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?

China, for the foreseeable future, is where the business and job opportunities are going to the for the next few decades. Because of the American influence, a lot of Chinese speak English so for us Brits not speaking Mandarin is not an issue. The same can't be said for French people who only speak French.

Not that my point has anything to do with the OP. :)

Tasmania has a point. Anecdote: friend's son is going to univ in Sept to study at one of the best in that subject. Over 70% of offers for that undergraduate course have gone to overseas students. Education is becoming a global marketplace.

Like I said, people do what's best for their own - that's the society we live in. I don't buy into it. I earn an average wage and my kids earn much less but we are happy. Aspiring to have the best school, house, car has never entered my head or my kids heads. I want my kids to be kind hearted, generous, caring and happy. I don't think I'm on the same page as you guys.

The thing is, outcomes such as Oxbridge entance, careers followed etc are not just a function of schooling.

For complicated reasons, I went to a (then) highly academic girls' private boarding school for all my secondary education. One of my siblings went to the local 11-16 comp followed by 6th form college (the comp in particular was very much NOT academic - said sibling achieved a third of their TOTAL O-level passes that year), the other to same comp follwed by private sixth form.

The outcome? All of us went to Oxbridge. Why? Because my parents did, exhuded their love of their ancient university, and they simply expected that we would follow in their footsteps.

However, all of us have 'socially useful / creative but in no way lucrative or 'high status' jobs', despite education that equipped and in many ways pointed us towards other options. Why? Again because that matches the very strong value set we were brought up with - that the worth of a job is not measured in money, and the value of a person is not measured by their pay packet.

We were frequently poor when I was growing up (my private schooling was on a 100% scholarship with grandparents buying my second-hand uniform from their saved-up pension money), so our advantages were not 'bought' - but they were very significant advantages over those we were e.g. at primary school with nevertheless.

Rob99, I think we all want that. I think the two tier education system exists but it isn't private Vs state but rather good state Vs bad state.
When my eldest started school, we lived on Cheshire. We paid to avoid the overly pushy extremely high achieving state primary on our doorstep. To attend the school you almost certainly needed to live in catchment and to live in catchment you needed to pay upwards of 500k for your home.

So, do you really think that I was buying any sort if advantage for my kids over those at my local stats primary whose parents often drive around the corner in their Chelsea tractor. Who went on 3 holidays a year and whose children did after school and weekend activities such as ballet, rugby and piano???

I don't think so! What I do believe is that I was buying them the advantage of not having constant sats pressure and academic pushiness.

rob what on earth makes you think you can;t be kind haearted and happy and earn a truckload?

Seriously daft thinking!

Wordfactory, yes of course it is possible to be those things and earn lots of money. It is a question of parental priority in terms of values ..

Saying (and believing): 'My primary aim is that you should be happy, healthy, generous and kind hearted. If you earn shedloads as well, that is great.'

IS different (not better, not worse, just different) from saying (and believing)
'My primary aim is that you should get the best and highest earning job that you can. If you are happy, generous and kind hearted as well, that is great.'

(I think, btw, that it is difficult as a parent to address the 'happy, generous and kind hearted' thing directly ... what do we 'do' to make children like this? ['Model it to them', is probably the answer from my own upbringing - my parents lived out their values and their aspirations for us in their own lives and thus we acquired them....but it's hard to see that one is doing that at the time IYSWIM]

Therefore there is a tendency to 'do' proxy things - seek out the best education, best preparation for jobs etc - in the hope that our children will become happy through having this things.... because 'making our children happy' in the abstract is too nebulous.)

Rob - you are obviously one of those who subscribe to the view that the well off labour in jobs that they hate, which involves them doing unscrupulous deeds to please the Gods of Greed and that our kids are entitled snobs who look down their noses at those less fortunate .

Embrace it if makes you feel happy with your life.

I don't subscribe to the view that the well off labour in jobs that they hate......unscrupulous deeds to please the Gods of Greed.....you mean like solicitors, MP's, property developers, bankers.....

I'm quite happy, I just wish more of society was less self-centred and greedy and a bit more caring of the rest of society in general. That goes for the feckless, lazy gits on sink estates as it does for Tarquin in his Range Rover.

Would that - 'less self-centred and greedy and a bit more caring of the rest of society in general' - include correcting a child obesity for those stuck in primary schools doing 1/2 hr PE per week? With nowhere to play at home except the computer? And no safe way of walking to school or riding a bike?
If those parents chose private ed, or home ed, with 6hrs sport per week to see their child get back to normal healthy weight - that is not selfish and greedy, its caring!

Yet even if they are working all they can to pay the fees are they viewed as seeking 'privelege' when all they want is a happy healthy child who would otherwise be failed by the state system.

Private ed only possible with some help for most families, of course. But its just to point out that not everyone survives on a minimum wage with the school round the corner.

rob99 - GPs (working 9-5) and many jobs in local councils, etc. get paid more than an MP. I find it ridiculous that the British public are so upset about MPs getting salary increases, but don't care if someone in their local council gets paid 3 times more!

There are not many jobs that people do for the good of society unless you are the next Mother Theresa. If that was the case, GPs should be queueing up for a £25k job... but as it stands, you apparently need to pay a lot, lot more than that, for them to do their jobs that is meant to be "vital for society".

I mean what job do you do? And is it really that great for society - or are you doing it for money?

Half an hour PE a week at school, no safe way of walking to school and nowhere to play at home except on a computer ? So is this the child of a parent who is driven and determined enough to scrape together enough cash to send their child to private ed to address this issues but isn't resourceful enough to play sport with their child after school and confiscate the computer? No safe way of walking to school....?

I'm an engineer that works for a big company that used to be part of the public sector until someone decided that privatising it was a good idea. I earn just enough to pay the mortgage and bills and it suits me fine, but I'm told I must work a bit quicker because "the City" might lose a bit of confidence if I don't, adversely affecting the share price and Tarquin and Tabitha might not be able to feed their ponies if that happens.

rob I think you'll find if the share price gets fucked it won't have that much effect on pony feeding. Do you really think many wealthy people feed their pets from their share dividends?

It will however have a dreadful effect on the pensions of most nurses, social workers, police men etc

The 1950s ended a looooooong time ago. Your knowledge of economics and the modern workplace seems as woefully out of date as your knowledge of the education system!

rob - you are happy just to earn enough to pay the bills which is fine but why do you begrudge those who want more for themselves or their DCs?

Anyway, going by your last post, you don't sound like you are actually happy with your job.

Well exactly forma.

He sounds bloody miserable! And not as if he's adding to the sum of human health and happiness either!

Some people just like to do the bare minimum in life. Be that workwise, culturally, or with their DC. They do the least they can get away with. Then they to make themselves feel better by critisising those who have higher standards or want to do/achieve more.

I would argue doctors and lawyers are as caring as cleaners and you do not have to have a low paid menial job to be caring and kind. A lot of the women on the women who earn £1k a day thread were in a sense in service as IT programmers, consultants, serving needs, helping others. The fact few others can do your job which means it is highly sought after and you are highly paid does not mean the service is any the less in moral terms.

I suspect most people want what they have. So if your whole family went to Oxbridge you may well assume you will go there as in the example above. If no one ever goes to university in your family they you won't think of that. It is why so many children do the same as their parents in terms of education and jobs. The baker's son becomes a baker. We have garden works going on (or did until they had to leave the job today) and that is father and son. Had his father been a leading surgeon the son might well have been. Had his father been on the dole he might have been too.

"Aspiring to have the best school, house, car has never entered my head or my kids heads. I want my kids to be kind hearted, generous, caring and happy. I don't think I'm on the same page as you guys." I think most people are not too materialistic - I'm not. I have nothing to prove. I have a house I like. There will always be bigger and smaller houses around and comparing yourself to others is never going to make anyone happy. However I would assume all children would go to university and good ones just as my parents and their generation did although not the generation growing up in 1900 in our family. I would expect them to own their own house just as my parents did and I have.

There is a point here though that if you have no aspirations in terms of education for a child it is not likely to have high aspirations. I think intellectual satisfaction in a career is important. I want all my children to enjoy their work. I enjoy it so much after 30 years I hope to do another 30 years from today. I believe my parents felt the same about their careers - doctor (consultant) and teacher. I remember my father's advice and it was the same advice from the speaker at the children's speech day this term - pick work you will enjoy as you will spend so long doing it. It is very important unless you are in a housewife model, women clean and men work type of background and culture and girls do not have jobs or only part time ones I suppose. Mind you I asked one child what they thought of the speech and they said they had heard none of it and it was all boring..... laughing as I type. One hopes despite the teenage ennui something filters through.

wordfactory - I was expecting rob to say that he worked for some charity or was a social worker for eg.

I be prepared to take a salary drop for such a job but if I am going to be a corporate drone working 9-5 in an office then I might as well work for loads and not just enough to pay the bills.

Rob, How much to you contribute to your community ? Do you devote your time to raising money for charities? Have you built orphanages in India and Africa? Being kind is not exclusive to the poor!!

But Rob99, if you read my earlier post you'll see that it's not as clear cut as those who are less selfish opt to privately educate which those who care more about their community go with state.
You talk about range rovers and ponies which were in abundance (esp RRs) at the local state primary. It was just as elitist if not more so because at least at the private school we opted for there was a more diverse range of ethnicity and background. You seem to believe that all state schools are this wonderful melting pots that span across the full range of society. I'm afraid the reality is quite different in most areas.

I was teaching in Manchester when we lived in Cheshire and I can tell you categorically that the difference between the kids I taught and those at our local state school was vast whilst between our state primary and the private primary we opted for was negligible. I'm talking in terms of material wealth, opportunities and aspirations. Though it seems more convenient to see the dividing line as drawn between state and private.

"but we are happy."
You say your happy but frankly thats not how you come across you seem to be very angry about "Tarquin and Tabitha" with thier ponies, RR's better employment prospect and expecting you to work harder to pay for all of this.

"I'm an engineer that works for a big company that used to be part of the public sector until someone decided that privatising it was a good idea. I earn just enough to pay the mortgage and bills and it suits me fine, but I'm told I must work a bit quicker."
I just need to shatter any of your illusions as a public sector worker the pressure is on us morning noon and night to work harder quicker "more efficiently" and longer hours than we are actually contracted to do.

As a private sector worker I have a 35 hour base contract but I am often required to work additional hours without pay. So boo hoo.

Sorry schoolnurse. I totally misread your post. Please ignore my rudeness.

Dont worry Format my DH works in the private sector I am very aware of the pressures most are under but its easy for people like rob to assume or hark back to the days when many state sector employees worked only their contracted hours with little pressure to meet targets etc but those days have long gone.