Why do some parents think private school at primary is a waste of money.... but are secretly saving for secondary?

[Tallandgracefulmum]

AIBU as my little one is starting prep school in Sept. I was asked by a friend at DD's nursery my plans, said private all the way and was told I would be wasting my money and should save it for secondary when it matters.

I hate this ..most parents I know would send kids private all the way through but cannot afford it so are saving for secondary. But to be honets if your not used to paying shed loads monthly for schooling, you will not suddently 7 years later ( and higher fees) start doing it for secondary.

What some people don't seem to get is that some parents value educational experience over material possessions or fancy homes. This friend in question said she will use the money she saves to provide education experiences for her children and give them a lump sum for uni.

My thoughts are she just can't afford it and wants to make me feel bad for spending my hard earned money.

How many parents actually compare a range of private school fees, then calculate how much it would cost to send one child then save the relevant monthly amount ready to give each off spring at 18? Doesn't happen. What's wrong in providing the best educational experience you can afford for your kids without others constantly telling me I am wasting my money.

FWIW I can understand private school bashers who hate all forms of private schooling, but not those who bash primary but would send kids to secondary in a heartbeat!

Sorry any parent can pick a school for their child and tutor them for entrance exams.

happygardening - I promise you, even boarding schools churn out some spectacularly unsparkling people with highly unoriginal thoughts! Maybe part of the problem is, you live in an area stuffed full of wealthy, white middle class, narrow minded people, which is not really representative of the majority of the country. The UK specialises in many forms of narrow mindedness in all walks of life and in all schools . Personally, I have also never found an organisation that has no free thinkers or people with grit and determination, of which a greater number will, fairly obviously, come from the state sector, because more people are educated within the state sector and the state sector can't get rid of them as easily (which means it's also stuck with the lazy hangers on).

Your maths is wrong. Give or take the odd price rise, private school fees are a fixed amount over a number of years. Getting used to paying prep school fees just costs you more money. It doesn't help you have more money later on.

Prep-school is no guarantee that a child will thrive and get into a good school for 11+. Schools dont select academically for primary like they do for 11+. Know plenty of people who struggle to find schools for their dc, after forking out primary school fees, and tutoring on top for 6/7 years.

It is however, a possibility that a privately educated child will settle better into it at Y7 stage, as they are used to the high expectations, and know to conform.

Exactly Quint,I have friends with bright privately educated kids struggling with the 11+ livid that they've spent a small fortune whilst my state satisfactory kids seem to be flying through it.At least if mine don't get in we haven't spent thousands in the process.

Big,big gamble relying on throwing money at education particularly when you consider there are many poor private schools.There are also poor state schools however they generally have Ofsted and LEAs crawling all over them and it's highly publicised. Have noticed how mediocrity and poor quality in the private sector can be glossed over some what.

Anyway, to answer the thread title:

"Why do some parents think private school at primary is a waste of money.... but are secretly saving for secondary?"

The most likely answers are:

a) They don't have enough money for private primary education and they are perfectly happy with the local state school

or

b) They have enough money for private primary but would rather spend the money on music lessons/horse riding/skiing holidays/theatre trips and they are perfectly happy with the local state school.

and/or

c) They think the local private primary isn't very good.

Perhaps the OP's friends/acquaintances are options 'd' or 'e':

d) They are lying to cover their jealousy.

or

e) They would rather spend the money on gym membership.

However, I don't know them so I wouldn't be able to judge.

rabbit I'm not disputing that boarding schools can turn out spectacularly unimaginative people who lack unoriginal thought, I'm disputing the idea that boarding schools/independent schools only churn out spectacularly unimaginative people unoriginal thought. As someone with a foot in both camps none of DS2's friends (independent boarding) come across as boring turgid lumps who lack any original ideas, far from it, in contrast I've found that the children from DS1 6th form college do have a slightly narrower outlook but this does not mean that at university when it is inevitable that ones brain is exposed to all sorts of exciting ideas that they will not be able to come with original thought.
You may also be interested to know I returned to university at 40, in a desperate attempt to escape my current profession, we had a very high % of children from grammar school they were impressed by my knowledge (obviously acquired over time although they mistakenly assumed that that is what you were taught at school 20 odd years ago) and felt their education had been very narrow, few from either sector I thought had any original thought despite being exposed to fantastic and wonderfully inspiring teaching. It was the slightly older students by which I mean those of 20-22 and me the only old lady of the group who seemed to have more original thought. We embraced the education offered with enthusiasm which is more that I can say for those who'd walked straight out of school into university.
retro instead of me telling you in what way a top prep offers a broader curriculum perhaps you would like to start the ball rolling my detailing how a primary school (top or big standard I don't mind) offers the same broad curriculum as a top prep.

By the way Retro I'm not talking about crammers for the grammars (which thankfully I know very little about and I agree the curriculum is very narrow) I'm talking about the big 13+ preps sending children to a wide variety of big name senior school often getting prestigious scholarships for their pupils.

Top preps preparing for CE are an absolute irrelevance to the vast majority of people in the UK. What % of children take CE? Bugger all.

You probably do get more activities at a top prep (you're there for double the hours for starters so you'd expect to), but kids at state schools will be accessing activities outside school.

Ds2 does an activity to a high level which he absolutely would not have discovered/done had he been a boarder at a prep school.

Generally teachers in the state system do KS1 very, very well. Not always the case in the private sector back when ours were little. There were a lot of stuffy, old-fashioned pre-preps around.

We waited until our children were 10 to switch them over. They both go to highly academically selective secondary schools now.

By the way Retro I'm not talking about crammers for the grammars (which thankfully I know very little about and I agree the curriculum is very narrow) I'm talking about the big 13+ preps sending children to a wide variety of big name senior school often getting prestigious scholarships for their pupils

You talked about empathy earlier. Can you not see how patronising this post it?

No Happy you and others are making sweeping statements re what private primaries offer that state primaries can't,not me.I'd like some detail please- what exactly do they offer that can't be provided out of the non private primary sector?

What makes the 100k cost per child over 7 years so utterly priceless and worth bankrupting yourselves for?Standing from a former primary teacher's viewpoint I just can't see it.Sorry.

saintly retro challenged me on my statement that "top preps" offer a broader curriculum I never said they were relevant to the vast majority of the population. Top preps are not just offering more activities by the way the way the timetable and lessons delivered is completely different.
saintly I personally don't like crammers for the grammars because I'm a slack parent their ethos on education is not mine. I didn't send my DS's to school till yr 1/2 I don't believe that children need to learn to read and write at 3 yrs old, and have prep every night from reception, I personally didn't want to start learning times table with a three year old or spellings with a four yr old, I wouldn't have wanted my children prepared for the grammar school entrance test from yr 3 with all the associated pressure that brings. I have friends who did want this for their children who believe that you can't start to read and write early enough and have flash cards had tapes of times tables playing in their cars. Like all things schools have to fit the parent as much as the pupils. Therefore I am exceedingly thankful I have little experience of these types of preps and they are probably equally pleased that I've never sent my DS's there. But I accept that many do and are very pleased with them. We sent our DS's to a boarding prep many would be exceedingly thankful that they didn't choose this route but I don't find this patronising or lacking in empathy we all do what we think is best for us.
By the way just because you can empathise with what someone does doesn't mean you have to agree with them or copy them.

No Happy you and others are making sweeping statements re what private primaries offer that state primaries can't,not me.I'd like some detail please- what exactly do they offer that can't be provided out of the non private primary sector?

Yes, I'd like to hear this too. If there is a tangible difference, it should be possible to articulate it.

"Round here it's extremely common to use the private schools nursery, leafy village state primary and private secondary."

Sorry just curious what the logic is to that? Unless of course the state primary doesn't have a nursery?

I'm sorry retro normally I'm happy to detail the enormously broader curriculum a top prep offers but you challenged my statement you convince me that they offer exactly the same thing. My DS's have attended both and I know exactly what is offered in both. DS2 did a brief stint in one of the counties top primary schools with an exceptionally ambitious head, in no way was the curriculum as broad as that offered by his prep. I haven't once said it was necessarily value for money that's a separate issue. Also most start at the sort of prep schools Im talking about in yr 3 and leave in yr 8 they only do 6 yrs not seven you, are also wrong about the fees, they considerably higher than they were when my DS 's 6 years at a boarding prep, at current rates its going to set you back over £150k. But then most are moving their DC's onto £35k pa school so I suppose it's largely irrelevant.
As I said in the beginning it's all about personal circumstances and what your future plans/hopes are.

It was the tone happy.

My son is at a grammar & I haven't met anyone who tutored from year 3. Some tutored from year 5. We didn't use a tutor although obviously ds2 had to do some practice papers.

I think those crammer preps are either imaginary or serve a very small minority of parents with most steering clear. I don't know of deny around here (in fact I'd say some of the state schools prepare for the 11 plus better than the private schools)

How is the delivery completely different? I went to a boarding school & can't say lessons were any different when I switched to a state grammar. The boarding school I went to was known for music & performing arts, and it was easier to do those in school compared to my grammar. However, that's the area that ds2 excels in & it isn't that hard to arrange outside tuition (& you get to choose the teacher which is an advantage), there's still plenty going on in school & there is no way he would have been able to do the things he has done from a boarding prep.

Jinsai perhaps you'd like to detail what your DC get at their primary maybe I'm out of touch with what's offered.

As I said in the beginning it's all about personal circumstances and what your future plans/hopes are

Personal circumstances I'll grant you, but what on earth do you mean by what your future hopes and plans are

My friend is a teacher and chose to send her children to state primary schools and pay for private secondary education. Budget was an important consideration for her, but she also said that in her opinion private education is not necessary at primary school age, but she felt given the quality of local schools that it was important for her secondary school age children.

We all have different views and I think it is important to respect them - your friend's view is as valid as yours. Incidentally my sister went to a private secondary school; I didn't, I went to a state grammar. I don't believe that she got a better education, but she did get a strong sense of self confidence that I and my younger sibling don't have. My parents valued education but it was just economically impossible for them to send us all to private school; they were far from materialistic.

You're buying into the the elite.
That's it.
I can see it around me.
I'm involved in state primary.
Chorister at prestigious place.
Friends who choose prep over state flogging a dead horse with the tutoring etc.
State kids being tutored on top.
As far as I can see the average prep schools are churning out kids with no better quals than their state counterparts
But those gunning for Eton Winchester etc (from the choristership kids), they are projected into a diff world altogether.
But this is a teeny tiny cohort.
The majority of private school kids will get to Bristol Durham whatever. Exactly same as a bright state school kid.
So you can see why people think its a waste of money.

I think the point is, do what u want, but don't say one is better than the other because everyone has different criteria. For example, being part of a diverse community is important to lots of people. You're simply not going to get diversity at prep/public schools.

So Happy what?We want details.

Hello Merry,

For my friends who tell me I am wasting my money; they fall under camp d) which is fine, for them.

To be honest even if I did not consider private education would have given up most of the things I did anyway, hardly had time for the gym so was just throwing money way.

Jinsai perhaps you'd like to detail what your DC get at their primary maybe I'm out of touch with what's offered.

Yes, maybe you are. Or maybe you are reluctant to tell us how a private school curriculum is broader, because you don't actually know?

I feel that my dd is getting an incredibly rich and varied education at her state primary, and it would be impossible to sum up her entire education in just a few paragraphs. I genuinely don't think there is a significant difference between state and private provision (with the exception of CE preparation, which would obviously be a waste of time for my dc), so I'm not sure what I would focus on.

As you clearly believe that a good private school provides extra value added, and specifically a broader curriculum, surely it would be easier for you to articulate what this difference is? Unless, of course, you're not quite sure...

A private primary school would have given my kids big disadvantages, apart from less money to spend on holidays etc the local private school is 30 min away so they'd have had no local friends.
Their state primary was very good.