reasons to go private at reception age??

[MissChief]

interested in why people go private - driven to it thro perceived lack of alternative or automatic choice as no faith in state sch system etc etc?
We originally planned to go for state option as automatic choice - since then first choice rejected and having checked out prospectus & ofsted report, not overly impressed with school's quality either. think the area we're in (just moved) seems to be one where people go private where poss. I now think I'd actually prefer to make financial sacrifice of sending ds private in order to ensure he's in class of manageable size with good discipline, good moral ethos, decent food, daily sports etc. Not having been to private school myself though, perhaps I'm just being naive - is it really so much better (or have the various heads I've met done a good sales job on me!)

Most of them are charities...

registered as charities, yes, because they are allowed to be. but charities as in the sense that they don't make a profit? i don't think so. i know someone whose parents run a school in sussex and they are the only people i know who own a large house plus a penthouse overlooking the thames.

they are businesses. my dd1's school is run to balance the books and reinvest cash from the local authority/fundraising straight into whiteboards, all-weather pitches etc.

I think in the case of boys going onto Windsor Boys is that there are so few selective day schools for boys in the area. The first good one to the east is in Weybridge and to the west, in Reading.

Bundle - a very very large number of independent schools are not for profit.

Our DCs school converted from a state school in the 70's? when the LEA's were formed and they wanted to opt out. They got financial backing from teh City Leathermakers guild to provide burseries for all the children attending the school at teh time of transfer from state to indpendent status.

The leathermakers have continued that support such that approx 1/3 of places at the school are scholarship places - music and sport as well, not just academic.

A lot od the private schools in London and the surrounds turned private at around the same time and still remain as not-for -profit schools with an large proportion of scholarship funded places.

You clearly know very little about the independent sector, Bundle.

Why does it bother you how we choose to spend our legally earned money?

in principle i feel v uncomfortable with the idea of buying either healthcare or education while other people have to make do. i'm not envious of it just can't see the point of it.

So what do you think we should spend our money on? Holidays, cars, houses? Surely education is far more worthwhile.

If you are happy with the state sector, you have nothing to fear from our privately educated children.

where did you get the idea i was frightened? i would just prefer there just to be one system - and for taxes to be higher to make it better if necessary (and if so many people are prepared to pay into the private sector, then such a tax could work in exactly the same way but not necessarily paid directly to the school).
I want to draw a line under this now. apologies to MissChief for diverting the discussion away from your query, i had no intention of making this into rights/wrongs thread and will now bow out.

Thought you were at some kind of fancy scottish school there for a moment soapbox Re paying for education, I pay for my dd out of earnings from a holiday let. Basically the amount I make covers practically all of dd's costs: school fees, ballet, swimming, Brownies. Our uniform has to be bought from a particular school uniform shop - it is made specially (tartan pinafore for the girls in winter approx £30; blue/red/white patterned cotton dress in summer approx £20). Blazer with school badge, fleece with school name, PE kit with school name are all bought from the school itself. Therefore, its impossible to buy cheaper substitutes. However, we do have second hand uniform sales and they don't tend to grow out of absolutely everything at once after the initial (substantial) outlay. I'm always seeing adverts for tax efficient ways to pay school fees - I think involving starting saving when the child is still in the womb. Maybe worth looking at some of these schemes for senior school fees BK?
My belief is that, certainly for one child, but much harder for two or more, almost everyone who works could afford the cheaper end of the market at prep level. It is a question of doing without other things. It's really after prep level that the fees become a nightmare. I'm hoping my dd will be able to get a scholarship somewhere at that stage - now only 3 years away

Hmmm - Cam I think you'll find that 'alomst everyone who works' will not be able to afford prep school fees even at the cheaper end!

If you're living on £300 a week or less - putting food on the table and keeping the kids in clothes and shoes with a bit left over for the odd beer or glass of wine is a big enough struggle I suspect! Nothing left over for school fees!

Round here the situation sounds like the Berks scenario, where loads of kids go private in primary in the hope that they will get into the grammar schools (one girls, one boys) for secondary with all the tutoring towards the exams.
My kids will be going to state primary, and I do worry that they won't have a fair and equal chance of getting into the grammar school.

Zubb - its hard isn't it!

DH and I talked about this before we put them into indep school and we both decided that if they were going at 4 then we would keep them in indep all the way through (and chose a school based on that decision). Kent has some fabulous grammar schools but I feel it would be very unfair for us to hogg the places when we had opted out of state all the way through primary!

Having just read through this thread it does seem that there needs to be much more funding for our schools in the state sector. It's up to the individual how they spend their hard earned cash but surely much nicer if a large chunk of it doesn't have to go on school fees. Having been reading about the crap our kids are fed in schools it's not surprising there are problems - and if that's all they are spending on meals what paltry amount are they spending on education.

Gets off soapbox. Our kids should be able to get a decent education without us paying twice for it.

Are those who are in prep schools just as entitled to go onto grammar schools? It seems that their parents are paying their fair share of taxes, so they should have equal dibs on school places, according to the admission criteria.

I believe that primary schools in bi-partite LEAs do prepare pupils for the 11+ exam, so they should not theoretically be at a disadvantage.

Amanda - I really don't think it is a question of money - god knows more and more of it is being put into education with little visable result.

Its more structural that that I think - the LEAs hoover off huge sums to cover admin - not enough of the cash is getting through to the front line. What does make it through gets spent on whiteboards and not on extra teaching staff which might reduce class sizes to a level more commensurate with indep schools.

I really don;t know what the answer is - but I don't think it is just cash!

Ameriscot - it is the unfair competition which concerns me. If it was an level playing field then yes - or if the grammers were selecting on the basis of potential rather than ability at a set point in time.

A bit like the university places debate really - probably a different thread

Of the things I like about prep schools (listed in my 11:21 post), the only thing that is directly related to money is the smaller class sizes. Most of the other stuff is just a different culture (ideologically-free).

Soapbox, you could also say that children in state primaries were not allowed to be coached by their parents or private tutors as it gives them an unfair advantage in getting into grammar schools.

I think the 11+ test is based on potential - it seems to be focussed on verbal reasoning, something which is hard to teach.

13+ is different - it's like doing GCSEs, but this is wholly within the independent sector.

Soapbox - Good for you - I think that's a v ethical decision. (re parents who pay at primary hoping to scoop up all the free state places in grammar schools)

Blu,

Parents do all sorts of things to help their child get a grammar school place. It's not just the independent school parents who try to make the system work to their advantage.

And for those "free" places, they've invested a heck of a lot.

problem is goes beyond ethics - this is now a practical decision for us as rejected from the local first (state)school we applied to. This is why we're now looking a private education. If sufficient places were provided in the decent schools locally, based on the birthrate (apparently this year is the millenium baby boomers), we would not be going private. Our only other alternative is to take whatever leftovers the LEA offer us - most likely being bussed to then nearest god-awful town for school, no way my little boy is going to be treated like that.

Ameriscot, its not only class sizes that you're paying for, a prep school day is an hour longer than a state primary day. This allows for more PE and other subjects.

Ameriscot - RTangamummy tells us down the thread a bit just how intensive the preparation is for 11+ in prep schools. Exam practice will certinaly make a big difference between childrne of the same ability!

I don't think a bit of private tutoring the same impact as day in day out class sizes of 18 or less vs 30 or more!