Is it really that hard to get a place at a good private school in London if you have been State educated at primary level?

[Aubergines]

We live in West London and intend to send our daughters to the local State primary. It is a good primary, outstanding Ofsted etc.

The State secondary schools around here are pretty terrible so at 11 we hope to get the girls into a private school.

This all seems very sensible to me but several "friends" have raised their eyebrows and suggested I am taking a gamble and may well find that the girls don't get a place at any of the good private secondary schools. THey suggest good private secondaries (e.g. St Pauls, Latymer, Godolphin and Latymer) are incredibly competitive and children at "feeder" private primaries will be at a distinct advantage.

Is this really true? Is there a chance that at age 11 my girls will have no choice but to go to the local State secondary? Can that really happen, that at 11 you have no choice of education even if your parents are willing and able to pay?

Any words of wisdom appreciated.

MadameSin, - Hampton is an extreme example. It takes 66% of it's intake at 11. As most boys' prep school go to 13 - the majority of the intake are state at this stage (though some will come from Denmead - Hampton's feeder prep and a few from other private schools). The final third who join at 13 will be from private preps. Other selective boys private schools such as KCS and St Pauls mainly take from their feeder preps and other private schools at 13. St Pauls take a reasonable number from state schools into their prep school at 11.

Girls schools like Surbiton and LEH have their own feeder preps. Excess spaces (up to half of their intake) will go to a mix of prep and state girls.

I have been through all of this; and would like to share my experience here. We shifted our children from a decent state school to one of the country's top private prep schools while they were in Year 2 and 3. We were not filthy rich, but we thought we could afford it. In between we had to move, but then we went into another top private school.

Eventually, they made it rather automatically to the private secondary school last year; but to my utter surprise, so did many of their friends from their state school, who have now joined them. I was still in touch with some of the mums, though the kids had moved on.

Of course, rest of the story is unique to me, I hope none of you go through this. We are in deep trouble now, because my husband had some issues at work, and we are now unable to fund their private secondary school. We had to sell our house at a huge loss and downsize, and are in deep trouble overall. My husband did manage to find work, but his bonuses have gone down. Little did we realise that for sending two children to private school, even an investment banker with a working wife would struggle.

I feel we spent a fortune, but at the wrong level. If we had kept that money, we could have educated them well in secondary, where the difference really shows, instead of wasting it at primary stage.

Of course, children had lots of fun, the games they played were more expensive than in their state school, and arguably more stylish. Their friends are more posh and privilaged; and they think they are now elite; difficult for them to mingle with people who has less money. Again, I am not generalising here, this is just my experience. In a nutshell, I feel they are less prepared for facing life today.

Overall, I wish I could rewind the clock and keep them in state primary atleast till they are 10 or 11, and moved them to private in secondary or just a year earlier.

lindafarell - thanks for your post. and your honesty. Food for thought for those of us tempted to move kids at 7+ but really struggling to afford it.

Lindafarell/Toughasoldboots.

In contrast - I know several families who opted for state primary education for their dc's - only to find they didn't pass the entrance exam to their chosen secondary private schools, as they had confidently expected. They have money saved, but can't now invest it in their dc's education.

Linda - Your post doesn't say if your dc's have started the state secondary. On average, prep children will be at least one year ahead of state children academically. And that, together with the benefit of small class sizes, extra sports, drama and music - should enable them to thrive in a good state secondary school.

You will never know for sure how happy they would have been at the state primary school - but it sounds like they were happy in their prep school. A positive school experience is an investment in itself.

As to their not being able to mingle with less
well off people - no doubt it's a skill they will acquire quickly.

Agree jackstarbright it all works as long as you have loads of money and are absolutely sure those funds would continue to flow in at the same level for the next 15-20 years. I have some friends where both parents are cardiac surgeons earning over 100K, cant see how their income could go down.

For anyone on even a slight risk, it is important to optimise where to invest the money. Even we had justified ourselves exactly like you do, with all the logic you listed. As you said, they did have fun in prep school in private, but they could have had the nearly same kind of fun even in a state school, probably in a bit less stylish / expensive way.

DDs now hate their dad, who spent all the money he had on them; but way too early. Now they have to be pulled out of a private secondary school, and put into any state school that would take them.

Unless one really goes through these things, it is difficult to understand how bad it can get.

Thanks Toughasoldboots, glad to know I am not alone. I decided to be open and frank about it if it can help atleast one other mum make the right decision.

I am intrigued by the idea of 'more stylish' games, though. DS1 has just started at a private school after primary in state school and they just seem to play football.

I know of plenty of West London kids who have moved to private schools after primary. I think many parents use tutors to prepare for specific entrance exams, but it's a very common move to make after year 6. I don't think you need to start worrying at this stage.

If they are bright, and are tutored, sure they will be fine!

DD1 went to very average state primary and moved to private for Year 7. Was a bit behind academically to start with but has caught up and overtaken by end of Year 9.

However, she has never caught up with PE/sport despite being deemed G&T at primary. Have moved DD2 at end of Year 4 so that she can get some of the PE/Sport benefit.

I teach in a private school and my boys attend a good state primary. it is an urban myth that prep schools are 2 years ahead. There is a wider ability range but it is naive to think that , just because you pay for it the prep school is better. Some are some aren't!The state primary my boys attend most children go on to private secondary and have a choice of schools to go to. I feel that the independent sector pray on the insecurities of us mums who want the best for their kids.

Anyone have any advice for a mum hoping to send ds on from state primary to private secondary (Hammersmith area again) but definitely without the pennies to fund it - some of his teachers have said he won't have a problem because he is bright and will qualify for a bursary, but will he have to be that much better than a full fee-payer before they consider him? Am also worried that interviews just end up sifting out those who aren't white middle-class etc in which case he has no chance... There doesn't seem to be a single state-run non-religious secondary school in this borough without dire results and I don't want to let him down

It really just depends. My kids are not top of the class bright but go to a brilliant and rather pushy private school. I know they are performing at capacity academically but are also thriving at music, speech and drama and sport. They are competing in a range of sports - swimming, athletics - at town level. The reality is that their school outperforms other schools at almost everything not because the kids are necessarily brighter but because they expect soooo much commitment and effort from pupils and parents. Way more than in the local state schools. I am absolutely sure that my kids would not be where they are if they're not at that school BUT I can see how a naturally very bright child from a state school could overtake them fairly easily if they joined the school at secondary stage and were up for the challenge. Think it may be hard to catch up at every activity though - sport,music (the vast majority of children begin playing at least 1 instrument at about 7) etc.

At my son's school lots of boys have bursaries - they just need to pass the exam - if they do exceptionally well, they may well be offered a scholarship in addition to the bursary which in some cases means they don't pay anything. His school is certainly not solely white middle class, it reflects the ethnic and social make-up of the surrounding area - you could always see what the intake of the schools you're thinking of looks like at chuck-out time.

If your son has anything else to offer that would help (i.e. sports, music, drama). Other than that, imo intensive tuition isn't needed, just a few practice papers to get used to the format of the tests. And don't let your son feel under pressure.

Thanks basildonbond, that's helpful and reassuring. Trying not to pass my stress into pressure on him is a challenge...

The 'show round' days at some London independent secondaries has shot up. There is a cohort of prep school parents who cannot or will not pay for weekly or full boarding outside London. These children are adding to the competition for places, and they're all bright, presentable and polished as well.

Interestingly, some prep school bursaries are not being taken up as expected - no one coming forward.

Xenia: if you could just relinquish charitable status, many schools would have done so. But as the school as a charity owns all (I repeat all) the assets and charity law means they can only be disposed of if the charity winds up to another similar charitable endeavour. This means the schools would close.

Channel 4 News ran a special news report on St. James Independent Schools and the School of Economic Science.

You can see it at the link below

reference.ses-forums.org/?p=18

what is it with you and St James', roadrunning?

you seem a tad obsessional ...

I dont think I am basildonbond. Why not take a look at the Channel 4 News special report on St. James Independent Schools and decide for yourself.

You can watch it at:
reference.ses-forums.org/?p=18

thank you for that link - yet again

I just think it's a bit strange that all 7 of your posts are about the same topic

fwiw I think that whole school set-up is very dodgy, but maybe you could stop ramming it down people's throats??

I think you are right Basildonbond - the whole set-up is very "dodgy".

Far from wanting to "ram it down people's throats" all I would like to do is to draw peoples attention to the strong link between St. James Independent Schools and the highly controversial School of Economic Science.

I think parents considering sending their children to St. James should be clearly informed about this link, and what the School of Economic Science really is, before they send their children there, rather than being told about it after their children have been booked in.

If you can't discuss this on a Bulletin Board dealing with children's education, then where can you discuss it?

Westend Girl, I am surprised to hear you say:
"I know several people with sons at St James', none of them connected. They are all very happy with the school. One family are very committed to the Church of England and I'm sure they would be alert to any competing doctrine being peddled."

Perhaps I could quote from the website of the School of Economic Science which says:

"Shri Shantananda Saraswati:
In the mid 60s, the School made contact with a leading figure of the Vedantic tradition in India, Shri Shantananda Saraswati, from whom it received invaluable guidance in the study and practice of philosophy for over 30 years.

Through this connection with the School was introduced to the universal teaching known as Advaita, which means literally ?universal? or ?devoid of duality?. Since Shantananda?s death in 1997, similar guidance has been provided by his successor, Vasudevananda Saraswati."

Take a look for yourself at:
www.schooleconomicscience.org/about/history/