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.

MrsMipp as parent you can make sure child does very well in good comprehensive, if not better then in average private.

All I know is that DD's not very academically selective (by which I mean plenty of girls with SEN) school manage to ensure 100% of its pupils get 8GCSEs including English and Maths...that tells me that the school is doing something right.

If that was a state school, somebody would be along to say that doubtless the other six were all in hairdressing....

And ok.... so it's 'not very' academically selective: but it's academically selective, right? And I'm sure they are doing 'something right', I'm just not convinced it's any more of a something, or any more right, than the state school which can't close its doors to poor or thick kids is doing when it gets 60%, or whatever it gets.

Another thing private schools can do more easily, of course, is hold kids back a year if they clearly aren't going to pass their exams with the others the same age.

chaz has eloquently put the point I made earlier. This is NOT about the national curriculum, teaching methods or possibly even class sizes. The english education system has always been about social segregation. This is what drives up results in academic qualifications. The educated/middle classes send their children to schools with other children from the educated/middle class. Twas ever thus.

As I said before, this is all about class/income/socialgroup/ethnicity. Adults fear their children mixing with the 'wrong crowd' but in my experience children mix with the people who bring the best out in them. If you live in a very mixed area your child will thrive if they have a strong group of friends that they get on with - that live within walking distance and have something in common with. It doesn't matter that they don't get on with everyone - they don't need to. They will find this if you enable it, but if you send your child to another area they won't have that.

The distinct disadvantage of the 'successful' schools is that they are full of children with pushy parents. These pushy parents often neuroticise their children and these children can often be bullies. They wouldn't beat anyone up, but they can bully without anyone else ever being aware of it.

But it really depends on your children - and I believe that there is a 'right' school for every child, but only if you can get him or her into it.

I posted this on the other thread but they are practically merging into one and I'm not sure I have much more that I can add. However, as this thread has moved towards advantages and social segregation I thought I'd re-post it here.
Just to add it was nice to be constructively challenged and not have a bunfight!

Yes. And to add to that, think of the child from a wealthy family whose parents take no interest in his/her education whatsoever (for whatever reason): they are disadvantaged too - far more than the state school child with a family who support and cheer them on their journey.

I agree and I have taught in very deprived areas where of course, you get the parents who don't give a toss, never turn up for parents' evening or hear their child read. But you also get parents who who despite having no money and living in a tower block place a huge importance on their child's welfare and have an ethos in their home that education is important and special.

These parents can't ever afford to pay for school trips and the uniform is often tatty but the kids are clean, emotionally secure and respectful of others.

And yes, they are the one in schools such as those who tend to get the levels 4&5 thus proving to me the importance of home life.

Spotty, we agree far too much

I think I've mellowed since reaching 40! I used to be far more disagreable!

The crux of the matter is not whether a cohort of children coming out of a private school do 'better' or 'worse', it's whether an individual child will do better or worse in that school.

That will depend on the school and the child in particular, much more than the sector.

I also think that the argument about private / state secondary is rather different from the one about state / private primary: I feel that it is possible to make a much more reasonable case for private secondary (around facilities, specialist teachers, breadth of subjects, peer group during teenage years) than it is for private primary.

I would agree with you teacherwith2kids.

Most parents I know who have planned to send their children to selective academic private secondaries though, have started to panic towards year 4/5 and made the "jump" then.

This is also very common practice in our local state primary. The reasons for this are a slight sense of panic that your child won't pass the very competitive 11+ type tests with other zillions of children, many of whom from private preps;

also a lot of parents don't have the time or don't feel up to tutoring on top of the school day and/or have a child who will get too stressed/anxious doing this.

Of course they will have to prep them for entry in Y4 or Y5, but from what I have heard is not as stressful/competitive, so that's why they do it. The alternative is sending them to a very poor state secondary which frankly is diabolical in every way, despite all the efforts to turn it round.