Advantages of state over private?

[CakeLoving]

Our girl starts reception next year. Her grandparents have offered to help with the cost of private school, and there are a couple of pretty good prep/4-16 private schools close by.

But part of me thinks (having seen step siblings go through the state school system- I went private) that there are distinct advantages to going to the local community school.

I'm interested in what others feel these are. We are in London and some of the threads on here make me feel like an awful mother for even considering state...which seems completely skewed!

Selective=horror is another unhelpful generalisation. First of all, the selection process is there to ensure that the children who do get in do well. Furthermore, schools vary their approaches, and many selective schools do emphasise children's wellbeing. DC couldn't be happier.

My concerns about private in London (not that we could afford it!) are that once you enter the system, you seem to be signing up for all the stress an agony and intensive tutoring in preparation for the entrance exams for prep schools. I have seen my cousins kids go through this and it is miserable. Competitive atmosphere with other parents. So much pressure heaped on the kids, and then the sense of rejection of they don't score well and aren't invited to interview. It is brutal and even if I had the money, I wouldn't put my child through it.
I am a teacher in a state secondary in London. Although I don't work in primary, I am absolutely certain, from my experience in education and from what I can see from the kids who come to our school (all via state primaries), that home environment is vastly more influential than school in terms of progress. Children who are fortunate enough to come from stable, consistent homes, where , crucially, their parents speak to them and read with them, and make sure they get enough sleep ( all night gaming is a massive issue ), will always thrive. Extra money for hobbies, music lessons etc always helps to enrich experiences , but many of our highest achievers ( and we are the top performing school in or borough, with many eights and nines in GCSEs across the board this year) come from very humble background.

If you live near a state school that you are happy with , go for it!

Private school - smaller classes, more sport, possibly less likelihood of "it's not cool to work hard". That's it.

Obviously, it all depends on the school and the child. I think the advantages of state school are that you mix with people from all walks of life. If you’re bright you learn that being bright isn’t the most important thing about you. You learn to value other qualities in others - and most importantly in your self. And financially, it gives you a lot more money to spend on extra curricular/ enriching activities.

Selective=horror is another unhelpful generalisation.

That is exactly the point I was making!! Can you not see that??

Why do you object to me saying that, while you are happy to discount the likes The Dragon, Summerfields, Port Regis, Aysgarth, Lambrook, Godstowe etc at the drop of a hat.

many selective schools do emphasise children's wellbeing

Not all then? Yikes!

flex that is certainly true round here
One of DD's friends who is at the local ( well regarded) comp told her she wasn't going to be clever anymore as she wanted to hang out with the " cool kids"
DD replied that at her ( private school) the cool kids were also the smart kids !!!
I'm sure at many comps it's ok to work hard and be smart but not at the ones I have knowledge of

I can promise you that at state school there are kids who do well and work hard and are valued for it.

It must be bizarre to live in a world where you literally don't think that can be true

What Hoppinggreen said. One of the key triggers for us was observation of peers and their parents (a significant chunk on benefits). Just not the kind of crowd we'd like our DC to hang out with, sorry.

Good luck with that

One of the key triggers for us was observation of peers and their parents (a significant chunk on benefits). Just not the kind of crowd we'd like our DC to hang out with, sorry.

You see, I quite like a bit of honesty.

Underneath, many parents choose private schools - particularly non-selective private schools - because the children and parents are nicer, and they think there won't be so many badly behaved children / children from backgrounds dissimilar to theirs / families with different aspirations / children with SEN who might take up too much of the teacher's time and thus slow their child's progress.

It odesn't mean that people don't SAY their reasons are about class sizes, extra-curricular activities etc - but one underlying reason is often the 'social class' one.

Wonder what vanishingly-tiny-percentage-of-a-percentage of 4-11yos in this country attend London-located "highly ranked selective private primary" schools.

The Education forum on Mumsnet is such a bloody weird bubble sometimes.

"Underneath, many parents choose private schools - particularly non-selective private schools - because the children and parents are nicer, and they think there won't be so many badly behaved children / children from backgrounds dissimilar to theirs / families with different aspirations / children with SEN who might take up too much of the teacher's time and thus slow their child's progress."

I agree. It's quite understandable in a way. Perhaps people should just be a bit more honest about this, instead of insisting that they chose private because of the green fields and lovely drama club.

Just to be clear given that Kokeshi123 and others jumped to their conclusions: it's a combination of all the factors, including the more advanced curriculum as the no 1. consideration.

There are plenty of badly behaved children at private school. If you assume money buys manners you are in for a shock.

There are plenty of badly behaved children at private school.

This has not been our experience at the particular school.

isn't it just that the two systems have different types of demands: in state you need infinite patience, and that amazing ability to mesmerise and manage a class of 30, half with behavioural issues. In private, there is more of a need to be smart and creative to keep stimulating and stretching your pupils.

Until the female students get to 15 at which stage they're dealing with 75% of the student body being eating disordered and the other 25% on drugs.

Sorry @LondonMum8, but your ludicrous assertion needed to be countered with another.

@CakeLoving, we went to view a number of selective independent schools and a number of state schools. DD1 goes to a state school, and DD2 will follow. There are a number of enrichment activities with which we are extremely happy and DD1 is very contented and doing well. She is also involved in a range of extra-curricular activities outside school.

My main concern was that, as a well-behaved able child, she would be left to float in the middle of a class of 30 and wouldn't be stretched. That hasn't happened, but our careful communication with the school has certainly helped. It may be that we choose to tutor in years to come but interestingly, of all the people I know who send their children to local preps (and I know a good number), they all tutor so you have the cost of the school with that on top.

While I don't know the exact numbers of children in DD1's class with behavioural issues, I would guess that it's a handful, and it's certainly not a disruptive influence.

As a point to note, I went to a very selective independent school in London, so have knowledge of both sectors.

"Until the female students get to 15 at which stage they're dealing with 75% of the student body being eating disordered and the other 25% on drugs."

That's crazy for a number of reasons: it assumes parents would be stupid enough to shell out knowing from reliable sources the education would achieve those kinds of outcomes, and that somehow such wrecked pupils would manage to get to Oxbridge and have succesful careers as they tend to do. I'm sure issues do occur in top schools, but those would have to be contrasted with how the particular vulnerable individuals might fare in an urban state school.

While I don't know the exact numbers of children in DD1's class with behavioural issues, I would guess that it's a handful, and it's certainly not a disruptive influence.

Congrats. Roughly 50% in our previous outstanding state school, with the teacher struggling to manage (one known case of the teacher getting physical).

@LondonMum8, of course what I said was crazy. That's my point! It was just as crazy as your assertion. Although believe me when I say that an eating disorder does not necessarily preclude entrance to an Oxbridge college.

Direct quote from this article - www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2014/oct/06/cambridge-university-student-depression-eating-disorders

Last year a survey by student newspaper The Tab revealed that 21% of Cambridge students have been diagnosed with depression, while a further 25% think they may be depressed. At my all-girls’ college, Murray Edwards, 28% of students have experienced eating disorders.

This is secondary experience but at our nearby grammar school there have also been many more students have hospitalised/taken out of school (three have moved from the grammar school to my DC's comp alone, excluding the other comps in the area) as a result of mental health issues. I think some parents are blinded by good results and a pushy curriculum and will pay good money for these things - not thinking about pastoral care or their child interacting with a more diverse group (or perhaps not caring about the latter). This isn't to criticise everyone who makes that decision - in some cases these kind of schools are the best environment for certain pupils. I would personally never want my child to attend a selective school, both in regards to fees and social education.

I believe school is about a whole lot more than coming out with a string of As and A*s and/or a county/national level sports person, and the selective schools I know of sadly do seem to focus on those things. Again, that's not to say all selective schools are like that - but I do often think they have an unhealthy focus on success, whether that be academic, sporting, or creative.

Londonmum8 you clearly find your private school experience much better than your state school experience. Great. That's not to say that there aren't flaws to a private education, just as I don't claim all state educations are flawless. State education is better for my child (and my ideology but that's a different discussion altogether!), and clearly many parents share this view. Private education is evidently, at the moment, better for yours.

Depends how comfortably off you are. We just manage to scrape the fees (for one) together, and perhaps we're more susceptible to resentment at poor 'value for money' if we hear the video's been shoved on etc...
If I could do it again, I'd have picked a large state school with a dynamic head and plenty of friendship opportunities. Ain't hindsight grand?!

Best of luck with it all! x

I think the advantages of state school are that you mix with people from all walks of life

With the exception of the few particularly strange/snobby private schools, most private schools will also have people "from all walks of life" too! One of my neighbours sends their kids to private school and he's a fireplace installer! Another acquaintance is a plumber. They're kids aren't particularly bright/academic - just "normal" kids who also play footie on the street with everyone else. Of course, there will be "some" private schools for the elite/blue bloods, but they're the exception rather than the norm.

somehow such wrecked pupils would manage to get to Oxbridge and have succesful careers

I knew a good number of these individuals at Oxford. I felt sorry for them because they were all smart enough to have got there without the hideous pressure that had made them neurotic to the point of being unwell.