Done to death but... value of private VS good state in primary

[tostaky]

Just been on a tour to our nearest private and although the facilities are great, I can't see the added value of private education at primary stage.
Is the value really only about the networking opportunities, the alumni network?
Because when you compare the actual work the children are doing - (it is the same, children in Y4 in my sons state school had the same topic homework to do as Y4 kids in private school). Also when you compare 30 children, 1 teacher, 1 teacher assistant and often 1 Sen teacher per classe VS 22 kids, 1 teacher, and 0.25 of a teacher assistant... To me the private school looks similar if not worse. (Without going into the exposition to SEN children in state school which I find is very enriching for my children).

It is hard for me to find one thing that makes me go "yes, that's where my money will be going and that's exactly what I want for my kids"!

Neuroticnicky - its not a completely fair point.

Firstly, Fox is not just a "local primary school" - it has been on top of England primary school league tables for a while.
Secondly, most independent schools do not do Sats. For those who do, the exam doesn't have the same importance as it does for state schools. Kids at state schools spend enormous amount of time prepping and revising for Sats. I am not sure prepping is as intense at the independent schools.

But in general I agree with you that good state schools in wealthy areas will have good results.

MMmomKK I take your point but the thing about Fox is that-because of its small catchment area in Notting Hill/Kensington where property prices are very high and there is virtually no council housing- it is one of the very few state primary schools in the country where the parent body (lots of well off international parents and UK professionals) is similar to that of a private school.It is therefore interesting to note that results are also similar. I also agree that state schools focus more on SATs but remember that these are basically just maths and english and state primary school pupils do virtually no homework for all of their 7 years..

I also wonder whether (with a few notable exceptions such as Westminster Under etc) the teaching at some of the prep schools is up to scratch i.e. the teaching at private secondary schools in London seems more consistent than at the preps and I have quite a few friends whose kids were at preps for 7-9 years and then failed to get into decent secondary schools.

Maybe it's not teaching, it's your friends' kids who don't have abilities to get into these secondary schools.

Although good education can help in a certain way, but children have to have the ability first to learn.

It depends which schools you are comparing. The DS's prep offers a better education than the state primary that they would have been offered. That won't be the case with every prep and every primary. My DS both have SpLD so the smaller classes and more teacher time has been very useful. I don't think anyone's exposure to my children has been enriching because of that? they are just children.

I think the curriculum at the prep is wider e.g. French & Latin and lessons are taught by specialist subject teachers. The music and sport are also better because there are 2 full time music teachers and 3 full time sports staff.

Crucially, the prep prepares children for the Senior Schools we are interested in.

My biggest caveat about private education is one of the obvious ones. It is very expensive. Think about the financial impact on your family as a whole before you enter into it. I wouldn't put my DC into a prep if it meant that we couldn't go on holiday, run a car or have days out unless there was an overwhelming advantage in doing so. In that case, money would be better spent on extra curricular activities and tutoring than prep fees. My DC's fees work out at £1500 pm each so spending a third of that would buy a lot of extra curricular.

Autumsky you are right -I think IQ does play an important part which is why the actual school attended is not as important in terms of academic achievement as people tend to believe. I suppose the point I was making is that people tend to believe that private necessarily means better quality education and ,whereas this may often be true, it isn't always the case.State primary schools may have bigger class sizes but often they have lots of classroom assistants, better SEN provision, more rigorous inspections, better trained teachers etc. In central London many of the prep schools also have no decent playgrounds . While I would be happy with e.g. Bute House for my DD , there are quite a few London prep schools where I wouldn't send her even if it was free.

I agree with you. It really depends on the individual school, not private or state. And also what choice you have.

Addressing the comment earlier about children not being stretched in state school, in a good school, this is absolute rubbish. A good school will rigorously check the progress of all the children and ensure interventions are in place for those falling behind and enhanced work for the brightest ones. This is the sort of comment made by someone who is not up to date with the requirements of Ofsted! Private schools are not held to account in the same way. It is perfectly possible to get a place at Oxbridge for MFL without having done them at a prep school (prior to Y7).

The teacher is wrong if they think parental input counts for everything. It obviously is important but quality of teaching, assessment of the child's progress, planning and quality of learning are the most important aspects, for all children irrespective of intellect. Having interested parents who value education is a clear plus but plenty of children in private schools have parents who work all hours and have little time for their children.

Agree completely milly

Neurotic - I don't quite get the point about consistent teaching in private secondary vs primary schools.

Secondary schools select their intake - the range of abilities there is, therefore, not as wide as that of primary schools. Some primaries also select, but at 3yo it's very unreliable.

Bute House's results btw are also due to the selection at 7yo - it is not due to some magic, or some special teaching strategies.

And to add to your "prep schools differ" - I'd say that even within the schools teachers differ. Even good ones might have uninspiring teachers, but there is no way to tell from outside!

MMmomKK I guess what I was saying was that in the better independent secondary schools the teaching is generally good across the board (whereas in our day there were always one or two fairly useless teachers) .This is partly a result of the publication of league tables and the exam culture nowadays. If your pupils get poor GCSEs/A levels compared with other departments for more than a year or two you are not going to last long at a decent secondary school and friends who teach get very nervous around results time.This pressure doesn't really apply to most prep schools where it is easier for poor teachers to survive. Friends of mine who have taught at leading independent schools have generally been passionate about their subjects (indeed at top schools you will find a few teachers with D Phils/PHDs etc) whereas some friends who taught at preps subsequently dropped out of teaching altogether. To teach in a prep school you don't need any teacher qualifications (which you would in a state primary) so you do get some people who do it out of lack of a better alternative after uni as opposed to any great love for teaching.

I should add that the pressure on secondary school teachers re exams shouldn't be underestimated. One friend who teaches at a leading independent school doesn't like the the head of his department (the feeling is mutual) and is absolutely determined that the pupils in his class outperform those in the head's class each year as he is worried that if they don't this will give the head an excuse to get rid of him.

I have 2 DC who attended the local, distinctly average state primary. Having moved from Trafford (where DC1 did reception and YR1 at a state primary) their current local state primary here fails miserably in comparison so ime, there is a vast range of state primary schools! My LEA ranks near the bottom in the national ranking of LEA's in the UK.

I did visit the local non selective prep which had class sizes of 12 - 15. Without a doubt, here, money would have bought results since the children from the local prep go on to secure places/scholarships at leading selective secondary schools.

However, with 2 DC - paying school fees from primary stage would have involved quite some sacrifice so I decided to focus our savings for secondary school fees and up the parental support/involvement in order to fill any gaps at home. I took the stance that it is primary school, not rocket science. It has worked for DC1 who is now in YR7 of a selective independent.

So, my answer is - (a) it depends where you live and (b) whether you could afford it.

We didn't bother with private schools until year 6. The only things we regretted were the music and sport. They both went on to private selective independents.

My children have done at least as well as most of their privately educated at primary level friends in GCSE. Save your money but do encourage extra music and sport. All the rest can be caught up with.

I actually think the literacy strategies are probably better in good state primaries. Perhaps more training for teachers and access to new strategies?

Been thinking a lot about this recently......interesting to read the comments. My children attend a state primary. 14 children in my daughter's year 3 class and 24 in my son's year 1. My daughter has been struggling, but we thought she might struggle more in a private school further from home with a bigger class size..... We've decided to leave it for a few years and just try and help her more ..... And pester the teachers more!