Private school for part of the child education

[Peonyflower37]

If you could afford private school fees for part of the child education which part do you think is more important? Primary, secondary up to year 11, secondary up to 6th form or 6th form only.

Thinking of going private for part of the kids education; we have 2. We can afford it but don't want to commit too long as we are not that young and want to save for retirement.

I think it depends on the quality of state schools in your area. For instance, if your local primary is really good, then I would choose it and save your money.

If you have grammar schools from age 11, do you think your children would be academic enough to get in? If so, this could be a great alternative to independent secondaries.

One thing to watch though... if you plan to send your children to independent secondary or sixth form, you might find when the time comes that they don't want to go as they don't want to feel different from their friends.

Agree that it depends on the options available locally. We went independent for 11-18. We have a good local 6th form college so thought about moving back to the state sector at 16, but in the end decided to stay put.

And picking up on Molly's point, elder daughter was originally very keen to go to the same state secondary school as most of her primary school friends. She was the only person from her primary school in her new school, though fortunately she did already know 2 of her new classmates from other activities which helped her feel at home.

Primary, definitely. Get the foundations right, give them lots of extra-curricular opportunities at an early age while their brains are like sponges and build their confidence in lots of different areas, and they will go into a state secondary and generally be able to fly through their GCSEs. Most will go straight into the top sets - plus, it's cheaper overall.

But agree that it depends on your options locally.

Thank you.

Primaries are good in the area; we don't have grammars near by. State secondaries are good but lack extracurricular activities in my opinion, plus there is a mixed of well behaved and disrupting children from what I have heard. Different private choices for secondary but 18 weeks holidays a year without family around really put me off.

Remember that not paying for private will give you lots of spare cash to spend on extra curricular activities :)

I personally consider it a positive for DC to mix with different groups of other children - my niece and nephew go to a private school and never mix with anyone that doesn't go to their school as they do extra curricular activities there. You will also get well behaved and disruptive children in any setting - the key thing is how the school manages bad behaviour.

Primary. Fact remains that kids who start in private are more likely to succeed in selective schools (inc grammars) later.

Glug44 Interested to see your evidence for that "fact"? is it the private primary that really makes the difference or that fact that the children that go to them tend to come from affluent well educated families? Or that private primaries coach specifically for selective exams in a way that state schools can't? Besides, if OP can't afford private secondary as well private primary, and has no local grammars, presumably the likelihood of her child getting into a selective secondary is not a crucial point.

What does the reason matter? You do what’s right by your kids. If private school coaching gets my kids into the best possible schools I’d be all for it.

Agree it depends on the standards of the schools around you and what is available 11plus. Know of people who did private primary as they were out of catchment for good or outstanding primary, but were in a good 11plus area. No point in paying for secondary then. We on the other hand had outstanding primary on doorstep, but secondary provision is poor- not an 11plus area, nor do we have 'leafy' comprehensives. Thankfully, DC gained a place at one of the local selective independents.

As you can see, there's no easy answer.

Independents are not highly selective at 11+ in many areas outside of the south-east and big cities - they have entrance exams, but are not hugely over subscribed, so most applying will get a place. It the south east and London, there are a mixture of 11+ schools which are highly competitive and again those with an entrance exam, but which most kids who apply to get into. So, when you speak about independent secondary, there is a big difference between considering a highly selective one (will need to be bright and probably tutored or home-prepared for exams) and one that pretty much anyone who will pay the fees can go to.

So....if state options are equally disappointing at all levels, personally I would pay for secondary - either to 16 or 18 depending on funds. In most areas of the country, your kids won't have to be super bright to get a place.....in the more competitive schools in Lindon and the South East and some others dotted around the country, they will have to be and so 'top-ups' to a poor state education might be needed.

Answer to the question depends on the state provision in your area at each age point, the Independnet provision at each age point in your area (lots of areas outside of the south east have surprisingly few independent schools and often those that don't seem to access the academic heights, even if they do provide good value-added and a stable, secure education.....but be careful,mas there are lots of 3rd rate independents about too which might not be worth paying for) and also your individual child. What suits and is best for a very bright, out-going self-starter might be very different from what suits an average shy child, or a child with SEN, or the many other child types which exist)

If all other things are equal and one phase to be chosen, I'd go for secondary though.....but only if the fee paying options offer significantly more than the state options.

So your answer is to really research and know about the local state and independents at all age levels and to get a good understanding of your child and how to measure 'good' education, so you can see what is the best use of the money for your child, in your area. Gathering that info is a big research project, but one which is necessary and will yield different results for each family.

Depends on the other options
Our dc both got a place at an excellent State Primary but the Secondary is failing so went went/will go Private for that.
The school dd is at has no 6th form though so we will have to decide what to do then

IMO 6th form is the biggest waste of money, I have vowed to move the younger DCs to state but DH isn't keen.

I moved DS from his "outstanding" primary at Y3 and was shocked at the difference between the 2 systems, the others went private from reception. But in comparison I don't see huge differences at senior school, yes Indys will claim to run 200 after school clubs but how many DCs actually attend them? And mainstream sports are called so because they are the most popular, so offering lots of alternatives is an opportunity wasted on most.

IME primary was the best value for money, tiny classes lots of individual attention and care and my DC's schools follow a much broader curriculum. They also have specialist teachers from a very young age, including specialist sports coaches and the benefits of daily games/PE. But I still think its a "nice to have" and loads of friends DCs have done extremely well having been educated in the state sector throughout.

I think ti is far easier to supplement a state primary education if parents are willing and able, both academically and in extra-curricular activities.

Greater in-depth knowledge is required at secondary, and smaller class sizes can be areal benefit of private secondary education.

IN the main it will depend on teh range of options available to you at the time you require them.

Agree. I certainly won't be able to supplement/help my child at secondary school much. I didn't grow up here and DH is very busy. Also, I don't want to be a taxi forever and take them to all sports activities and and after school clubs so it would be good if children can do the majority of activities at school. I don't mind doing a couple but not everything.

As a teacher at an all-through private, I would say that most students get the biggest benefit at secondary (11-16). This is where the smaller class sizes and attention from teachers can help raise attainment. Also if DC at state schools are going to get disruptive it's often at secondary level that they really start to kick off tbh and this is less likely in fee-paying schools.

At our school numbers are much lower at infant end, swell in years 5-6 and then 7-11 are rammed. Students then often leave at 16 to access a number of excellent state sixth form colleges in the locality.

looking at my children (state) v their cousins and lots of our friends (private) I'd say the older they get the less similar the experience is so I'd be looking to pay for the older end of things.

The first 3 years were more or less identical to be honest. But I live in area with good schools and lots of them are infant schools so lots of children transition for KS2 anyway. Its also not a grammar school area.

KS2 the differences started to show. The private schools had specialist teaching coming in (eg French taught by a French teacher) and proper facilities like DT being taught in a DT room with real materials like wood, or a cooking room with ovens. my sons get to make fruit kebabs once a year as their are no ovens, and every DT project is just folding paper.

I know less about secondary - secondary schools seem better equipped and seem to have specialist teachers in both sectors - but curriculum wise years 7,8, seem to be a bit weak. Lots of state secondary's here teach 3 year GCSES and is narrows the curriculum down too early to my mind. They also look underfunded

So I would tend towards secondary - but probably wouldn't bother with the A level bit.

I'm slightly befuddled by the idea that primary's more important as it's so vital to learn the basics. What do people think state primaries teach if not the basics? And as others have said it's a doddle to supplement as it's reading loads and learning times tables - my children have got into very sought-after selective secondaries from a RI primary.

Aren't there also specific factors in such choices? Like the quality of provision obviously but also lifestyle factors. Our state primary is on the doorstep while a decent private would be a school run that would turn me into a monster and would have inhibited my ability to work (would have been 30-45 mins each way, i.e. 3 hours a day in the car). By secondary, however, they can take themselves off on their own on public transport so I don't have to ferry. At primary you're more involved with the school so I think having that embedded in your local community is again beneficial.

I would start at primary. Eleven is leaving it too late. Don't forget that they will have a higher chance of winning scholarships/applying for bursaries at 13+ making it more affordable anyway. I would say the ages between 7 and 16 are the most important.

@farewelltoarms most state primaries do offer Latin and elocution.

*don't

Have a look at the A Level stats for each sector. Private schools far outstrip 6th Form colleges and Grammars for performance at 3 A Levels with 2 fac subjects. So if academics are the criteria then prioritise the upper years.

Always surprised by assertion that you can invest in early years to save later in State sector as the figures do not support this.

grasspigeons - that sounds terrible, where are you?

We are in SW London in an area with outstanding, well-equiped state senior schools but apparently funding is a lot higher in London schools than elsewhere in the country. It seems ridiculous that there can be such a difference in what the state offers in different parts of the country.

I'm in leafy surrey - its really quite posh!

The lack of equipment was more a junior school thing but I think that's fairly national isn't it? I don't think there are many specialist rooms, equipment or teachers in juniors unless going to a private school. The closest boys prep school has a boating lake, the junior school here doesn't even have a field, they walk to a local park.

I just felt when I did all the secondary school tours, that the buildings were noticeably really run down compared to the primary schools.