When to invest most in children’s education?

[Internationalpony]

It’s a huge amount to invest to pay for nannies and private schools throughout DC’s lives and not affordable for many people.

So, at what stage of education do you think you get the best return on investment? If you had to make a choice, at what stage do you think it’s worth investing most in your DC’s education:

• Paying for a nanny from 12 months until going to school (given the importance of pre-school years)
• Prep school from age 5-11
• Independent secondary school from age 11-18

Which do you think impacts most on long term outcomes for children?

I’d especially love to hear from people who have DC who have been through one of the above or anyone with knowledge of child development.

It obviously depends on how you're defining 'return'?

For me (and I am biased) it would be a very good nanny from 12 months until at least junior school age.

But this is based on having access to at least a decent state school.

Obviously, there are many variables to consider, not least the quality of state provision in your area.

When you say "invest" do you mean "spend money"?

Investing in your children's education starts in infancy and never ends - every kind of interaction and experience is an opportunity for enrichment. What they need most of all is your time and attention, the benefit of your experience of the world and your intelligence and humour. Security breeds resilience and a loved, happy child is a natural learner. I don't believe it's something you can buy.

You can buy a lot of that with a good nanny....

Babies toddlers and young children need love and nurture, good food, play and engagement. This doesn’t have to be expensive. Most 4-10 year olds need parents input the most- reading daily with them; times tables. Investing in formal schooling is for me a high school thing.

Obviously there are various types of investment - emotional, time etc but I think it’s obvious from the question that I mean financial investment.

You choose to pay because you expect some kind of value add in return - whether that be increased confidence, opportunities afforded from social networks, better exam results, emotional development.

I’m asking for opinions on what people felt benefitted (or would benefit) their child most overall. It will be different for different people depending on their experience.

My ideal would be this:

0-3 - 1 to 1 care with a parent or family member. A good nanny could provide this I guess.

4-11 - Nice warm and friendly local village school with good results. Spend the money on afterschool hobbies, swim/music lessons, scout groups and lots of nice outings and holidays.

11-16 - Pay for a really good high school to avoid the influences of the kids of the parents who don't give a toss. Somewhere the young teens won't go astray or be bullied for actually caring about their school work.

Mine aren't that old yet so don't take anything I say as gospel.

Interesting! I was thinking the small class sizes of a prep school would provide a good grounding academically and benefit their social development which would set them up to do well at a good state grammar school for secondary school. I’d be worried that state school followed by independent school risks them starting out on the back foot if other pupils came from prep schools. But obviously a lot can change in 7 years of secondary school!

My opinion is of course shaped by my own experiences of doing perfectly well at my own local primary and having plenty of friends living locally, and already knowing a lot of the girls at brownies.

Then by mid teens I was going off the rails!

Small class sizes probably are good academically, but it doesn't give you lots of options socially if you don't gel with the handful of kids there. There were 6 children in the reception class of a prep school that my sons preschool pal went to.

In my experience people only seem to choose a nanny after 12 months exclusively because it’s cheaper than 2x sets of nursery fees.

Nursery is pretty good for children, particularly older ones. It teaches them a lot, socialisation etc.

I’m stuck paying massive amounts on childcare because I need to work, and will probably (reluctantly as my child likes nursery) get a nanny if I have two.

If I could afford private education (unsure, maybe a possibility in future), I would go for secondary.

I believe the benefit of private school is as much about attitude / experiences / network as the teaching, and this is probably more relevant in secondary school.

It's never said so perhaps others don't think it or perhaps it's just an unpopular thing to say, but I think it depends on how clever your children are. Most clever children will thrive in a half decent primary. If they are more middling academically, a good prep could really set them up for future learning.

Secondary. No prep school can ensure a child will reach their potential at secondary. I was really hard working throughout primary but at secondary I was very influenced by whoever was around me and stopped trying my best.
I guess a nanny could be worth it though, depending on your situation and how much time you are able to spend with them.

@MidnightPatrol as an aside you can always send dc to nursery for the free hours and have nanny on top. We did this when we had dc2 so dc1 had best of both worlds (imo) - nursery 5x mornings in term time and then down time and home with his sister in the afternoon.

In answer to the OP, we “invested” in a nanny for both kids from 1-3 because I wanted them to be cared for by a single caregiver in a 1-1 or 2-1 ratio, in their own home and to be able to go to all the activities/classes/play dates of my choice. Kids are now at a local state school and we are “investing” in all the extra curricular activities they are interested in.

When it comes to secondary we will choose the best school for the kids. I would prefer to send them to state school for variety of reasons but will see when the time comes.

I think it totally depends on the quality of your other options. At any stage you might happen to have access to an excellent state/free option but equally at any stage the state option available may be terrible so it will very much depend on where you live.

Personally I wouldn't ever choose a full-time nanny. I don't believe that young children get the best education solo or just with siblings - once they are crawling and ready to explore the world a good nursery for 30 hours a week is far better than a nanny. Though I would pay extra for a nursery that kept adult to child ratios better than the legal minimum so would look for a nursery attached to a private school. Obviously might need a nanny or childminder for wraparound care if needed

Assuming a good state school I would think private primary in yR-y3 is relatively low value for money. In state schools at this age all children are tackling the basics of learning reading writing and arithmetic at their own pace and a bright child isn't particularly disadvantaged or held back by there being slower children in the class.

I think the most critical period is y4 to y9 when a child is building their attitude to education and finding out their strengths. Being in a really nurturing environment that supports real excellence is vital at this stage. Poor teaching or an environment that stigmatises and bullies academic achievement can destroy a child's potential if they are in a school that has a large number of disruptive children.

From y10 upwards there's a lot of children who will thrive and get stellar results in any school and so any money spent on schools at this stage won't increase the number of 9s/A*s - but the money may be going to making school less stressful and more enjoyable and therefore potentially not wasted even if it doesn't actually boost academic outcomes.

@ParentsTrapped round here you have to do 4 days a week full time at nursery to get the free hours, so I’m not sure that would quite work (or be an attractive job for the nanny!).

I know it’s a problem among nanny’s that they can’t find full time jobs, mainly because no one can afford it. It’s either very part time or a stop gap before nursery!

@MidnightPatrol really? That’s awful. Are there no state preschools/preschools attached to primary schools?

No state preschools where I am either. But to the OP, it's secondary because they are much more influenced by peers.

It really depends on where you are living though and what your local schools are like. The grammar school option is only available in a limited number of areas and often people apply from some distance away and either move closer when their children has obtained a place or commute some distance.

You can't buy good parenting, which makes most of the difference. Look at the tutor thread currently on here - you can't just whip out your chequebook and expect good things to happen.

Class size is relatively unimportant in terms of academic outcomes - the main factors are quality of teaching. Our highest performing (state) local secondary has well over 30 kids in top set maths - they are all well behaved and very keen to engage so no problems there.

Our nursery was absolutely brilliant - there is no way I would have chosen a nanny over our nursery. Good state schools and extracurriculars make a difference. Financially I would seriously save the money for uni fees or a house deposit, rather than any earlier.

You can throw as much money as you like at some children and they will never be the A grade child you hoped for. DH went to a really expensive public school I went to a bog standard comp, we met working at the same University. The richest friend we have money wise grew up on a council estate and ended up at Cambridge which is where DH met him and he works in the city.

Our DS went to FT nursery as we worked and then we actually chose the primary school with the best feel for it, it’s results were mediocre and then he went off to what was really quite a rough comp with bad results. He got all A grades at A level and is now on a degree apprenticeship so will have zero debt and a guaranteed job.

My child benefitted from being allowed to be a child and having fun with quite an outdoor childhood, he was in a sports team and lots of travel. He got a paper round at 13 and then worked in a kitchen when doing his A levels. He was allowed to watch the news from a young age and we never sheltered him from the world. I personally discussed people's decision making and behaviours with him. We also taught him about finances, we made our money not from working in education but from investing. Between us if needed we could tutor him in all subjects so did assist. Many parents help but we could tutor with confidence all his A level subjects.

He was good at sport as were DH and I at school and in school teams, this gave confidence.

Thanks everyone, really interesting perspectives!

My local nursery and primary school are ofsted outstanding and there is a very good grammar school (top 10 state schools in the country according to the Times) but that might have changed when my DC reach secondary school age and no guarantee we live close enough.

I’m just not sure ofsted ratings really mean anything - I went to an “outstanding” state secondary school and only ever had supply teachers for maths 5 years and I don’t think the school did anything to build children’s confidence and aspiration. Equally the nursery baby Genevieve went to was rated “outstanding”!

The largest impact is the attitude you instil.

If they realise that doing what the teacher says is critical and always doing their best is critical, then they will be well set up.

it’s impossible to say what school/nanny/set up will work best because it varies by area so much.

I think it’s about getting the best out of the child rather than making them into an A grade student. I think private schools are much better at helping children find their strengths and nurturing that, academic or not and building their confidence and soft skills.

We have moved school a couple of times and have experience of both state and independent, and my experience has been no difference at primary and a lot of difference at secondary.

My eldest is much much happier in her selective private school than she would be at our much busier and lower achieving local state. Youngest more easygoing, and if our local state had better outcomes she’d probably do as well there. Both clever children, no SEN.

Probably the advantage for younger child is that she is more stroppy than her sister and responds better to the high academic expectations at her school than she would if the pressure was only coming from us and she was in a lower pressure academic environment. That would be a battle of wills that I would lose, but she will move heaven and earth to do well in her competitive and high achieving class.

Big thing I noticed is that there is ZERO difference in attainment between the state and privately educated children when they hit selective or non-selective private school. None whatsoever. Even the kids who ostensibly did French all through private primary show no advantage in that language over the children from state with their abysmal blink-and-you’ll-miss-it language provision.

Our local state primary is economically homogeneous (single digits free school meals, single digits 6 figure earners, if anyone, I’m guessing) and looks like it was abandoned 25 years ago (much like many neglected primaries) but a shit playground and world war 1 toilets don’t matter so much to kids, if the teachers are kind and effective.