Primary private vs secondary private education

[Beth1234]

Hi there,

I can afford, either primary or secondary private education for my child. I'm totally confused as to whether to chose to educate my child privately in primary or in secondary. Will really appreciate your thoughts/ views & mainly experience on which is better to privately educate?

Many thanks
Beth

Sorry - got carried away there!

You do need to look at concrete things too like reputation, which secondaries they get chidlren into , how many scholarships to fee paying subsequent schools etc, how good the music and choirs are - if the school is b ig enough to have them and field teams or whatever the child's hobbies might be. I would go by reputation and where most of the children go on to at p rivate primary level. You work back from where you want children to be - if you want them on the dole one route, if you want them at a good university doing proper subjects that might help them get employed you go down a different route.

Methinks Xenia gives too little credit to the child in question. You can't plot your children's whole lives out for them, working back from your desired end point to their babyhood, without risking getting your fingers very badly burnt. Not leaving anything to chance is tantamount to saying you don't trust your child to get on in life without you or their school looming over them to keep them on the right path. An intelligent, independent minded child might just rebel in explosive ways if they sense their parents have a specific end-goal in sight for them.

Of course you don't want your children going to a school which prevents them from reaching their highest goals and aspirations, whatever they may turn out to be. But you don't need to opt for the "best" private schools to keep your children's options open. It is NOT a choice between the dole or good-university-doing-the-right-subjects - life isn't that black and white.

It certainly helps, as does feeding them well , reading to them, loving them etc etc We all try to do our best and I assume for most of us the aim is that they grow up healthy balanced and happy; but if you want them also to have the chance to go to a good university it helps if they go to certain schools rather than others. There would be few parents on mumsnet who do not choose their child's school with care.

Anyway 50% of chidlren have IQs under 100 so these types of schools are totally out. 120 was the standard university grammar school level IQ and most children are well under that so the schools at the top of the listings are not even worth considering for most. They just wouldn't get in.

I'd say prep, lay the foundations and your circumstances may be that you stay in private for secondary anyway but you can never buy that time back again.
Ps I don't think preps are bubble like at all, most are very ordinary families who's parents have done well for themselves, what's wrong with that ?

Nothing at all wrong with that.

For me, 'bubble' just means that some sectors of society are excluded. Its a built in limitation. And for us, it is important that our children grow up having relationships with people from a variety of economic backgrounds. Thats all.

Peter Lampl in today's Times suggests the biggest help to social mobility to get people into the top of jobs (although he is also interested in the long rump at the bottom who never could) would be 50 - 100 of the top independents being means blind for entry so if you pass the exams even if you need 100% funding the state pays that. I think manchester Grammar is trying to go down that route although only with bursaries which is much harder for individual schools to fund.

Don't some schools do 100% bursaries already?

Unless you are very, very sure of your financial position in 7 or so years time, I would go for private prep (or be aware that private may prove not to be an option at any point - if your income plummeted, then you would be ok in bursary territory, but you could easily be stuck in the unassisted but find it unaffordable middle. The rhetoric about truly "needs blind" entrance has been around for several years now and I wouldn't want to count on it actually happening at a handy school by a specific date).

As noted above, prep schools (assuming you're in a good one) will offer a great deal, and will be formative of the children's attitudes to schools and learning. This will stand them in good stead for transfer to any kind of school - even if you only option is a middling comprehensive, there is a good chance of the top sets all round. State school applications to top universities are positively encouraged.

I do not think state schooling is synonymous with crappy peer group or paucity of ambition.

I think to widen access you need to inform people what is available. I looked at scholarships/bursaries for Ds. I was amazed to discover that had I applied when at school I'd have walked into one. My parents didn't have a clue about private schools.

MollieO - yes, but a full 100% is rare.

I doubt we'll see the return of the Assisted Place policy (abolished in 1997, as one of the early acts of the incoming new administration), which is what the Lampl article appears to be describing.

The school I'm considering next for Ds makes a big point of saying that a 100% bursary is available for those that pass the exam. There is a 50% scholarship for everyone who passes and that can be topped up to 100% (the other 50% is means tested).

And the assisted places scheme was mostly used by posh people pretending their self employed earnings were very low and getting away with it rather than every state school primary child in the country being watched by teachers to see who is really really bright and might well do very well in a competitive entrance test at 11 to get into Manchester grammar and similar private very academic day schools around the country which it the Lampl plan.

Lampl has been supporting the return of the assisted places scheme since at least 2006, and possibly since 1997 (with the foundation of the Sutton Trust).

He has also been calling for better means to open access, especially for state schools to encourage applications to elite universities. The Sutton trust funds a number of schemes for this, and also to pay school fees.

There was not widespread abuse of the previous Assisted Places scheme; but even if there were, it hasn't stopped him calling for its return (all you would need was a robust means testing system - perhaps these days it could be merged with TCs?)

Encouraging schools to identify and encourage possible applicants was always part of the scheme, but of course was very much in the hands of individual heads and teachers whose performance in this task would have varied.

But as Labour abolished the scheme (and put the money into funding the free preschool entitlement) and the Tories disavowed it in 2007, I cannot see the state becoming involved again in the short/medium term. What the Sutton Trust doe, though, is very much to be applauded - both in terms of funding/provision and in keeping the issue in the educational debate.

The idea that testing can identify the "brightest" kids is dodgy, since the evidence suggests that tests favour socially advantaged kids.

It's hard to work out what the local schools might be like in reality. There are reports and statistics, and we've been to look round, but without knowing parents / children at the schools, it is difficult to get a proper feel for places.

I think that it would be difficult, having gone down the private primary route, to move to a comprehensive secondary. The overall cost of both is really, really scary.

In oversubscribed areas like ours (Surrey), wonder whether kids from ordinary state primaries may be at a disadvantage in applying for selective secondaries, whether state or private. Especially private, since the selection seems more subjective (e.g. heads' report, no published test scores etc.)

Well it was the removing of the 11+ and testing at 11 which is the biggset single factor for working class very bright children not finding it so easy to get to the top. We siphoned them off from their cultuer and class at 11 and plonked them into a middle class world with middle class aspirations at 11 and that allowed them to break through. We have not come up with a better system. The current system works less well.

In terms of applying for selective secondaries plenty of those wealthy people trying to help do things like pay for 2 years at prep school so that the children are likely to get into the selectives in due course, not just hoping they will be raised to the standard by their state primaries. It's a known means.