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.

Apparently QE Boys state school matches Habs Boys in terms of places at top universities.

Habs has excellent results but I wonder how much of it is selection. Don't they kick out under performers? Actually QE is also selective. Proves that the state can match private if govt was brave enough to have more selction/streaming.

this is an interesting thread to me because i am facing much the same dilemma for dd1 (who is now 2y8m) and implicitly for dd2.

perhaps i am silly (or just not yet fully bought in the british way of seeing the world after 10 years here) but i just can't get myself to look at the state vs private thing purely in terms of results.

the social, emotional and "cultural" wellbeing of my children is way more important to me. i want my children to grow up in a truly diverse school that reflects the diversity of their community, both in terms of gender race, and socio-ecomonic status. i figure if they are smart they will do well everywhere, esp as they have 2 parents with post-graduate degrees and we speak 3 languages at home. if they are not- well the last thing i would want is pressure them into academic performance when it doesnt suit them.

sadly this doesnt yield easy answers- single sex school for me would be out of the question (i spent 3 years in a girls back home and it was absolutely miserable, so much bitching, backstabbing, eating disorders, label envy etc etc), so that rules out most local private schools. but on the diversity argument, i don't know what would be better- the private schools where most kids come from extremley affluent homes (where our kids would be the 'poor ones") or the state schools where most children come from refugee families and council estates (where my children would probably be even more outcasts)? where woudl they fit in better? what would be better for their wellbeing? how easily would they (and I!) make friends? all these things are incredibly important to me, and league tables and ofsted don't have the answers.

i am really struggling with this decision!!

Everyone could probably come up with some story about how they once met a private school pupil / state school pupil who was a socially and emotionally dysfunctional thicko/brilliant independent-thinking genius. So what's new? State and independent schools both educate a whole range of pupils from a whole range of backgrounds. It's not helpful to the OP to make assumptions about either type of school based on the fact that someone once met someone who went to a private/state school - as if either type of school had a 'representative' pupil.

The OP should have another look at the schools (shame none of them grabbed her). In the course of finding our DCs a school and trying to move house, we looked at three independents (no state, as I don't like state education on principle - but that's a different story). We fell madly in love with one; we liked another very much indeed; and hated a third. The one we fell in love with is 400 miles away, so it wasn't an option in the end; we endedup with the one we liked very much (a 5-min walk from home!)

We are now doing it all over again with choir schools for DS. So far, we've seen two which we quite like - but we're not really grabbed by either, and I'd need to be really grabbed by a school to choose it. Personally I'd not be keen on any school that didn't want the DCs with me in case lessons were disturbed (that's one thing we've never encountered yet!)

beforesunrise and Dottoressa you make some valid points.

I think there is an ideological point about private schools i.e. the well off (NATURALLY) use it as an instrument to ensure that their children outperform in relative terms. DOesn't this have an impact on social mobility?

Even left of centre people (like me) behave in selfish but rational way by sending their children to private schools rather than putting them in state schools. I would like to see private schools abolished with more choice in state schools but this isn't going to happen. SO the link between a parent's economic means and the child's performance is further reinforced.

check out these A'level results at QE boys: Alevelresults

individ results

Flipping heck. That should support house prices in North london on its own!

"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 "

Xenia, you really do talk a lot of tosh sometimes. Are you seriously telling me that living in the North is a factor that might damage a child? That's utterly bonkers.

What if a child happened to live in a charming manor house, with acres of woods for the children to play in that happens to be located in Yorkshire, surrounded by a large and loving and well-educated family. Is that child disadvantaged when compared to a child living in a high-rise block in darkest Hackney?

Did it escape your notice that both the current and previous PM came from the North? Even Mrs Thatcher, whom I'm sure was your inspiration, hailed from a grocery shop in Grantham.

Utterly bonkers.

I would have guessed that on average quality of life is better in north given that so many in London live like rats.

IN some areas you will find schools like Haberdashers in the private sector (where one of my children went) are more racially mixed though than the state schools and that the private sector is hugely favoured by parents from other countries for lots of reasons.

There are some state schools which get good A level results - the very selective ones but even allowing for the selection element the private schools do better which shows there is more "added value" in the private sector and that is proven by future salaries etc of children from both sectors whatever random other examples people can find. It's the same with going to university - it ensures your salary is more throughout your life - can't remember the figures but they have been published.

I am from Newcastle but my point on regions was simply that in some areas children do not on average do as well. We all know that. Take average A level results in the state sector even in Newcastle and compare them to an area in the South East. So why do children get better exam results in the South East? Is it because their parents earn more or have a higher IQ or expectations of them are higher or teaching better? We might as well limit that to state schools I suppose to avoid controversy.

Hi Xenia- I don't think Habs has anything on Watford grammar for add value. Look at WG's results when it only selects 25pc of its intake! I think WG adds more value than Habs? Habs is rootless in its selection and continuously kicks out under-performers, right?

On racial and social diversity, again, I think Watford Grammar and QE match or beat Habs, easily. So I don't agree. No one would say that Habs isn't racially mixed but it is likely to be given the fact that it is in an area with well to do immigrants but I don't think that it beats .

I can't criticise you for sending your kids to private school. I send mine but i have to ask myself what extent I am paying for the grandeur?

A lot of well to do people (I hate this expression but it conveys a certain meaning), especially "middle class immigrants" buy into the idea that a privileged, that is private, education is the way for their children to break through into the British establishment. You know, "it is not what the boy knows but who he knows". Well I am struggling with the idea of paying for that kind of privilege especially because I think that it is OUTDATED. It doesn't reflect what I see is happening in the workplace and the world at large. I am not sure that the Habs boys (private) will outperform the QE boys (State) and I think that the QE boys would have had a more diverse social experience. And both schools are selective so this is a good comparison

I didn't know what ds would need when he was 3. But by 4 I had more of an idea, but by then it was too late to get in. He sat on a waiting list at the school that was perfect for him (and only rose to the top because I also got a job at the school), and started at the local school for what turned out to only be 2 terms. We were very lucky that a parent had to move to Russia.

I would say look around NOW, because if you hum and ah any longer you may find you don't actually have a choice.

Habs gets more into Oxbridge and on the league tables for proper A levels in The Times QE is at place 23 and Henrietta Barnett 21 ( 93.8% AB at A level and 89.1% A and A GCSE) - the only state schools in the top 25 in the country by the way and their results are worse than Habs girls 13 ( 94.5% A/AB A level and 93.7% A and A , merchant Taylors 18 and a whole load of others. North London where my other daughter went was 2nd in the country at 99.4% A/B at A level and 99% A or A* at A level. Also the children produced tend to have more confidence, more over all rounding etc, better at music, hobbies etc than those state schools. But parents can believe whatever makes them feel better.

The privilege of who you know is not outdated. It's common sense and parents who choose not to bestow that on their children are failing them - if they present eh world as some kind of fair socialist utopia. Although it's true that you don't keep a job in the city because your parents know the parents of those you work with or you went to the same boarding school (although it does no harm even now) it does help you get feet into doors all over the place in the UK. Journalism is one of the worst - who you know gets you in at the start as they found in a recent study of graduates. Getting the right work experience etc helps children at lot. I also think having the right accent can assist you to, speaking properly, not saying you know all the time, having good grammar and no regional accent.

Toughdaddy- as a Middle class immigrant myself i know only too well that even a top notch private education is not enough to break into the establishment... i went to visit a famous North London Pre-prep recenltly (one where you have to put down your foetus' name seconds after conception to stand a chance ofgetting in) and after the tour the headmistress took me into her office and showed me a list of all the "good" indep schools and how to get into them. i asked her why she didn't say anything about a particular one and she said, more or less, oh, i's full of foreigners so parents are not too keen on it. i laughed and said, what, you mean foreigners like ME? she got all apologetic and started mumbling things about turnover etc. bollocks to that!

incidentally i have worked here for 10 years and so has my husband and there are lots of very successful professional careers to be had without having been educated in britain, let alone privately. not to mention all the "non professional" carers such as the arts, sports, etc etc for which conventional education has almost nothing to do! i am middle class and educated at a very high level but i much rather my dds become, say, successful and happy chefs than stressed out, unhappy and average solicitors or doctors.

the trouble is knowing at 3 years old what is the right path for your child...

Zenia- if your index in Oxbridge entrants, then I think QE got more into Oxbridge (nearly 40) last year. I will check again though. But are we really going to say that private school with more resources that got a few more into Oxbridge is better. The rounded boy/hobby thing is possibly a marketing myth. QE seems to have loads of hobbies/facilitities on offer. However, the boys are more plain spoken and less toffy nosed than Habs and MTs and frankly, I think that is what the middle class parents love. And the immigrant parents get a warm feeling that this assures their boy/girl of a step closer to establishing themselves in Britain. I think our pockets are being picked if you turn down QE for Habs! I can see many cases why parents go for private schools but tirning down QE for Habs doesn't make much sense unless you are seriously rich

beforesunrise- I agree that we will all do what is best for our children. PS didn't mean it literally when i said "getting into the establishment"- it is more about the immigrants anxiety to integrate and underwrite child's success. This is the reason why the immigrant middle class spend have a higher propensity to spend their money on private education. And the same reason why they avoid sending their child to the school where they are other immigrants!

On a tangent, it is a similar anxiety that makes it less likely for a black person to hire another in the city. A head hunter friend of mine said that she has never ever seen this in her 20 years. But that debate is for another day

ToughDaddy, I have had this argument endlessly with Xenia. It is pointless continuing. I would just re-iterate my comment that her postings and their ludicrous assumptions are the exact reason why I DO NOT educate my children privately (and yes, we can afford it and yes, my children attend/attend top performing state school and yes, they speak without regional accents and yes, they are able to socialise with people in the top echelons of society and yes, their father went to Cambridge.....need I go on?, the only thing they don't seem to do the same is play lacrosse apparently). (grin)

Very good post bags. I often feel exactly the same about Xenia's posts! She makes me laugh, and to be fair, she's always very good humoured, but she really does make some bizarre assumptions. And it does leave me feeling that overall, a private education can have real disadvantages in terms of giving you a very skewed view of the world. As for lacrosse - well, quite frankly, I've lived without it for forty years and I don't feel I'm missing out!

Also, on a less faceitious (sp?) note, I do not disapprove of parents sending their children privately, it is an entirely personal decision (and there are many different reasons as to why people choose to take this route, not usually 'social climbing'). I do just sometimes try to redress the balance when Xenia is raving that people are doing a great disservice to their children should they choose to send them to a state school, when the vast majority of people do not actually have a choice (and no, they are not able to start 'small businesses' themselves in order to fund their children's education).

Bags and Friver- i seriously think that Xenia's MN persona is meant to wind us up. I am moving towards proving the State school. The private schools recruit very motivated parents and select ion lots of other ways. It has been proven that the same results are achievable with less resources in the state sector. Conclusion= private sector takes some of our resources as profit.

beforesunrise - many, many more poeople think idealistically and simplistically about state educution when they have toddlers (all four year olds are cute, sweet little children) than think the same way when it comes to 11. Watch 'em!

hello,
im new to mumsnet and chat rooms in general, so please bear with me and my typos!

I have been getting so much grief from friend as i have been looking at schools when my son is only 18 weeks, but i am shocked to find that i can only get him on waiting lists. Do most people sign them up during pregnancy?!!

the prep school i am looking at takes them at 3yrs. Just mornings or all day, my friend thinks im being a bad mother trying to get him into a school at such a young age. But although they have a curriculum its taught via play so how is it any different from a state playschool?

smudge - if you're getting grief from your friend, maybe it's because you should be enjoying your 18 week old son, not fretting about what school he's going to go to!!

True, i guess im just a bit bored and the thought of organising something takes my mind off of it!

When people say you should enjoy him i get a bit cynical, other than feed him change him cuddles and play, which don't get me wrong i love doing, but you cant play all the time! How exactly do you enjoy them??

Big question smudge!!
I found cuddling, feeding, playing, singing, giggling, going for walks was all enjoyable.
I have to say it gets a lot more fun as they get older and you can have conversations, make things together, paint, cook etc.
I always returned to work, either part or full time within 6 months of after each baby too, as I found life more enjoyable having a balance of work and home.
One thing I definitely would NOT have been doing is fretting about schools when they were 18 weeks! If it's a sign of boredom then I think you need to find another outlet.