Moving from Independant to State, does this sound like a good idea?

[icarriedawatermelon2]

DS has had 2 years in pre prep and is due to start Year R in a state school this sep. The pre prep has been AMAZING and a great start for him. I may ask to do 1/2 day flexi school so he can have 1:1 tutoring in maths/phonics and a music lesson. I think this would be a great way of giving some extras which tbh the state school wont be able to give as the class size is 30.
Do you think 1 afternoon a week out of school would be a problem in any way?

I would suggest that it isn't a straight choice between state and private. It is a balance between quality, price and convenience. I opted for the good state school within walking distance. I am aware that I am fortunate to have that. I have friends who opted to pay school fees, which I was not prepared to pay.

Yes, I absolutely mean fencing. Proper fencing, with white outfits and all the equipment. I don't know what it is all called as my son doesn't do it yet. I've seen them do it and of course the HT was eager to point it out when we did the tours before making our school choices.

I don't think anyone has said that they think the education will be better just because they pay mummytime.

The op is worried about class size which will be significantly bigger at the state school in question than at the private she was experience of.
Anyone else's experience of a smaller class or more TAs doesn't much help her!

As for sport, DC can indeed do it outside of school but it will be very tiring and costly of time and money to cover the range of sports that every child should get an opportunity to try IMHO. What about the DC who have parents who cannot or will not take them. Is it just boo hoo for them?

I think some people who pay for private education are fooled by the fact that state schools don't have the stat-of-the-art facilities for sport. They don't have specially designed dance studios (they use the hall) or 17 rugby and football pitches (they use the school field), etc, etc.

This detracts from the fact that a great many primary schools do a great deal of sport. My very ordinary primary does judo, karate, multisports, tennis, tag rugby, netball, football, dance, cheer-leading and hockey at lunchtimes, after school and sometimes, with specialists during PE lessons.

They'll certainly do PE at state school - if you'd like it more specialised or professional or whatever, then yes you have to pay for it, and I guess that's about as boo hoo as it is for the children who can't go to private school. Where, I might add, the fact that it's incorporated into the school day is probably facilitated to an extent by the fact that it's a longer school day.

Surely it's good to do things out of as well as in school, anyway? To meet other children and mix in other situations? It always seems to be the first thing recommended on here for children having a bad phase socially at school - 'do they do any out of school activities'?

And how saying your state school is good is arrogant boasting like saying you're a size eight.... well, wordfactory, so far on this thread you haven't said how ludicrously embarrassingly priveliged your children are, but I'm sure it won't be long!

Wow Llareggub. I imagine that if some of us had schools offering those sorts of opportunities, it would make the choice more difficult.

In a lot of areas (rural and inner city), there just aren't the opportunities or small class sizes or a dedicated TA for each class.

What LEA or region are you, if you don't mind me asking? Would I be wrong to assume you are somewhere very "middle class"? I can imagine a school in Esher offering fencing, but not so much one in Moss Side or Tower Hamlets. (Though I would be happy to be wrong).

Regarding small class sizes, it is, in fact, very easy to get to know 25 individual children, and their little foibles. You are with them for 6 hours, 5 days a week! I could tell you about each child in my class AND quote you their academic targets.

A class of over 20 children makes for an interesting mix of ideas and personalities. I can't quite get what people think happens in a class of 30 children - it seems to be the assumption that they remain faceless and unknown to the teacher for the year.

My dds were both known by name within a very short time in Year R classes of 30 - teachers are reasonably bright. If a 4 year old can remember the names and personalities of 29 classmates, which they do do very quickly, an adult in his her 20s/30s can probably cope with that and even a bit more!

OP

I educate my DCs privately, but I can honestly say, hand on heart, that in general it seems to me that whether children at reception age are going to thrive (or struggle) will depend much more on the stage of their own development and readiness for learning than the number of teachers in a class. It is fab to know my teachers do 1:1 reading daily, but the reality is they were not not sailing ahead of their state school peers at this stage, they are all just going at their own pace.

If you have a DC who needs extra learning support I'd say that's a different story (and sometimes state will be better able to help than private) but I think it's daft to get stressed at this age. Let him develop at his own pace and sort out an after school tutor or whatever in yr 1 or 2, if he needs it. HTH

I don't think anyone on here is worried that their DC wont be known, even in a class of 30. The concern I had, and see every day at work, is that among those 30 will be 1 or 2 trouble-makers, who the teacher has to focus a lot of attention on, to the perceived detriment of the other children.

Our local state primary offers some sports clubs after school. Usually for a 6 week after school club, with bought in 'specialists', who go into enough detail to let the children have a go and get interestd, then it is finished, no follow up, no progression. Like music, they can learn an instrument free in year 4 then that's that. The athletics club for ks1 kids is run by a mum, if she cannot find anyone to look after her todder than it is cancelled. Worse than useless IMO.

Not been my experience, Diabolo, but I expect just me saying that is what makes state provision patchy

theoriginal saying that your school is marvelous is probably interesting for you...but it doesn't help others who don't have access to that school.

By all means celebrate a school, but in the context of accepting this is luck. It is just as likely that the school of the next MNer coming along is nowehere near as good.

How people are accepting of, almost apologists for this situation is astonishing.

And I will always say my DC are absurdly priviledged, because they are, and pretending that their life is universally replicated is just silly. The day I start to think it is, is the day I have completely lost touch wiht how the vast majority of people live. The day mt DC don't remember how priviledged they are and think their life is just normal is they day I consider myself a very bad parent indeed.

The UK is riven by an advantage divide. I wish it were not so. My DC are lucky to be on one side of it. I was brought up on the other.

Well I think it is vastly unfair to respond to any sort of evidence of any state school being any good at all by saying 'well that's not helpful or representative'. Perhaps it is. Perhaps it's very useful to know that classes of 30 aren't hell, or that lots of schools do an excellent job. No more or less useful than you saying your nearest school is 'shit' anyway.

Many of people's anxieties about state school are school specific, in which case there's no point the pro-private people saying their bit any more than there is the anti-.

Many of them, however, appear to pertain to the state system generally, in which case I don't understand why positive comments about what can be and is achieved in the state sector should be a problem.

And to say that people saying their school is good = saying all state schools are good = ensuring the state system remains patchy.... well, that just simply doesn't follow.

I also didn't say my school was 'marvellous' - never have. I'm involved in both my children's schools, they're good in some ways, less so in others. I live in the community, they go to school in the community - not just through ideology but because, unlike any but the very wealthy, we wouldn't have the choice even if we wanted - and we get on with it.

How on earth is that worse than turning my nose up at it and whisking my 'lucky' children off to private school? Whilst hand-wringing about how much I wish all the other children from the 'shit' school had the same opportunities?

Do you honestly, wordfactory, honestly, wish all the children from the 'shit' school were at your children's school?

I think it is helpful to talk about personal experiences. I am more than happy to say how much I hated my state school and how I only wanted to consider private education for my children. However, having looked at three local state schools I was very happy to opt for state. I hadn't realised how much the states sector had changed since I left school all those years ago.

That said, I couldn't afford private education now anyway so it's all academic.

It's as I've said before. Any negative thing about a State school is automatically extrapolated to all state schools, while any positive thing is "just your school- you're really lucky" And the exact opposite rule is applied to private schools. Very odd.

That really isn't my experience of these kinds of threads, seeker, but I think there may be some bias in spotting comments you don't like over those you do. And I mean by everyone, not only you.

Personally, am considering leaving the site over my annoyance at the (perceived) slight towards 'lesser' independent day schools. Doesn't help my wobbles over our decision to send our hf asd ds to independent senior in Sept (cos of lack of state provision) when I read comments like 'I would pay for private but only at a top selective indie otherwise there's no point, the rest are all pants, might as well go state'. I think I've read loads of comments like that, but I might be being paranoid...

KitKatGirl1 I think you will find it is a limited selection of MNers who only believe Eton is worth sending your child to.
My position is: my kids have gone to great State schools,
Outstanding state schools can be very different from each other,
send your child to the best school you can for them,
private education is very expensive,
State school can be better for SEN (but not always),
I often recommend my local private schools on here,
but you can do very well at state schools (including Oxbridge, representing your country etc.)

I think that pretty much covers it.

It is true, Kitkat, that some private schools are not worth handing over your money for. I looked at one locally that was very poorly resourced. Very fancy uniform though.

kitKat my DS is going to be attending one of those "lesser schools" for Senior, it's top 250, but not famous or super-selective academically.

It offers amazing drama, sport, music, miles of grounds, a reputation for pastoral excellence, a scholars programme to die for and still gets 90%+ A-C at GCSE with nearly 50% at A or A*. It has a high % of students from overseas.

I loved the all-roundness of place, far far more than the really selective schools we considered. Other people are indeed sneering at our choice. I don't get why other people's decisions matter so much to some folk (both on here and in RL).

Agree, totally, mummytime. You have summed it all up perfectly.

Thanks, diabolo, your school sounds very similar to my son's next school, except there is not acres of grounds at all (middle of city), but outstanding rep for pastoral care, fully comprehensive academic intake (incl lots of dyslexia and asd) and gets 98% 5 a-cs, with about 55% a* and a. Less pressurised timetable than the grammar I work at, with lots of time for enrichment activities within the school day.

Am delighted with the wonderful state primary schooling he's had and comfortable we've made the right decision for secondary (and regarding cost, £55k for five years of secondary, plus inflation obviously, when you only have one child, is actually less than the difference in house value between ourselves and most of our friends who have been, yes, a little sneery).

"I would pay for private but only at a top selective indie otherwise there's no point"
KitKat when choosing a school lots of factors influence our decision; finances obviously play a major role but so does your location, your own experiences both past and current, your own views on life e.g. "I want my children to be educated in their community" (why?) and also what you personally believe education is for and what we want it to achieve for our DC. Hence the many posts on MN agonising about single sex selective versus non selective how do I get Henry to pass the 11+ etc.
I personally fall into the I would pay for private but only ........ (not Eton although I accept its an excellent school it just doesn't do it for me) but I make this statement in my circumstances this does not mean it apply to your circumstances. Believe in you decision you looked at the school and liked it don't listen to your friends who are a "little sneery."

kitkat anyone who says anything isn't worth the money is being daft. We each have our own value systems and only we can say what we put a value on.

I have two DC, one in a school where I'm sure some think it's a waste of money, another is going to a big name. But the former has been a revelation. I gladly pay my fees. That big name has a lot to live up to.

THEORIGINAL I have no issue with people celebrating their school, but when it it done to shut down critisism (often perfectly legitimate) then that is wrong. Similarly it is wrong to say ones school is great without recognising that that is very lucky and every child doesn't have that luck.

There are things wrong with the state system. There are oodles of things that can be improved. What is wrong with saying that? Why whenever anyone expresses dissatisfaction or anxiety are they not allowed to do so? Why are they met with a barrage of testimonials of how other schools are tickety boo?

On a thread in secondary education, a poster was upset that her able daughter is not being allowed to take triple science despite the fact that she wants to do so, is interested in science and ultimately wants to be a doctor. Several posters said their schools don't offer any students more than the double.
To my mind that's just not okay.
But soon enough along came the aplogists to say actually you don't need more than double to go to med school. And universities would let you off.

I really really don't get that. Shouldn't we all be up in arms? Is it enought ot say, well my school offers quadruple science?