If you chose a private education for your DC, was the environment/facilities more important, or the standard of learning/progress?

[bronya]

I'm genuinely curious! I have experience of teaching in the state sector, and friends with DC who are privately educated (at different schools). I have heard their complaints about the schools (mostly progress related), seen how many different tutors they use, and the effort the parents put in at home. I have seen SEN overlooked, children not provided with resources they need and simply told to find another school, 'top' students with levels of Maths/English I would not see as 'top' in a state school with mixed catchment. So I wonder - is it the environment (smaller classes, better facilities, more opportunity for different music/sport interests to be followed) that people pay all this money for? If it is the education, then I know there are some excellent private schools, but it doesn't seem to be the norm!

We have done state primary and independent secondary.

It was a really hard decision to send dd to the independent school, and if it had been entirely up to me, she would not have gone. Her allocated secondary school was ofsted outstanding where the high achieving dc average a grade A in all of their GCSE's, in fact middle achievers get a B. She would have left with an excellent set of GCSE's.

The school we chose is 5 minutes walk from our home. Dd1 has a disability and not commuting was a significant factor because she gets very tired. Dh feel in love with the small classes, and the fact that science is taught separately. I liked the fact the school has a sixth form. I know this divides MN, but my school lost it's sixth form and my time at sixth form college was the unhappiest time I have ever had. I was bullied for my disability (same one that dd has) and so I think that having the opportunity to stay in a small, nurturing environment swung it for me. If dd wants to go somewhere more exciting at 16, then that's fine too, but it will be her decision. She will have options.

I'm not worried about my DC working 2 years ahead or not - you can't get more than an A* (until this changes for the umpteenth time) in exams whether you are on target or 3 years ahead. I like the fact that at prep level they have specialist subject teachers, classes are smaller, sport is taken seriously and music is a big part of school life.

Both of mine are dyslexic and the prep has good resources to deal with this at no extra cost. One on one additional phonics teaching, cursive handwriting, touch typing etc.

For me, its about the DC fulfilling their potential and becoming rounded individuals rather than pure academic performance or sport or music.

50% of the cohort at our nearest state secondary were directed into dead-end qualifications 5 to 7 years ago when we were looking at sec schools for DC1, 2 and 3. Whilst that wouldn't have affected my DC who are all academic, it shows the focus of the school. Also they did not stretch the higher achievers nor offer the things that we wanted- good science including triple (which they didn't offer at the time) and good opportunities to play music in groups for DD2. I don't think that a comprehensive that only gets a handful of As every year at GCSE is doing its job, frankly. There will be way more children in every cohort who are capable of achieving As. An A is not good enough for everyone (especially if you want to do medicine) and I didn't have sufficient faith that achieving them in a basically non-academic environment was possible for my 2 of my 3 DC. The middle one might have done if she'd focused enough but even that's not a certainty.

What I will say is that any child who emerges from that school with a string of A*s is exceptional in every way.

frankly you are deluding yourself if you think that when your DD goes onto secondary school she's going to get a broad academic intellectual learning for the sake of learning programme.

Why am I deluding myself? That's exactly what I got at my state secondary and I expect the same for my dd.

Jinsei don't you think that most schools now teach just to the exam syllabus and then exam technique / practice particularly up to GCSEs? Getting the grades is the priority and a lot of schools seem to push their pupils through a lot of GCSE and equivalents not leaving much time for anything else. Even when there is time and aptitude, larger numbers in the class mean that only a few pupils will have the opportunity to engage in discussion. Would be interested to know what sort of 'broad learning for the sake of learning' experience you are expecting at secondary level?

Jensai when I was a school we were shown how to curtsey when we met the queen I don't expect the same for my DC's (especially as they are boys).
State ed and in fact the vast majority of independent ed, has never offered the intellectual breadth of education my DS school offers. It's what my DS's school is known for. On the other hand it doesn't offer things that other big name schools do offer This is not a pissing match by the way the OP asked why people paid for education.

My DCs initially went to a private prep as the state school we would have been eligible for was undergoing a very difficult stage, it had 3 heads in 18 months. I visited it and although it has better facilities than the private school the very broad range of abilities was off putting. I knew that the school had empty spaces as it was unpopular and that new children from all over the borough were slotted in and then moved out again. This meant there was constant social disruption in the class room which I felt would not be beneficial. After we had chosen not to apply for a place there was a fight between a parent governor and another parent in the playground. The parent who was the instigator was banned from the school grounds and gathered a group of their friends, they drove round the block the school is on in convoy hooting. I am pleased my children were not exposed to this.

State ed and in fact the vast majority of independent ed, has never offered the intellectual breadth of education my DS school offers. It's what my DS's school is known for. On the other hand it doesn't offer things that other big name schools do offer.

I don't dispute that your DS's school may offer something unique and unusual, so perhaps it is indeed worth paying for. I'm obviously unfamiliar with the offerings of all private schools, so I am basing my comments on the ones that I do know something about. These include many of the less known independent schools as well as some of the more famous schools such as Wycombe Abbey, St Paul's, Eton, Winchester, Cheltenham Ladies College and so on. Having known many people that went to these schools (and others who send their dc to these schools), I am not at all persuaded that they had a broader or better education than myself.

The only real difference that I did detect with regard to pupils who had attended certain schools was perhaps an ability to talk confidently about subjects that they didn't really understand. I think this relates to the veneer of confidence that I mentioned earlier on, and I did admire it when I was around 18, but it's all fairly superficial stuff in my view. I guess it can be a useful skill to have at times, as it may impress or intimidate people who aren't able to see through it, but it's not something I would value, and personally, I'd prefer schools to encourage intellectual honesty and the courage to admit when you don't really understand. Again, I'm sure many indie schools do this, I'm just talking about the ones I happen to know.

As for secondary schools teaching to the test, I think this can go on in both sectors, but it doesn't necessarily happen to the same degree in all schools. When dd gets to secondary age, we will obviously evaluate all options and make the best choice. We may well have to move to get what we want in any case, as neither sector offers what we want locally, and I would not be prepared to consider boarding.

Jinsei I completely agree with you about the need for intellectual honesty and a superficial veneer being worth little.
What I would pay for is a school that has a high proportion of inspiring educators, allows them time and freedom to teach to their best ability and in addition has a system that allows an individual child to be guided by teachers who know them overall, not just based from a snapshot of their performance in the teacher's subject or how hard the parents push.
That combination happens to be more likely in a few private schools and those schools are not the same places they were 10 to 20 years ago and BTW neither are state secondary schools.

DD has moved from state primary to small private this year, and I don't think they are working two years ahead. But they don't seem to be spending half as much time on it, which means they get to do tons of other stuff instead, like drama, spending loads of time outdoors, art, sport etc. At her state primary, maths and literacy dominated the day and she found it very dull; now there is always something different going on.

But it's a small school - we saw some of the big preps with their sweeping lawns and their endless facilities, and didn't feel that they were anything like as caring or understanding. Although had DD seen one school library, with its dedicated librarian, and thousands of books, she might have been impressed.

So to answer your question, neither environment nor academics, just a sense of it being broad and not pushy.

There were also lots of other reasons why we moved - smaller classes being better when she is easily distracted, and the fact that she'd pretty much given up trying at her old school for just a couple.

Our decision was based all around the size and the pastoral care, the academics were secondary. Admittedly, we were looking at primary level and our priority was that DD met her potential without being hot housed but that so long as she did as well as she would have at state school that was good enough. We wanted excellent communication, an open door policy, a class which was big enough to find friends but small enough for the children to be known properly. As it happens, the facilities are outstanding, teaching is consistently good, communication and pastoral care are outstanding and the breath of opportunities are far better than any state primary I have come across.

I don't have national curriculum levels but having had other children come through a state primary right to the end of year 6, I would hazard a guess that she's leaving year 3 on 4c/b across the board which is good but not outstanding. Having said that, she was just below middle of the class in a state school and certainly would not have been working at the level she is now. I believe that that is about as much as she could currently manage therefore it's irrelevant if the school is working 2/3/4 years ahead, she's meeting her potential and having a great time and that's the most important thing.

I have heard their complaints about the schools (mostly progress related), seen how many different tutors they use, and the effort the parents put in at home. I have seen SEN overlooked, children not provided with resources they need and simply told to find another school, 'top' students with levels of Maths/English I would not see as 'top' in a private school with mixed intake.

Thats why we moved from state to private.

I do wish people wouldn't presume all state/private schools are the same. Obviously, there are good and bad in both sectors. Just find a school a suits you.

Our ds was getting bored at primary, so we moved him to an academic private school with a broad curriculum and plenty of (free) clubs. He loves it and has really thrived there.

Also, important to us was the level of respect that was expected. At his prep school, boys are told off if they answer back to teachers for example. At his primary, there was a lot less discipline, and this was very noticeable when walking round the school.

But please don't think that private schools are like this, and state schools are like that. Each and every school is different.

We "chose" independent because as late applicants for Y7 (job move), the only state schools we were able to access were those with unfilled places. In Inner London this meant two schools in special measures with a range of serious problems. Had we been able to access an outstanding, good or even (as it then was) a satisfactory school we would have taken the state option and bought a new car! Many of the other families at our private school are there for the same reason.

We chose private for DD as the state primary schools simply weren't good enough, nor were 2 of the 3 possible private schools.

DS was lucky enough to get into an 'outstanding' state primary school and when we moved I looked at OFSTED reports and the 2 closest schools were rated 'outstanding' too so i stupidly assumed it would be a similar quality, it wasn't til i looked round to apply for DD that i realised DS' school was actually amazing even by outstanding standards (DS only has a year left and joint custody so he hasn't changed schools) I eventually convinced myself i was just being fussy and she'd been fine when DD didn't get into either of the closest schools and was instead offered one in special measures. So basically it's all DS' teachers' fault for giving me ridiculously high expectations!

The reason the other schools weren't good enough was the quality of teaching - too focussed on SATs results and felt like they weren't interested in helping children with any other skills and the atmosphere wasn't very friendly, also the extra curricular activities, DS' school has an amazing choir which enters competitions and does performances whereas the state schools here were lucky if they had a choir that sang in assembly, there wasn't the same variety of sports teams and very few clubs.

How interesting that two posters have very different opinions of Winchester! It is all to do with what suits your child, isn't it? One persons intellectual breadth is not borne out by someone else's experience! How difficult it is to make decisions.

I don't want my children to be taught to the test, I want them to have a rounded education for life. I want to chose the ethos of the school that fits our values as a family.

MillyMolly this thread is not about Winchester.

DS is at a good private school other DS is at a good comprehensive. V different children however main differences observed are private equals much higher expectations, no behaviour problems, amazing relationship between staff and children, more and better sport and deeper and broader curriculum. No difference in exam results for able children, quality of teaching or interestingly class size. Similar cross section of backgrounds amongst able children.

On bronya's question, we went (or rather were driven to go) private as result of poor state school management of our son - getting lost in a large class, lack of challenge in areas where he was clearly G&T, being complained to that a reception child wanted to know how to spell hard words etc. So we went private to get smaller classes, more personalised learning, and hopefully a faster academic pace and some good music. This worked very well indeed in a private school for several years, but we there then dismayed to see that later on the focus on academic progress rather fell away and there was rather more emphasis on a lot of peripheral twaddle, particularly on thuggish herd sports, too much intrusion into personal development (we think that is parents' job in a day school at least), and not nearly enough music. I think this was a learning experience about the diversity of focus of private schools, and we changed school to get the balance back where we felt it was right. We now that a good way for us to score a school is to work out the number of orchestras minus the number of rugby pitches!

SALT.
OT.
Small class sizes.
Specialist dyslexia qualified teaching staff.
Tiny school.
There is no provision in the state sector for my children.
Without the specialist staff and small school environment, my DSs didn't cope, never mind make progress; worse still, they weren't actually safe and they were so unhappy.

Value added very high in our non-selective independent which is what swayed us. Also the sport. Sport in our local comprehensive is chronically bad although it is a good school otherwise.

The science facilities plus doing the 3 sciences separately
The academic reputation of the school
The small class sizes
More suitable for a geeky child
The SEN provision for dyslexics
The intolerance of bad behaviour and bullying
It was his last day of school today and he has been happy there for 6 years (Scotland)