When to go private?

[Vijac]

If money is limited, which stage do you think is most beneficial for a child to have private education? 4-7, 7-11 or secondary? Secondary is obviously where you get all your qualifications etc and where you are most likely to go off the rails and participate in club. But then, if you don't have the best start in education could it set the tone in a child's attitude and would they get into the more academic secondaries? What do people think. Just as an aside, I do know that there are good state schools available too.

I've met snobbish parents in both sectors and I've met down to earth ones. That doesn't justify a generalisation that " most" parents are "crashing snobs".

Where are you quoting the 'most' from, ladygnome? If you're going to get cross about something, make it something that's actually been said, I should think.

TOSN I have seen '2' on many mums net threads over time. Not this thread, but on many other private vs state debates. The comments about how little Tarquin has no clue about the real world because he lives this sheltered pampered existence away from the poor people and get sides above his station.
With regard to 1 and 3, I really believe that if state schools were as good as they should be then there wouldn't need to be any complaints that 7% of the country's children going to private school is damaging to the state schools. What message does that send about the other 93% of children and those parents? To me, the people complaining about the 7% are the ones doing the damage.

TOSN

Please don't engage in semantics to try and avoid the point being made. It is no more acceptable to make insulting and judgmental stereotypes about private school parents or families than it is state school parents. If I were to post a negative and judgmental stereotyped comment about state school parents stating " a lot of state school parents are..." you would rightly object. It works both ways.

I sometimes wonder whether people expect to be judged for sending their children to private school and so see the judging where it doesn't exist.

It could also be argued that parents who choose state schools are overly defensive as they expect to be told that they have chosen a lesser option for their child.

I see thread has sadly gone the way of these threads. I actually wish we had done "state till 8". Instead I stayed Pt (Ds is year 5) and tried to do loads of extra curricular stuff. We are now paying a tutor for 11+ tuition and I feel frustrated in my career as not ft. If I had my time again I would have worked ft and sent them to a prep school from yr 3 or 4.

Ok, norude, but I think if we bring in everything that's been said on both sides which is offensive and silly, I might as well start getting annoyed about comments over the years about state school children doing too many GCSEs in silly subjects, only seeing their peers aspire to a diploma in health and beauty, or being taught by illiterates who say 'haitch'. I don't think that would be helpful, would it?

How do you see people who object to private education as being a problem as doing damage, though?

I think however good state schools were, there would always be some people who wanted to pay, for a variety of reasons.

They are both top of their year in state school (years 2&5) in classes of 33 (Ds) and 29 (dd) :(

'Engaging in semantics', Chaz? You mean saying that a quoted word, which quite drastically changes the actual import of what was said, was not actually used?

It's a bit 'oh well, you can prove anything with facts', as an argument tactic!

Norude we are being told we've chosen a lesser option, on this very thread. Because in state, you don't get the basics of reading and writing. The boy you're given until 7 will be a lesser man if not sent to private. In state post 16, you will not get 'deep learning' that private schools give. In state, post 11, you risk 'going off the rails'.

Those are the things that have actually been said, and they all, actually, do presume a lesser option in state.

Oh and I sucking hate the school run. At the prep would keep them till 6.

I have 3 at state school and one at private (just moving now).

I certainly don't think my DD1 is superior or deserves better than the other 3 children - it would be absurd! She was just unlucky in a terrible environment with a lot of disruption and wasn't progressing. I wasn't going to let my child flounder and become depressed.

If I didn't have the money to send her private I would have home educated her or even sent her abroad to live with my family and received a free education in much smaller classes with specialist teachers. This however seemed a bit radical, but I did consider it.

My other children are doing fine. I have no prejudices either way, certainly no snob factor either. I know lots and lots of people in my same predicament, with children in different schools that suit different requirements.

At least the prep would keep them till 6, Jesus you can tell I had a state education !

for us, secondary. Because if the primary isn't ideal, it's easier for parents to supplement the learning (well within our range of general knowledge) and because children are far more influenced by parents at that age and will absorb encouragement to work hard even if others don't.

Most good independent schools I know of take lots of state school pupils. They look fro promise and potential, and know how to interpret the gap between state educated and prepped.
(My DC both caught up with prep-school peers)

Peer group pressure kicks in hard at adolescence, so a school, state or private, that fosters a strong work ethic and high aspirations not only from teachers but from fellow pupils, is priceless.

We sent DS1 & DS2 to prep school until they were 11 and then to a Grammar school ( still in plentiful supply here in Gloucestershire).

This has worked out really well as they were taught in a disciplined atmosphere and acquired excellent numeracy and literacy at a young age. They also had the opportunity to learn languages, including Latin and play lots of sport, use of tennis courts etc. One of the main benefits came from having to do prep at school in the early evening after lessons.

Both passed 11 + and DS1 did PPE at Oxford before joining the civil service, DS2 is doing a fashion degree at a Russell group. uni.

The grounding they got at prep school really set them in good stead - I never once in all their secondary education had to nag about getting homework done, and their manners were much better than state school friends. Interestingly DS1 got better A level results than his peer group from prep school who went on in the private sector. DS2 did about the same, though Latin A level was very challenging for him and Art something he took to late in his education.

I think there is a lot of truth in "give me the child until he is 7 and I will show you the man".

How do you see people who object to private education as being a problem as doing damage, though?

To me, it's like saying that 'you lot can't do as well because a lot of the bright kids don't go to your school, you could only do well if those kids were being taught in your school'. Why not change that attitude to 'you can get 10A* just like the kids at the private school a couple of miles away, your teachers are just as good and you are just as bright'.

As for the judgemental attitude towards parents who choose state school, I have already acknowledged that these stereotypes and opinions exist further up the thread. I think the stereotypes and judgments are all disgusting and based on nothing.

Norude we are being told we've chosen a lesser option, on this very thread. Because in state, you don't get the basics of reading and writing. The boy you're given until 7 will be a lesser man if not sent to private. In state post 16, you will not get 'deep learning' that private schools give. In state, post 11, you risk 'going off the rails'.

I haven't and wouldn't say any of those things, especially seeing as I have a child in state school and a child in private school. I am as disgusted and shocked by those comments as you are.

Oh ok, so a negative message being given to state school children by parents who resent the private sector, you mean?

"I've met snobbish parents in both sectors and I've met down to earth ones. That doesn't justify a generalisation that " most" parents are "crashing snobs".

I didn't say "most". I said "a lot". This is a very crucial difference. However, I am prepared to refine it even further to "a lot of private school parents I know" or even to "a lot of the private school parents who were at my friend Sue's birthday party on Saturday"

I notice that everybody is studiously avoiding the routine running down and insulting of state schools and state school children on this forum. And, indeed, on this thread.

"their manners were much better than state school friends"

And there's another one!

"their manners were much better than state school friends"
A simple observation on my part. The prep school was more disciplined than a state primary, the headmaster didn't worry about offending sensibilities and he would shout at and dress down children who did not behave correctly. The children also had to show round prospective parents who visited and needed to have good manners for that. I was not a SAHM, I worked upwards of 70 hours a week when my children were little and it meant a lot to me that the school helped with general and table manners.

Well, we can all make 'simple observations'. Shall we?

Oh ok, so a negative message being given to state school children by parents who resent the private sector, you mean?

Yes, that is what I mean. Not just parents though, but media as well. I think its a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy situation for some kids and for that reason alone the message should be more positive.
I am very defensive about my decision to send one of my children to private school because it was a decision that took a long time to make and involved a lot of 'what ifs', but ultimately we took the decision because our son was very unhappy and we were getting nowhere with the school. Since going private I had have to endure lots of negative comments in real life "why do you want your kid to be a snob", "are you just trying to create a goody two shoes kid", "what makes you think you're better than us". The fact that I still have one child in state school and therefore have just done what is best and (in my opinion) necessary for each of my children as individuals doesn't occur to some people.

'you can get 10A* just like the kids at the private school a couple of miles away, your teachers are just as good and you are just as bright'.

Why on earth would I not be saying that? Actually I'm not citing any bloody schools down the road, either.

Am bemused.

You know, a friend of my ds's has absolutely awful table manners. I could make a connection between that and the fact that he goes to private school, but I wouldn't dream of being so crass.

"I think its a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy situation for some kids and for that reason alone the message should be more positive."

The problem is that, at least on Mumsnet, people seem to do that by dissing state schools and the children who attend them. There have been plenty of examples on this thread alone. A fact which seems to be being ignored.