Winchester state schools vs London private schools? WWYD with 3 under 5?

[Motherhood12345]

We're currently facing a big family decision and I'd love to hear from anyone with experience of Winchester schools, or who has weighed up something similar.
We have three children under five and are planning a move from the North of England to either London or the South. My husband is a long-haul pilot based out of Heathrow and is away a significant amount of the time (nearly 50%). I work in finance in a fairly demanding role, and my husband's family are based in West Sussex.

We're torn between two options:
Option 1: London
Higher salary for me.
We could afford private school fees for all three children. Depending on where we lived, we'd either aim for a strong state primary followed by private secondary, or private education throughout.
More career opportunities for me.

Option 2: Winchester
Lower salary for me, but likely better work-life balance.
We'd rely on the local state school system, which has an excellent reputation.
More space and a potentially less hectic lifestyle.
Closer to family support.

What matters most to us is doing what's best for the children. We'd like them to have a strong academic education and access to good extracurricular opportunities. At the same time, I wonder whether having a parent who is less stretched and more present day-to-day is ultimately worth more than being able to fund private schooling.

For those who know Winchester, do the state schools genuinely live up to their reputation? Are there any other cities or large towns in Hampshire, Surrey, Sussex, Berkshire etc. that are better for access to excellent state education? And for anyone who has chosen between a high-pressure/higher-income route and a lower-paid but more balanced family life, do you have any regrets?

I'd be really grateful for any experiences or perspectives. Thank you!

Is it still the case? We used to live in Putney, primaries were good but not on par with academic preps/through schools.

State and private ethos are worlds apart anyway.

State schools are very different from prep schools, yes, but personally I think there are pros and cons to both approaches. They won't get quite the same results as a prep school for onward destinations since they are obviously non-selective and also not preparing children for the 11+. But a clever enough child can definitely access even the most competitive secondary schools from a state primary. I don't believe that prep schools are offering anything massively different academically though there are probably some benefits eg if you have a sporty child or need wraparound care. I know quite a number of children who went to state primaries in Richmond borough and on to private schools that are considered to be good or excellent, including those that are considered pretty tricky to get into.

Plus the OP is open to state schools in Winchester so might be interested to know that there are areas with good state schools close to Heathrow. It is still the case that most of the primaries and quite a lot of the secondaries in Richmond upon Thames are very good indeed. I'm not familiar with Putney so can't say how similar or not it is.

Not sure where you are, but in our area state primaries are leagues apart from prep schools. One of our DDs went to state primary throughout and the other did a couple of years at a prep school - just a local out of London one, not an elite one.

The prep school had a full timetable with specialist teachers, including two languages, specialist music provision etc. The state school was English and maths ad nauseam, with a token sprinkling of other stuff. Year 6 wasn't dominated by sats, so they were able to continue a more varied, interesting and deep diving curriculum throughout.

Outside the academic, they all got to go on sports fixtures and learned sports thoroughly. They all swam, not just the ones who couldn't swim 25m for a token few lessons. There was an orchestra, bands and choir. There were loads of clubs.

The prep school had amazing facilities and really used them - a science lab, DT room (with proper kit), a theatre, astro, tennis courts, proper sports pitches.

Knowing what I know now, I'm a bit sad we didn't send both of ours to prep school throughout, but it would have been hard financially.

Marlow or Henley? Marlow has a great grammar school.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/aug/15/why-london-schools-outperforming-rest-england

Yes, but if your child goes to a good secondary none of this actually matters. Unless lots of sports or wraparound care are important to you. DD wasn't interested in sport and I didn't need wraparound care.

I'm in London.

My child went to a normal (not outstanding but perfectly decent) primary, although a lot of people went private to avoid it because of the mixed catchment and demographic, and then to one of the schools that is always in the top five in the UK. She has pretty much exactly the same GCSE and A Level results as her friends (better than some) and is off to her top choice of university in the autumn. I don't know what a prep school would have added to this. The important part was the secondary input and although I think she was fortunate with her schooling, I also don't think she would have done that much worse at the local comprehensive (though she would not have been as happy and would have had a poorer selection of GCSE options).

She did absolutely tons of clubs at her state primary, many completely free. She was in the orchestra, she sang in the choir, she started a rock band with a friend and opened the local fete. Honestly, there was loads of stuff available. Off the top of my head, yoga, sewing, book club, French, running, cooking, art, mindfulness, tap dancing, ballet and I know I have forgotten some! She had swimming every week for a couple of years, as did the entire year.

They didn't have specialist teachers or huge sports facilities or a theatre. But DD still went on to do well at the sports she actually liked at secondary level and got into NYT later on and did two languages at GCSE and one at A Level, all with excellent grades.

I don't really know what prep school would have added to DD's experience. She was very lucky to have a very unpressured and friendly primary school experience. I don't know what prep schools are like where you are, but I think they are a bit mad round here and I would not have wanted her in that uber-pushy environment because I really did just want her to have a childhood and not be thinking about Oxbridge at the age of 8. I do appreciate that London may be a bit odd in this respect!

I don’t know anything about Winchester schools, but we also had three under five and faced a similar decision regarding more time (and state school) or more money (and private school).

We had planned to educate all three privately, but ended up moving our eldest from the prep school nursery to a state primary school for reception three years ago. For us, the advantage of being around more, rather than working all hours to pay for the school fees, won out.

I am very pleased we made this decision as I underestimated how different school is to nursery and how much they seem to benefit from parental presence. This may not be such a clear call if you’re an extremely high earner or if your children are more chill than (one of) mine.

It seems quite stark to see it as a choice between state in Winchester and private in London. There are lots of good state schools in London, many people move to be in their catchement, which still costs, but may be cheaper in the long run than three in private. So if you like London overall for access to Heathrow and all that the city offers then I wouldn't assume you will have to be overstretched and stressed trying to fund private education.

You were very fortunate to have a state primary with that kind of extracurricular offer. It certainly isn't typical in our area.

For my DD2, the difference in academic terms was between being bored and probably a disengaged in her state school vs a much more varied and engaging curriculum with more opportunities to be intellectually curious and challenged in her prep school. My DD1 was undeniably bored for quite a lot of her primary education in her state school, though she's remarkably well behaved, so just got on with it. I'm saddened by that, as one of my goals for my DDs' education was for them not to be as bored as I was at primary school.

Our prep school was pretty unselective and not a pushy hot house, so that wasn't a problem. Their SEN provision was good for those children who might never have been recorded as having SEN in the state primary, as they had other children with quite significant additional needs who understandably took priority.

I also wouldn't measure state vs private in terms of GCSE or A Level results for a child. My DD1 is one of those "would do well anywhere" children. For her is isn't the results, but really enjoying her education that is the benefit. Again that probably depends on what is available to you locally. Our local state secondary, and the only one we'd actually get a place at, is pretty awful. They have staffing issues that have included having no maths specialists at one point and having to withdraw a language option. The behaviour has been terrible, but apparently is improving. They've put on one play in about 5 years. I'm sure she'd have come out with much the same GCSE results, as long as she'd actually had teachers available in those subjects, but she is pretty clear that she'd have hated it.

I have family moving from London to Winchester.
They do not want to raise teens in an inner city.

There are other bits of London available! It doesn't have to be in the inner city! The parts people have mentioned upthread are pretty leafy and pleasant.

I do agree that results are not the best or only metric and that is exactly why we ended up going private for secondary. Like you say, I wanted DD to enjoy it. But state primary was a different kettle of fish in terms of feel and environment and it was really good for DD. She also enjoyed most of it (apart from SATs which were a dreadful experience in a number of ways, and not because she found the material hard). We were lucky to have a primary school that was very warm and friendly. The preps near us are mostly quite pushy from what I hear.

I'm surprised that the extra-curriculars sound unusual to you. I think they are pretty standard for our part of London.

Like you say, a lot of it is highly area-dependent.

Richmond, north Kingston, Wimbledon, Surbiton etc are not exactly inner city.

No advice school wise, but your DH is absent 50% of the time and you have 3 DC under 5. They need your time right now rather than a higher salary, especially if you don't have reliable family support to step in. I wouldn't be moving with your higher salary in mind at this point. You need to make things as easy and stress free as possible for yourself.

It's a tricky situation for a woman to sacrifice her career and salary.

I'd pick Winchester, if things ever go wrong in life (e.g. one of you lose job or your health) you are in a stronger position to weather the storm by using state schools and having family support.

Hmm, I think one thing not mentioned is where you actually want to live and what you want from your environment beyond schooling and access to Heathrow. Winchester and London are VERY different. I have strong connections to Winchester and for sure it is a nice place but it is very homogenous, and frankly pretty dull - vibrant it ain’t. I know lots of people will jump up in outrage saying what wonderful things there are on at the Theatre Royal and how fabulously convenient it is to get to Southampton or even London, but the reality is that with the children your ages, your world will be your immediate environs for a good 10 years and you need to be at peace with that. It may be that safe and a bit unexciting are what you want and I wouldn’t blame you, but make sure you know that is the choice you are making. It is very, very different to even the leafier areas of London.

The schools are definitely good and importantly will always be free. Interestingly it switches between what is the “school du jour”. I’ve seen high praise for Westgate, which was in the past definitely behind Henry Beaufort - that was the acknowledged leader but now no one seems to mention it. Similarly, Kings has a great reputation but in the past - and I’m going back - it was definitely one to avoid. But “less favoured” in Winchester terms is really still v good. And everyone ends up at Symonds anyway, which has long been v highly regarded.

I agree with @HerculesMulligannn , it's a lifestyle choice for OP, not just deciding on schools. We had to move out of London for school to somewhere as lovely as Winchester, and it's a v very different feel to London.

Extracurricular options are very limited too, in London you have everything within one hour max on public transport, high level sports clubs, advanced music and dance schools, museums, Ri lectures, you name it. No school, state or private, can provide high level specialist training if DC turn out to be really good at something, you would need to do it outside of school anyway. Our friends have unusually good music provision at their state school in S London but they still have to go to conservatoire on top of that.

I find London a hugely depressing place to live, I only lived there a couple of years but I couldn't wait to leave (and we're talking Ealing not somewhere really inner city). But I'm not a city person - and that's the thing really I think OP. City people are going to find Winchester dull, non city people are going to find London a depressing dump.

Also might be worth considering Hungerford and Marlborough if you decide against London, both as accessible to Heathrow as Winchester but not too far from Winchester to visit family either.

Agree with @HerculesMulligannn
Winchester is just a bit soulless . The roads are always congested by some issue or another, and big ugly houses are popping up everywhere.
I just don’t see what the hype is

Well Winchester has 3 excellent secondary schools. All 3 are comps as no grammar system. Loads of extra curriculum stuff going on in the schools and outside. I think Kings offers over 70 clubs per week and has an indoor heated pool. But they are all very high achieving schools. Which is seen as the best is constantly changing but honestly all great.
Peter Symonds is the 6th form and is outstanding and very high achieving.
It's a family friendly city and generally very safe for children and teens. That is why it is popular.

No pressure to go private, no 11+ and great place to bring up children.
I can't comment on the London private system.
Bit of a commute to Heathrow but I do know of pilots locally so I guess doable.

@HerculesMulligannn is totally right that where you want to live is more important than anything else at this stage. The OP's children are very young and she could make another move if wherever she ends up isn't right for her or them. Winchester is a small town and London is a big city. Decide on that to begin with and then look for more information. FWIW, if you do decide on London then the specific borough may make a lot of difference so worth asking about specific areas.

I would 100% choose option 2.

10 years ago I chose option-1. It was a no-brainer. High flying career, huge salaries, easy to buy the best education than try to ferry kids around to achieve various pursuits. But now in 40s, things look different. Schooling is a very long game. 14 years for each child so likely 16-20 years if more kids. As we’ve hit mid forties we are running out of steam and wishing we’d chosen option2 from the start. Luckily for each DC we’ve managed to switch to state at various points when the right option came up and give them more time and attention that the jobs. Kids need more than just schools, they need constant support and steer which sometimes becomes hard with a demanding career.

London vs Winchester is odd. They’re not exactly next door to each other and are completely different in price points and environment!
Winchester isn’t exactly close to Heathrow either. Presumably husband drives to work…. But surely you’d be better off looking at Surrey (Guildford, Farnham) or even Oxford?

With your DH being away so much, the only way you can do a big job, realistically, is if you outsource the care of your kids almost completely, so you’ll probably be looking at a nanny on top of school fees. Having done a big job with a DH who travels a lot and only 2 kids, I can tell you it is exhausting and miserable. The kids need and want you more when they get past the nursery years, and you’ll find there are things you don’t want to outsource to others. I think you taking the big high paying role would be frankly awful for you and the family.

That’s not to say you need to live in Winchester though. There are lots of other middle grounds including state in London.

I don’t understand your maths OP I’m afraid.

Is the salary differential in London really going to be enough to fund increased property costs plus three sets of school fees - the school alone will cost £150k pre-tax.