Do you really think the school a child goes to at 4 affects the future course of their life?

[snickersnack]

Because I don't. But I know lots of people who do, and who are suggesting that if dd doesn't go to an academic, selective school next year she won't get into a "good" secondary school, presumably therefore ruining her chances of getting a place at Oxbridge and therefore ensuring she'll never get a job at Goldman Sachs (hmm...a blessing in disguise maybe). We're happy with the choices we've made in terms of education, and I know my parents never gave these things a second thought, and I did ok. When did it get so stupidly competitive?

I bloody hope not. dd has only been able to get a place at a terrible school under special measures, to start reception in January. The thoght of it is making me sick with worry tbh so I hope to be pleasantly surprised

yes
its not actually the school that's important though. its things like the particular teachers they have. the environment, whether it is supportive or not. stuff like that.
what is a brilliant school for one child, may not be such a brilliant one for another.

No. Primary schools are pretty much all fairly pleasant, cosy places. It will be fine.

People lose all perspective over this. It doesn't matter where you go to school until about the age of 15.

It is important that a child is happy at Primary school as this will lead to a positive attitude towards school and learning in general as they mature.

If a child is happy at school, any school, that is half the battle won.

The primary school can (as stitch says) affect the course of a child's life - that's the point of education, isn't it? - but to nothing like the extent that support and encouragement from parents etc can.

littlelamb - a school being in special measures can actually be a good choice, as it will be receiving more resources and lots of very hands-on management (possibly including a change of senior management) in a bid to pull it out of the doldrums.

I chose dd's infants because it was so cuddly. Also, because it was literally across the road.

Now, at secondary, I think factors like the educational attainment of the teachers, general level of ambition etc are beginning to become important to her (though still less important than my attitude).

At age 4, what she needed was cuddly.

Up to a point, yes. But not in terms of whether it's an academic, selective school or not. There's a fair bit of research that suggests that after early childhood a child's peers are a greater influence on them than anything else, but that's a bit luck-of-the-draw. And I think it's important that a child is happy at school (or wherever they're being educated). If you spend years going to a school where you're miserable then it must, surely, have some long-term effect?

People stress far too much over this.

Yes I do. Children grow and develop a great deal between the ages of 5 and 11, as they do at the previous stage and the next stage (education years wise) of their lives. Children learn many many things at primary school but educationally it gives them the grounding they need to go to secondary. If that grounding is poor it can affect them throughout their secondary school and therefore on through their lives. However of course the most important thing is support and encouragement from parents, but isn't this true through secondary as well?

Personally I don't subscribe to the 'I did all right' school of thought. The education system was very different when I went to school and I don't think it has changed for the better.

Agree with aintnomountain -- my parents didn't worry about it, and I did OK. They didn't worry about it, and my first brother did OK. They didn't worry about it, and my next brother had a disastrous experience. There were other factors at play, but had they not assumed they didn't need to worry about it because their first two children had been OK then some of the problems could have been avoided (various school-related issues, chiefly that the school was deteriorating and that it had been a good personality fit for the first two children but was emphatically not for the third). With my sister they worried about it and she went to a different school.

The only thing important at 4 is that they enjoy going to school and develop a love of learning. I think what they actually learn is pretty irrelevant until secondary school age. My ds started school this year and loves it. So much so that he is upset not to go at weekends!

Jeezlouise, do you want your four year old at an academic selective school? Nope. Nor do most of us.

Most of my primary education was absolutely appalling, actually. Those bits of it conducted in England were, at junior level, provided by crazed religious zealots and very, very, stupid bullies. Nobody noticed I was really quite depressed. I don't want my own daughters to go through a similar experience (fwiw I think schools are damn sight better now, certainly the one they attend); but it didn't actually impede my academic achievements, as it happens, even though I learned bugger-all for about five years.

I would sooner home educate than send my son to an infant school in special measures. From what I have heard schools that are in special measures are desperately unhappy places. I have worked in a school that was rated "inadequate" by OFSTED and it was hideous enough. It was inadequate because the SMT their did nothing when children swore at exam invigilators who were just casual staff.

I think its important that whatever school a child goes to at the age of four breeds confidence and they are happy. Academic sucess is down to having supportive parents.

Yes, in terms of them being happy, making friends and learning that school is a fun, safe and exciting place to be.

No in terms of them being pushed to a particular academic level at specific stages, which is pointless at best and damaging at worst.

I do. I think that if my daughter goes to the nearest primary school to us, she will suffer hugely. Even Ofsted admit it's rubbish.

Around here, infants and junior schools tend to be apart from each other, so you can send your child to a cuddly infants, and then think again when you get to the junior stage.

frisbyrat that's why my ds has gone to private school! Our lovely catchment school was decimated by an ineffectual head and ended up in special measures. It was a fab school when we moved to the area a few years ago but the damage was done in 2 yrs and 3 yrs later the school is still trying to recover.

As long as they are happy, and see learning as a good thing I don't think it matters. A friend of dd's goes privately and hates it, and it is v academic there-is starting to put her off for life. I went to bad schools all my life and am still oxbridge educated, it is all down to confidence and happiness.

Not the school but the main people in their lives which might include teachers, that inspire and encourage.

The school has to be "good enough" ie disruptive behaviour is managed well, etc.

After that, it's pot luck whether they get a nice group of peers....

Yes!

I think if a disadvantaged child got the opportunity to attend a great school with caring, supportive teachers and was exposed to a love of learning it could really change their life chances.
For advantaged children I think a great school is just icing on the cake. which is not to say it doesn't matter, just less life changing iyswim.
What a shame that some kids get advantage and a great school and some poor buggars get nowt.

Soething you can be sure I remind my children about...oohh...twice a day.