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.

Some send their "average children" to private school and then complain when state school children get into Oxbridge ahead of their DCs. They long for the old days when private school kids had an advantage at top universities.

PS Yes, I too think that Xenia is Jilly Cooper character!

lolol harpsichordcarrier - that explains everything

Absolutely ToughDaddy.

One thing that I've realised more and more over the last couple of years is that the world has moved on hugely. Top Universities know about the real world out there. They know that bright, intelligent children can be found anywhere in the education system, and they are investing huge amounts of time and money in seeking them out and recruiting them. Top Universities are not interested in kids who may be reasonably bright but not exceptional who have been spoonfed every step of the way in a cloistered private school. They want kids who are naturally clever and able to learn independendly.

Interestingly round here, there is a real exodus out of the private schools at 6th form level,as I think a lot of pupils and their parents are seeing it as a disadvantage to be applying for University from private school.

Findriver- this evening of the payfield is being spun by private school larks as bias towards state schools.

findtheriver, so two years at "normal" sixth form and you reckon you can disguise that posh accent at university interview and pretend your child has had all their education in a state school? Did not think so either.

Nope, I think if you have a posh accent, you have a posh accent. And if you don't you don't. It's not necessarily about the school you went to. And of course, Universities will see on applications which school a pupil has studied at for GCSE, and which school for A levels.
And around here for certain a lot of young people find it a sensible move to get into state before putting in University applications.

More to the point, two years at a 'normal' state school or sixth form college will show how intelligent the pupils really are, rather than reaping the benefit of smaller classes, intensive teaching to the test etc (all or SOME of the reasons people send their children privately but for the majority of children is not available). Much better preparation for university. If they then get three As at A level, then they have done really well and can expect to be top of the pile at university.

Unfortunately UCAS forms are, as yet, unable to detect posh accents

I see the usual old Mumsnet chestnut about 'spoonfeeding' and 'teaching to the test' have emerged.
My elder son is in an independent school where he is emphatically NOT spoon fed - whcih came as a shock from him moving from his state primary where he was spoonfed! And as to teaching to the test, his friends at the sate school, now in Year 6, are very much being 'taught to the test' to make the school look good fro the KS2 stats
The direct comparison is extremely intersting, but rahter depressing as our second son is still in that state school and at teh moment the local independents ave full quotas and long waiting lists. Otherwsie he would be outta there now, as we are very much against spoonfeeding and teaching to the test.

bagsforlife - I doubt 3 A grades = top of the pile anymore, given about 25% get A

Been to state and private schools myself; taught in both sectors; sent my kids to a mix of both; researched both professionally. One thing I have learnt is that so much depends on the actual school. Some private schools are frankly rather indifferent once you have taken into account the selective intake and superior financial, social, cultural and intellectual resources of the children using them. Other private schools do brilliantly with all children in their care and really make a difference.

Personally I don't think there's a massive advantage to private primary schools, unless your child has SEN, but there does seem to be quite a bit of added value at secondary level, and a massive amount at sixth form level. In other words, the older your child, the more useful it might be to spend money.

However if you live near state schools that score 1 in Ofsted inspections you'd frankly be daft to shell out. This is because a social mix of friends is very good for children's confidence and self-esteem (rather than forever fretting about why their parents don't have a second home in the Caribbean), and also allowances are sometimes made for being in a state school should your child follow in your footsteps at an elite university (although they will still need to be able to argue the hind leg off a donkey academically).

Ultimately you have to see through any school's marketing (or lack of marketing), state or private, and try to get a feel of whether your child would enjoy going to school there, and whether you would enjoy taking them. It's one case where more cash does not necessarily mean a better time of it or better results - common sense is more useful in guiding you.

Best of luck with your decision. BTW in response to some of the other MNetters, some independent schools are inspected by Ofsted, and those that aren't generally have an Independent Schools' Council report, which is pretty similar.

Also I do have a bit of insider knowledge about your geographical area and I would say it's either the Vineyard, or Froebel, frankly, if you want co-ed and a reasonable size. I know it's pretty competitive around there, so I'd apply for a mid-term entry later on if your child couldn't get in at the beginning - people move all the time which makes this a really viable option, and if you're using a state school you don't have to give notice, etc.

OK point taken TheBlonde, but unfortunately you can't get higher than an A at the moment. When they bring in the A* at A level next year, Oxford, I think, has already said they aren't particularly interested.

Most of the elite universities are interested in the potential of their undergraduates. They will choose the brightest and the best regardless of the background/schooling of the applicants.

It is completely fair that they look beyond the straight A grades (as you say, 25%) as this is becoming a meaningless criteria upon which to judge their abilities. And that is because many children can actually achieve these grades without being exceptionally intelligent. It's not the children's fault. They are having to work within the system currently in place which does not differentiate between the reasonably bright and the exceptionally bright.

The present system means that averagely intelligent children are able to obtain the 3 A grades relatively easily. The private sector is more adept at doing this and this is one of the reasons parents choose to send their children privately. The universities presumably have to differentiate between those that have obtained their grades in the normal fashion (i.e the 90% who are educated in the state sector) and those that haven't. Then they make their choice.

Thanks not-so-boffinmum, I enjoyed reading your post.

The local state infant school (Orleans) gets mainly 2s in its OFSTED report, with a handful of 1s for personal development and well being, I think. In your research and experience, do you know how on earth schools make it into the 'Good Schools Guide'? There are schools in the borough with outstanding OFSTED reports that don't seem to make it in.

The Vineyard says that they operate a waiting list. My friend was 42nd on the list recently, but the list fluctuates according to admissions policy, eg if a family moves closer to the school than you, they go above you on the waiting list even if you have been on it for longer! So, I am not so sure whether mid-term entry would work in light of this.

Interestingly, The Mall School (private) seems to have a MUCH more diverse mix of ethnic backgrounds, reflecting, I guess, the tiny and saturated catchment area of state schools like Orleans. But I think you were probably referring to 'social mix' in the sense of varied earning brackets of the families at a state school. I'd like to think that my kids would fit in in either environment, but maybe this is unrealistic. I hope they could be proud of what they and their family bring to a school, even if it is not a second home abroad etc. Time will tell.

And, in reply to the very interesting posts concerning kids being MOVED into the state sector for sixth form in order to secure places at top universities, I point to the (first female) Vice Chancellor of Cambridge standing firm to the government controlling where universities draw their talent from: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4720330.ece

Recently I read some very alarming statistic on the state and private sectors- something along the lines that only 6% of students are privately educated, but that 60% of Oxbridge intake is private. I have been pondering why this might be the case, and how it could be so unfair, and I got my answer when I called my local state junior school and asked about where their students go on to study after leaving in Year 6. The woman on the phone quickly added that the school gives no individual guidance as to which schools might suit their students, and will give no help with entrance exams etc (the private school will help identify the most suitable school for EVERY child and then make sure they do everything possible to prepare the child to get in). And I have friends from Cambridge who were state educated, and have tales of school friends who got top grades but missed their Oxbridge place because of duff steering by their school, eg applying for colleges massively oversubscribed in (and famous for)their chosen courses, rather than at 'normal' colleges where their chances would have been improved.

Lord Patten has got the gist, but this SAHM could have told him this ages ago: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1064774/Private-schools-coach-state-pupils-Oxbridge-interviews-says -Oxford-University-chancellor.html

kb101 YES that is exactly the case re. your 'alarming statistic' but rest assured, if you read the Oxford and Cambridge university websites, they are doing their absolute utmost to encourage state school applicants.

Hello again kb101 - some more responses for you, in case they're helpful.

Vineyard information is correct, and this policy is quite normal, but if you are prepared to start at the school on the exact day they have a vacancy, and another closer family turns it down because it's mid-term or mid-year and they are afraid of disrupting their child, then you're basically in. This is exactly how we got a place at Honeywell in Battersea for our eldest at one point (another very oversubscribed school).

Orleans I don't know personally, but you can't go too far wrong in any primary school in your Borough. Orleans' scores sound fine and I would probably expect to use it for my kids if I lived nearby, not least because it is good for children to have local friends when young, not too much frenetic emphasis on homework, etc etc.

The Good Schools Guide is basically a profitable publisher's combination of insider gossip, Government league tables and the impressions of some tours around schools. Some recent editions have editing errors and there are very clear omissions from the Guide for the simple fact that they can't fit any more in there! However it's a useful handy extra to confirm whether your positive instincts about an included school are similar to those of other people.

I was being a little flippant about the second home abroad thing, but there are some negative social pressures involved in using independent schooling that are not often articulated. I think this is related to exponential increases in school fees over the last couple of decades, as well as the demise of the Assisted Places scheme. I am not sure it is entirely healthy for pupils or their parents.

I happen to be an admissions interviewer for one of the Cambridge colleges (amongst other things) and while things vary a bit amongst colleges, one of the things we do is to calculate the average GCSE points score of the applicants' secondary school and compare them to those of the applicant. So if the average was, say, 40% A-C grades and they had 8 straight A grades, we would take them very seriously indeed. Similarly if the average was 100% and the candidate had the same results we would assume they had had a bit more help than in the first type of school and not quite be so impressed with them. We also give candidates a thinking skills test and put them through a standardised interview. We have all been trained in these interviewing techniques so they are consistent across colleges. The interview is meant to test how candidates can mull over an academic problem and argue it in a small group, which is a characteristic of the Cambridge supervision process and the way a great deal of learning gets done as an undergraduate. In my experience this is where state school pupils generally fall down if they are going to - they are simply not used to robust debate and often feel they do not have 'permission' to challenge academic staff intellectually. Similarly it is true that the advice they receive sometimes from their state schools is woefully inadequate - to apply to do English or History at a popular college probably means you stand a 1 in 8 chance of admissions, but if you apply to do, say, Education at a college with modern buildings rather than romantic panelled rooms you are down to a 1 in 4 or 6 and Classics a 1 in 2 or 3 (or sometimes even a 1 in 1 if you are incredibly lucky and have the intellectual capability). So it really does come down to probability as much as academic background.

This is all a long winded way of saying that unless you really want to splash the cash, you are not usually short changing your child by using the state sector in Richmond and other similar well-performing boroughs, but you may need to top things up with a bit of home tutoring, holiday crammer courses or parental coaching if you want your child to have a good post 16+ experience in the medium term.

To find a good secondary, there is something called the London Families of Schools document which is revised annually, and which groups state secondaries according to things like academic attainment and Free School Meals uptake. Groups 1 and 2 contain schools that are really excellent by anyone's standards, usually selective, Voluntary Controlled or Voluntary Aided. Probably best to aim for one of these in the medium term if you don't want to go down the private route - it's what many Labour politicians do!

Being told off now for spending hours on the Internet unsociably, so better go!

true bagsforlife

kb101

A mother as alert as you is not going to allow your child to be steered to the wrong college at Cambridge, if you're looking that far ahead.

If you are bright, which you obviously are, you will be able to steer your child yourself by doing the research, which is very straightforward. My dad was an Oxbridge don, and I know that the colleges bend over backwards to detect potential in state school pupils. Dons are usually lefty types and they don't want to teach toffs, they want to teach the very best wherever they find them. More crucially, the government is on their backs and if they don't be shown to make a massive effort to recruit from the state sector they will loose all their funding. I went to Oxbridge from an excellent private school but my offer was on condition of the highest A level and S level grades, while friends of mine who did the same course from comprehensives were asked for, eg, two Bs and a C (and one got something like two Cs and a D and still got in), so there was a level playing field, imo.

The reason the disproportion occurs is largely because state schools don't enter anything like as many candidates for Oxbridge as private schools, which in many cases exist almost purely to groom pupils. Parents who hold Oxbridge as a long-term goal for their children are far more likely to chose private schools so it's a self perpetuating situation. But a motivated middle-class parent who encourages their child to have these aspirations and apply is in an ideal situation, as a state candidate will always have a huge advantage over a private candidate.

From what I know of your borough, your child will do fine in a state primary. Boffin is right that private schools in London do attract a top-heavy amount of Russian oligarchs' children etc and even if you are confident your children can hold their own amongst that sort, it's probably not a bad idea for them to grow up knowing not everyone has a helicopter and a private island.

BoffinMum - In your capacity as an admissions interviewer at Cambridge could you tell me how much emphasis is put on the students participation in extra curricula activities at school. For example, does it look bad if they do not have active roles in drama, music, held monitor style offices or haven't done D of E, even though this has nothing to do with the subject they want to read

lazymum

My dad always said they couldn't give a monkey's. All the dons care about is a passion for the subject. They know students make it all up to embellish CVs.

In answer to your question on the other thread, possibly .

Thats a relief. DS1 interested in Oxbridge but although immerses himself in his work and has always been prepared to go that extra mile when it comes to researching his stuff for essays etc, he has not got involved with much outside of this. Says he has precious little free time and prefers to use it for 'relaxation'!

I don't blame him.

It's horrible making children invent "hobbies", why can't they just chill? It's all most of us want to do at the end of a day's work. Tell him to say theatre or whatever and go and see a play a couple of weeks before in case the interviewer feels it necessary to make a token nod in that direction.

Hello lazymum. The answer's not a lot, frankly, despite what schools seem to advise for the UCAS form these days. If they can't hold their own in an academic debate on a topic they do not necessarily know much about previously, then all the girl guide badges in the world won't save them! . However the students believe otherwise and often spend lots of time at the end of interviews flagging up all their extra curricular achievements in a frantic attempt to salvage the operation. About 5% then cry, because of the stress of it all (not a good idea, even though we generally all have kids of our own and are sympathetic and kind, so girls in particular should learn coping strategies to hold it in for the duration - sucking mints and swallowing frantically are good strategies).

It does look good if they have gone to visit things associated with their academic interests completely off their own bat, however, eg hitch-hiking to Sartre's birthplace or creating a terrific website with a grid of historic churches and architectural features in their home region, for example. Also learning unusual languages for fun, playing sport at County level or having some really major work experience at semi-pro level might look interesting and enterprising. One interviewer I know in Chemistry cherry picks people who do well in sixth form level Chemistry competitions he knows about in other contexts. However bear in mind many very bright people do none of these things, and still get in on the basis that Oxbridge is in some respects something of a day centre for the terminally bright, as my DH puts it, as they simply have to be in an environment like that for their own sanity. Equally, it's not for everyone - the academic pressure is just dreadful for some people and you need to be robust to prosper in a lot of cases.

Applicants who have been in care, got a moderate to severe disability, gone to schools in Special Measures, been hospitalised for a long period of time during secondary school and who have experienced the death of a parent or carer around exam time get very special consideration, as do student parents, but it would still come back to whether they can hold their own in an academic debate.

Hope that helps answer your question.

Hello lazymum. The answer's not a lot, frankly, despite what schools seem to advise for the UCAS form these days. If they can't hold their own in an academic debate on a topic they do not necessarily know much about previously, then all the girl guide badges in the world won't save them! . However the students believe otherwise and often spend lots of time at the end of interviews flagging up all their extra curricular achievements in a frantic attempt to salvage the operation. About 5% then cry, because of the stress of it all (not a good idea, even though we generally all have kids of our own and are sympathetic and kind, so girls in particular should learn coping strategies to hold it in for the duration - sucking mints and swallowing frantically are good strategies).

It does look good if they have gone to visit things associated with their academic interests completely off their own bat, however, eg hitch-hiking to Sartre's birthplace or creating a terrific website with a grid of historic churches and architectural features in their home region, for example. Also learning unusual languages for fun, playing sport at County level or having some really major work experience at semi-pro level might look interesting and enterprising. One interviewer I know in Chemistry cherry picks people who do well in sixth form level Chemistry competitions he knows about in other contexts. However bear in mind many very bright people do none of these things, and still get in on the basis that Oxbridge is in some respects something of a day centre for the terminally bright, as my DH puts it, as they simply have to be in an environment like that for their own sanity. Equally, it's not for everyone - the academic pressure is just dreadful for some people and you need to be robust to prosper in a lot of cases.

Applicants who have been in care, got a moderate to severe disability, gone to schools in Special Measures, been hospitalised for a long period of time during secondary school and who have experienced the death of a parent or carer around exam time get very special consideration, as do student parents, but it would still come back to whether they can hold their own in an academic debate.

Hope that helps answer your question.

BTW jujumaman, I do agree with what you say about Dons - we like teaching keen state school people very much, and the arrogance and obvious grooming of some independent school pupils normally puts us off them in the first two minutes. How boring it would be to put up with that every week! The left wing, socially aware side of academe never seems to come across properly in newspaper articles around admissions time. I wonder if people only see the gowns sometimes.

Well boffinmum, my dad was a don so I've seen it all first hand.

You're right, people never seem to grasp that dons are- with the odd exception - very socially aware. If they weren't they'd have gone off and used their big brains to be bankers (didn't Tim Berners Lee say that's what he should have done, in hindsight?)

I also think people forget Oxbridge for those who teach there is genuinely about academia, not wafting about on punts and going to balls.

Which doesn't mean the privately educated should be excluded either, I seem to remember an Etonian and someone from the sinkiest imaginable school took the two top firsts in my year. They were both just very clever.

That's why years later I still fume about the whole Laura Spence fiasco and how Brown jumped on it. She didn't get in because of socia bias, it was because she went for a massively oversubscribed course at a v popular college fgs. I seem to recall the person who took "her" place also went to a comprehensive and ended up getting the top first in the year.

Tim B-L would not have cut it as a banker - or anywhere out there in the really world outside the rarified academe of CERN - he doesn't have the social skills - it is not just all about being the cleverest. I know another extremely 'clever person' - an academic at the the top of field who has a massive chip om his shoulder that less clever boys who were at school with him are better off financially - they had other skills which made them succefful in professions that happened to be more lucrative than academia. So TB and my friend were lucky enough to have extremely satisfying careers that stretched them intellectually which some would consider to be an enormous blessing, worth vastly more thatn a bit of extra dosh.