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?

Why can't you have a one size fits all education system ? Why would you need to tutor.....that's again going down the same road to give your own child an advantage over other children.

If 6 hours a day, 5 days a week at a well run state school isn't enough to teach kids what they need to know.....

I think Oxford and Cambridge are elitist and barring a small percentage of token gestures, they are full of uber rich foreign students and Public schoolkids.

I think the whole system is utterly muddled and wrong.

1. CofE/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim state-funded schools = wrong
2. Grammar schools in some areas but not in others = wrong
3. Continual under investment in education leading to state schools failing certain sectors = wrong
4. The existence of private schools = wrong

And what a mess it is. So many differing and competing ideologies, continually changing exam systems, etc. It's just left to parents to find the best way they can for their own kids. Which is also wrong ....

rob99

6 hours a day, 5 days a week may be fine... if NO ONE ELSE IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD does more. Globalisation means we are competing with everyone else that lives and breathes on this planet.

I would like my child to be able to compete on a global scale, should they wish to. Not just in silly Old Blighty. As someone previously said - the competition is more likely to come from abroad. I want them to enjoy similar privileges I had. Nope, I did not go to a private school, but I have been educated at a state school abroad (see, I AM the competition in a way).

I speak at least 3 languages fluently and 1 at a more basic level - most of which I've learned at school. I'm not bad at things like Maths either. Unlike in the UK, we couldn't just pick three subjects to focus on in the final few years at school. We had to keep around 10 or more all the way through A-levels. The max. class size I ever had was 20. Mostly, it was around 16-17 though. I also spent some time in other countries on extended (i.e. min. 1 month) school exchanges which makes me an ideal "internationally mobile" person at work these days.

Find me a state school in the UK that can provide my child with the above, and then, we can talk.

A lot of people who have grown up in the UK and went to state school choose to send their children private to simply replicate the experience they had when they were younger. Unfortunately, that experience is often no longer available in the UK.

"Why can't you have a one size fits all education system ?"
because many expect and want different things from education and the system cant cope with this. So they choose other options usually because they are disillusioned with the one size fits all education system. Some pay, some send their children to Steiner schools other home ed. and other variations on a theme. Of course there are many who can't or wont pay/home ed etc I feel genuinely concerned for those who are disillusioned but cant make alternative choices but have little tome for those who are disillusioned but still carry on with the one size fits all ed when they could choose other options.

I think you're being quite prescriptive there Tasmania. I've just come back from France and I didn't come across a single person who spoke one word of English but they all appeared to be doing quite well for themselves.

A friend of ours own a chip shop and he makes a fortune....for frying chips of a dinnertime and tea time (that would be lunchtime and dinnertime depending on where you're from)

I'm talking about giving a one size fits all education for every child to give them all the same crack of the whip educationally.

People can argue that they are "disillusioned" with the state school system or it's somehow "not quite right for my little Tarquin's needs" or whatever excuse is convenient but in my opinion what they really mean is, my child is special and I want him to go to a school that will give him an advantage over everyone else. I can understand this but like I said earlier, I don't think it's good for the bigger society and we're all the poorer for...even little Tarquin.

Until the state starts producing clones we will continue to have children of different kinds with different needs and different schools. Having a parent about to afford £10k a year school fees is no worse than one who can read to you or feeds yo good food not junk and refrains from smacking you. There is nothing wrong in those women who choose good careers (or rich men!) being able to afford school fees and the fact many women cannot afford it.

It is no different from the fact one child is fed well and one isn't or one is in a sporty family and the other family never moves from their chairs. So having private schools or state or religious schools or schools which are only attended by children with parents who own a £500k house in the catchment are no different from each other as issues.

As for whether you can afford to pay at primary level I suspect you can and perhaps could take on second jobs to fund it if necessary so that might be the way to go.

Rob your seem to be complaining that the UK state system doesn't offer you what you need for your child,yet are blaming others who pay to have the education you described in a earlier post.

rob I doubt that there are many parents out there who don't believe their child is "special" and nearly all parents where ever they send their children want their educational needs to be met and for them to achieve what they are capable of achieving. I work with children and parents and the reality is that only a tiny proportion of parents don't give a stuff about their children's eduction and how they do at school.
As Xenia says some children don't just have educational advantages over Tyler and Harper they have so many other advantages and ultimately money will play a part is these other advantages too. Our society is unfair.

In a sense it is what has made us be here as a species - fighting tooth and claw, survival of the fittest whilst looking after those to whom we are close.

The thing is, one size does not fit all in educational terms.

I was state educated from start to finish. The classes had 30+ pupils in and the school had over 2000. The teachers had no time to think about the needs of individual pupils - they educated to the mean or occassionally to the most vocal. Children do not all need the same or learn at the same rate and in the same way and yet we seem to have ended up with an education system where that is the starting assumption and the goal is uniform qualifications for all.

There was a lot wrong with my education, although it got me to Oxford and a good job. I want to provide better for my children and until we have reached an state education nirvanah, I will provide the best for them I can.

My children are special. As are all children. They have needs and potential which other children do not - as do all children. I want them to be treated as individuals and some recognition given to their particular strengths and weaknesses during the course of their educational experience. The state does not allow for that.

OP - I moved mine in to prep schools in Yr 3 and 4. I cannot say whether this is better than them going private in senior as I have nothing to compare with. I can say that it has mose definitely been a worthwhile experience.

GooseyLoosey, The thing is, you've just proved that the state education system works. State educated, you achieved, went to Oxford, got a good job and you want better than that for your children? Jesus! what exactly is better than that ?

Xenia, the thing that is supposed to separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we have a conscience. If I had a cake, is it best that I put it on the floor and the biggest, most aggressive fighter gets most of it or do I divide it up and give everyone an equal share? I dare say you might grab it quick to feed Tarquin and sod everyone else because he's more important than everyone else.

Poppydoppy, I'm saying that the state system is plenty good enough for me, my children and it should be good enough for everyone and if everyone was in state education there would be more equality and standards would be higher and society would be better for it.....in my opinion.

Not really Rob - I was largely self eductated from 16 and was teaching my A level class at 17. I also have no self confidence, which I attribute in part to my educational background.

Some schools are better than others. Some schools offer more extra curricular stuff. Look at each school and decide which one will suit your dc. Whether it's private or state doesn't matter so long as it is the right school.

GooseyLoosey, At 17 you were teaching your A level class.....would that not require a certain amount of self-confidence. The prospect of going to Oxford would scare the hell out of me. You argue your point well on this thread and you've managed to get a good job, I'd imagine that required applications, tests and interviews. Obviously I don't know you but I could argue that these attributes you have and your success could be as a result of your state education. I'm sure some privately educated kids have a bad time at their schools.

rob99

I would argue that what GooseyLoosey got was in spite of her education. She was obviously born with the right character or had ample support at home. A 17-year-old teaching A level classes just shows how backward the whole system is. She should have been more challenged according to her ability, not left to fend for herself - just because the others in her class could not.

Self-confidence is important - I would pay just to even make sure that the prospect of going to Oxford would not scare the hell out of my child. Goodness gracious. Why be scared?!? I'm not a self-confident person, and yet, I wouldn't hesitate applying there at all, if I knew I was in with a chance. After that, I'd just be happy having accomplished what I wanted.

I dare say if I'd had a private education the prospect of going to Oxford may not have scared the hell out of me. Not being part of that select group, it would have scared the hell out of me, not to mention being a bit too thick anyway.

I've never had a desire to go to Oxford anyway even if I was clever enough, for me and my ilk it's meaningless.

If GooseyLoosey came from a state school and ended up at Oxford I'd argue there's nowt wrong with her confidence and nowt wrong with her state education.

Amen for goosey's viewpoint. There is no educational nirvana so until then our primary obligation is to our kids, surely?

Why would anyone be scared of going to Oxford? It is much easier than working in a call centre. You are looked in a way that those leaving school to find work at 16 or moving on to benefits have it.

As for the duty of parents to do their best for their children that is no different from humans winning out over Neanderthals. The best do best. It is how we are made. I am not saying there is not a point to helping others as societies needs others but I and most parents on the thread do not give their good food to the poor and feed their children junk or pick the worst school they can so others get into the better schools. Nothing wrong with looking after your own children. It is what every mother does on mumsnet by and large.

rob99 - why are the state schools better for the inclusion of rich 'middle-class' parents? Rich parents aren't a better influence or have more integrity than others! Just more money.

Some state schools are better because of the head, the teaching, the facilities and the foundation ethos - that may be why they are full of 'middle-class' types, but its not because of them. They move into the area because the school is good and the house prices go up!

I know two families in 500+k houses (outside London), holidays, ridiculously expensive cars etc. They both send/sent their kids to the best state school in the city - the one that's oversubscribed every year - and in so doing they've taken up 6 places that could have gone to less well off kids who have been turned away (I know of 2) and ended up in a sink school when they could have had a better chance if the places at the better school had been available.

Instead, it was a new kitchen and several pricey holidays (60k). I know the income of at least one set of parents and they can more than afford to educate privately.

They justified this with some political ideology too - and why shouldn't they? - they are free to choose.

But that doesn't mean its 'socially incorrect' to choose private school - that's a choice too and one that can benefit a less-well off family.

rob99 you're making the mistake of thinking that because X can do something, then anyone can!

I too went to Oxbridge from a comp. That doesn't mean it was a good school. It wasn't. It largely let down the vast vast majority of its pupils.

I got to where I did on the back of my mother's steely aspirations and my own desire to leave that town!

"If all kids went to state school, I think kids will have equal opportunities, I think standards will improve and I think society/communities will benefit".

That is a very simplistic viewpoint. If you have a 'bad' local state school, instead of going private, the parents will simply move house.

This is rob's problem he's making everything too simplistic, too black and white as do many others. But many parents who as rob says want the best for their DC's just don't see education in this simplistic X=Y terms so many turn to independent ed, Steiner ed, home ed etc.

Its never going to happen so pointless discussing it. Life is not fair, there will always be people who have and people who don't.

You can argue the moral imperative is to pay school fees if you can - to relieve the burden on the state of educating the 500,000 children who are in the private sector and would (but for the fact their parents are prepared to work very hard to afford school fees which for most of us are quite an expense) otherwise be having to be paid for by the state at up to £8k a year (some state primaries apparently now have £8k per pupil not much less than the best private day schools).

Quote:

I think you're being quite prescriptive there Tasmania. I've just come back from France and I didn't come across a single person who spoke one word of English but they all appeared to be doing quite well for themselves.

A friend of ours own a chip shop and he makes a fortune....for frying chips of a dinnertime and tea time (that would be lunchtime and dinnertime depending on where you're from)

I'm talking about giving a one size fits all education for every child to give them all the same crack of the whip educationally.

People can argue that they are "disillusioned" with the state school system or it's somehow "not quite right for my little Tarquin's needs" or whatever excuse is convenient but in my opinion what they really mean is, my child is special and I want him to go to a school that will give him an advantage over everyone else. I can understand this but like I said earlier, I don't think it's good for the bigger society and we're all the poorer for...even little Tarquin.

And that may be the real issue here, rob99. We obviously have different expectations - which is completely normal. I do not expect you to have the same expectations as me, but as a very international person, I place a huge importance on my child learning languages, as well as traveling. Some people want their children to be raised in particular religion or particular culture. What's the difference?

Also - why was I prescriptive? If you think what I want of education is too much, then please let me know one thing: why on Earth should state education appeal to the lowest common denominator?

You talk about France, and that people have a nice life over there, without speaking other languages, etc. A lot of highly-educated people I talk to who are from France actually believe that the whole "nice life in France" thing with long holidays, etc. will no longer work in future.
You will find there are a lot of people in much poorer countries with no MFL skills, etc. who have an "OK" life. People like that have less options. They are going to be stuck in that country of theirs forever. They will struggle to move, if the world changes in the future (and it will). I do think you suffer a little from viewing everything in the short term, and not looking further ahead into the future. I admit that for older adults today those changes may not really happen in their lifetime, and hence, they don't have to think about it.

But if we are talking about education, we inevitably have to think about the future as that is what education is meant to prepare children for! Children WILL be impacted by such changes in future, and parents would be well-advised to at least think about it all.