Everyone who lives near me and can afford it seems to be sending their kids to private schools…

[sanssucre]

That's it really, I guess I've just been really surprised that none of them has even considered the local primary schools. DD will start school next year and I'd just always assumed she would go to one of the decent primary schools nearby (there are several and I'm confident we'll get into one).

Thing is, we could actually afford to go private (it would mean some sacrifices but it's do-able), we've just always wanted her to have local friends, go to a nearby school, mix with a wide variety of people etc so I haven't explored the independent option at all. However, in all honesty, the fact that so many people in a similar financial situation to ours haven't even bothered to look round the state primaries is making me wonder if I'm being hopelessly optimistic. But seriously, is it really worth spending thousands of pounds a term to teach a 4/5/6-year-old? I'm not being sarcastic or judgy, it's a genuine question, I just honestly want to know what can be so terrible about a reasonable state primary school that so many people wouldn't even give it a second look.

I appreciate that my post might raise a few heckles. I know we're very fortunate to be able to afford private education if that is the way we choose to go. I also understand that this is a very contentious/emotive issue but I'd be really grateful for some honest opinions.

At our local state secondary, only 36% of kids get 5 GCSEs.

So don't think it is a question of "only getting 10As and a B rather than 17 As".

.... and the other 64% are the kids who are never going to be allowed through the doors of a private school, and hence will never ruin the averages of said private school.

My godson left school with 11 A* GCSEs. Does that count as a string?

He went to a state school.

Dear Dozer, where do you live?

ORMIRIAN, yes very often they leave secondary with 11A's and then two or three A or 11,12,13A all from state school.

irksome you have misread my analogy vis a vis risk management.

I did try to make the distinction of it being "good private schools" that send out all their pupils with strings of As. It's certainly true of the one I went to. But even the less selective/good ones don't have statistics worse than a typical comprehensive.

Even if you lump ALL private schools together (good/bad + selective/non-selective) they still massively outperform ALL the state schools put together. It doesn't of course mean definitively that my child will do better if I send him/her to a private school over a state school. There are good reasons for why there will be a statistical difference between the two sectors that aren't related to the teaching or facilities. But do they account for all of them? Simple answer = I don't know.

Absolutely not true, we had discussions about this matter on previous pages of this tread, certainly where we live, local state (grammar school) out performs local good private in the last good five years, albeit it is a grammar school.

We live in central London and the two acadamies near us have very patchy results the best one got 65% of children through 5 gcses this year but only 34% the year before (41% and 25% the two years before that). The other is 45% this year 38% last year and 20% and 17% the two previous years. Hopefully this is a sign of an upward trend rather than a move to vocational qualifications that count as multiple GCSEs.

Sadly there are always police outside the lower performing academy and a pupil was stabbed outside the other acadamy earlier this year.

Some kids may get 11A* from these academies but I don't think the odds are in their favour.

Dear CHAZSBRILLIANTATTITUDE, bad and sad, but unfortunately it's the story of inner city comps. Statistics are very different in different parts of the country, which should provide us with some comfort.

You are missing my point.

You need to add the stats of all the state schools (across the country) together. Compare that with all the private schools nationally. Even locally, you would need to collate your secondary modern's results with those of the grammars to get the true picture.

And I'll bet your local rubbish private schools do statistically better than the secondary moderns.

It's a very crude analysis, obviously.

ORMIRIAN, well done , good for him.

Probably they do, Mrs Mipp.
Because they don't let the children in who might bring down the average.
Those children go to state school, because they're too poor or not clever enough.
Do you see?

Mrs Mipp, all that a side, I am still very happy that I did not have to cough up thousands of pounds for the education of my DD and he did brilliantly well, we took state route and did not look back, also there is a lot to be said for the ability of individual child, won't you agree? Sometimes you have to pay to try and bring the best in your child and sometimes fortunately you don't.

But say a school gets 60% A-Cs, and 40% not.... on the day your child enters that school, his/her chances don't become 4 in 10 of achieving fewer than 5 good GCSEs, right? Or are you saying that's how those statistics operate? Surely it is just that that school has an intake of which around 40% are less able than the rest... and always would do.

MrsMipp your point is one of the reasons we will continue with private education at secondary level for our DS's (unless we move to an area with outstanding state schools / grammar schools ).

It is possible that my sons could go to either of the academies in my earlier post and come out with a "string" of A*s. However, it is more likely that they will get better results if they go to a good private school. Nothing in life is certain but it is pretty clear which option will given them the best chance.

irksome - it always seems to be in disadvantaged areas that the numbers of children attaining well is low and I cannot believe that is just because these children are poor they are not clever.

There is far more at play imncluding poor teaching, disruption, low aspirtion etc.

Well it is difficult because you could never know, all things being equal, what a child would/should get at GCSE. But I still maintain that the statistics at a given school do not translate to your own child's odds.

zlaya if you live in a grammar school area then you are using socially segregated education. See this study by the Sutton Trust for more information

"Rates of Eligibility for Free School Meals at the Top State Schools
1 October 2005

Literature Review - 134kb PDF

This study looks at the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals (FSM) at the top 200 secondary state schools (6% of schools), and the levels of FSM eligibility in the postcode sectors in which the schools are sited. The study finds that the overall rate of FSM eligibility at the top schools is 3.0%, compared to a national secondary school average of 14.3%."

link here

On Grammar schools in particular
"Eighty-percent of the top schools are grammar schools, and although these were found
to be more socially exclusive - with an overall proportion of pupils eligible for FSM of
2.1%, compared to 6.0% at the comprehensives - much of the difference can be
explained by the fact that grammar schools are sited in more affluent areas, with
average FSM rates of 11.7%, compared to 15.7% for comprehensives. The overall gap
between school and area rates is similar for both school types ? at just under 10
percentage points ? indicating that the intakes of both are similarly unrepresentative of
their local areas."

There is also research that shows that the Grammar school system does not improve the social mobility of working class children

Guardian article

So grammar schools may be free but they are socially segregated and unrepresentative of the wider community.

irksome I agree with that.

zlaya, we are in leafy Surrey, an area with non-selective secondary schools.

Agree with chaz with respect to grammar schools. Elsewhere in Surrey there are some "super-selective" grammars. There is research showing that privately-educated DC (for primary) are over-represented in admissions to selective state secondaries.

I admit we are probably lucky, but we did not always live here, DD spent his primary school years at inner London very diverse and badly preforming local community, where there was large percentage of children with free school meals.All that was important for us at the time( We did not have a choice)is to help DD as much as possible to rise above the statistics and come into his own, which he did, at the end of his primary school, we moved, DD had to sit two entrance exams combined with interview to be even considered for place in local Grammar school. We informed DD's old primary of his achievement, they were proud and with a card made up by year 6 pupils wished him all the best for the future, so you see just because he spent his first six years of schooling at relatively poorly performing school, it doesn't mean that teaching at that school was bad, it doesn't mean that the teachers are inadequate, it means some families have to work harder with their children and that family set up in general has to be made right.

Yes, yes irksome. Of course all private schools end up being selective to some degree as they by their very nature exclude the (potentially) less desirable pupils. But does it explain everything? Can you honestly be sure that a child will do exactly as well in a good comprehensive as an average private school?

I can't be sure, and I'm saying that as someone who will be choosing the good comprehensive. I'm hopeful. But far from certain.

Don't more private school (ie probably richer) kids end up at University because it costs more money to get through Uni these days?

I don't know, I would not be surprised if, in a parallel universe where my dd went to private school, she might get put in for another few GCSEs, or that, if she was struggling in (say) Physics, they might be even more determined that she mustn't let her average down by messing up in that subject.

It might well be that you get an extra push in some things - but is that always the right thing for a child anyway? And, even if it is, is it the right thing to educate rich and/or clever kids separately from the rest?

I maintain that it isn't. And I actively would not want a private school experience for my children.