Private pre prep or state reception

[Thinkingtoread]

I know I'm about to start a thread again which couple of you may have answered before but this is what is on my mind and honestly very derailed in my thoughts....hope knowing your perspective be helpful in deciding for my DS.

My DS joins school September 14....the school we applied for as our first choice(outstanding), we are on a waiting list for that. Waiting nos 4. We got a school with satisfactory EYFS for our DS. The news hit both of us badly as this was definitely not we quite expected and it's just recently that we started looking for a private school for him.

We started looking for private schools and we have managed to get an offer from the school we liked for my DS and paying fees is not an issue.
It's just that I'm so done with weighing pros and cons and few people around me asking me to justify paying for a 4 year old and telling how rude and self catered are ppl who go the private route(No offence plz)
and we have also heard good and bad for state school also.

We have no clue about education in UK as both of us studied abroad and would like to give best start to the 2 DS we have and best start could well be a private or state......help me decide.....please.

Thank you for your replies....we will go ahead with the private school. Your inputs were very helpful.

I had a similar issue a while ago and chose the private prep. My boys were very, very happy and it's been worth every penny. In year 1 they start pushing the kids to move on to be a year ahead academically so the kids do have to work hard.
You don't have to justify your decision to anyone. At the end of the day you choose the school that is best/right for your child and your family.

I'm trying not to justify anyone anymore....I'm a culprit in few friends eyes and few are honestly happy to let us choose what's right for us.

Thank you natural baby

So many private schools say they work X number of years ahead, academically. This is total utter rubbish. How do you think state educated children ever get to Oxbridge if they are all behind the privately educated ones? My DD was privately educated at senior level and I can assure you she was well ahead of many of the prep school children when starting at senior school straight from her state primary. French was the only minor issue. However, before long DD was put into the top set getting better marks than many the prep school children who had done French for years. Her teacher told us this at parents' evening. No child was a year ahead of my DD at senior school. A good state primary can teach children very well but you don't get the additional extra curricular activities in all of them. You don't get rubbish like "they are all one year ahead" either. No SEN children then ? No really bright children either? The national curriculum can cope with very bright children who may be light years ahead. It just needs an inspired teacher to deliver it and keep the child interested.

I think basically they 'weed out' the children who are unable to work at their definition of 1 year ahead academically.

I think basically they 'weed out' the children who are unable to work at their definition of 1 year ahead academically.

I think basically they 'weed out' the children who are unable to work at their definition of 1 year ahead academically.

Ugh, not sure why it posted 3 times. Sorry.

I know a teacher in a private secondary.
She says that the thing that determines how well the kids do, is mainly how clever they are. She is a languages teacher, so sees children who have done French since they were 4 from prep schools and those from state schools who have never done it. She says that by the 2nd year, the clever children are in the top set. It is irrelevant where they went before and if they have done French before because the clever ones catch up and take over. Obviously the clever ones from Prep stay in the top sets too.
She says the only area where this isn't always the case is sport. Children in Preps may have played competitive hockey, netball, rugby etc and tend to get into the teams at the private secondary and stay there. Extremely sporty state school children might manage it too, but it is less likely.

And finally, I think private schools make it very hard to make comparisons between them and state schools.....this is partly in case they then don't always come out on top.
Most don't do SATS, so it is hard to compare achievement. Some do internal SATS but don't publish the results. There is often very little concrete data available about them. Even the info about where the children go to next is often vague, for example saying where children went onto over the last 8 years, with no sense of the numbers involved to each place. Scholarship info is also often published like this, so making concrete comparisons is hard.
I think they rely to some extent on an air of mystique. Most of the population know little about private schools, but have a sense that they are better, but without much to back up that view. Many private secondaries that Preps send pupils to are not hard to get into. The number of applications per place is not very high and most who apply get in.......but people don't always know that, because being competitive and seemingly selective adds to a schools kudos. The thing that gets kids into most private secondaries (and Preps) is not ability to perform, but ability to pay. There are some highly selective private schools, but most are not like this and will take most applicants if they can pay. However, promoting the idea that they are highly academic keeps the sense of private always being better going.

"She says that the thing that determines how well the kids do, is mainly how clever they are. She is a languages teacher."

When I read that, I hear: "She is a poor teacher. She does not know how to teach MFL, ergo pupils' performance is dependent on their own ability."

"In year 1 they start pushing the kids to move on to be a year ahead academically so the kids do have to work hard"

A year ahead of whom/what? And do they get a year ahead and stay there? Why?

I have 3 DC. My elder 2 attended state school until aged 7 and then transferred to Prep. The youngest attended from Yr1 as we moved house at this time and for logistical reasons, had to have them all at the same school. I have 2 comments.

Firstly, I'm sorry but many pre-prep and prep schools have places pretty much all the time for the simple reasons that they are either not boarding schools and therefore have a geographical range(i.e. low and spread out population) or they are able to increase their numbers in any particular year by just reconfiguring their staffing. Many, many do this, although I appreciate that you wouldn't necessarily realise this if your child is in one of the highly sought after boarding feeders (e.g. such as the main Eton feeders) in highly populated counties. Having moved from Surrey to Dorset, the difference was incredible and definitely did not reflect a bad school, just a lower population. Many pre and prep schools constantly struggle financially, but this does not make them a worrying prospect as a parent, purely as the Bursar!

Secondly, my DC were lucky enough to be in a very good state primary and although the prep was different for my youngest, frankly, she would have done well anywhere. Good schools are good schools whether state or Independent.

If a prep school said to me 'we work a year ahead of state schools' I'd reject it straight off.
a) because frankly my son is working three years ahead of national expectations in maths (as are all his friends) in his state primary so a year would be under performing for him.
b) it's an utterly ridiculous, illogical and meaningless piece of marketing claptrap. You don't have to think about the statement for very long to realise that. It suggests a belief that schools can't and won't differentiate learning.

And yet this statement (and variations thereof - a year, 18 months, 2 years) gets repeated endlessly on MN. Which makes me think that it's clearly working as a piece of marketing in that the privates really get what pushes the buttons of their potential customers.

Oh and the other thing they say 'we have five applicants per place' which scares parents who don't stop to think that each applicant applies to five places or even more.

Mind you, state schools do that one as well (West London Free School I'm looking at you).

Bonsoir's, that is absolutely not true about this teacher.
Her class last at GCSE all got A or A* and the same at A level.

She was not saying pupils cannot be moved forward. The school she works in is a very academic and successful, well known independent school with high rates of success to Oxbridge etc.
All pupils can be moved forward, but pupils do start with differing levels of intelligence. It is just a fact.
And the bright ones who find themselves in the wonderful environment of this well known independent school thrive, regardless of whether they have come from a prep or state school. Those who are weaker, do less well, even if they have been to a prep school before. When you think about it, it is not surprising!
So a great teacher can move people forward, but natural I telligent e plays a key role. As they say, you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear, or more crudely, you can't polish a turd.

Coming from a prep school doesn't stop you being a sows ear or turd. A great teacher and secondary school can certainly add value and bring improvements....to a point.

Send your child to the school you like best. How happy are the chldren. How creative is the work Just don't think private automaticallymeans better.

My child was at at an good, but not outstanding, state school with problems. I wanted better for him. I thought he would get better at a private school.

I have been sorely disappointed. The work has been below the level in his state school, even though the intake at that school was far more challenging and diverse.
The differentiation is shockingly poor in the private school.
The teachers are far less imaginative.
The private school teaches to the test, while the state school aims to make the children understand.
My son is happy at his new school. But if I could advise the myself of a year ago I'd say stay in the state system.

I think everyone is misunderstanding the "year ahead academically". Certainly there will be children everywhere who may be working ahead of their peers, but some pvt schools will be teaching a year ahead of the "National Curriculum" and this is what the term implies. You will always have exceptions to this in both state and private.

Certainly there will be some very bright kids at state schools, but the same can be said of the majority of the class at selective prep schools such as WUS, CC, KCJS, HABS and the like.

I don't think it's the academics that differentiates state versus private, but more the variety of extra curricular and sports on offer at prep schools.

If I was forking out for a selective prep school I would be asking for my money back if my child was only a year ahead of the average state primary. And it sure as hell wouldn't be "prepping" properly if that was all it was managing.

So how many years ahead do you expect it to be?

If you say that state school kids are ahead ain't parents spending on tuitions or it's a teacher effort that helps them jump the ladder.

Sorry for being direct....

"Certainly there will be children everywhere who may be working ahead of their peers, but some pvt schools will be teaching a year ahead of the "National Curriculum" and this is what the term implies."

because that doesn't happen in state schools? All those children achieving level 5 or 6 (expected level in Y9) in state schools are working 3 years ahead by that definition

Not sure if its worth debating this. Some people prefer state schools and others choose private schools. Ultimately we are all doing what we think is best for our child. Btw if there weren't so many private schools, imagine how more difficult it would be to get a place for your child in a good London state school? They are not really doing a disservice.

If you have a choice pick the school where you think your child will be happy and thrive.

Having taught in state schools, but with a social circle that includes friends with DC in private schools, I'd say that the main difference is the overall experience the children get. I'm not overly convinced that private is better academically - a good school performance-wise is a good school, private or state.

There seems to be more time to be a child in the private sector - less of the 'targets, targets, targets' all the time. There is also more time per child, as class sizes are smaller. Opportunities for sport/music/arts can be greater (because of better facilities, less target driven obsession with Maths/English, and a culture where everyone takes part). Friends with DC in private schools describe 'bad behaviour' that isn't really that awful at all, for the 'naughtiest child in the class'. None of the really extreme stuff you'd see in a school with a mixed catchment for sure! I think that's because those children are 'encouraged to find another school' fairly early on.