State or private education for bright child?

[Lorelai]

I've been thinking a lot lately about whether or not we should be thinking about private schools for DD1 (3.4), and would appreciate some advice (please bear in mind we have NO money, so any private education would have to be entirely scholarship/bursary).

She seems to be quite a bright child, and not just through my own rose-tinted glasses. Her playschool 'teachers' have commented on it several times, as has one of her Sunday School leaders (who is a primary school TA and has said that DD can do some things better than some of the children in her class). Having said that though, I am not keen on labelling her this early, or putting any pressure on her - I was a G&T child so I know from experience that it is better to let children find their own level. Personally, I decided I would rather not work hard enough to fulfill my potential, and I am happy with that decision. So I don't want her to be pressurised to perform.

We live in a relatively affluent area (although in a less affluent 'pocket'), so there are no really 'bad' schools locally. That said, there are of course some that are better than others, and unfortunately the closest primary schools to us are not the 'better' ones, and there is no way she would get into the 'good' ones. I'm not massively worried, as I know she is in no danger of leaving primary school unable to read etc (in fact I am pretty sure she will be reading before she starts - she can already recognise letters, understands that they make different sounds, and knows what some of those sounds are, compares similar sounding words and can write her name plus copy other words that I write down for her).

However, I am still wondering if we should be thinking of private schools, and if so then just for secondary or for primary too (have I left it too late for primary? She will be starting reception in Sept 2012). Any thoughts would be appreciated.

It depends if you are lucky enough (my opinion) to have access to a private school that's used to catering for very bright children. Some very selective schools take most of their intake from children who on standardised testing would be in the top 5-2%, so everyone is operating at the "primary school top table" level, and a significant number are way beyond, so teachers are differentiating at a subtler level.

Which bit is narrow minded? Have you met my kids? Have you met me? I know how to use capitol letters so I have you beat in literacy. G+T does enter into it at primary level and anyone on this thread who has dealt with the challenges of a G+T child would know that.
Maybe you are lucky with your local school. Not everyone is and those of us in inner-city areas who don't feel church schools are an option are the least fortunate of all. Maybe you are lucky that your children aren't gifted and you are just here to be a pain in the arse. I look forward to your next e.e. cummings style missive.

ahhh horse mad but you do have issues with spelling. I've not met your kids but I do know mine and i suspect yours will be hard pressed to be as bright

I live in a very mixed area where despite good state schools many choose to go private

Of course the private school will flatter you and tell you your child is g and t etc etc etc but then they need your cadh

Most people can't go for grammar schools, because there aren't any in most parts of the country.

My children aren't highly gifted, and I only have experience of one state primary and one highly selective prep (son moved at 11). However, in my case, I can tell you there's no comparison between the level of stimulation and intellectual excitement provided at the prep and the primary. The primary is a genuinely great school and does lots of things brilliantly within its constraints (financial and physical as well as curricular) - but for sheer academic (and musical, and artistic, and sporting) boundlessness the prep wins hands down.

NotaMopsa, I don't know where you live, but where I live private schools don't need to flatter people with false praise because they need cash; there are more than enough rich punters in London willing to pay and the selective schools can be as selective as they want.

Can I just make the point that if you really have "no money" as you have mentioned and are relying on bursaries etc the choice will not be yours. So in some ways you may as well try and get her in.

Also if you do get help with the fees remember that there are extras that go with being at a private school. For example the uniform is generally more expensive etc etc My parents struggled to send me to private school as a child and I really felt the "poor one" in the class which was hard at times. Having said that I appreciate all the opportunities it gave me, but it is hard being the only one not going on a skiing trip etc

Also with my "teacher hat on" nearly 4 is way to young to really tell whether your dd is clever. All children develop at different ages as you mentioned.

Lastly you have not left it too late. I looked at a private school this morning with a view for my ds1 starting in September.

Best thing to do is go and look at the schools and decide which one you feel is the right one.

Singersgirl, don't bother with NotaMopsa. Rather bizarre to compare children you've never met on a forum with parents you've never met on a topic you don't believe in.
NotaMopsa, Do you also get messages from god through the microwave? I'm sure that my kids only got into those nasty private schools because my car has enough dents or maybe they checked us out with the Inland Revenue or they accepted every tenth child through the door.

If you can get into a local school with great G+T provision or feel you can stretch and supplement at home, then grammar or private at secondary is win/win.

There are all sorts of valid arguments for and against private education, but if you want to do it and are prepared formasive sacrifices please don't let the thought of being the "poor relation" in the school put you off unduly.

It might be different in London but at my sons' prep school there were those struggling quite a lot, ancient Metro, mums looking as if they had all their clothes from a charity shop right through to one rock star and a lot of wealthy rural types. No one seemed to mind or bother. It was deemed highly sensible to buy all your uniform from the school second hand shop (DS2's final blazer had five name labels in it when I bought it - one on top of another!) and everyone chatted and mucked in together. There are always plenty of kids that don't go on the ski trip etc. but there are many resons for that.

horsemadmom DS would have just stared out the window and DD1 had trouble enough at a private mixed ability nursery- only one friend (also bonkers clever) and couldn't relate to the others at all.

tis your smuggery that gets my goat

there really are very clever children in the state system ....honestly 'narrow minded' is not seeing this

Lorelai - I would start dd off at the state primary with local friends and playmates

If you find that she is not happy then by all means think again but you may be pleasantly surprised.

I think that there can be a mis conception about private schools that the kids are 'brighter' this really is not so

You can always move TO the private sector but if the state primary schools you will struggle to go the other way.

My experience has been that the state system ( three different state primary schools) have done very well for my children of varying abilities... My eldest child who never seemed outstanding to me was streamed with equal ability children from 7/8 which really stretched him

I highly recommend the state system

Why the need to label a child at such a young age? I do not see the advantage. What difference are you hoping her being G&T will make? I am not meaning to sound arsey, I am genuinely interested. My DD was registered G&T at yr 2, and to be honest I have found no advantages, yes she went on a couple of Maths/Science activities, but that was really it. Just wondering what G&T should actually mean for the child?

Fluggybutt

There's a question - 'what should G&T actually mean for a child?'

Is "Dad at large" around to answer that?

To me, I'd like the lessons differentiated enough to keep her interested. That's all.

It doesn't happen, my child's teacher has admitted it's too much to have to do that for every lesson, every day. A position for which I have some sympathy; but then I think of the waste and the boredom poor child is going through and I have less sympathy.

(The 'once a term' stuff is complete horsh*t. It helps no one and just ticks a box.)

Fluffybutt - sorry I spelt your name wrong!

The kind of 'bright' that is bright enough to get a scholarship (and therefore the option of a means-tested bursary) at a really good private school will stand out a country mile in either the state setting or a private setting, and there will be opportunities for such children to transfer in on scholarships over a number of years - typically at 7, 11 or 13, and a truly brilliant child will still get noticed, whatever their setting. Saying that, there are probably only half a dozen scholarships in each private school at these ages, so a sports scholar would need to be the best sportsman in his year across the whole area (maybe covering 10 state schools). Likewise a maths scholar would need to be best in her year and better than the top maths children in every other school in the area, and so on. It is a high bar and the only child I ever met that I knew was a dead cert for a scholarship was so far off the general bell curve that it was obvious to everyone that he needed a very full-on academic education (he was also BTW very socially isolated from his own age group)

That said, there are good/bad states and good/bad private so you just need to watch whatever setting she is in and make your own judgement as you go along. You are already fortunate in the area you live in so I would relax and play it by ear.

Squiffy - I'm not sure I agree with the idea that very bright children stand out. I think often they can dumb down in order to fit in. My DS is not a stand out in his class - yet I have just had him tested and he is in the 99.7 percentile (FSIQ). Completely under the radar. Who knows what he should be achieving or is capable of ?

What this has to do with state v private I'm not sure!

Kattt, I quite like Fluggybutt, might do a name change :)

My DD is now coming upto yr 9, her state school claims to be differential, and to a point it is, as really does help those students who are struggling. But by the teachers own admissions, there is only so much they can do for my daughter, they are bound by the NC, they have a huge range of abilities in one class, etc. I am lucky she has won an academic scholarship for yr 9 entry that will last through 6th form aswell. I have no wish for her to be hothoused, take exams early etc. all I want and she wants is to be challenged and be excited by learning, at her pace, not the pace of 25 other children. Who knows, I maybe asking for the impossible, but at very least I know she will be streamed with other students who have similar abilities.

fluffybutt

You're lucky, mine is literally bored to tears.

"There's a question - 'what should G&T actually mean for a child?'

Is "Dad at large" around to answer that?

To me, I'd like the lessons differentiated enough to keep her interested. That's all. "

Sorry, I don't come here that often so may miss questions directed at me.

G&T shouldn't mean anything different. A G&T child should get what every other child is entitled to. They should have their needs catered for, their interest maintained and their achievement at the top of their potential.

State schools simply can't do that. They can only make the right sounds while they keep your child freewheeling. Some parents are content with that and they are perfectly entitled to aspire, in a best case scenario, for their child to be "happy". Others seem satisfied their child's ability is being properly catered.

I ain't.

School isn't a babysitting service. Differentiating enough to keep my child interested isn't enough. It's bullsh*t. It's incompetence, it's lack of resources.

That old argument of what will s/he do if he completes GCSE at 12, s/he can't go to university doesn't wash with me anymore either.

A child should progress at the speed determined by the child, not by resource constraints. If my DS can cover a whole year's work in a particular subject within a week/month he should be free to explore the subject in more depth or use the rest of the time exploring other interests, be it astronomy or animal husbandry - not stuck for x hours a week doing "extension" work because the teacher can't really do much else with him.

That's why we decided to home educate. It's been great fun so far. I highly recommend it for those in a position to HE. Better than private. And don't worry about all that socialisation nonsense. HE kids are better socialised than school kids. It's worth researching HE!

DAL - tempted but no, can't HE. Sorry to hijack thread but have you seen
teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/mixed-ability-teaching-doesnt-exist/

Anyway, I think the point is, that on all evidence private would probably be better for a bright child.

We've just turned down a scholarship for my very bright son at a very academic prep school - he got a top scholarship for yr 3 entry, but we still have to find 50% of the fees, plus all of the extras. We would have moved him in a heartbeat, but we have 3 other (bright) children and want to be fair. So we do extension work with him at home and challenge him, and encourage his learning and curiosity alongside his very good state primary. His teachers have told me he will make it to super selective grammar school, so with the money we 'save' by not going private, we can do loads of activities for him and his siblings.

In your shoes, I would probably start in the state system and see how you go - DH and I went through the private system from 4, so the State system is alien to us, but a good one will not let down the bright ones.

A good state primary will not let down the bright ones. Apologies for poor last para!

PanicMode - You say that you'd move him in a heartbeat if you could afford it. Surely that should be the advice. If you possibly can afford it, chances are private is best for bright child.

Not necessarily. I have had many issues with our current school and have looked around all the private schools within a 20 miles radius of our house.
(So I have looked at 6).

For KS1 (which is what I am interested in at the moment) ALL apart from one had crammed classes and spaces outside were non existent, class sizes were between 22 and 24 with 1 teacher and 1 TA and when I looked at the work the most able were doing (I asked specifically) it was very very similar to what they are covering for the more able in my children's classes.

Despite this, one school impressed me and I thought the overall level was higher, but with the others I saw some very uninspirational teaching, like a lot of worksheets and workbooks on desks and in one particular school the children showing me round told me that the displays in one classroom were the ones they had done 5 years ago!

I read on here that some private schools offer 13-15 in a class and I think that would make more of a difference and I would pay for that. Also if I am paying so much money I would want a teacher and a TA for 13-15 children and decent outdoor spaces as I think these are important at this age.

So it will vary a lot from location to location and ime you really need to look carefully if you are willing to spend a lot of money. I would also beware of privately owned schools and would prefer ones with charitable status as it would give me more confidence that all the profit is redirected into investment in the school as opposed to making a profit for someone.