State VS Private and how can you tell at age 3 what kind of school is best for your child?

[kb101]

State VS Private and how can you tell at age 3 what kind of school is best for your child?

I have seen the other threads about the whole state versus private issue, which I am also wrestling with. We might be able to afford private at a push, and definitely at the expense of other luxuries like nice holidays etc.

It seems that one of the main advantages of private education is smaller class sizes (in my area it would be 20 in a private class and 30 in a state class), which many seem to think would have most benefit for children who are 'safely average' and would not necessarily get the attention that a very bright or struggling child would get from a stretched state teacher. But, is there any way of knowing at 3 that your child will be one of these middle students, or one of those 'bright and would do well anywhere' kind of children'? Does anyone have any experience/thoughts on this? On paper, DS1 is from bright 'stock' with both parents Cambridge graduates (I am state educated overseas, and DH was exclusively privately educated in the UK, so we are always bickering about what to do for the best) but I don't think I can tell at this stage where DS1 is on any scale of brightness.

There is subtle pressure from in laws who think there is no negative to go the private route and that you're giving them everything you can. Seems an expensive mistake if the kids would have been fine at the local state school ('good' OFSTED report). State secondary is not so fantastic locally and I guess I am worried about DS1 being disadvantaged when taking entrance exams for the top independent day schools/state schools against prep-educated kids.

I'd be really grateful to know your thoughts/experiences. Thanks.

Read my message again more carefully, Slayerette, and you'll see exactly what I said:

'some' state school teaching is awe-inspiring.
'some' private sector teaching is lazy.

Do you have problems with that? If so, I think you are being unreasonable.

'Some' state school teaching is lazy.
'Some' private sector teaching is awe-inspiring.

All happy now?

Sounds fine to me. I've have one child thriving at a private school. I have another thriving at a state school. I have friends who teach in both kinds.

BUT--if I'm paying the equivalent of 12 thousand in untaxed income, you can bet I'm looking carefully at the standard of teaching. Because I'd be foolish not to.

Bride1 - how did you/they find the move from state primary to private prep? Any difficulty with entrance exam etc?

The prep school didn't have a formal entrance exam. My son went in after a teacher-led assessment. The only subject he's really found hard is French, and that's because the other boys had been learning it for years. We had to learn approx. 300 words in the first year (I counted them).I think we're starting to catch up, though! He's now somewhere in the second quartile of the year--not bad when many of the other boys are the children of two doctor/vet/scientist parents.

In essentials (English and Maths and basic Science) he's been just fine.

He loves the private school. But I'm glad he had the experience of the local primary, too.

We're thinking of moving my younger child in year six, too.

Our 5 went to private schools throughout as did my siblings and I. Why would a parent like your husband consider a state school when he's had the benefit of a private school? Indeed why even marry a wife without establishing in advance how you'd educate the children - it's so fundamental. I think it would be morally wrong for him to consider state schools which are universally worse than the better private schools. You confer massive advantage on just about any child in the UK by paying fees for the right schools. You owe it to the child to pay.

Ah bless your cotton socks XENIA: where would the Mumsnet education boards be without you?!

1. Are you serious?! Are you who you say you are, or are you a TROLL, just a professional stirrer of hornets' nests wherever you go?!

2. My husband loved your post and did, actually, laugh out loud. The sport forum which he is involved with would definitely call you a troll, and apparently I am now meant to post a 'Don't feed the troll' picture. Perhaps Mumsnet could oblige

3. Perhaps my husband, having chosen a wife such as me so carelessly, was the victim of his education and, had he been educated by the state and not gone to great private schools and Cambridge then he would have had more common sense and established his 'education policy' pre-nuptially.

At the risk of this getting rather personal Xenia, statistics show that children of parents who marry and stay together are more likely to do better at school, go on to higher education and get better jobs than children whose parents don't marry, and children whose parents divorce.

So, are you conferring a massive disadvantage on your children by not picking a father for them more carefully? Are you 'morally wrong?'

Perhaps sometimes you need to look beyond the global statistics and realise that children, like adults, are INDIVIDUALS. Broad statistics are fairly meaningless. Most of my own peer group at the comprehensive I attended didn't go to University. Does this matter a jot to me? Nope. I went, because I achieved good grades and wanted to go. I'm glad I did it on those terms, rather than because it was simply 'expected' of me.

I saw Xenia's post last night and nearly replied, but decided going to bed was the more sensible option.

You're probably right singersgirl!!

I do hope she replies to mine though - I'm interested to know how she squares her views on this!

I think Xenia's post rather shows the reason why many Oxbridge educated parents (for example) choose NOT to educate their children privately. Enough said.

I don't think it's really a valid response to say because there is some other factors which might damage a child (such as a family propensity to depression or alcoholism or living in the North not the South or being in a family where there is a divorce) is really relevant to the question of whether the private/state school education is better. It's a red herring.

But what is true is that 7% of British children go to private schools and over 50% of those at Oxbridge and many other good universities went to private schools and if yo ulook at the the Cabinet, the top of the civil service, the judiciary, any board.. I was looking that schools a Board I am on went to and some of those people are not particularyl old and yet even there most went to private schools. It is one of the best things you can do for a child if you are clever enough and hard working enough as a woman (or man) to earn enough to pay for it. Plus all the other advantages.

Much more fundamental though is the extent to which people driven by lust and love don't talk about really basic issues before they marry. What if you were marrying someone who wanted to live in a commune or who would want you to pray to Mecca 5 times a day or go to mass with them every morning or beat the children or have the wife submit to the man or send the chdilren to the local comp because of socialist principle or whether Eton/Manchester Grammar or whatever was the aim or even whether the future spouse has fundamental views against abortion or would expect the wife never to work once babies came along. These things should be talked about before marriage and yes I divorced after 19 years but whether I did or not doesn't remove the wisdom of talking about thigns like this in advance. It saves acrimony later. Also you can say - well y9ou know when you married me I would be working abroad with the army 5 months a year or that I always intended mother to live with us or that I woudl be requiring teh chdilren go to boarding school or the local sink comp or whatever.

Xenia - it is entirely relevant, because you are constantly making sweeping statements, eg:

'I think it would be morally wrong for him to consider state schools which are universally worse than the better private schools. '

'You confer massive advantage on just about any child in the UK by paying fees for the right schools. You owe it to the child to pay.'

I am simply following your argument to its logical conclusion: if you run your life on the basis of what global statistics say, then why not apply this to other areas of your life too? Why single out education? Statistically your children are less likely to do as well because you are divorced.
Of course, the reality is that there are probably lots of other factors which come into play - eg I suspect your children are reasonably bright and well brought up, I suspect you have books in your home, good wholesome food on the table. All these are factors which go towards offsetting the disadvantages you are conferring on your children by being divorced.

You are the one who deals with broad statistics Xenia - I am simply pointing out that maybe life is a little more complex.

Life is complex but one of the simple certainties is that if you pay fees for one of the top say 20 day schools in the UK then your children tend to be advantaged throughout their lives whether their parents are divorced or otherwise, in terms of careers and income. Obviously other things affect how children turn out in general - beat them black and blue or never speak to them or pass on the genes of your husband who is an alcoholic or whatever and they might not have such a good life but in terms of income and success in general private school helps a lot if it's a good school.

In our case the children's father was so awful to me and them that they benefited from the divorce and perhaps I should have done it even earlier, but that is not a reason for my not sending them to private school. If they have some other disadvantage even more important that it is countered by one of the best ways of improving their chances in life - a good school.

My "sweeping statements" are true. Most children who go to good private schools do much better in life. Socialists may not like that but it's true. Pick me just about any institution except perhaps some of our more left wing local authorities and the people at the top whether male or female went to private schools. Even take my older children's peer group and look at the jobs they are moving into as they graduate which is likely to be an indicator of how much they earn in life and the men and women they are going out with and you can see that the private school has bought them lots of advantages.

Yes, but so are other 'sweeping statements' true Xenia! Children of divorced parents, or parents who stay together but don't marry are less likely to do as well academically, or earn as much money. Those are facts!

I think the question of whether children do 'better' overall is far more complex, because it depends on how you define 'better'. It really doesn't matter a great deal to many people that most of the Cabinet were privately educated, because most people probably don't hold the cabinet (or the shadow cabinet) up as shining examples of what they want their own life to be like.

You admit yourself that your children's father was 'awful' to you. I'm genuinely sorry for that, because I wouldnt wish anyone to be in a bad relationship. But it does lead me to wonder why you are obsessed with private education as being such a wonderful thing when clearly in your case, it wasn't a great deal of help in enabling you to choose a good partner. Perhaps you feel it helped in getting you to a position of earning a lot of money (though many of us get there without needing a private education!). But it's a case of what makes a fulfilling life isn't it? Yes, money is important in enabling choices, but having positive and productive relationships is also important.

I agree with the statement that children of divorce parents do worse so I'm saying that and my own statements are true. In other words I agree with you.

I said private education helps children achieve a broad education, perhaps have a range of hobbies from which they can get life long fulfilment (second daughter is playing a lacrosse tournament today etc etc) and in general it seems to get them well generally educated in a much broader sense than just passing exams which again helps them in life in general but also tends to ensure they are more likely to be serving on the cabinet than just hoovering the cabinet floor after hours.

I did not say a private education means you are more likely to form good loving relationships with other adults although I think being educated in a single sex school does help as you aren't trust into having early sex before you're really mature enough for it.

I don't see why we're conflating these two issues. Surely you want children to have the good private education plus also ideally be in a home where the parents love each other and the children and they get good examples of how happy marriages work.

I think if children can earn enough money so they don't spend their lives worrying about money too much plus have happy marriages that's better than a happy marriage but constant money worries. Most parents want their children to be reasonably well off surely.

I usually avoid posting on threads you are on xenia as your opinions make me feel tired.

For a supposedly intelligent well educated woman your view of the world is alarmingly narrow and one dimensional, I've never met anyone who comes out with such doggedly single minded overarching and skewed generalisations in my life.

The best thing you can do for your child is develop a secure and containing attachment with them, the resilience that comes with a secure attachment relationship cannot be underestimated. This involves issues such as approprite discipline and boundaries, setting a good example with regards to empathy and understanding and most of all unconditional love. Not private school!!!

We can afford private, we will be sending dd to the very good state primary accross the road. When it comes to secondary we will be visiting the local non religious schools to see what they are like, if the state ones are truly appalling we will be looking into local co-ed private secondaries. But there's no way she's going to a girls school, I want to protect her from that.

Working in CAMHS we get referrals from eminent well known private schools and they are just as troubled as the children from the other schools, protective factors go way beyond education.

'Surely you want children to have the good private education plus also ideally be in a home where the parents love each other and the children and they get good examples of how happy marriages work.'

I agree with all of the above statement if you cross out the word 'private'!!

I don't think we're a million miles apart Xenia in recognising what qualities are going to contribute to a child who is well equipped for life. I just take issue with the obsession about fee-paying schools, because I think life is so complex and there are so many variables that it's just not a helpful statement to make. In fact, given that most people aren't as fortunate as we are in being able to afford school fees anyway, it's pretty un helpful. Also, there are huge swathes of people who could afford school fees, but it would be at the expense of travelling, eating nice food, going to the theatre, giving their kids pocket money - all the other things that make life worth living. It's not necessarily doing your child any favours if they have a fee paying education but there's no money for other things.

I've said before, there are going to be all sorts of factors which influence people's decisions. I have a successful work life, and I didn't need a private education to get me that, so I'm probably more confident that you are that my children can also get where they want to go without needing it.

I am fortunate to live in an area with good state schools and not in some awful area in London.

As I work in an education related field at the moment, I am also in a position to know quite a bit about both sectors. In our local private school there are some fairly mediocre teachers. I would resent paying 15k simply to buy a school where most of the intake are middle class average intelligence (or, increasingly, overseas above average intelligence!) But then I'm looking at it from a position where my children are in top sets so are surrounded by above average intelligence kids without me having to pay!

I'm sure the top academic day schools are different again - I suspect the teaching is a lot better than your average private school, and probably the local state options are worse than in other areas.

I think it's probably generally not helpful to talk in extremes. Most people won't end up in the Cabinet anyway - and most wouldnt want to. Neither will most end up hoovering floors. Most people want to have good relationships, a happy family life, and an enjoyable and interesting work life. Thankfully there is no evidence that going to a fee paying school will make this more likely!

Just because some elements help children like a good diet doesn't mean you then say I feed them such lovely organic food I can compromise on the schooling. Or I cuddle them at night so it doesn't matter if they're at the local sink comprehensive. Why not get them a good education too?

Yes, most women don't earn enough to pay for the best education for their children but that doesn't mean people shouldn't try to achieve it if they can.

Also it's not just good teaching you buy in private schools but confidence, accent, class and a whole heap of other things which do matter in the UK because of how our society is structured.

Xenia - I think you are deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying!!

Of course no parent sets out to compromise their child! I'm sure you didn't think, 'Ok, I've given the kids a great start with their schooling; now I'll divorce their father, because, hey, the benefits of one thing outweighs the disadvantages of the other!' That would be ridiculous.

I think the one thing all but the most dysfunctional of families are agreed on is that they want a good education for their child - along with a good diet, healthy, positive role models etc. The point I am making and which you keep ignoring is that what constitutes 'good', or 'excellent', or even 'best' is not a universal standard. Some children actually are incredibly bright but don't respond well to formal education. They may well find that the 'best fit' environment for them isn't necessarily a top fee paying school. Some young people learn more self reliance through not being spoon fed as happens in some private schools. Some parents will be able to afford school fees but only by never travelling, going to the theatre, eating out etc which would undeniably deprive their child of other stimulating things. Some parents of several children may find that the 'right' school for each of their children happen to be hundreds of miles apart! What do they do then? Compromise some of the kids by sending them off to boarding school?

I also take issue with the assertion that going to private school 'buys' you confidence. In my experience of University and the big wide world of work, I've come across quite a few ex-private school people who may have a false veneer of 'confidence' but don't actually have an inner core of self belief.

I think you are simplifying the argument Xenia. Of course we all want our children to lead happy and productive lives. It's far too simplistic to then make the leap that this must mean buying into private education if you can afford to.

I think it's very simple - if you can afford a good school it is better for the child in lots of ways.

I agree that what some people think is better is not the same as others. Some want children to be free in private schools like Summerhill where you don;t have to attend lessons. Others are against schools altogether and home educate. Others want girls to grow up into good Muslims or whatever, marry at 16 and not disagree with their families so want elements of indoctrination to ensure compliant girls.

But on average good private schools give children better chances. It's very simple.

I also think most private schools encourage self reliance. Take any group of young people who had been at Eton, Manchester grammar, Haberdashers and those from the local comps and I bet the private school ones have more self reliance, more experience of travelling abroad, getting themselves out of scrapes, more chance they've done Duke of Edinburgh awards etc than children at state schools.

Parents need to compromise and where necessary live in urban areas where there are good schools for their child with dsylexia, good schools for the one who is as thick as a plank and a good school for the academic one rather than plonking themselves down in a part of the British countryside with few schools which are good for anyone.

Oh I agree that it's probably better generally to live in an urban area. But again, when it comes to specifics, some rural schools are far better than inner city ones.
PMSL at the thought of Etonians being self reliant. I worked with one who was a total tosser! Not terribly bright and certainly not someone I would want to rely on!!

xenia, are you a real person? Or a comedy charade, surely NO ONE is as dognatic and prejudiced as that in RL??

Agree very much with what findtheriver has said in her previous posts. It's very much about the child andf their individual abilities are personality. I've got a mixed group of state educated and privately educated friends. We're all professional people, some with exceptional talents. The highest earners as that seems to be your criteria (not mine) for whehter people are worthwhile or not are some STATE educated friends of mine living in London (fund manager and solicitor). The were STATE educated in the countryside in the North of England, how on earth did they manage that against all that adversity?!?

I've also got a lovely friend went to an eminent London Private Girls school. Her parents complete ineptitude in managing their emotional lives has resulted in her being unable to from relationships with the opposite sex that aren't abusive and generally just manage her life. She's lovely and friendly and intelligent but lurches from one crisis to the next. she lives in a Council flat. To me she's a sucess because she's a lovely person but confident she isn't (although she does have the requisite posh accent that you beleive confers someone so well in life )

I'm studiously avoiding entering into debate about the general merits of private vs state - but, Kb101, one thing to think about is: do you want your child to do SATS? Okay, so they may all be abolished at some point - but if you choose state, your child may have to do them. If this bothers you as much as it would bother me, choose private!

Message withdrawn