Please be frank: is paying for prep/junior school worth it?

[IHideVegInRice]

Hello, continuation from my previous thread but with a more specific question! We have mixed sex twins - while private is an option at this stage, the local faith school is pretty good.
What can a prep or private junior school offer my DC that could not be matched by state + extra curricular activities?
Looking further ahead, would they be disadvantaged when applying for highly ranked public schools (if we/they feel this is right) later on if they did not attend private school at primary level?
Thanks!

It's a herd thing, middle-classes talk up their decision to choose state, then others who were previously frightened of state, decide to give it a go. "After all, Camilla and Jonny's children go there, so it can't be too terrible."

Then because more m/c children go into the state system, standards improve.

It's a virtuous circle, the best legacy of the recession imvho.

Hamishbear - v frustrating to hear this nonsense! Much of the time we are bombarded with 'Oxbridge is stuffed with public school toffs' crap; the rest of the time it's 'Universities are actively selecting state school students'. I am heavily involved in Oxbridge admissions. Can I say, once and for all: we use a lot of information to select those students who are the brightest and the best. There is no active selection in any direction, apart from on the basis of merit and promise. We spend a huge amount of time and money in ensuring selection is as fair as possible. Of course it isn't perfect, but we do our very best, and it is very disheartening to hear that we are always getting it in the neck from one party or the other! I think, really, people hear what they want to hear in order to justify their decisions, or on occasion to console themselves when things don't work out as planned. It is easy to blame the universities' admissions processes! The kind of anecdotal evidence you mention perhaps comes from this kind of selective deafness. For another thing, there are good state schools and bad state schools; good private schools and bad private schools. It simply doesn't mean the same thing to go to a struggling school in a deprived area as it does to go to one in an affluent rural catchment, even though they might both be 'state schools'. Any institution selecting on that sort of basis would have to be stupid not to have spotted that, and on that basis alone would be highly unlikely to introduce such silly, broad-brush criteria. Please stop spreading this nonsense about as it only discourages applications from one quarter or another, and we want everyone who is good enough to apply! We want the best people, whoever they are and wherever they come from!

We have gone for private since age 4, simply for the small class sizes, personal tutoring and high levels of pastoral care. It has worked brilliantly for my wayward boy, who is about to finish Y5.
We wanted to get the basics right and make sure he did not fall through the cracks in a 30+ class size oversubscribed primary.
He is going to go to a high achieving local compAcademy and my onlly worry is the big class sizes. Along with everyone else We will be tutoring him privately to make up for the big classes.
We can't afford £30K for a major public school, and he would be the poorest in his class probably. We don't mix socially with oligarchs, so I don't want him losing the battle of possessions with everyone else in his year and the consequent damage to his self esteem

Middle class, two working professionals, like us, are the type of families I want him mixing with and they are much more likely to be found now in excellent state Academies than in major public schools and many middle class families are being priced out of private education.

Sorry - in terms of how that relates to the OP's original question - I would say that choosing the best option to make your individual child happy and well rounded now (and only you can know what that it) is the best way forward - don't try to second-guess things like university admissions based on baseless gossip. (Anyway, by the time our DC get to university things will prob be completely different - for eg, my parents certainly didn't realise university fees would be part of the picture when they were planning me!!)

Charlie and lola speaks a lot of sense.

Our boys 6 and 8 are at local state school in London, and both seem to be doing well. Top of class, confident, happy and popular. The children and parents are generally very nice.

I speak with other parents now and again about private / state. I was privately educated from 8, while DH was state, and we aren't sure what path we would take - if money was no object, which it is! There is similar ambivalence in other parents.

Compared to a friend's son who is privately educated, my son of the same age appears to be doing equally well - although my son's reading is more advanced. But this is a snap shot. I think my sons have a lot of opportunities at the moment (participating in events at the South Bank Centre etc), although sport is limited. My major concern about private, were we to be able to afford it, is that my children would become entitled types, expecting to go on the cricket trip to Australia / Barbados etc. Will he miss out on opportunities if we remain in the state sector? I don't know, but at the moment, I don't think he is.

TBF state schools have also become a lot more consistent and better run over the last couple of decades, and standards are getting higher, so the difference between state and private has shrunk quite a bit in many cases.

However until the whole Common Entrance problem is addressed, if parents are really looking at highly selective independent secondaries (i.e. top 10), particularly in London, then a feeder prep is more or less the only way forward for about 90% of kids if you really want to be sure of maximising your children's chances.

That having been said, I am not convinced about CE at 11+ or 13+ and I think a new system is long overdue.

BTW I think the point about private school extras is a valid one. It seems to be routine in some schools to send letters home about school trips costing four figures, without any thought whatsoever about the parents' overall disposable incomes, number of children in the family and so on. Combine that with the general discussion of long haul holidays and general consumer expenditure amongst some groups of children at indi schools, and yes, children can develop the impression that this sort of spending and way of spending time is completely normal and even compulsory.

I'd be a lot happier if it was discouraged, and the kids encouraged to think a bit more about sustainability, wider society and the responsibilities of being affluent. That's something that indi schools used to be incredibly good at but they seem to have lost their way a bit on this.

Really Shhhw, I am not peddling complete nonsense I could give you facts about the cases in point. Ok, it's anecdotal and a small pool of people but they were undoubtedly absolutely exceptional - they've since got into other good universities. Everyone involved in their cases was staggered. Of course being exceptionally bright, hardworking and getting exceptionally good results is no guarantee of Oxbridge entry and undoubtedly there may have been worthier candidates but...

BoffinMum I think a new system is on the way.

Hamish, I would be interested in hearing about that.

I never can persuade my children to go on school trips at private schools. One did go last year and regarded a week in Europe playing rugby as a theft of his half term. They could have gone on a wonderful exchange to China this year and didn't want to. I never feel any pressure at all from peer group or friends whatsoever to go on trips at private schools and plenty of parents cannot afford it anyway.

I suppose it depends where your kids are at school. I know my own parents felt a lot of pressure as we had lots of expensive overseas trips on offer, and I think they went rather white faced every time I brought a letter home. DD was more of a home body and only went on 1 or 2, but we still ended up with a massive extras bill every term. And there were a lot of kids there with seriously big money (although interestingly rather neglectful parents IMO), who seemed to jet off somewhere exotic at the drop of a hat.

fedup - you are concerned that expensive school trips will may your children feel entitled??? Some people have weird ideas about parenting.

I am probably repeating what has been said, but I don't think this is a question which can be answered out of context.
It depends on where you live and the schools that are available.

I'm a teacher who has taught in the independent and state sectors. Both my DCs went to all state schools because we couldn't afford otherwise.

Their primary schools were very good, and DDs secondary school was almost on a par with some local independent schools. Both of my DCs had private tutors for A level and ended up at Russell Group unis, gaining good science degrees.

Had we paid squillions for private schools I don't know if we'd have had abetter outcome.

DSs school mis-informed him over entry requirements for top unis re. A level subjects and he ended up not being able to apply to the top 4 which he wanted, and one teacher for 1 subject was useless meaning DS ended up with a B not an A grade. So a few regrets there, but some of his peers got into LSE/ Cambridge etc.

But the cost of private secondary schools is high- you are looking at £20k each which is £40L pa after tax- equivalent to almost having to earn / have £75K gross to pay for fees alone- each year.

As a teacher I have tutored children for common entrance ON TOP of what their prep schools offered, and it's not unlikely that a child at a state school could be tutored for CE by a tutor.

So I don't believe the situation is so clear cut as some posters here maintain.

Depends what you can afford. My children's father is a teacher. That meant a virtually free place for one of them. 3 won music scholarships and I earn quite a lot anyway so affording fees although it's never easy ( I just looked on line and the fees just came out today) for me it's not a big issue. By the way even here in outer London the fees are nearer £10k to 15k a year. Even haberdashers girls usually in the top 10 - 20 where one of mine went is £10k for juniors and £12k or something for seniors, one of the very best selective girls' schools.

I certainly recommend children and parents in both sectors looking very carefully at A level requirements for university courses. Never just rely on the school or what your child says. I actively looked at requirements myself in the library when I was 15 before the internet as I am sure any bright teenager can today.

Xenai- your comment about which subjects for which unis/courses is obvious and as a teacher I knew it too- but the situation was more complicated than that. DSs school underestimated his ability and his actual A level grades- based on his GCSE grades. He was advised not to take one subject- which wasn't mandatory for his degree bur preferred by some top unis. This was more to do with his school not appreciating his potential at A level. He got round it (almost) by doing an additional AS level on top of his A levels.

I have a lot to do with independent schools and many day schools' fees are nearer £20K than £10K.

I think you are maybe a little unrealistic over fees and affordability-three children @ £15K a year is twice the average wage before tax so a parent would have to earn well into the 6-figure zone- and something like 5% of the population earn over £100K. Which is probably why only 7% are educated privately.

No. I've said this here many times. IMHO private education tout court is not worth it.

I would say I think it is rarely worth it. However if you are only in a school system for a short time, or your child can't study the subjects they want in the state system, or you need to have them boarding and can't get them in a state boarding school, then there is a real place for indi education. Plus its very existence keep governments on their toes and stops them thinking they can always force feed their own model of education to the masses like some kind of brain washing.

I would add that we need state schools too, so independent schools need to look nervously over their shoulders at what parents can get for free, and raise their game accordingly. Plus state schools often set a good example in terms of SEN, social inclusion and the like.

BoffinMum I think what you say about Common Entrance at 13 is really interesting. When I was young among posh Tory voters like my parents, it was very common to go state for boys until 7 then prep and public school and girls to go state until 11 (or to a private primary, but to go to senior at 11). Now lots of public schools are mixed so girls are starting at 13, while the London boys' schools seem to be increasing their entrance at 11 over that of 13.
I think mine are probably going to private for secondary (with some ambivalence) but I'm really put off schools that have their main intake at 13 or from their own feeder preps. It really undermines their claims (I'm thinking you, UCS) that they're all about 'intellectual elitism' rather than that which comes with a wallet.
I suspect that at some point, these private school consortiums will want to streamline it all to one main entry point in order to make sure they can fish from the biggest pool of both girls and boys, state and prep applicants.

I went to state school (and rubbish it was too!). My children go to private school and some of the comments on here are just plain wrong with regard to extra's etc and the pressure on the pupils to have the lastest this, that or the other.

Having been in the private system for over 10 years with two children at well known schools (one in a well known boarding school) there are all sorts there. There arent millionaires at every turn. Some boys get full scholarships or busaries. The boys dont care who you are. As long as you are a good egg and up for a game of squash or a swim you will be fine. There are some trips but again no pressure to subscribe. In 10 years I have never felt under pressure to put my son's name down for anything.

We are middle class (I guess!) with two salaries but we dont earn £100's of thousands. We just decided to only have 2 children and both work full time. Please dont believe what you read about these well known private schools and the nonsense about who attends them.

My sons have moved schools at 13+ and I have thought it really suits boys. They are much less mature than girls so to be at the absolute top of the school, top dog, prefects etc at 13= rather than a little new tiny squirt in a big school at 11 is better. Also if you want them to sing treble to age 13 it is much easier to get them singing good choral music to age 13 in an an all boys' school. For girls 11+ is fine.

Most nice children are not bothered about how rich other children are at private schools and teaches them to be sensitive to others. Mine had a friend who wasn't at all well off and I always made sure we sent mine with their cinema money when they all went out so his poor mother was not lumbered with paying their ticket price etc etc.

The day places at boarding schools are indeed nearer to £15k than the £10k to £12k I quote but some of the very best most selective day schools have fees which are near £10m, and £12k. Even so I agree that many mothers do not pick careers which enable them to pay a lot of fees for 3+ children. However perhaps that is a lesson we need to teach our teenage girls - pick a career where you will enjoy it but also have spare money. Too many children of people I meet are going into acting which in effect means they are going to be waiting tables for 20 years and yet their parents seem perfectly happy they go off in droves to take performing arts degrees because this what little Janice says she would like to do. In fact Janice would be better off reading English or PPE at Oxford and saving her acting for the Footlights.

Zenia - how I agree with you and wish I knew what I know now! If you go for a career with low salaries but the best job in the world for you - do that but accept you are unlikely to be able to afford private school.

Some on this forum have 3-4 children. Well, not in a million yrs could we have afforded to have so many children and still pay the fees. So we didnt - we stopped at 2. Often people cannot see the issue, they are SAHM's with 3 children and a partner earning say £60k and complain they cannot afford the fees or knock the private system as not worth the money. For us it has been worth every penny.

One boy at older DS's school has stacks of money. He often invites the boys out to London (on him!), another friend is on a busary. No one really knows... I didnt until he told me a number of years later. Just mentioned it in passing. And very clever he is too, he helps my son and some of the others in English which he is brilliant in. English is quite a tough subject to excel in as a boy and whilst it isnt cool to overload this chap with thanks I know that they appreciate the help he gives behind the scenes.

Xenai- I think you are a tad out of touch in some ways :)
Very few people earn the kind of money which you appear to have- if your DH/DP is a teacher then he will be earning more than the average wage of £27K- but even teacher's salaries are not high unless you progress to a very senior post in a large school.

The comments about encouraging young people to earn good money in order to pay for their own children's education is a bit IMO. I agree with your point in principle, but TBH unless someone is a city lawyer, city banker, or top doctor/ private, then they are not going to be raking in shed loads! Nowadays most young people are struggling to get a foot on the housing ladder by they are 30, if they live in SE.

The only way we could have afforded private education x 2 would have been if I had worked full time and I didn't want to do that.

There are very few professions where people can earn huge amounts and it's not as simple as saying oh she ought to go to Oxford to read PPE then get a good job- just how many people do you think do that percentage wise?

I know what people earn. I've 3 children who've graduated recently.

So bella is saying she could have afforded private schools but chose to be at home so that's an active choice. You didn't want to so you chose your own self indulgence over the good of the children I suppose on one analysis.