State until eight - experiences please

[DappledOliveGroves]

Prompted by the independent school thread currently kicking off on AIBU, I am interested to know more about the "State until eight" ethos.

DD2 is 20 months, so we have a bit of time to think about things.

My husband and I were both privately educated - me from aged 4, him from aged 7. My DD1 (now in her early 20s) went to independent school for secondary only, then a state sixth form. The sixth form was disastrous, though this was not necessarily the school's fault, more that DD1 chose the age of 16 to fully get into teenage rebellion, though the A-level choices she went for weren't especially inspiring at the Sixth Form.

I credit a lot of my academic success to having had an excellent grounding from aged 4 onwards. Things like knowing times tables by rote, by aged 4. Spelling lists, regular tests, being stretched academically at every level from the word go. However, I don't have much to compare this to as I don't know how I would have fared had I gone to a state school.

DD1 went to state school in London from Reception and I feel that she never had the grounding that I did. There were no regular spelling tests, no learning by rote, no languages taught by native speakers, no science labs etc. Having said that, she is very different to me and has never been especially academic.

What I want to know is whether adopting a "state til eight" approach is sensible, or whether this risks missing the fundamentally important basics being taught at the best possible level, meaning that DD2 may not get the right grounding if she went to a state school for the first few years.

Finances, wise, we could go private from the outset, but would prefer to have a few more years to save under our belts.

Does anyone have any info they can please share about whether starting independent school at 8 has worked well for your children, or if you feel they may have missed out at all?

Many thanks.

It’s my biggest regret too. DD could read fluently in year 1 ( outstanding primary), and loved books, but was forced to undergo an HOUR per day of phonics. She wasn’t able to continue reading “proper” books during that time nor do comprehensions and as a result she “went off” reading. The maths was awful too. Such a big regret. I really feel she’s lost her previous love of learning…

@Taylorscat why do children need to know their times-tables by rote ? My dd is extremely high performing (predicted all 8s and 9s and taking 12 GCSEs ) and never knew them by rote?

It is helpful for GCSE maths to know times tables well so that you can focus on the problem at hand and not have to distract yourself calculating the basics.

e.g. factorise y^2 + y - 56
If you just 'know' that 7x8=56 it is much easier to do the factorisation
(y-7)(y+8)
also useful for working with fractions, solving problems like 'how many can you buy' etc.

Yes you can 'get by' without, but if you do know times tables well it is definitely easier.

Ah, but if people don't talk about the state system as if it's a den of iniquity, how on earth will they justify the huge prices they're paying?
I think people forget that the state sector is a very varied sector so make sweeping statements about it being universally terrible.
But I also think people miss just how many problems there are that negatively affect pupils in a way that might not be obviously terrible, but over time mean that a worse education is provided. I know from my own experience that I could have delivered a better education to some of my students if it weren't for a lot of issues that aren't actually education issues (eg schools picking up a huge range of issues that should really be dealt with by specialist services or other services for families).

The rhetoric that surprises me on these sorts of threads is that schools are only really poor if they're in special measures. Every teacher I know, across a range of categories, can tell of issues in their schools that affect the education. Some schools and children will be less affected by those issues than others, but almost every school is feeling the squeeze at the moment.

As a counter point - I could read fluently when I started reception at a private school. I still remember and my school reports comment on my being very unhappy at having to sit through phonics for two years.

In contrast, my son's state primary is excellent at differentiation between pupils. I have done visits as a governor and seen the way that they separate the class into tables and some work on much much more complex stuff than others.

You can't answer this question without checking out the state schools and private schools available in your area. I would say go for the best school, if it happens to be a private school then pay for it if it's affordable to you.

The state schools available to us were average to good. The most expensive private schools were in my opinion, not as good as I wanted. I sent my children to the school I thought was best for them (private, but on the relatively cheaper end).

I teach there, so 'my' school in that regard.

At a rough guess, I'd say about 10-15%. Glasgow is growing in diversity, but it's not as diverse in its demographic as other major cities yet. Other schools will be lower/ higher, but we're fairly typical. Of the 4 girls I mentioned, only 1 is from an immigrant family.

DC1 & 2's school is definitely higher, perhaps 20%, and many of DC1's friends from all sorts of backgrounds have gone onto great things.

I do get what you're saying about seaside towns having some of the poorest outcomes- I have family in the South West, and overall they have had far poorer school outcomes than us cousins North of the border. I just don't get why schools have been allowed to become like this in other parts of the UK. I'm not saying our system is better - I could go on about the issues- but we certainly don't have the massive differences in experience/ outcomes between schools that MN seems to talk of. Is there no monitoring & evaluation within & between schools?

Unfortunately that is now happening more, and will continue, as parents are trying to save money where they can, given the possibility of VAT on fees. They are trying to save money in the earlier years to help towards increased costs later on.

There are also parents who will use state primary before switching at 11, again taking a place that another child could have used.

kids running wild in independent schools

Parents at those schools should be looking at moving their children to other schools. Independent schools would usually ask such disruptive pupils to leave (assuming no additional needs which they would try to help with). I have never seen children “running wild” at any independent I’ve visited or had experience of. The local state primary on the other hand…………

How is switching at 11 taking a place someone else could have used? The overwhelming majority of schools go up to 11 and then children go onto a different secondary. Parents who send their children to private are paying for the state place through their taxes which they are entitled to use.

I understand the annoyance at moving at 8 because parent who would otherwise have sent to that primary from reception are unlikely to switch their child at 8 because there is a vacancy so will have missed out.

I was referring to a previous poster who said that children moving at 8 means that another child has missed out on a place. It makes no difference whether a child moves at 8 or 11 - that place would not be available to another child. Plenty of children move part way through primary for various reasons (moving house etc). It’s no different.

Parents who send their children to private are paying for the state place through their taxes which they are entitled to use.

I totally agree. My post was in response to the poster who called it “disgusting” to use a state place until 8 and then move them. Those parents are just as entitled to use the state system as any other parent.

Sorry @Another76543 I misunderstood you. We are both making the same point to that poster.

I can see their annoyance in the sense that someone who would have taken it at 4 won’t move for it at 8 but like you said, the parent has paid for the place too

If you are set on your child going to private school for some/most of their education and you can afford it, I’d start at 4. But this is largely because 1) there is less competition to get in and 2) they will never feel pressured by tutoring or entrance exams.

For my DD I wanted to do state til 11 then private secondary - which is what I did. DH wanted private right through because that’s what he did. I was against it because schooling isn’t just about academics and you learn a lot, socially, by being with everyone, rather than just those with privilege.

But then my DH showed me the stats on getting in at 11+ and even 7+ compared to 4+. When I realised it would entail intensive tutoring and that my DD would know she was being tested which might make her feel under pressure, I conceded that we should try at 4+. She was accepted and is now in a private school she loves and goes through to 18 and will never have to do the entrance exams to stay.

@Another76543 one in particular was all boys independent, young class they were using someone with no early years experience as mat cover and she gave them boring worksheets every day they would literally run around the classroom and she didn't know how to keep them entertained!

I think it’s disgusting that parents put their children into primary and remove them at age 8 for private schools - there is one poor kid that’s potentially missed a place at that primary for your child that’s then going to leave half way through!

As in any situation where a child changes school, another child will take the place that's available when it becomes available. There's plenty of movement between schools.

There's nothing disgusting about parents taking a place that they are eligible for as per the admissions procedures and reviewing their children's education at different stages.

Are parents equally disgusting if they take a place at a local primary school but know they wish to home educate when their child is older? Or disgusting for taking a place knowing their family will probably relocate in the next few years? Or disgusting if they take a place at a school knowing that it's their second preference and they'll move their child if they get to the top of the waitlist at their first preference?

In all those situations the parents know that their child's primary place is unlikely to stay the same for 7 years.

Either all those families are disgusting (and all families should only take a primary place if they know they're going to remain there for 7 years), or they're not disgusting and it's not actually about the morality of staying somewhere for 7 years, it's just the topic of private school gets people crabby.

It’s a minor thing though. And if dd ends up with a 7-9 (predicted an 8), it doesn’t matter does it . I knew my tables by rote and got a C!

To be fair she was expected to learn them by rote, but her brain just doesn’t work like that. I don’t think a prep school would have made any difference .

@Taylorscat I'm not sure minor is right. As your DD is obviously able, not knowing her TT probably impacts her less than it would a 4-6 student. As less able student would need to stay focused on the task in hand and not be distracted by having to work out times tables.

That said, I'm a bit surprised a grade 7-9 student doesn't know their times tables as I would have assumed that with a bit of effort in primary they would have them down pat (SpLD aside of course).

x-post

My DD's were state educated, now early 20's - they both were expected to learn tables by rote and had regular spelling lists. I think it's very school dependent and not a state/private thing. If your local school is good, there's a lot of benefit to being local eg friends close by, shorter travel time if they are tired when young. You also need to try and work out how good the private alternative would be, trying to work out if it's actually a better school or just have more motivated parents is tricky, thus yes the school results in sats are better but only due to pushy parents.

It depends on the schools.

There are great state schools and awful ones; just like there are great private schools and some that are really not good.

I think the OP should check out her local schools rather than assume that private will always be better.

It also depends on what you want from the schools - presumably not just times tables.

I have 2DC at Oxbridge, state all the way through, but we are in a Grammar area. DD's state primary, and the one I worked in got the same % into the local Grammars as one of the selective Prep schools. So here private is not better.

Not sure what Bristol state schools are like now but when we were there 20+ years ago they were pretty bad so going private would have been a no brainer, particularly for secondary.

I know, she did try! She can learn quotes etc by rote really easily and used to learning lines for drama but for some reason not numbers. And it definitely is not because she went to a state school . Anyway - only a few more months of maths thank goodness.

You do realise that rote learning times tables only tests a child's working memory, don't you?

Rote learning does not teach mathematical concepts.

Your child might be able to parrot off the answer to 6x7 but they won't do well when it comes to mathematical reasoning.

If there is a good State primary opportunities for informal play with local friends are invaluable. The investment in after school activities has to be considerable (trying to keep as many as possible nearby, to avoid commuting). We sign up for music and swimming months in advance. We also do a small amount of extra maths every day, to ensure a thorough grounding in methodology. Dual language family so DC grew up fluent in both.

Some of the classes I know of at private schools are an uncomfortable, highly stressed mix of children with SEN who lack formal diagnosis and children pushed hard by very ambitious parents. I also know of classes at State school that are far too large, with a lack of individual support.

Your child might be able to parrot off the answer to 6x7 but they won't do well when it comes to mathematical reasoning.

Presumably you meant to say ...but they still might not do well...

They are of course different skills, but knowing times tables supports being able to solve harder problems as you can stay focused on the problem and not distracted by calculating basics.
So if a child is capable of learning them, they should. If not they'll need to develop workarounds.

I don’t doubt the importance of looking at the various schools but I’m doubtful that the local state primaries would let me have a wander around when DD2 is only 20 months old? In addition, whilst I have an idea of what DD2 will be like in a few years, given how young she is, there’s obviously a lot that could happen along the way and it’s clearly important to find a school that will suit her as an individual.

My other concern is the extent to which Bristol prep schools (within reasonable distance from us) would tick the boxes I’m looking for in any event and whether we may need to consider moving elsewhere (not based solely on times tables (!) but a multitude of other considerations). Clearly I need to do significant research.