How important is attending an "excellent" prep school?

[splatsplat101]

Just thought I'd gather some views on a topic that seems to come up amongst the parents in my area.....some (non selective) prep schools seem to have absolutely amazing results and get high proportions of children into the most selective independent schools around and loads of academic scholarships. Other (non selective) prep school seem to fare less well, sending the majority of their intake to the more middle of the road establishments and achieve a lower number of academic scholarships. The parents at the "less successful" prep schools claim they don't want their children pressured and "hot housed" from an early age and would rather they got into a school where they would comfortably sit within the top quartile, ready to work hard....... and that might be a middle of the road school or a highly academic one. The parents at the highly successful preps claim that the superior teaching at these school sets their children up to succeed for the remainder of their school careers in the "best schools"...and that the "less successful" prep school are being lazy and letting down the children? So who's right? (btw - I can't decide which side of the argument I agree on but am just interested in other people's experiences.....

It comes down, as do so many discussions about education, to whether you think education can actually make a real, important difference to someone (or whether, on the other hand, you think ability is for practical purposes innate, and will out).

If you don't think education can make a real important difference, then when you nevertheless see one school getting better results than another, and you can't explain it by saying "ah, they were selective at intake" you naturally assume it is hot-housing/spoon-feeding/disparaging description of choice - that is, that they are getting results, but they still haven't made a real important difference to the children getting those results, because you think that's impossible. If you think this, you are also well set-up to disparage people who care what school their children go to, because after all, bright children will do well wherever they go (and presumably, though this part is seldom said, un-bright children will do badly wherever they go)... You are also well positioned to criticise universities for having an intake that includes disproportionate numbers of children from one kind of school, as you believe it to be impossible that children from that kind of school are, by virtue of their education, better fitted for university in a way that actually matters long term.

If you do think education can make a difference, it follows that which school your child goes to may be important, and that it may be the case that a school that gets better results is making a more positive difference. Life is complicated by the fact that it is still possible, in an individual case, that apparently good results are being obtained by hot-housing/spoon-feeding/disparaging description of choice; that just has to be investigated.

Settling the matter of whether education can make a real, important difference or not is not that easy. Personally I'm convinced that it can. To me, therefore, it's very important that my child gets as good an education as I can possibly arrange (which indeed, in my case is an excellent prep school, though in different circumstances it might have been a state school). Although my wording above already made it clear what I think, I think the other point of view is defensible: it's very difficult to examine the contribution of a school, distinguished from all the other influences on the children, and I don't believe it's been done really convincingly in any research I've seen so far, so it comes down to individual intuition. It does always take me aback when I find someone who works in education and seems to believe that education can't make a real, important difference, though - this belief makes their career choice surprising to me!

Of course education makes a difference - who in their right mind would fork out thousands of pounds on private school education if they didn't value education! But is "education" successfully prepping a child to do well in an 11+ pretest? DS is at a highly academic London boys school and he has noted that many of the boys (not all I hasten to add) who come from certain prep schools renowned for their excellent "results" are the boys languishing in the lower sets....whereas the ones that have come (usually in single figures) from state schools or less "excellent" preps are usually the brightest of the cohort...does this mean that the less "excellent" prep school have done their boys a disservice by not getting them into the best schools....or have the "excellent" prep schools done some of their boys a disservice by sending them somewhere where frankly (in my sons words, not mine) they are seen as the "thickies"...... depends on what your definition of "success" is.....

I see that in my middle paragraph I didn't use the phrase "real important difference" in full, but abbreviated it to "difference". I had hoped it would be clear in context. I don't think anyone doubts that education can (in some cases) make a difference to whether someone passes the 11+, or to A level grades. Where people seem to differ is whether anything that happens in a school can, in itself, make a real, important difference, i.e., something that is still having an effect that matters years later.

For example, do the thought-experiment of randomising a large group of children to two different kinds of primary schools, which in your thought experiment you set up to do the kind of education in reading that you think best in one of the kinds, worst in the other. (It's a thought experiment, we can randomise the teachers too, make the schools the same distance from home, whatever you like. Set it up so that only the kind of school varies in a non-random way.) Now come back to those children thirty years later and see whether they love reading. Do you find it plausible that the group you randomly gave "good" primary education to has a higher proportion of adults who love reading than the group you randomly gave "bad" primary education to? Or do you think it will have washed out by then? If you think a difference might still be observable, and if you think loving reading or not is a real, important difference (suppose I'd better put that in!) then you think education can make a real, important difference. Of course if you think it'd've washed out by then, it's still possible that you think a different kind of real, important difference might be able to be made by schools.

The best way I can interpret the vehement disagreements I hear, here and elsewhere, about education, is that there's genuine disagreement about thought experiments like that. I wonder whether we can exhibit it here?

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Well, you're a pretty shallow parent if the only reason you choose a school is because of its "excellent" results. I would have thought most parents have looked around these schools and then chosen the ones they feel will best fit their child's abilities and personality: what brings out the best in one child can bring out the worst in another. What is a hothouse for one child might be absolutely fantastic and invigorating for another; what's unambitious and "middle of the road" for one set of parents might be nurturing, kind, confidence-building, fun-loving, encouraging, for another. As for parents' attitudes to other schools and other parents' choices: bollocks to them, they are just revealing their own paranoia, obsessions and petty mindedness through their comments.

I should say, you can randomise the teachers and then encourage and resource them to teach in the way you consider good/bad - my "kind of school" is really "school offering the kind of education". If you like, you need not randomise the teachers; you can see them as having innate qualities, and you can send all the "good" ones to your "good" school. What you can't do is allocate the children non-randomly and then draw any conclusions from what they're like later; that's a limitation of this design of thought experiment, it's not good for thinking about peer group effects. Are we over-complicated yet?

As for parents' attitudes to other schools and other parents' choices: bollocks to them, they are just revealing their own paranoia, obsessions and petty mindedness through their comments.
yy - wish this could be on every education thread...

The best prep schools I have experience of have mostly excellent teaching for all levels of ability and don't pressurise the DCs with loads of homework. They also have a good mix of extracurricular activities. I would n't call a prep school excellent if it achieved its results by piling on the homework and lessons that drilled more than they engaged.

Prep schools are what they say on the tin, they prepare you for the next school. Sadly, this also sums up the measure of success and what's best.

"get high proportions of children into the most selective independent schools around and loads of academic scholarships"

The assumption that what is best for every child is to get into the "best" independent school is clearly false. Therefore there is no "best" prep school either.

Frankly, if you are dead set on measuring success by which secondary school you get your child into then you ought to include state school primaries too. Any bright child at a state school primary can get in at 11+ with modest help (many examples on this site, including my own).

I suspect the reason Prep schools are so sought after is because there are many parents who realise their child isn't quite "that bright" so needs a lot more help to get through 11+/13+. Is that "best" for that child? I think not, but I'm well aware that most parents can't bear to think that about their own child.

My DC attended an excellent prep school. Really fabulous.

I'm not claiming great foresight BTW, I chose it because it seemed lovely and was five mins from home

Sorry MN but like all the other parents we didn't choose it because we thought our DC weren't clever. How could you know that when they're were 3?

TBH the parent body were fairly..ahem...confident in their children's abilities .

We also had no idea what seconbdary schools we might have our eyes on. Again how could you know that at 3?

The reasons why parents chose it were plentiful and became obvious to me when my DC started. One of the main ones of course, was because they could afford it!

TWF

Of course 3 is not an age for assessment - but plenty of prep schools "interview" at that age(!). So they are trying to guage.

I didn't really mean that age anyway. I meant the 7+/8+ prep school intake, where parents see the 11+ "crush" looming and assume, wrongly in my opinion, that a good feeder prep school is a must (it's not).

I am picking out one of many motivations. All your motivations are equally valid, actually more important than the one I've mentioned. I have no doubt in your authenticity!

I just get a very different picture from the parents I talk to (North and West London), especially as they know we've been through the 11+ process from state, so they want to discuss it with me.

When I challenge them on what their objective is, what pathway they choose and why, very often, after some polite persistent discussion they ashamedly admit, that they think their child needs a bit extra to compete with "brighter" kids and they don't want to "risk it" - they see prep school fees as an insurance policy - when really they should be more confident in their young infants ability. Perhaps its just a symptom of the 11+ frenzy in London?

Of course, the same could be said of secondary school, where I am a complete hypocrite (some would say).

But, TheWordFactory, when you chose your "lovely" school that was close to home, were you not worried about "lazy" teachers and potentially reducing their chances of getting scholarships to the most academic secondary schools?

MN that makes sense.

DC went to prep outside London. I'm glad we were spared the brou-ha-ha which I know I would have been drawn into!

The entrance prices so prep was painless (an assessment during which neither of my DC spoke ). And the transition to secondary was rather unremarkable.

The scholarship DS sat was another story...a fucking torrid time that was!

rabbit my DC were 3, what did I know of such things?

I saw acres of green space, kids in wellies and a lovely dinner lady who called DS 'pet'.

I also saw a five minute drive and ample parking.

I was green I tells ya, green!

Entrance prices? Process ! Though they do charge just to apply, cheeky feckers!

My DS' prep school was also selected at the age of 3....I too saw the lovely open spaces, the 5 minute drive and happy smiling children....in the run up to pre-tests I suddenly realised that my lovely prep school where my DS was so happy was also the slackest, laziest prep school around - and the list of places that the children went to was far from impressive...compared to all the other prep schools in the area there was a definitive lack of numbers going to impressive schools or obtaining impressive scholarships.... I did begin to panic when I realised there was going to be no intensive exam preparation! His teachers told me "don't worry - he'll get in anywhere". And he did. Every single one of those super academic schools he got into.....and he is now thriving at one of those super academic schools along with the handful of his mates who also managed to make the leap from the "lazy prep".....all those other children in his class are also thriving and happy at their less academic, but by no means "lesser" schools....everyone ended up where it was right for them and will no doubt all do extremely well in the exams that really count. Do I wish I had been at one of those "uber prep schools"? Sometimes I look back and think of how worried I was that choosing the "wrong prep" school might have ruined his chances of getting into what I perceived to be the "best" school for him. And I still remember parents from the "uber preps" sucking their teeth and looking at me with pity when I declared that DS was trying for these schools....but in the long run, DS had a gloriously happy time, played loads of sport, made loads of friends and didn't have to endure a lengthy commute......

Iggle

Good for you. You did the right thing.

Be gentle with those Uber Parents. They can't help themselves.

round here the non-selective preps often have equally good results to the selective preps. some years they do better and some years they do worse - it really depends on the cohort

ds didn't get into the highly selective hot house prep and in hindsight i am so pleased. the prep he is at is perfect for him and he is thriving. i have no doubt he will reach his potential and his school send the boys to excellent schools but have a focus on finding the right senior school for the boy which I value greatly

Ours were 3 or 4 and for the girls the schools (Haberdashers and North London Collegiate - they didn't get into each other's school) were good on all fronts. Only parents whose children are not bright enough to get into good schools go on about pressure at said schools. The boys moved schools at 13+ but their preps were selective. This is within M25 but not inner London.

Does your primary/prep school have an impact for life? Yes for many children. I was talking to my teenagers yesterday about how I know so many English saying for example - a rolling stone grows no moss etc and for some reason we did a lot of that when I was about 7 and 8 (at my own private school many years ago). I still remember so much I was taught there and that is over 40 years ago so yes it has an impact. Secondly if it helps you get to a good school which helps you go to a good university then yes it matters too.

However plenty of children don't work or do well until they are older and do well from less challenging schools and separately some children who are not very bright do fine too.
None of it is worth worrying about too much. I remember when daughter 2 didn't get into daughter 1's school at 4+ and then 2 years later got into NLCS (the youngest she could sit for that school was 7+ in those days), she was not happy she didn't get in (they couldn't find her a book she couldn't read at 3 at Habs - she really was the brightest of the children at that age and yet didn't get in - she was quieter than her sister and I remember that triplet girls that year got 3 of the places but who knows... and in the end NLCS was a brilliant school for her and the girls loved being at similar but different schools). Yet it works out fine. Both of them are now London lawyers with almost identical exam results and both love what they do so I really don't think we need to worry too much about it. Their brother is not currently using his degree (he was at Merchant Taylor's) and at the moment is a very happy post man and the younger ones have yet to do GCSEs. I think parents worry about it all too much.

Our plan works - get them into the most academic school as young as you can as that eases the path and does not mean such competitive entry at 11+ but not everyone has the same ideas.

Only parents whose children are not bright enough to get into good schools go on about pressure at said schools. Rubbish.

Where we are there is one (famous) academic selective school that appears almost military in style. In fact it does not get the very best academic results by the time you get GCSEs etc, there is probably one other school that does. A number of parents at DSs not very selective school have had tours and considered it (children passed assesments etc). Then chosen against it.

We could not leg it out of there quickly enough. I think it is possible to get a feeling for a place.

There is a prep that is a feeder school for top girls private that has a lottery at 4+ and then doubles intake using a selective 7+. By the time they do 11+ it is impossible to tell which were selected on ability and which weren't.

Tbh the schools do tend to reflect the parents. What I hates in one school another parent would have loved and vice versa.

I also think there is a big difference in how much hot housing you get if it is a prep vs a school to 18 so you can't compare the two.

BuildYourOwnSnowman - how much of the not being able to tell the difference relates to those who would be noticeably different if they stayed, leaving?

I think you have to think about how well your DC responds to being pushed academically. Would it make them push against the pressure and rebel or would they feel encouraged?

Personally I think there has to be a happy balance, however where that balance lies with each individual child can be different. Education needs to be responsive. I would have as many warning bells ringing if a school seemed too overly confident and inflexible regarding methodology, as I would if they seemed to lack confidence.

BuildYourSnowman - if you are talking about Bute house, it's not quite like that.

To start with - at 4+ more than half the girls are sisters of girls that came in after assessment at 7+. So, they are sisters of smart girls, and are from families that prepped their older daughters for the assessment. So, they are not a random group of girls...

So, yes, there is a small group of girls that come from lottery, but normally not more that 10 girls.

In Y3 - 40 more girls come - so the class triples in size. My DD started there in Y3 and there was a clear difference between the new intake and some of the "old girls".

Only a ~third of the class "feeds" into St.Pauls, if this is a school you are referring to. And among them, there is NOT a proportional representation of the "lottery" girls and girls selected at 7+.

Just to add. In the end - Bute girls do end up in good schools, and the schools that are right for them. For some, it could be StP, for others Queen's Gate.

But In my experience, the school does matter, not only the selection of pupils. I can see it in the way Bute approaches Math teaching - which is rather different from our old, also rather "academic", and considered by many a "hot house".

Wow. I'm a poor relation in that case. My dd went to a STATE PRIMARY in N.London and now goes to a super selective in the borough. So ner. No tutoring, no fees, nada.