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.

Dairyisclosed actually the aspirational primary round my way does offer Latin. Do private schools really offer elocution, blimey? Somehow my children have managed to become bilingual in RP and Norf London without the need for further intervention.

Doing Latin at secondary and will be giving it up soon. No room for it anyway if you want to do triple science, humanities, computer science etc.

Leafy surrey schools do very well academically, I've stopped worrying about you!

My dd got a bursary at a very selective independent secondary school having come from a failing school (as per Ofsted!) in a deprived area. 95% of her class seemed to have come from preps and she was initially intimidated by the fact that they’d all done French, proper science, drama and dance. And lots of homework and exams. She felt behind.

I spoke to a teacher and she said that the prep girls usually find the transition easier and can coast for a bit but the state primary girls tend to catch up by year 9 and then start to overtake. It seems to be happening now (she’s Year 9). She was one of only two in her class to qualify for the follow on round in the intermediate maths challenge and she’s excelling in humanities in particular.

So I’m not sure that the head start at primary actually makes much difference in the long run? We brother is at a state Grammar and I can see the difference in terms of facilities, extras, freedom to go outside of the curriculum and extra curricular clubs. So I’d pay for seconary if I was you!

I would do Y5 - Y11

Miss Y6 SATs. Take advantage of the subject specialist teaching and facilities and all the additional sport not available in state primary for Y5 & 6. Smaller, hopefully more settled classes in Y7-11. Extra-curricular stuff available at school during the time when they can't get themselves there.

6th formers are more able to make their own decisions about how hard to work and more able to get themselves to extra-curricular activities.

Cake: leafy Surrey schools are not always great.

They can be very complacent. And the social mix is not what you'd necessarily expect from leafy areas, because such a high proportion of the local population go private.

Senior/secondary without hesitation. Have done both and there was only one Prep school (with hindsight) that was worth the money. Senior is a no-brainer if you can afford it.

My personal experience was to go to a state primary and then a fee paying secondary school (with a full scholarship) and I'd say that worked well. I think it's more important to have the small class sizes etc for GCSE and A level than primary level.

I would do Y5 - Y11

how are you going to get into a decent private school at Y5? The only ones likely to have space will be the ones who are struggling.

Most will go straight into top sets

Not my experience, at all

It entirely depends on your local provision. Some state schools are crap, some independent schools are crap.

If your local state provision is really good, save your money.

Farewelltoarms
I'm slightly befuddled by the idea that primary's more important as it's so vital to learn the basics.

Having moved my kids from state to private during primary I would say the differences are amazing pastoral care, in our case an amazing 'Enid Blyton' environment with tree climbing, den building and tons of sport, a focus on being good at things OTHER than academics such as sport and the arts. There is time to focus on confidence in general. My kids were at a fantastic state primary school and we relocated not particularly through choice but necessity so had to change schools. Although my kids were very happy at their previous school, I can see a difference that they can't. There wasn't time at their school to focus on things outside of following the national curriculum, and I hated the fact that even if you were very sporty there was not the space for you to feel good about yourself. Those who were clearly doing well within the class got to feel all the kudos that comes with that, but even during sports day there were no winners or losers, everything was done in a team, I think it's terrible! Why can't the kids who excel in those areas get to feel good about themselves? I say this as mother of two academic kids so am not being bitter ()

As I say although our move wasn't really through choice, I really can see the advantages for the kids. It's not about 'basics' - I am not sure the teaching is any better - but about all the extras. And yes, you CAN pay for extra curricular activities at a state primary, but I'm a working parent and my children never got to do them because I wasn't a SAHM or part time working mum able to ferry them around after school. It's not quite as 'enriching' if your kids are with a childminder after school every day..!

So to answer your question OP - I would concur with other opinions in that it depends on personal circs and local state options. I can't afford this through to secondary so it is what it is - but I can see a massive difference in the experience for the children, even at age 7,8+ etc.

I used to be opposed to private education but having worked in the state sector for many years - and looking at the school culture here in london - I have reserved a place for my DS in...deep breath...Steiner.

I’m a traditional Roman Catholic and it’s frankky the best option.

If possible I would try to do Year 3 to 11. In the early years you can help with lots of extra reading and maths practice at home and then for sixth form, as long as they have a good work ethic, they should be fine in a college or state and lots move then. Plus it seems that these days for many courses Uni’s are offering slightly lower grades to state school students compared to private.

I would say traditional preps up to the age of 13 who send children to the best senior schools are worth it, but not average private schools where there are basic facilities or even many bright children.

The idea that all primary privately educated children go into top sets at secondary is just stupid. Where I live, many don’t get the 11 plus! Many little private schools don’t have entrance tests and are not full of bright children. This appeals to some parents. I do agree that top notch preps have fantastic art, sport and music. They do celebrate all that’s good but that still may not be your child! Many are still overlooked and have no special talent! The scholarships to secondary schools are not so easy to get either.

I think 11-18 is the best time to spend the money. Plenty of schools outside London take state educated pupils. My DD, as the only non prep child in her year group, was just fine from day 1. The children who had been taught French were no better at it than she was after a year. Their maths, English and science wasn’t any better either. A top class independent Secondary should offer lots of opportunities for the child to find interests and find out who they are in addition to academics. It’s worth it if your child does want to join in and broaden their horizons. There should be visits from inspiring speakers, help with careers, opportunities for leadership and many learning experiences which make a rounded person.

In SW London, definitely Secondary. There are lots of decent state primaries, although you may need to consider private tutoring to pass 11+ . But unless you live in catchment for an outstanding secondary (and even then I'd look at the value add of a good private secondary) it's worth looking at 11+ for independent schools.