Reception - will I regret state?

[Cutie18327]

I'm currently looking at schools for my 3 year old daughter, she turns 4 in August 2025 so is due to start reception in September 25.

My local schools are School 1 (RI juniors, but G infants), School 2 (me and hubby hated), School 3 (CoE, hard to get into). We are relatively comfortable financially but to afford private I would probably need to return to work full time. Now both myself and my husband are teachers so have a solid grasp of helping our children through their education, we can do extra curricular activities out of school, but I do worry about larger class sizes, behaviour and higher teacher turnover in the state schools. My daughter has already started on the basics in terms of phonics and numeracy and I want to nuture that instead of feeling like she will be pulled behind in a state class and a large class of 30....

My husband is against spending 40k (between 2 kids) on private education as we are aiming for grammar ultimately and would rather invest the money so we can live comfortably and provide our children with more opportunities further down the line.

Opinions? Does private really matter at primary age?

Agreed.

Things that state primary haven’t done well for us- differentiate work, communication with parents, variety of currculum e.g art, music, trips. We haven’t had any issues with staff sickness, turnover, bullying (yet).

Mine started reception reading fluently and comfortably adding numbers to 20. They spent the year doing phonics and learning number bonds to 5. It was a bit frustrating but it doesn’t seem to have been harmful.

Private for us would be a huge stretch so we haven’t done it. If I had the spare money I would pay.

As you are both teachers and will invest time and energy in your DC out of school time (reading with them every day, providing extra-curricular opportunities, generally encouraging them) you are likely to find that your ok state primary (school 1) will do the job perfectly well.

DD went to the pretty ordinary primary up the road, had a lovely time and a proper childhood, and passed the 11 plus easily with home preparation and is now flourishing in her chosen state grammar. State primary was more than adequate for a bright child with motivated parents.

Your School 1 sounds fine for infants and you can read up on why the junior school is RI and watch and wait to check that they are addressing the issues. It might also be fine in four years' time.

The biggest unknown is the other children in the class. It seems these days that this is the major problem in primary schools. You might be fortunate though - we were.

Ice cream sales and murders go up in august. These are 2 cold stone facts.

Are they related though?

Achieving higher results is meaningless if you are selective. Clever kids do well in exams is hardly a meaningful piece of information.
More spend per pupil COULD be significant, but as a basic fact it doesn’t tell us anything.

Better job prospects - can you really tease out education specifically from all the other factors - disposable income from parents meaning they can move to where the jobs are, friends in high places, family support, better health and mental wellbeing that goes with being in a higher social economic group.

There are many good things to be said about what private schools are able to provide. But I do not believe “your child will do better in life than if they went to state” is actually one of them.

Children who fail selective exams for a school don’t then go to state though. They go to a non selective private school!

Not necessarily - we only applied to selective secondary as (1) there aren’t a whole lot of non selective secondaries around near us but (2) if he hadn’t got in, we would have sent him to state and spent money on tutoring if needed.

There aren’t many who do go to the comprehensive down the road though, although as you say I am sure there are some. But still, while some individual private schools are selective the system as a whole is not and there will be plenty who take anyone who pays.

I have 1 DC in infants and 1 in juniors. Both are bright. They complain at points of being bored, particularly in maths. I think my eldest particularly would do well in an academic prep school. I don't think it would actually be affordable for us, but if we could go down this route, the downsides for us would be:

• Needing to work more, meaning more wrap around care and more tired/stressed parents. My kids would hate going to breakfast/after school club every day. (I'm not saying all do!) They like to come home and chill and chat through their day with us. I appreciate we are lucky to have this option some days.
• Longer commute and longer school days. My DD finds school a long day and has said she would prefer shorter days even if it meant shorter holidays

On balance I feel the school they are at is right for us. If we suddenly won the lottery we might feel differently, but I think our kids benefit more from increased time and attention from us, which would be sacrificed if we had to earn more to pay fees.

@BoleynMemories13 You agree that private school gives your child an advantage but argue that leg up isn't necessary as they will get on 'fine' without it, that doesn't make any sense.

Will OP regret not giving her children an advantage? She can only answer that.

If you believe on average sending your child to private school has no advantage you are completely deluded.

IFS says about half of private schools are academically selective - not sure how that splits primary/secondary

consensus of friends with secondary-age kids who went to preps is that, looking back, it wasn't worth the money, certainly wouldn't be so with VAT, and if they could "replay" they'd use state primary and put the resources saved into secondary/uni.

I wanted my DCs to go to a grammar. I knew they were both very bright.

DC1 for some reason couldn't cope with the 11+. DC1 is a summer baby and I suspect was simply too immature. They went to the comp and achieved better than their grammar school friends and went to a top uni and got a 1st in a masters in a STEM subject.

DC2 was clearly very brainy but wanted to go to the comp witb DC1 and their friends, so refused to sit the 11+. DC2 had a lot of issues at secondary, which we now realise was dyslexia and ADHD. DC2 is now at uni and also looks likely to get a first.

This is all a very long-winded way of saying not to set your heart on a grammar school, because you don't know how things are going to pan out with your DCs. Remember You don't need a grammar school for academic success.

That's because you're choosing not to understand. An accademic child will be given a 'leg up' in that they won't necessarily have to work as hard for what they get in life if they have been bought up with private school privileges. That doesn't mean that other kids of similar abilities can't and won't get be successful in life, through hard work and determination.

Personally, I'd rather instill those values and skills in my child than give them the 'leg up' of private school. It definitely gives an accademic advantage but that will often come at the detriment of other things. It's all about balance and what individuals want for their child.

Of course only OP can answer their question, based on their own beliefs and values. All we can do is to advise based on our own. The differences in opinion stated in this thread are only to be expected.

An accademic child will be given a 'leg up' in that they won't necessarily have to work as hard for what they get in life if they have been bought up with private school privileges.

Academic children are stretched and pushed at most private schools, not allowed to rest on their laurels at all, the exact opposite of 'not working as hard' is true of schools like St Pauls girls or Westminster. Gifted children are pushed hard.

Stating private schools provide a leg up, ON AVERAGE, is no damning judgement on state school kids or their life chances.

Its the same as saying ON AVERAGE women earn less than men, you can read all sorts of varied things into that, a misogynist can come up with all sorts of bullshit with that fact, but the fact remains true.

I'm a bit surprised that a teacher places any value in an ofsted report.
My kids have gone to a "good" school but one that I far preferred to any of the local outstanding ones and they have thrived. I also know many children that have gone to RI schools and the same can be said.

If you believe you can separate private schooling from the
pre-existing conditions you are deluded.

No one is arguing the statistics do not exist. I’m not even saying private school isn’t beneficial. We are saying they are not as meaningful as you say.

You’re taking ALL of the groups who do well - white kids, affluent, descended from clever professionals, living in certain areas of the country, coming from varied and stimulating early childhoods - and then saying ‘look how well our kids do compared to everyone else’. No shit.

It’s the same as statistics around water births. Water birth babies do well. Is this the water birth? Or is it that statistically women who are able to have a water birth are low risk, educated, affluent and white?

If your gut is saying go private, that is what you should do. No matter how wonderful the state primary, you are always going to feel guilty and frustrated at any perceived short comings. Assuming one or both of you work in private schools, you should be able to get beneficial fees. Academically, I think well supported children do well anywhere, and this is born out by the mix at top universities, but the well-rounded/self-confidence thing is untangible and who knows how much of this comes down to school, home or genes?

If you believe you can separate private schooling from the
pre-existing conditions you are deluded.

I don't.

Again like the other poster you're not making any sense, private school is beneficial , but that benefit has no meaning , that's bollocks.

Like I explained in another post, Women get paid less than men on average, this is a fact. I take-away from that institutional and structural in-equality, a whole host of reasons, a woman hater would infer its because women are inferor to men.

The stat is still MEANINGFUL.

The private school my children attended in London, I'd say white, affluent , clever professionals were a minority, there were many non-white parents, parents of all colours who were hustling in two, or three jobs to pay fees, parents who had no wealth at all, mortgaged up to the hilt, or relying on grandparents and aunts and uncles to pay fees, they came from all types of housing, renting socal housing to large mansions.

Of course private education goes hand in hand with wealthy , privilege , and as you allude to there are many factors why private schools outperform state , but whatever the childs background, they will on average have a NINETY PERCENT bigger spend than if they stayed in the state school system, that is a huge advantage that's way too big to ignore, whatever the childs background , colour, class or whatever.

But you have to believe that growing up with parents working 2 or 3 jobs just to cover fees is not a negative that outways your perceived benefit of that increased budget on your education.

Speaking as someone whose parents were always at work to pay for private school fees, I'd have much rather had a shorter school day, more time at home and much more time with relaxed and rested parents. It's slightly irrelevant that there was a more resourced classroom for a child who missed out on family time and other material comforts/holidays etc because all the money was going on fees.

My own DC have gone to state throughout, both Good and RI schools with all sorts of social diversity/behaviour issues etc and I categorically know they are doing brilliantly because I am around more, available, support them and we have really enjoyable family time and culturally enriching experiences. Me being out of the house more, working harder to pay for fees would maybe result in slightly nicer school environment but it would be a much worse home one.

Any advantage can be mitigated.

The stat is still MEANINGFUL.

Yes but what is MEANS is up for debate.

Water birth babies do well = water births are good OR people who choose water births are ‘good’ OR water births are not made available to certain sections of the population (which way the causation goes here is unclear)

OF COURSE having access to sports, arts, more teachers etc is generally a good thing. All we’re saying is attaching a STATISTICAL advantage to the schooling specifically is, well, bad statistics.

“My child had access to an instrument he wouldn’t have at the local state school” this fact is not generalisable but it is far more meaningful in that it can be found to be objectively true. “Private school kids do better because they went to private school” is not objectively true.

I’m a teacher in the state sector. I’m pulling my child out into private and the first chance I get. Some of the things I see would make a parent weep. You can say whatever you like about it being fine, TAs BUT the reality is Most state primaries are drowning in SEN issues - children who have no place in mainstream are being shoehorned into classes which aren’t fair to them or those around them. Learning is disrupted daily. TA budgets are cut - if your child isn’t falling very far behind it’s unlikely they’ll get much attention at all. They certainly won’t get pushed. Ive worked at many many schools and this is the norm. I’m just being honest. As soon as I can afford, I’m out.

@SorryNotSorryForWhatISaid

My parents worked long hours in manual jobs just to pay rent and keep us fed, yours worked long hours to go way beyond all that and pay for private education, something only 7% of children experience, that's a huge difference.

To say that's ' It's slightly irrelevant that there was a more resourced classroom for a child ' is a response from a privileged perspective that has never experienced a failing school with low expectations, under resourced and impacted with all the ills of social and economic deprevation, @Corpuschristie1988 sums it up really.

Also the experience of attending private school has lots of soft skills that are very very difficult to measure, let alone mitigate.

@MonteStory

I think we're drifitng to straw man argument here, of course what the stats means is up for debate, I agree. That's why I used the women get paid less than men, (far more useful than water births ) as a similiar stat that is true but 'open to debate'.

“Private school kids do better because they went to private school” is not objectively true.

This is something I've never posted, I posted, 'on average kids who attend private school produce better results than state.' which is objectively true.

As I said, my own DC and those of my also privately educated siblings all go to state schools with a whole host of issues. My high achieving secondary age DC attend an RI comp and are thriving.

I maintain that for me and my family, having parents that are available, have headspace, time and energy, and also money for trips, days out amd holidays abroad are benefits that have a very noticeable positive impact on my DC and IMO these are not outweighed by the less than perfect education system they are exposed to. A private school that we could only afford by both working full time, as the OP stated, would mean less family time, less shared experiences, less holidays and shared enriching experiences and much more time out of the house,.longer days, more stress, less home cooked meals. I am confident that for us it absolutely isn't worth it.

Thanks for sharing. I have both my boys in private but have always wondered about state. One is severely SEN (has an EHCP) though so I don't think he'd have coped in a large class. Are you able to tell me more about the issues in the state sector? At some point, if this school doesn't end up working out for him, we may be forced to reconsider state primaries, and I'd love to be forewarned!