Private school vs 'hippy*' cheaper school from reception

[mrstina]

*used to convey meaning on a public forum rather than any form of disrespect, I consider myself to have some of these elements in certain aspects of my life

OK, we are unsure of what to do with our child's (now 2 1/2) education from next year.

The options are as above, but if the latter option to move him to that private school prior to 11+, as we have good selective state schools here. Obviously I understand all children are different, not all private schools are good etc. etc.

Is the education at reception really education, or just fun playtime which could be done equally well at the 'hippy' school? Will moving schools be problematic (I moved school aged 7 and it didn't affect me at all).

i.e. is it worth spending lots of money for a prolonged playtime, or does structured stuff give long term benefits?

I'm happy to name schools if allowed and no threat of retaliation etc.

Many thanks for any advice.

Hi Mrstina

Would looking at Bowlby and attachment theory help you with the importance of early experiences?

If you are quite academic yourself, you could see school as catering for your child's social and emotional needs, and then extend him at home if you think he needs it? I am a primary school teacher and looked at my son's education like this before he started. Although as it turned out I had no reason to worry, just natural mother fears!

I teach in a large state primary with a wide variety of family/cultural/academic backgrounds. Our 2 reception classes and nursery class are one EYFS unit with a teacher and TA in each class. The opportunities that our children have to access a wide range of quality play activities is fantastic with outdoor provision every day. Many of the children arrive in school with communication skills well below the national expectations. With carefully planned independent activities, guided literacy and maths work with the teacher, class input on the carpet and many opportunities through the year for the children's interests to be developed, our children make very good progress and are often achieving age related expectations by the end of their reception year. This all happens because of the hard working staff who ensure a quality experience for all the children. We meet with EYFS staff in other schools to share ideas and experiences and they too have good results through working this way.
The most important thing is to have a good teacher and they are not only working in private schools. We have some brilliant staff and the children make good progress. Friends who have paid for their child's education in private schools locally would, in my opinion have had a much better experience if they had had more faith in the state school teachers and their aspirations for the children in their care.

On the science: something equivalent to the Oregan Insurance Experiment where they give people who can't afford otherwise free healthcare and showed no significant differences in outcomes to poor people not enrolled/poor people enrolled, but a significantly higher usage of services and significant usage of services inappropriately by those on the free system.

i.e. has anyone performed an experiment where people enrolled anyone who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford/wouldn't have been thought to have benefitted (low parental income, low parental educational attainment etc.) from a 'good' education (i.e. fee paying/selective/other active intervention education) and enrolled them in anything other than what they would have otherwise experienced and measured outcomes?

Sort of like the Eddie Murphy film 'Trading Places'?

123fushia

Thanks for your post - it is revealing in so many ways.

I don't think mrstina wants their child in a school where Many of the children arrive in school with communication skills well below the national expectations. and where they are often achieving age related expectations by the end of their reception year. I have the feeling that this isn't good enough!

Not sure what these replies mean? My point is that children can make very good progress when their nursery and reception staff are good. Many of the children in our school are disadvantaged and have poor home lives but outstanding nursery/ reception provision bridges this gap so that Age Related Expectations are met. That is good for these children is it not?

I think OP should just aim for very best super selective private schools. No point of going anywhere else, otherwise op's dc would mix with our less capable children?

I just think it's really a waste of good opportunity, you can get a lot of great advice from great teachers, parents, educational specialist etc, etc. on MN.

If we are going to carry out experiments based on 80s movies using children, we should probably go the whole hog and implant one of these poor unfortunates into a home of the privileged. As well as doing it the other way to ensure a fair test. Mrstina are you up for a swap?

Just to say, I finally managed to obtain the detailed scientific research I was looking for after many hours of looking (a fantastic review article whose references I am pouring over currently).

It basically confirms the importance of early education (not just for underprivileged children), and suggests the effects last for ages (there was even clearly racist evidence that higher numbers of middle class families boost outcomes). It seems to have definitive outcomes until at least age 11 with regards to Maths.

So I think in conclusion, the answer to the question I had is that early education IS important and more than just paying someone to look after your child while they 'play'. I therefore think sending them to the best early school they can IS worth it, obviously in line with ability to pay etc.

It is also clear that Educare and Homefield are VERY different schools (ironic given the apparent 'one size fits all' model of private education)

I found the conversations here useful, in particular the poster who came up with the weblinks with the local schools and the heat maps. The people who informed me about Educare were also very important as well. I also thought the trolls and the virtue signallers were very important as well as they forced me to think about and defend my beliefs. I would also say, in my opinion, there is a difference between facts, things which are self-evident/likely to be, assertions and dogma.

Yet you won't shae a reference to this brilliant review article that just happens to exactly confirm your own biases. But it's there, honest!

What are virtue signallers?

That's hilarious!