Private school at primary or secondary - which is the better option?

[Reastie]

I live where there's the 11+ in an affluent area where essentially secondary modern/comprehensive schools are mainly people who fail their 11+ and their parents can't afford private education and are generally rough and not very high expectations/behaviour (I work in education in the area at all types of secondary schools so know this).

DD is only tiny but I'm looking at preschools for her and thinking about primary schools (ideally she'd go to the same preschool as primary).

DH and I have accepted that if she fails her 11+ we will pay for her to go to private school. We will be in a better financial position then to pay for it as we will have paid off the mortgage on a second property and have a monthly rental income (we sound better off than we are in that sentence!).

However, talking to people today and looking around various primary/pre schools I'm now wondering whether we aren't better off paying for private school for her primary on the basis they will give her more individualised care and stretch her better so that she will be more likely to pass the 11+ and so go on to grammar school at secondary (and so we spend money now to save money later IYKWIM). There's always the possibility DD still won't pass it but at least we will have done all we can for her to get there and so I'll feel happy that I've done what I can.

I'm not a pushy parent (although realise I probably sound like I am!) I just want the best for DD and want her to flourish as much as possible.

So, are there any thoughts on paying for private primary on the foundations hopefully it will help get DD through the 11+ and give her more of an individualised education? Is this common? It is worthwhile?

I prefer Teacher's basis for any 'moral superiority' to Xenia's.

Actually, I don't think her post even implied any superiority - it seemed to me she was merely addressing the misconceptions of the poster to whom she was responding - that intelligence is inextricably and proportionally linked to income (and personal worth).

And yes, how those 14 weeks holiday completely negate the impact and usefulness of her chosen profession! Those lazy teachers 'working' 9-3 during term time only, babysitting the offspring of others and swanning about on holidays while other people do 'real' work...

Speaking as an employer, in a age where most children I see have attained the same high grades at school. I would most certainly give a job to a child from a comp in a rough area over a privately educated child.

schmedz I think teacher was most certainly declaring her moral superiority over xenia !!!!

That was the entire purpose of her post!!!

Forma because you mentioned a brain drain.

I mentioned G&T because in theory my dc would be part of any private brain drain.However not being able to cough up £36k a year like the maj of parents that won't be happening.

There is no private brain drain,there are bright kids in every school up and down the land however unpalatable that may be to you.

You seem to have a chip re grammar.

from me to Teacher too,thank god we don't all have Xenia's view or the country would grind to a halt.

Well to be fair, forma was pressing you about grammar schools because you were calling private schools elitist.

So given that they and their fab education is only open to the brightest kids in the area, isnt that elitist too?
So many MC parents complain about private schools yet jump at the chance for their bright kids to attend a grammar school. You may not need to pay but it's still segregation!

But it's ok I guess if you fall on the right side of the line!

Where we are you see many parents paying private primary fees of £12k a yer,then ££££££ on a tutor on top to shoe horn their kids in to grammar in order to save on secondary fees.

That annoys me far more than genuinely bright kids whose parents can't afford tutoring and who get in on their own back.Quite frankly if you manage to get in after competing with the above all power to you.

Yes but the grammar system is still very elitist. Nobody thinks about poor little joe up the road who isn't bright enough to pass the exam but whose parents would also quite like for him to have a good education which is not disrupted by kids who don't want to learn.

Not sure why it annoys you that people tutor for it. All the people I know who live in a grammar area and have kids at stats primary also tutor for it. I think there's very few kids entering that room these day who haven't been cramming.

That's as may be however removing it doesn't stop the far worse elitist system of private education which buys you advantages which the maj whatever their ability can't have access to.

I'd happily see both got rid of.

However grammar does cater for some children with additional needs.My dad was uber bright and had poor parents in service.He went to a highly selective grammar a year early and ended up highly successful in his chosen career.Tbh if he hadn't have gone who knows what would have happened to him as he wouldn't have been catered for in the comp equivalent,he'd have been bored shatless.

We quite rightly cater for SEN so it follows that the other end should be catered for.

I guess I'm on the fence re grammar.Can see arguments both ways however I think the private system is far worse,it helps nobody bar the rich.

Erm if my dc went for it I wouldn't be paying for a tutor,simply don't have the cash.There are many like me too.

Mr Buttercat - would you like us to introduce communism???

Most democratic countries have private schools. Not just the UK. That will not change - however you may want this to happen.

When will people just see - not all people are equal. I do find it amazing that people are ready to believe that athleticism, musicality, etc. may in large part be due to genetics, but academic ability isn't??? Apart from a few outliers, I'd expect academic parents to have academic children, and hence have a natural advantage in life as academic ability is one of the main factors that contribute to future success (there's also things like confidence, determination, networking ability, and of course a heap of luck). Similarly, I don't expect Steffi Graf and Andre Agassi's children to be morbidly obese in the near-term either! Are we THAT politically correct that we have to lie about this issue?!?

I would say that if you have schools that possibly teach the naturally brighter ones already (given that a large part of kids in private / public / grammar schools come from households with well-educated and probably successful parents), in addition to most of them also having selective intake... it would be a no-brainer if they were to get a fair proportion of the uni places / best jobs out there.

What's next? Will people be told who to have children with - i.e. a breeding programm to create children who are all "equal" in ability from the very beginning, so that no one is advantaged?!?.

But far too many children who are born with ability are not getting into the top unis- the privately educated ones however are.That is wrong.Money is stopping many children from reaching their true potential.

Seems to me many posters on this thread like the cosy status quo that suits them and not anything that may upset the apple cart such as grammar schools,more state children enabled to get into Oxbridge etc.

This is exactly why social mobility is so poor in this country.

So you mean to say most countries have a problem then... given most have private schools?

Plus... Mr Buttercat... You do know you have statistically a higher chance getting into Oxbridge with straight A's when you are from state school, don't you??? It's just that a higher proportion from private schools do get A's. And how do you know those kids are not just naturally bright as I said above (genetics + selective intake)...

But they're not.

The fact is a tiny minority go private and they form the maj at Oxbridge.

And no I don't buy the fact that the rich are more likely to be cleverer.

As someone above pointed out... 18% of post-16 pupils do go private.

Not a tiny minority by any means, Mr Buttercat.

Pretty small minority in my book.

82% are thus state educated.

Only ~ 30% of the Oxbridge intake are private school pupils. Given they are 18% of all pupils in Sixth Form, and get the majority of A-grades... Oxbridge intake is ALREADY skewed towards state school pupils.

What part of this don't you get?!?

So in your book, Oxbridge should dis eliminate against private schools and take in less???

I read 47% of students at Oxford were privately educated,the figures should surely be vey near the actual difference ie your huge minority of 18%.

And yes I do think Oxbridge should do something,any privately educated child can go state if they so choose so nobody need miss out.

That must be a very old figure, Buttercat.

mrb is nearer the mark. The figure is just over fifty percent state educated at oxbridge. But the issues involved are complex. Its just as simple as giving more places to 'deserving' state pupils. For a start too few apply! And of those that do too few have the right qualifications! Many state schools simply don't prep their pupils adequaltely and it isn't for the university to bridge the gap.

Mr buttercatt. You say that the private school parents are frightend by the Grammar Schools, therfore i would like to ask you 2 Questions 1 Do you believe there should be more Grammar Schools? 2 If you do not believe in more Grammar Schools would you like a return to the assisted places scheme or something similar?.