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?

You read those people as apologists, I would say perhaps they're offering some comfort and indeed some facts.

Whilst they may well agree that it's not right that all schools don't offer 3 separate sciences, I don't see how their approach is any less helpful than saying 'yes that's wrong it should be improved, what a shame that your child can't go to private school'.

The OP here is concerned that 30 in a class may be a problem - people have said it usually isn't, and offered their experience in support of that. I cannot see how that's 'shutting down debate' or being an apologist for anything.

Once again - there have been things over the years I'm less happy about with my girls' schools, and things I think they do well. I do not go around saying either school is marvellous. But if someone said, say, I am worried about my dd starting a large-ish comp with mixed ability groups as I think she will fall behind/be bullied/get lost in the crowd, so I think we'll have to go private, then for me to say 'well, actually, it may well not be like that y;know, mine survived and are doing pretty well' - well, how is that wrong? I would see it the same as someone saying 'I'm shitting it about driving across France on my own and getting lost' and someone else saying 'I've done that, it was fine and not as hard as you think'.

No-one is saying there's never anything wrong with state schools - or indeed with private schools, it would seem. But if I'm 'lucky' with the schools my children go to and should acknowledge it, then an awful lot of people are 'luckier' than they think or admit to with the schools in their area, too.

Contrary to what is suggested, the vast majority of state schools are not divided along the lines of 'over-subscribed comp with awesome results in posh area' or 'terrible comp with knives and dual science'. Most schools are pretty mixed, just as most places are. I didn't have any 'luck' here - I didn't have any choice either. I could say I'm lucky in the things the schools do very well, I guess - but then I could equally say I'm unfortunate in the things they don't. Acknowledging and applauding the many very good things about state schools is just not a bad thing - I don't see how it could be.

I'd let your son settle in before committing to any extras, especially as it seems your DS's weekends are very busy for a little one. Reception can be very tiring and I found both my DCs weren't in a fit state to do much in the afternoons other than come home and relax. That obviously changed as the year went on. With regards to music and 1:1, both mine do extra music lessons as part of their state education and worked (and still do) in small groups when doing maths and literacy. If they encounter any bits that are particularly problematic for them, they are given 1:1 help. If you feel he needs tutoring at a later stage, then go for it.

wordfactory I agree with a lot of what you say but I think we have to look at why those who defend state ed do so. In many cases there are excellent state schools my older DS is at one not every parent is scrabbling to get their child into a reasonable state school and are faced with dreadful alternatives if they fail to do this. We also have acknowledge that some people have no choice but to send their DC too, believe in and defend state ed. For others its a decision based conscience and there are many other reasons.
But you are right there are things wrong with many state schools although from my experience I'm not sure if its oodles but in many cases children are no always better served in the indie sector either. I think in general education is not always serving our DC's well. Ok there will always be a significant minority who are going to what they and their parents hope for but many are leaving poorly equipped for life with dubious study skills/work ethic and qualifications that employers and increasingly universities are struggling to see the value of. If this continues then we have failed out young people and in this globalised world we cannot afford to be complacent; our children will be fighting for university places and jobs from children from Eastern Europe, India and IMO most worryingly of all China. We and all schools should not underestimate these children. My husband has recently employed an Estonian not only is he fluent in English and highly educated he is hard working and has an "I can do that" ethos to his work a complete contrast to an Englishman he recently employed then sacked! I work with many Indians and increasingly Chinese gone are the days when they can hardly string a sentence together in English these are exceedingly capable and bright individuals again all are hard working with an "I can do that ethos. So the reality is that both the state sector and the independent sector are going to have to look very carefully at what sort of "education" they are offering to our DC's.

I think it's because on mumsnet, anyone who says anything good about state education is accused of special pleading, or told that they are lucky that their school is good, all the others are " shit" (god I hate it when people say that a school is "shit"- what does that say about the children at it?) people won't believe that state schools, like private schools and practically everything else in life are on a bell curve- some dire, some fantastic, but post perfectly fine.

The criticisms of state education tend to be either "School A failed my child-School A is a state school, therefore all state schools are useless" or anectdotal " I wouldn't send my child to school A -my neighbour told me that all the year 6s are gun toting hooligans" ( I exaggerate for effect!). And then there are the people who obviously don't like the idea of their children mixing with -challenging- children. Of course there is loads wrong with the state system- I am beyond incandescent that my ds will not be able to do 3 sciences for GCSE- but it is quite hard to talk about it because the "that's why we go private" brigade pile in, and one ends up defending the system in principle rather than discussing individual issues.

Sorry- very late post. I agree with TOSN.

theoriginal I dunno.
People seem too quick to accept what they're given. Too inclined to support the status quo.

Maybe I should just stop worrying about state education. Maybe I should just enjoy the fact that my DC are getting every advantage and not give two hoots about other DC. Pay my taxes and let 'em get on with it. Afterall there are plenty of schools offering triple science and fencing it seems. All good.

People on MN are very quick to say that those of us who use private school live ain a bubble and don't care about the rest. I often wish I did feel like that.

Going back to the original OP - and ignoring the state vs private spat that was bound to appear halfway down the thread - let him settle in first, see how things are after a year, and then only if necessary splurge on extra tuition. The little devils seem to cost more every year, I'm very glad I've still got budget left here in secondary now that we do need a bit of extra ooshing along with languages and they've both turned out to be musical so four different music tutors to pay.

How slow do you think I should be to accept what I'm given, though? What should the slowness entail? Hand-wringing about the fact that they go to the school round the corner - or getting on with it and, actually, having a lot of respect for the vast majority of those who teach them?

What form does your worrying about state education take?

There certainly are plenty of schools offering triple science - perhaps fewer with the fencing! Of course more should: I can accept that and still get on, as the vast majority do, with supporting my children and their schools as best I can.

happygardening I do understand that the vast majority of people have no choice but to use the state system. But does that mean they must defend it?

My Dad was born into a life with little choice. Nevrr mind schools, his job, housing etc were all decided for him based on class and income.
But he didn't just accept it. He didn't take it lying down. He fought with every last bone in his body to change things. Even when things improved, he didn't stop. Because things can always be better. If not for you, then someone else.

And it's that last point that always floors me. State education in the UK is patchy. Sorry theoriginal but it is. Some schools are dire. Sorry seeker but they are, and what that says about those children is that they are being fundementally let down. If we don't even acknowledge that fact, then nothing will ver change in those schools where so much needs to change.

Now I'll go back to my bubble and iron DD's kilt and under pantaloons.

Even if we accept that there are dire schools, do you think they are in the majority? Why is it better for the children who use state education to go on about how some of it is less good than it is to acknowledge that an awful lot of it is very good? I don't see how sending your children to private school and then your only comment, ever, on state schools being that some of them are dire, is particularly helpful.

And yes, I will defend it - not only because I don't have the choice not to use it but because I think in principal state education is a bloody good thing, and in practice it is a hell of a lot better than those who reject it would have you believe.

There are some excellent state schools near me but I don't want my children to go there (at senior level) because I went privately and I want my children to go privately. Probably just snob reasons tbh.

At least that's honest!

yup. Probably at the heart of it for most private parents tbh.

"What form does your worrying about state education take?"
Cant say I spend hours worrying about state ed if I'm being honest primarily because I'm unconvinced that it will make any difference!
I wonder if this hand wringing is new and something that only effects our generation. My parents certainly didn't hand wring. What has brought this about? League tables? A desire to for our DC''s to go to uni (preferably Oxbridge/RG uni) and not do an apprenticeship which is seen by many as a second class option? The rise in the number paying for private ed and the increasing the number receiving what is perceived to always be a better education? Or is it because our society is becoming more materialistic and people want high paying high status jobs?
Its is of course true that your DC is more likely to do triple science GCSE and fencing and other marginal sports in an independent school but surely there's more to education than this.

"Probably just snob reasons tbh."
huptwothree I'm sorry if i'm being obtuse but what exactly are snob reasons?

happygardening the 'worry' question was really to Wordfactory who said she worried about it.

I don't know if the hand-wringing is new - I know when I was a child some friends went to private and some not, though obviously their parents didn't chat with me about why! Has the number going private risen? I thought it had declined, if anything.

OP: our older children went to state infant school -a very calm, high-achieving school where most children were able to read and write by end of year 2. tbh that's all you really want of a school at that age- for them to get good foundations in the 3 Rs. Everything else can be done at home. And my experience of sending the older children to music lessons from 5 has kind of put me off starting them on an instrument ultra-early as the only one of the 3 with any real musical ability (DD2) didn't start till she was 9 going on 10 (I'd got bored with the whole taking them to music lessons/forcing them to practise by then).

Our catchment primary school is deemed outstanding but puts all 63 reception children in the same teaching area, albeit with 2 teachers and 2 TAs, and we are having severe wobblies about it given that DD3 will be 4 yo and 3 days when she starts reception. Also their record on literacy at age 7 is not fab, and the literacy skills of many of the year 6s leaves something to be desired, although they do lots of "extra-curricular" stuff.

You need to approach the school re flexi-schooling- some will, some won't.

With quite a few independent schools having closed in the past few years, I would have thought the number of pupils had fallen.

Oh I worry about inequality in society generally. Brought up in a highly political household with the assumption that you should challenge, challenge and challenge again.

The fact that something didn't affect you personally was never allowed to be a get out clause.

But my new resolution is not to give a shit. I don't live in social housing so needn't worry about that. Have private health insurance so the NHS can go screw itself. I think this new direction will be quite freeing...

Like a previous poster said, my ds's state primary offers quite a good range of extra curricular activities but they are offered for 1/2 to 1 term only and then stop. This means that the children never get to be any good at them. They just get a taster, interested and then that's it. Same with the music lessons for 1 academic year.

The school seems to offer everything at the lowest level. For example, they were offering after school dance lessons. RAD/ISTD Ballet? Tap? Modern? No, they offered 'pop' dancing. Why not offer something worth having. Parents had to pay for this 'pop dancing' class, btw, and it was more expensive than the classes at the local ballet school. When I asked about the classes, I was told that they wanted to be 'inclusive'. IMHO, they want everything at the lowest common denominator.

It's very disappointing and feels like the school itself doesn't hold out much hope for it's pupils. This is an Ofsted 'Good' school.

I'd love to have the option of a decent state school nearby. There's nothing near me that gets above 40% 5 A-C for GCSE - that's for any 5 subjects. Mine go to schools that have 100% A-C.

I guess they do that to give the children a exposure to a wide range of different activities, disregarding the fact that some will not be able to pursue any interest outside school due to lack of money/difficult home circumstances etc. They would do better to pick a few activities and do only those. Our local aforementioned primary has a chess specialism that evolved historically because a few local old men wanted to coach the children in chess. The school now wins national competitions (including beating my DC's old Prep school that was coached by a former international) and is rightly a source of great local pride and immense pride within the school.

Agree they should not go for lowest common denominator- that's easily available outside school. Schools should push standards upwards, not flop down to meet them. It's my beef with many schools.

Discussionoftheday, if you wand your child to do ballet then do what private school parents do, and pay for it. Your primary school is providing a form of dancing that everyone can enjoy and have some success at. It's not inferior to ballet or tap- just different.

As far as I'm concerned the school would be better off teaching a few extra curricular skills properly. Then the children would stand a chance of becoming good at them which might raise their self esteem a little. Giving children a taster of many extras that they will never be able to pursue achieves nothing really.

Remember, this pop dancing had to be paid for and so the children from low income families would be unlikely to be able to even try this one.

But seeker, why can't they be good at and enjoy a ballet class at beginners' level? This is my point, why do they 'teach' what is basically rubbish to state school children.