Prep School for 3 kids in London? Cons and finances

[Newnormal5]

Hi all

We made our mind for a prep school when we had one child but soon we will have three children. All of them will be in school at the same time in 4 years. But now we cannot make that decision easily as having three in the same school requires to calculate a lot of variables.

Is it more important now with three children to choose prep considering secondary entrance chances? As with one, you can move out of London to find the best fit but with three it will be difficult to accommodate for all capabilities. or would outstanding state school, tutoring and provide them with some extra curricular activities would be still enough?!

Then finances - we can cover the school fees but not sure about the other costs, such as after school care, trips (doesn't look a lot), music lessons?! etc. Also, the cost of living with three children would probably go up. We do not want to stretch ourselves and wish to have a bit of help too as we don't have family in London.

Any opinions? especially if you have 3 kids - do you think it is more important now for them to go to prep school and what about finances? If they are not going to a prep school is your life more expensive now?

Thank you

The trouble is that state primaries are judged almost exclusively by their pupils' performance in SATS tests. While there will be some crossover of knowledge with the selective tests, teachers teach to the format and assessment framework of the SATS as this is what they are beaten over the head with. I think the selection tests include some elements like verbal and nonverbal reasoning? This isn't specifically taught at state schools as it won't appear in the SATS whereas I would imagine prep schools that enter pupils for selective tests spend a good deal of time preparing for them as they will be judged on the number of pupils that are accepted to the most prestigious secondaries.

Somewhat off track, but this is, IMO, why increasing the number of grammar schools is an unworkable policy.

I think the selection tests include some elements like verbal and nonverbal reasoning?

As it happens, Minniemousse these are no longer part of the Tiffin exam Helios mentioned which is why the Tiffin ones made for an interesting comparison I thought.

What I wonder is whether a child who had been taught (at primary school) a. maths and english basic knowledge b.how to set about approaching maths and English thinking problems (like the ones in the Tiffin exam), but not specifically taught how to pass the National Curriculum exam, might actually be able to pass both exams; while a child only taught the national curriculum would less likely to do so?

If the former, then a primary would have nothing to lose by teaching both, and the children everything to gain. Even if children did not want to go to grammar schools, the way would be paved for university style thinking.

Interesting about Tiffin. Reasoning is built strongly into the current maths curriculum. The maths Sats are a 50-50 split between arithmetic and reasoning but the children tend to score much more highly on the arithmetic, although I would say teaching is generally split roughly between the two. I would imagine this is an area where tutoring would really pay off. IME even the brightest mathematicians still sometimes struggle with applying their knowledge. Perhaps in a private school with smaller classes and a narrower spread of ability it is easier to address. Is tutoring among private school pupils quite widespread?

. Is tutoring among private school pupils quite widespread
I don't really know the answer Minniemousse. I have heard people get tutored for grammar schools though and this has often been said to be one of the main reasons why the exam is not fair for poor children.

In the 1960s bright children seemed to get in to grammar schools from their ordinary primary schools without special teaching. But in primary schools then there was a lot more daily focus on maths and reading, spelling etc and fewer other subjects, or if you studied history for example you 'read' it even at a young age, or listened to a well written, well read, story on the BBC about it. So there was less for the teacher to get through. The schools could also be rather small, with just a few classes, with pupils able to follow their own level quite a lot. In those days too, reading was a major entertainment for all children even if it was through comics or Enid Blyton.

My only more recent experience, some time ago now though, was with my own child who moved from (a good) state school to a private one at the primary level, pre-eleven. The private school did much more maths everyday, did it from the more difficult, more problem filled, thick, "text" book from the same scheme the other school had used - as opposed to the more general, thin, workbooks in the scheme the state school had favoured. At the state school only a few of the exceptionally able children had been allowed to do some work from the "text" book, and then they did not do much of it and could give up on it. The expectation was that this book was "difficult" and they did not have to do it if they didn't want to.

The private school was a year ahead easily. No one had difficulty passing the exam to the next level of the school a few years later. As a result all the children here, even if they were not born mathematicians would go on to easily be able to do maths well enough to get A level maths for medical school etc if they really wanted to.

At this private school some parental help with homework, music lessons, sports lessons, still did still make a difference though.

What you really need to know though, and need to practice, is how to set about using what you know to think around a problem. If the national curriculum is mostly just knowledge, and does not heavily emphasise thinking, that means it is letting the children down imo.

I think this is a problem. DD is actually much better at the 'thinking' type of problems than arithmetic as she finds arithmetic a bit dull and sometimes her attention wanders. But she has had to do a lot of memorisation as part of her maths curriculum for no very clear reason. For instance, one of her recent maths targets was to memorise all the prime numbers up to some arbitrary cut off and all the cube numbers up to 12 cubed. I honestly cannot see what good this is ever likely to do her. It just bores her rigid, and quite rightly so. It is not maths.

She had a really fab teacher in Y4 who went wildly off grid and let DD and a few others working ahead of the class go off and do a bunch of open ended investigations in maths instead of learning yet again about rounding and division. I think this taught her more actual maths than any amount of times tables and long division. Similarly, the same teacher let her go off and write/produce a play in English instead of doing SPaG as she felt DD had gone about as far as she could with the Y4 curriculum. DD also had some sessions at school with a secondary maths teacher who did not mention numbers at all but gave them a bunch of logic problems to solve (the kind where one person is telling the truth and one person isn't and you have to work out which and how).

This is a school that is not even a tiny bit sought after, has a relatively small number of high attaining children compared to the local area and high numbers of FSM/EAL/SEN compared to other schools nearby. If DD's school can do it, I think any school can. DD has been well-served by an education that has been remarkably responsive to her particular needs at any one time. I have friends with children in more popular schools with better Ofsted reports who have not found the same thing. Perhaps slightly downgrading the amount of time and energy they gave to fulfilling the demands of the system meant they could be more responsive to individual children?

As far as working ahead goes, DD had some tutoring sessions before the exams and I asked the tutor to speak to her about exam technique and practise this. The tutor gave her the standard exam level papers at the start but soon moved on to giving her KS4 stuff to work on for English comprehension and KS3 stuff for maths. So I think DD is working ahead pretty well, as are several of her peers at school. This is sort of a boast, because, of course I am proud of her. But it's not really a boast in that I do think that her school's lack of focus on SATs in the past meant that she was encouraged to develop in a way that really helped her make the most of herself. Things may have changed a bit in the past couple of years, but this very unpopular and low-attaining (generally) school is still getting very good progress scores. I am sure this is partly down to NOT teaching to the SATs and trying to differentiate in a way that gives all children appropriate and achievable challenges.

And, by the way, I think DD's school has actually prepared her admirably for the tests for selective schools even if that wasn't their aim. Even the independent test she took (widely considered to be one of the hardest) had few things in it that she had not encountered before, apart from the VR/NVR stuff in the pretest, which she actually really enjoyed.

I can't speak for London but I have a few friends whose children go to Private schools - all did go to a state primary.

Mum 1 - has 3 children. All went to state primary and easily got into private secondary. She said prep schools were no different to primaries in terms of education.

Mum 2 - daughter friends with DS. Started in state primary in YR but mum was pressured into going to Prep earlier than she wanted. Her DD started Pre-Prep in Y1 instead of Y3 as she planned because DD went into a 'mixed class with naughty boys'. She loves it and looking at their twitter feed and FB page, her DD is getting specialised teaching in Science, PE, Art, Music and Drama and has swimming lessons every year. My DS will get 10 weeks in Y5.

Mum 3 - Her DS had SEN. State primary wasn't doing enough and put him in a mixed class as a Y4 boy with Y3. Parent moved him to selective prep school where he is thriving. His sisters are stating at the state primary.

Mum 4 - TEACHES at prep school that Mum 2's DD goes to. She loves it BUT has no plans to move her own two DDs to the school and opted for state secondary even though both girls could attend on 50% fees. She says the state secondary is just as good as the private school.

Personally I would hold back on the prep school if money is a bit of an issue until they are aged 11 and move them to private secondary. Money saved could buy you a tutor if needed and go into a nest egg for University (if that's their choice). My friend who teaches YR at pre-prep says that although children get a specialised teacher, results at prep school are no different to a good/outstanding state primary known for their results. The only difference is they have a few more 'Wow' educational trips, trip to France in Y6, smaller classes (16-20) and a few extra holidays due to the longer working day (8:30am to 3:45p even for YR! and Saturday school/fixtures from Y7).

Obviously every private/state school is different but at age 4, we have no idea HOW our children will react to any school.

I have to say, the swimming provision has not been particularly good at DD's school. She got two terms (Y4 and Y3, one term each) and that is it. She can swim but mainly because I have put the effort and cash in to teach her. Having said that, the swimming lessons and holidays by a pool that she's had have been somewhat cheaper than prep school.

I also think London is maybe a bit of a specialised case. There is a lot of hysteria around schools here that I don't think happens in quite the same way in other bits of the country (anecdotally, just going on what friends have said). I did not buy into the hysteria and DD has quite enjoyed the school application process. But there are children I know who are ridiculously stressed about it all - and they are children who live in an area with genuinely very good state options so really really no need to be stressed!

When I took DD to a recent school interview, I was very struck that all the other parents said 'good luck' as their daughters went off for interview whereas I said 'have fun' (because I really think this all ought to be enjoyable as a process - bright children like being challenged IME). I think sometimes the focus on the end result can produce stress for children. I've tried very hard to make sure DD knows that even choosing to put herself up for this, and it was very much her choice, is an achievement - at 11 it is quite hard to choose to set yourself up for potential failure, I think!

thank you for all your comments and even at some point it went into more detail than I expected about these exams. very helpful.

Just to say, @Newnormal5 - DD did get into the independent that she sat for. So it is definitely possibly with minimal tutoring and from a perfectly ordinary state primary.

I'm an average (now single) working parent living in a super selective area of Kent. My child went to a good state primary and has been allocated a place at a super selective with no tutoring, just encouragement and motivation. If I had money and was in a better financial situation I would do the same again but I would spend money on a nice house that would suit the future needs of my family in a good catchment areas for selective secondary schools. I'm not particularly academic (sadly) but I want a better future for my child. This comes from the time spent with your child and motivating always to do their best so they have more options in later life. Stoke the fire and the flame will burn brightly. 😊