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?

As I said I'm on the fence however if more grammar schools would get more genuinely bright state educated kids into Oxbridge who otherwise wouldn't it wouldn't be a bad thing I guess.

I'm guessing the wealthy parents of less intelligent kids who can afford private ed,extra tuition on top,music lessons,travel,more resources etc wouldn't like the extra competition though.

Word out of interet what are the 'right' qualifications that state kids don't have?

wordfactory - at Cambridge, around 37% were privately educated according to recent figures. I am aware that at Oxford, it is more around 43.5% (according to their website - they should change this, if not true), so an average of 40% rather than half.

Mr Buttercat - re. 'right' qualifications, this is all to be found in the university prospectuses. But it seems not many state school teachers read it?!?

Often to do with specific subject combinations, and 'facilitating' subjects. Truth is, if pupils want to know, they could find out, but from what I have figured out having lived here in the UK for over a decade... kids really, really lack the drive to research anything on their own, and only really want to be spoon-fed, it seems!!!

I was in another country when I was applying to UK unis, and the internet was not yet 100% at the time, so had to use the library and write to the British council... as a 17-year-old. Don't want to sound like a party-pooper or some boring grandma, but what happened to the youth these days?!?

Not Oxbridge, but Russell Group, Mr Buttercat:

Some advanced level subjects are more frequently required for entry to degree courses than others. We call these subjects ?facilitating? because choosing them at advanced level leaves open a wide range of options for university study. These facilitating subjects include: Maths and further maths; Physics; Biology; Chemistry; History; Geography; Modern and classical languages; English Literature.

Some of the above are not well-taught at state school (particularly modern and classical languages), so could potentially be limiting.

Actually - correction... 42.5% at Oxford.

As tasmania points out the right qualifications are a decent slew od GCSEs in rigorous subjects. Obviously no one minds Drama, or textiles, or dance but they need to sit alongside the more trad subjects. The grades also need to be very good. Yes they will be contextualised if you attended a very poor school, but they will still need to be decent (especially at Oxford who are stricter on this). Similarly A levels need to be appropriate and demonstrate an interest and aptitude in the subject applied for. Too many state school applications fail here.

Interestingly, our school, which goes up to 18, encourages bright kids to do 4 Alevel but to do 3 traditional subjects and one for enjoyment. So you'll get kids doing, maths, economics, physics and their 4th will be home economics or drama. The tutor who deals with university applications says that she thinks it can give an edge in a sea of 3 or 4 similar Alevels and seems to be well received as long as they hit the grade with their 3 traditional subjects. Something else to talk about at interview too, I guess.

Here is a list of subjects not to do at A level because they limit people's chances of getting into good universities. This list has been published by Cambridge University, but other good Universities have already followed suit. The DCs schools circulated this list

Accounting
Art and design
Business studies
Communication studies
Dance
Design and technology
Drama and theatre studies
Film studies
Health and social care
Home economics
Information and communication technology
Leisure studies
Media studies
Music technology
Performance studies
Performing arts
Photography
Physical education
Sports studies
Travel and tourism
Source: Cambridge University

But I can't honestly believe that anybody trying to get into a red brick uni would study any of those.It's a loooong time since I did A levels and even I would advice any of my 3 to avoid them. Surely schools point this out.

Well that contradicts my post somewhat but out sch admission tutor is talking about as a 4th or 5th Alevel not as main choices.
I'm surprised law isn't on there. DH avoids taking on candidates who have done law Alevel. In fact, he much prefers them to have done something like history followed by a conversion over a law degree. but he's picky like that!

Yes, I too am surprised that Law is not on that list. I am surprised that Art and Design is on that list. It's a hard A level.

Yes, I am also surprised to see art on there. Our school is very selective at 11 and highly over-subscribed and art is a big department all the way through to Alevel. Every year we get to see some of the work and it is always amazing.

I think it's worse than that.......It's a bit rich playing the moral high ground card Teacher by taking a "useful" job that's well below your maximum earning potential (your words) and then admit to being married to a Lawyer........I'm not saying Lawyers are overpaid parasites but......they are overpaid parasites and about as capitalist as it gets.......in my opinion.

I was advised not to do art back in the 80s (it isn't hard if you're arty)I only wanted to be a teacher,switched to Classical Civilisation - now that's a dossy A Level,ditto Ancient History which I also did.

History isn't a dossy Alevel at all! I did eng lit, history and economics. History was def the most weighty even though it was my favourite and I went on to do history at the university that started up the Russell Group.
Maybe art depends on the exam board. I'm not arty at all but it all looks a lot of work to me.

Rob. I think that you have me confused with someone else - definitely NOT married to a lawyer....

I did history(hard) as well and Eng Lit,Ancient History was dossy believe me,I did the lessons at lunchtime as an add on.I had an amazing teacher.

I am also a teacher married to a lawyer. It's quite common. DH's boss is always teasing her teacher husband about how he can only do his 'hobby' as she calls it (ie teaching) because she pays the bills. There are at least 4 mumsnet teachers married to lawyers.

Ah, maybe it's like human biology gcse was at my school. All the kids who did that were the ones school felt could cope with doing biology, chemistry or physics.

Oh rob99, not only is DH a lawyer but he works for a large bank in the city advising them how 'just' to stay within the lines. What can I say!

I don't think people did it instead of anything but as an easy 4th A level if you were already doing Classics.

Mrbuttercat you would be shocked just how many bright pupils take the wrong subjects.

You'd also be shocked at how many get no advice on this from their schools. Or indeed, how many teachers there are advising pupils that these guideleines are elitist and old fashioned. That A level Media Studies is perfectly equivalent to, say, physics!

There are some posters (teachers) who argue this all the time on MN.

And yes, an A level in law is not too useful in this context, unless it's a fourth or fifth A level. And then one might ask why they bothered. Why not do somehting more interesting with their time .

Quick example: there is currently a thread about whether English Language A level is considered as rigorous as English Literature.

The short answer is no. It is not.

But you'll see people arguing black is white on that thread. Apparently that is a snobby and elitist thing to say.

Is there any wonder pupils and their parents can get confused?

Hmmm I wonder if it's due to data and Ofsted pressure.

If kids do easier exams you get higher pass rates.

School then looks better on paper.