, so look for ones that have good records of getting pupils in to senior schools you like the look of.

But, be wary if it seems too good to be true! They might be teaching just the skills to pass the exam, and you might actually find their pupils struggle once they're there.