Do facilities have an impact on a rounded education

[neuroticwhome]

I have been looking at schools for DC for a couple of months now, and with the final decision looming, I am keen to hear experiences/opinions on whether other MNers feel that having facilities such as sports fields, pitches, swimming pools or nature areas on-site makes any difference. Would you exclude a school due to small classrooms and no green space? Academics are important to me, but I also want my DC to have fun at school and develop a range of interests.

Schools with excellent facilities use them as a selling point and say that they are essential. Conversely, schools without their own facilities say that they are not restricted by leasing facilities from external sites. But in reality, does the inconvenience of having to travel to use local sporting facilities restrict the amount/range of sport and extra curricular activities or not? How important is this at prep/ primary level?

short answer: Yes, I believe that not having on-site facilities can adversely affect a child's all round education.

but... some fab schools bus their children to sports centres etc. and spend a lot of time and effort transporting them to other schools to share their facilities so don't rule a school out just because of this.

I think that access to facilities is important, and how these are used. Eg what proportion of children learn an instrument/play in an ensemble/get to perform in a concert. How many sports are on offer and how do children get to select these? Do they have a chance to compete, and again how many and how often? What happens if the weather is poor - is there an indoor alternative or do they end up watching a dvd?

If you are looking round pay close attention to the noticeboards - see how many musical activities there are, how many sporting activities. Do the newsletters stack up with what appears to be offered in the prospectus? Is the indoor hall suitable for drama and sport? If not which one wins?

As my children's primary years fly by I am more convinced that a wide amount of participation in these years is vital. It is much hard to persuade teenagers to participate in something for the sake of the experience (in fact it is often harder to persuade them at all)! Having gained confidence by participating young children are more likely to participate when they are older and the opportunities have to be sought rather than given.

Thank you for the responses

On a visit to an otherwise lovely school, on a rainy day, some of the children were wearing their PE kits in class, as their trip to the local rugby club for sports had been cancelled due to the weather. The only school hall was being used for music lessons and then lunch service. This rang alarm bells for me, about the physical size of the school and facilities. From the timetable posted on their website, most of the extra curricular clubs are run at lunchtime. So I assume that the hall will often be occupied for lunch. It is going to rain a lot during the course of the school year!

I really agree with Ladymuck. Primary aged children need to try lots of activities, and obviously the easier the access, the more chance of that happening.

I have dcs at 2 prep schools. Ds1's school have huge playing fields, swimming pool, separate music house, fully equipped science labs...but a tiny hall, which is unsuitable for anything other than small performances. Admittedly they will play rugby in most weather, but there is really no indoor alternative if the weather is too poor for outdoor play. Everything is very competitive so even if you have a say football mad boy, he may still only get into the D team. And there is less opportunity for drama, where again boys audition for parts, and not all get one.

Ds2's smaller school has less space, and less impressive facilities, but they make the most of what they have. Music lessons happen wherever possible, in almost any nook or cranny. And their hall is big enough for gym or to use as a theatre. As a smaller school everyone gets involved in almost everything, and there are loads of class productions.

The other contrast between the schools is that ds1's school is boys-only and ds2's is co-ed. Actually ds2 has a greater range of sports to choose from, even though ds1's school is known as a sporty school.

So in my case, whilst ds1's school would have on the surface the more impressive facilities, not every child gets to benefit from them, whereas I would say ds2 is getting the more rounded education despite less impressive facilities (and at about 60% of the cost).

But it is very hard to work this out from a visit I think. But at least you are asking the right questions!

Hmm. I don't think think the school I was considering has it's own mini bus. They usually walk or hire a coach to other facilities. It also seems to offer a comparatively limited range of extra-curricular activities on offer (although a good reputation for music). It doesn't offer things like swimming, ballet, theatre clubs etc, so I would need to take DDs to these myself. No mention of sports like hockey or cross country in the PE curriculum either.

ladymuck - i ds2's school is so much better why does ds1 go to the other one? Not criticising, there must be a good reason, just asking

Good question. Ds2 started off at the same school as ds1. Essentially ds1 was doing well, getting into sports teams, choir, swim squad etc, and was with a great bunch of friends, so socially may have found the move difficult. Ds2 on the other hand was small for his age, and young for his year, so didn't really stand much chance in a very competitive environment.

Hence, it isn't just the facilities that matter, but how much access your child will get. Ds1's school has a fantastic reputation locally - I just think that it doesn't do well for every child.