Thinking of sending DC to average state primary even though I can afford excellent private pre-prep - would you do the same?

[sanam2010]

I was looking at the many excellent private pre-preps here in London before DC was born and had already chosen my favourites, but since DC was born I have had a complete U-turn and want to send her to the local community primary instead - took some time to convince DH but he is now on board. We could afford private for two or three children so looking at other people, colleagues etc it seems my choice is very unusual and I am wondering what people think about my reasoning:

PRO-STATE

• The local community primary is just 0.2 miles from our house, right next to a beautiful local park, whereas all the private schools I like are 10-20min drive. There is one good local private school in walking distance (Thomas'), but it wouldn't be my top pick
• Although the Ofsted report is only "good", the state school has a new headteacher and they do seem to be a vibrant school working hard towards outstanding status. Also, the report notes many children in the school come from immigrant families and have below average skills when they start, but that the school does an excellent job to get them to average level or better, so the teaching is good.
• the report also notes that the school is outstanding in terms of children's welfare and care and that the children are very happy, have a huge playground and that the parents are very satisfied with the school
• In terms of afterschool care, there is an outstanding Catholic school next to it where all children from the borough going to state school can go until 6pm every day, it is organised by the teachers of the outstanding school. The private schools on the other hand usually don't have after-school activities all week and only up to 4.30 or 5pm, so as I work full-time I would have to pay an afterschool nanny on top to pick up the children from school and bring them home and take care of them until we come home from work
• In terms of the curriculum, the state primary teaches Spanish as a modern language, which I find much more useful than French which all the private schools teach. I know private schools can teach other languages but French is compulsory, and as my DC is already growing up trilingually I am not eager for her to have to learn French on top of that at such an early age
• Although we can easily afford private, I still think we could do something more useful with the money. With afterschool clubs, uniform, after-school nanny etc I estimate the cost of private here in London will be 16-20k per child per year, and that will add up over the years
• I guess I can try state and if I am not happy always switch DC to private at 7+, at least I will have saved 60k or so
• I also like the idea of DC getting to know normal children from the neighbourhood rather than being driven to private school further away and only interacting with children of investment bankers and diplomats

PRO-PRIVATE

• The academics obviously, especially as Ofsted report suggests the local state primary does not cater well towards very able children (though it is very good at bringing below average children up to speed)
• In terms of the environment I like the idea of DC studying together with children who have a very good work ethic and desire to learn. I assume that at least at very good private schools the work ethic would be much better

I don't see many more reasons to choose private, so looking at that list you will understand why I am hesitating to even register DC with any of the private schools that I had looked at (I was looking at Cameron House School in Chelsea, Eaton Square School in Belgravia and Knightsbridge School - they all look fantastic to be honest but I am still not sure it is really worth it).

What would you do?

Vanitypear, surely your DD's school are aleays going to tell you that what they offer is what she needs?

Also, this registering at/before birth crap. IME, the very best schools do not entertain this. They have a cut off date for applications then they assess. How is it possibly highly selective if it's first come, first served and all the places have gone by the time your child is 6wks old? Or is it highly selective of its parents?

Do these schools ever have any children born after Christmas?

Sure, summer born babies often struggle in Reception but it evens out and is no reflection of their intelligence. It's just a maturity thing. Good independent schools know this and even adjust their entrance procedures accordingly. If you have two children sitting the 7+ this week where one was born 1/9/03 and the other 31/8/04 ie an entire year apart, you can hardly expect them to perform the same.

All other factors being equal, their scores will be closer at 11+ and the difference will be negligible by GCSE. Good schools know this which is why they do not entertain the 'register at birth' nonsense.

montysorry - there are some excellent pre-preps in central London that are non-selective and rely on early registration. Some assess, some don't. Some take the first 5 children born in each month for example, others fill their waiting list from September, others assess. Call it "crap" all you like but it does happen. I don't think you can generalise about what "good" schools do, because entry procedures vary from school to school. Kensington Prep won't look at you before the year prior to reception whereas Pembridge Hall, you have to call from the labour ward, Bute House is a ballot.

And it wasn't my daughter's school that said the comment to me that you picked up on about meeting needs, but her nursery.

2 Things:

Firstly, I apologise as I read your post wrong. I though you said, 'they said' rather than 'that said'

Secondly, maybe 'crap' was the wrong word but I do think it's nonsense and a bit like the 'Next' sale was 10 or so yrs ago. People (not me) started queuing at 7am then 5am until half the women under 40 thought their future happiness relied on them getting £10 off a badly made coat.

If a school is looking for the brightest kids with the most potential they won't find them by working a first come first served policy. Of course, in West London they are going to get a pretty good cohort regardless but, IMO, it's a strange system to get caught up in.

We chose a school that was heavily over subscribed too but there was no advantage from putting their names down at 6mth over putting their names down at 3yrs. They assessed all the kids at 4+ and a less than half were offered a place based on the assessment alone. It seemed a much more sensible system. Of course, there are also excellent pre-preps/preps if your child is less academic but only in a small patch of London do you need to register whilst still breastfeeding!

Oh and by 'good' I meant getting the top academic results in the country. And yes, of course I understand that schools can be good for various reasons but that was my meaning of 'good' in that instance.

We have had to change schools this year as we moved from the NW to the S coast. The bit of the NW we lived in had some of the highest achieving schools in the country such as Withington Girls (No1 or 2 last year, I think). There was a huge amount of competition for places at quite a few of the schools but I don't know of any that held a register at birth policy.

montysorry - I don't disagree with your viewpoint. I'm not defending that system - far from it! - and we chose a school with the sort of entrance policy you describe (others think that process is ridiculous at 4+ though, don't they). I agree that the register-when-born policy mainly seems to apply in small insane and very wealthy pockets of London but I mentioned it as OP names 3 schools in Knightsbridge/Chelsea etc which, as far as I know, is an example of where this craziness prevails.

The other option is move house!

Regarding choosing a school, I can only repeat others' advice to have a look around the schools before making up your mind. However, I can tell you there is nothing particularly unusual for parents who can afford private education opting for a state school, especially in early years. I attended a state primary school in an affluent part of west London (admittedly many years ago) and significant numbers of my classmates moved on to private education at the end of what is now year 2 or year 3. This would also be an option for you. On the other hand, if you are still happy with the school and your daughter is doing well by then, that would then be a good reason to keep her there.

It is a minefield. The state school which we are in catchment for has a small hard playground and no grass, is by a major road and is still quite a way from our house. And its report isn't brilliant as most of the children arrive with less than average attainment in English.

DS is a chatterbox, already learning letters on his own at 3, and is verging on hyper, so needs lots of exercise room, so I was from the outset about its suitability.

The private nursery to prep that I looked at had 83 acres, woodland walks, and fantastic facilities. And the boys' results speak for themselves. Lots of my colleagues have sent their sons there, so I have had lots of feedback over the years about the place. I fell in love with it pretty instantly.

I was so relieved when DS got past the assessment and into the nursery school. But if he doesn't turn out to be academic, then I will shift him to somewhere he's more comfortable. After all, he's not me. He may not enjoy playing with maths for fun!

It is very difficult to know what your child will be like several years ahead.

But taking tours of schools can be fascinating. It is amazing what you end up picking up on, and at the end of the day you picturing your child in there.

I have to say I also found very different responses amongst the schools when I asked for a tour. How they treat potential parents is itself quite interesting.

its a fact that you are more likely to get a first at degree level if you attand a state school!

i would save your money and go for the school you that your instinct tells you is the right one. yes she may read and do her tables a little earlier at the private school but does it really matter if they are pushed really hard at the age of 5 as by the time she leaves secondry theer is very little diffrence results and as i said better degrees.

"its a fact that you are more likely to get a first at degree level if you attand a state school!"

Ok, I'll bite. Let's see the proof that this stacks up at primary level.

I never said that they wouldnt be more advanced at primary level. i am certainly not debating the fact that at the end of year 1 the children at a private school will be on a higher ORT level than children at a state.

my point is that the end result is likely to be the same and that as long as the children are happy, settled and learning at primary age that is all that matters.

If all the state schools is the area were very poor and were under special measures ect then brilliant send the kids private i would do the same if i could afford it. But she has found a school which she obviously really likes, is close by, meets her child care needs and is free!!! She will meet children from all walks of life and will have a much more varied school experience, which i think is great.

I haven't had time to read the whole thread but judging by your choice of schools we live very close to each other.

My DT's attend the Kindergarten of G- H---- (if you can't work out the name or want any more info just PM me) in Chelsea, which I think is fab. We are moving to NY in May, but otherwise they would continue to reception in September. The class sizes are small but each child is really encouraged and taught at their own place. The school is a few minutes walk from the Royal Hospital Grounds, which they use for sport, and it also has its own fully functioning garden with the children look after. Most children walk to school or live very close, so there is definitely a community and neighbourhood feel.

I think most clubs are for 6 and up, but their are some open to reception, and these last to 5 on most days. They definitely make the most of the central location in terms of visits and educational trips. My DT's are only in the kindergarten but I am pretty sure they offer a variety of languages, but I think you would have to enquire to the specifics. The school also has the advantage of being co-ed up to 8, so you have both the advantages of a single sex education, and mixed gender friendships.

If this doesn't appeal my nieces and nephews attend H- H- in Hans Crescent which my sister is very very positive about. You didn't say in the OP, but if you have daughters have you thought about Faulkner House or Glendower. DH and I thought they were both lovely but liked the former more, and if we didn't have DS I probably would have sent DD there.

If you want anymore info, have any questions don't worry about PMing me :)

Wow my attempt at privacy slightly backfired... try this one

I haven't had time to read the whole thread but judging by your choice of schools we live very close to each other.

My DT's attend the Kindergarten of G..... H....(if you can't work out the name or want any more info just PM me) in Chelsea, which I think is fab. We are moving to NY in May, but otherwise they would continue to reception in September. The class sizes are small but each child is really encouraged and taught at their own place. The school is a few minutes walk from the Royal Hospital Grounds, which they use for sport, and it also has its own fully functioning garden with the children look after. Most children walk to school or live very close, so there is definitely a community and neighbourhood feel.

I think most clubs are for 6 and up, but their are some open to reception, and these last to 5 on most days. They definitely make the most of the central location in terms of visits and educational trips. My DT's are only in the kindergarten but I am pretty sure they offer a variety of languages, but I think you would have to enquire to the specifics. The school also has the advantage of being co-ed up to 8, so you have both the advantages of a single sex education, and mixed gender friendships.

If this doesn't appeal my nieces and nephews attend H... H.... in Hans Crescent which my sister is very very positive about. You didn't say in the OP, but if you have daughters have you thought about Faulkner House or Glendower. DH and I thought they were both lovely but liked the former more, and if we didn't have DS I probably would have sent DD there.

If you want anymore info, have any questions don't worry about PMing me

flakaty the end result, as you put it, is palpably not the same.

Privately educated pupils attain a disproportionate amount of the highest grades in the core subjetcs at both GCSE and A level.

They take up a disproportionate amount of places on the most sought after courses at RG unis.

Then, they are vastly, ridiculously even, over represented in the best paid sectors of employment.

Politics, finance, law, senior management, media, publishing, academia...all swimming with privately educated individuals.

Sadly true. There are exceptions, though, and not all that rare. My neice is currently doing a PhD in Oxford (having been an undergrad there) and is state educated througout. She's bright, but not a genius. BUT she had a lot of parental support.

Do a similar proportion of all state educated people attempt to get into politics, finance, law, senior management, etc, in the first place (as compared to the proportion of privately educated people who aspire to these sectors)? And if not, is this entirely because they don't think they can, because they feel their education is lacking, or partly because many don't want to and therefore don't apply?

And in any event, isn't it more relevant to find out the difference in the proportion of state educated individuals whose parents work in these types of profession or sector, but who do not enter these sorts of areas of employment themselves, compared to the proportion of privately educated individuals whose parents work in these professions or sectors already, but who do not choose to enter these sectors themselves????? How big is that difference, if there is one, and if there is one, how much does it relate to the greater sense of freedom to choose absolutely any path in life that someone bright from an educated background with a state education might feel in comparison to their expensively educated peers (who will certainly be getting a lot more "peer pressure" from those with whom they were educated to choose such professions for themselves)?

I would guess that about a third of parents in my dd's class could have afforded to send their children private but chose to send their children to our wonderful local state school. I had thought we would be by far the wealthiest parents - but am eating humble pie over that one!!!

Couldn't be happier with my decision. It was my gut instinct, everything just fitted in with my values and views on life/nurturing/learning. Lots of extra's offered, if sunny they go outside to teach where possible, lots of creative learning. One lovely positive is that they are not so materialistic, caravan by the sea just as good as trip to Asia in their eyes. I like that the parents have vastly different jobs: there are doctors, lawyers and teachers but also chefs, owners of local sweet shop etc. Oddly, I suspect her class is less multi cultural than the private school.

In one term she has gone from reading one word and only being able to write her name, to reading books, writing many words, counting to 100, especially taking into consideration that there is only one 10 minute piece of homework each week, and I am far from pushy, although often do fun stuff like I Spy and rhyming words and making up silly stories etc.

We will put aside money for any further education, for getting on the housing market, for sailing around the world etc etc...plenty of wonderful, inspiring things to put that money towards.

rabbitstew - something else to take into consideration.....I get the strong feeling that a great deal of people who send their children private want their children to go into the professional fields you mention, and by which you rate whether that child is successful.

Although I wouldn't discourage my child from going to Oxbridge (too much) I know far too many 'management/professional' people who hate their jobs and I will rate her success according to her happiness and lifestyle choices. I know many lawyers in particular, but less than a handful whom enjoy it.

I would like her to have the courage to set up a business. Our local school encourages entrepreneurial spirit from a young age. If you go private, there is incredible pressure it seems to get in to the best universities and then on into some of the most traditional careers. It is really offputting.

gladis - I hope you aren't really meaning to imply that I, personally, rate whether a child is successful according to whether or not they enter those professions/sectors?! I thought my post made it quite clear that I was questioning that perspective, which was actually expressed by Litchick.

(And if still in doubt, I quote the end of my post again: "How big is that difference, if there is one, and if there is one, how much does it relate to the greater sense of freedom to choose absolutely any path in life that someone bright from an educated background with a state education might feel in comparison to their expensively educated peers (who will certainly be getting a lot more "peer pressure" from those with whom they were educated to choose such professions for themselves)?")

It wasn't personal. Just something that seems blindingly obvious to so many and yet is never reported in that light. I cannot fathom why the undertone of study after study, report after report assumes high academic achievement is tied to lifelong happiness.

Good points made very well, Gladis. I could have typed your post when dd started at her school (but not expressed it as well!).

Sorry and tired, so read your post too fast and missed that sentence. Time to go to bed!

I want my children to have genuine freedom to be able to choose for themselves whether to have a career in a "traditional profession", a practical field, a creative field or an entrepreneurial field. I wouldn't want them to feel excluded from any options to suit their abilities and personality. I certainly didn't feel that my state education limited my choices in any way, nor do I feel that my state educated children are being limited - quite the opposite. If I do start to feel that they are being disadvantaged, I have the good fortune to be able to afford a wider selection of education choices for my children than many other people do. I recognise the fact that coming from an intelligent, educated, close-knit, well-off family is such a huge advantage in itself that the requirement to pay huge sums of money for a private education is not remotely essential to enable my children to have genuine choices in life.