Ofsted outstanding vs independent. Any views?

[Penthesileia]

I've just discovered that the primary school in the village to which we are moving has been rated as oustanding in its last Ofsted report. It scored "1" in all but 2 categories (in which it scored "2" both times).

My DH is very determined that we should send our DD to an independent prep school.

I am, or was, reasonably unfussed about his determination. We can "afford" the fees, although it will mean that we can't do a lot of things (but we're not doing them now, because of high childcare costs, so life wouldn't change, from that p.o.v.); and in some ways the school he/we chose is very convenient, as it is very near his place of work, etc.

However, part of me was always a bit about independent prep. I can see the point, or value, of independent secondary schools, but I struggle a bit to see where the money goes at junior level. This school offers subjects which are not available at any state school but we could easily pay for tuition in them, if that is what he most wants.

I briefly pointed out that the primary school is "oustanding", but he dismissed it immediately and without discussion.

I'd really like to hear some views on this situation and, perhaps, to acquire a few good arguments as to why he should at least consider the local school.

TIA!

Thank you all for your posts and advice. I'm grateful for all this experience.

I think I make DH sound worse than he is .

We talked a bit yesterday about this, and he is adamant that he can't consider the local school because it can't offer the educational opportunities that the prep can.

He also revealed that, because of what he sees in his work, he is very wary of, nay sceptical about, the findings of Ofsted.

Quattrocento: it's not merely academic selection or competition (although these are important to him); it's also curricular opportunity.

You wrote: "But the advantage of going to the local primary is full social integration into the village - which sounds like an overwhelming plus." Yes, this is, for me, the most significant aspect, and one which I am struggling to get him to understand.

cat64: yes, as we both work, after school care is a concern.

Re: more children. No, we have no plans to have any more children, although who knows what life might bring . Certainly we could not afford comfortably to privately educate more than one child.

You wrote: "Perhaps you need to discuss with your husband what it is about private school he is so set on?" As I've mentioned, it is what he deems the "opportunities" afforded by a private education.

Re: "hothousing" - the school he'd/we'd like to send her to is not much of a hothouse, from what I know. If offers a good and broad education, but it is not insanely driven, iyswim.

IndigoBell - I agree that it is regrettable that my DH and I feel so differently about this matter. We have always managed to come to an agreement about other important matters, so I hope that this will be the case again here too.

Bonsoir - there is, I'm sure, an aspect of feeling more in control (though how realistic that is, I'm not sure) of your child's education when you choose indepedent. It is also the range of subjects and opportunities offered by the independent school which is attractive (or even, my DH thinks, a sine qua non).

piscesmoon - Yes - "the child we have" - absolutely. This is one of the greatest concerns for me, namely that DH has not given enough thought to the possibility that the ind. school might not suit DD. He says he would "think again" should she not be happy there, but this seems a retrospective kind of judgement, iyswim. I'm trying to persuade him to consider all the options, rather than relying on the one...

CantSupinate: re: learning through play - I fear my DH has obsolete old-fashioned ideas about educational practice... .

Runoutofideas - class size is important, but, strangely, not my DH's main concern.

clemette: - You wrote: "Once again it boils down to what your expectations of primary education are." Yes, and it is probably here also that DH and I disagree, which is regrettable. But I'm hoping to change his mind... Please don't think, however, that this is about money. On the contrary, my DH values (a particular vision) of education very, very highly, and it just so happens that this is no longer available in the state sector, so he feels forced to pay for it. I repeat, he is not socially or financially aspirational, at all. He is an educational elitist. That is the brick wall I'm running up against.

roadkillbunny: I am worried about the idea that DD will miss out on village life.

fliesby - the school sounds lovely. I just want my DH to do the same, ie. walk through the doors of the school. At the moment, he is being mule-like in his refusal to entertain the idea...

cory - yes, I think DH finds it very hard to imagine that DD will not, in some way, be like him, and value the same things, and so on. She's only 2, so it's impossible to say much beyond the fact that she's not any kind of intellectual prodigy - just a normal 2 year old. She's precocious socially, I would say. She is very confident and socially aware (at least if I compare her to other 2 year olds I know), so I'm not worried, at the moment at least, that she will not "fit in" at any particular school. I suspect that DD will always be the kind of confident girl who manages anywhere. Whether she will be academically successful is another matter.

I agree that it is she who ought to be at the heart of our decision. However, DH really does believe that by putting her in a school with fantastic educational opportunities, he is putting her first. He can't see that it isn't as clear-cut as that.

PollyParanoia - no, not immensely rich. Clearly comfortable enough to consider one set of school fees, yes. You're right that the money could be spent otherwise, and that this is a "sacrifice" we would have to make. My DH is more than prepared to accept that.

I've tried to explain my DH's p.o.v., so I'm not going to engage with the psychologising part of your post.

This point is interesting: "Sometimes I think private education is like the most expensive, least researched insurance policy in the world..." What do you mean? That people imagine it guarantees their children a bright future, and they're wrong? Yes, if one were to think that anything guarantees one's child success, etc., then one would be incorrect.

cremeeggs: what you write about your experience regrettably confirms my DH's jaded view of the Ofsted process and value.

Builde: you wrote "Many of us went on to Oxbridge; you really don't need to be in the independent sector to do well, as evidenced by the fact that over 50% of students at Cambridge went to state schools." DH and I know the Oxbridge situation intimately. And what you write both proves and disproves his insistence on the education opportunities of independent education. 50% of Oxbridge students may be educated by the state, but that means that the remaining 50% are drawn from the 7% of independently educated students. That's an enormous disparity.

You wrote: "Many private preps are really quite mediocre and are not scrutinised as much as state schools." True. Unfortunately, however, DH rejects the Ofsted model of scrutiny.

Sweeedes - glad to know I'm not alone... . LOL @ Louise Bourgeois wannabe! RIP Louise Bourgeois.

abitpearshaped - I will try to find out, but it's useless unless I can persuade DH... Grr.

newgirl - yes, just have to persuade DH to do some more research on the matter...

Karoleann - interesting. Perhaps DH might admit that starting out in the local school (at least) would be fine, and we could go from there?

lexie01 - thank you for sharing your experience.

mrsshackleton - absolutely, it must be about DD. I am just finding it impossible difficult to make DH see that his version of that (ie. making sure the educational opportunities are there for her) might not be the right version for DD.

Phew, such a long message, but I wanted to respond to you all.

I too believe that Ofsted is flawed independent school inspections are also flawed.

Will you dh be cross if your child goes to an independent school and doesn't make Oxbridge?

I remember some of the privately educated children at Cambridge and - when they decided not to follow the career path their parents were hoping for - there had been so much money spent on them, their parents were furious.

Personally, as an education elistist for post 18 year olds, I couldn't bear to spend any money on a school education when I truly believe that it's your brain and own motivation that gets you into Oxbridge.

The fact that almost 50% of Oxbridge students are from private schools is probably because private schools are selective. E.g. half the Oxbridge able pupils attend private schools.

However, if your dh really doesn't like the state sector, everything he sees in the local school that he doesn't like will bother him a lot. And I would be similar; if I was paying 12k a year for education in the independent sector, I would constantly be breathing down the teachers neck.

| think that if your dh refuses to countenance or visit a state school then you're not going to win him over. Even if your dd did go to the primary, you'd be on edge about every part of her development and I find that I've had to let go of some of my educational neuroses.
My dh was educated very similarly to yours and had never been inside a state school before visiting that of our dcs. However, he believes them to be "privileged" in a way that he never was by going to a local school and being part of the community. I really don't think your dh is wrong to hold certain beliefs, but I do think he's wrong to reject all state education without even visiting it. I'd be very uncomfortable with my dh dictating such an important choice and disregarding my views. There are a lot of choices to be made while parenting and are all of yours to be made on unsubstantiated beliefs?
Like I say the private school may well be better, but I don't think that's the real issue here.
No trying to psychologise again tho...

I don't think he would be cross, although he might be disappointed (if she's previously given him reason to believe that she was able, iyswim. He's not mad; if she turns out not to be academically focussed in that way, he's not going to be unreasonable about it).

I think that what you wrote here is the nub of the matter: "Personally, as an education elistist for post 18 year olds, I couldn't bear to spend any money on a school education when I truly believe that it's your brain and own motivation that gets you into Oxbridge."

We too are educational elitists, esp. DH. And his response to you would be that it is precisely because he is an elitist - at every stage - that he has to pay for her school education. Because we can pay, he will pay.

We both agree (indeed know ) what it takes to get into Oxbridge - from both sides of the fence, so to speak. My DH would not consider her education wasted even if she doesn't get into Oxbridge, etc.

He just wants her to have a particular kind of education which just doesn't exist in the state sector (except perhaps grammar schools, of which there are none in our area).

I do think, however, that your point about brains and motivation is only true up to a point.

In my current post, I teach plenty of students who didn't make the grade for Oxbridge (ie. didn't get 3 or more As at A Level) who are plenty bright enough to have managed there (I've taught there). Very often they missed out on top grades for structural, rather than personal, reasons. In fact, we (unlike Oxbridge, most of the time) can adjust our offers to students based on their background and schooling. We are able (unlike Oxbridge for obvious reasons) to accept that - in a given school - it doesn't matter how much brains or motivation you have, you can't get 3 As. In fact, 3 Bs or less, etc., might be a phenomenal achievement depending on your background. Oxbridge just can't adjust for that.

Yes maybe, but your daughters is 2. She'll go to primary school age 4. I think it might be a little early to be worrying about A levels...

Daughter is 2, obv, not daughters. (I have Oxbridge degree, but think that maybe good typing is most useful educational skill)

Sorry, Polly, cross-posted there.

I think you're right that there is an aspect to all this which is about my DH's personality.

However, his beliefs are not unsubstantiated inasmuch as the local school, indeed any state school in our region, and possibly the UK, does not offer the particular range of subjects he believes to be intrinsic to a good education. That's a fact. From this point of view, he is right. If he wants those at primary school for DD (rather than for us to teach her ourselves or get a private tutor), she has to attend this school.

Where his beliefs are, I agree, unsubstantiated is in the fact that - aside from these subjects, etc. - he can't quite believe that the local school would offer a comparable alternative education (because of, thought not entirely because of, the absence of these topics, etc.).

Yes , way too early! And I was rolling my eyes at myself as I typed for talking about it! I was just following trains of thought from others in the thread.

I fear that your point, however, that I will not change his mind is largely correct, for the reasons I've given. I'm just hoping that this thread, and the points of view and experience on it, will give me ammunition to at least persuade him to visit the local school. I would be furious with myself and him if I don't succeed in this at least.

I'm not afraid, for the most part, that the independent school wouldn't offer DD a decent education, indeed better than decent - as I've said, I know the school quite well and it is lovely. But insofar as we do (whatever he thinks!) have the luxury of choice (ie. we can pay for independent, but there is also the local school), I want to make a choice, iyswim.

I think you're being very reasonable and he has to be equally so. You're absolutely right to insist that he visit the state school if only to have his worst fears confirmed! Like I said before, I think you have to have billions before you can blow 100k without at least viewing the free alternative.
I do think that you'll go to the independent school and I'm sure you'll be happy with the choice. It would be such hard work and would put you into a position of intolerable defensiveness to go to the state school (unless of course he was miraculously converted by visiting it!).
An alternative is to go to the state school until 7. That was what I was intending to do until my first dc started and I thought that the state school was so brilliant and the benefits of being local so wonderful and now I wouldn't consider moving them. But surely the French and Latin can wait until 7 (or lots of schools have French clubs etc eps outstanding ones).

This is a very good thread .

My DD has been at French école maternelle for three years - she will start primary (at the same establishment) in September. Her school is a "private" (in the French sense) bilingual French-English school, with 3/4 of the day following the French NC and 1/4 of the day in English.

At DD's school approximately 70% of the families are French; about 10% are English speaking or mixed English speaking; and the rest are from all over the world. Going to school in such an environment exposes you to a very wide variety of expectations of academic achievement among the parent base, and enables you to examine your own assumptions and standards very closely.

My feeling, after three years, is that pre-school and primary school basically teaches a whole lot of very fundamental skills that will provide a base for the acquisition of knowledge in specific subject areas and a broad base of transferable skills in secondary school.

Ensuring your child gets a truly thorough grounding in the fundamentals - handwriting, reading fluency, spelling, fractions, times tables, polite and considerate behaviour, swimming etc etc etc is a fabulous gift that will serve him or her for life. That is what I would look for in a school.

Many teachers I know think it worth more paying for primary rather than secondary (if it's a choice) so that the basics and attitudes are instilled from the beginning.

My parents paid for private prep, thinking that I would pass the 11+ and go to a grammar school. That all went to plan - and then we went to live abroad and went to school in a different system.

The fantastic grounding I had had from 3-11 really came into its own when meeting the challenge of adapting to a new system and new languages at 13.

I have my own inner Ofsted ratings system. If I see Mondrian on the school walls, drawn with a ruler and copied precisely from the original without going over the lines and all the pupils' work looks the same, the school is poor.

Diana Athill didn't go to school at all until she was 14 years old, I can't think of anyone very much more culturally rich and well-educated, in the round, than her.

I'm determined to take my two youngest children on a year long tour around Europe before they start secondary school. I think we are all far too hung up about school and insufficiently attentive to culturally and educationally enriching experiences in life outside school.

In fact I think school is mostly a waste of time except for the obvious benefit of a break from childcare for parents.

Here here Sweeedes.

Although it does also stuff them full of the chemistry and stuff that I couldn't be bothered to but that they really should know.

I love the culturally enriching stuff. If school would just do its proper job and teach boring things like fractions properly, I could do even more fun stuff outside.

Teachers get bored teaching the basics too , however, and would rather put on shows and go on outings... and then parents have to catch up on the basics.

Hullygully - Hell. I'd forgorten about pesky chemistry and stuff. I would need a governess for the chemistry and a few other things.

In our area, where the primary schools are very much favoured (doesn't mean that they are brilliant, but they are popular with the middle classes) if people are going to pay, they wait until secondary school age.

Even then, at 16, many people opt back into the state sector for sixth form.

I suppose, what I am saying, is that the differences might not be as big as your dh thinks. But then, our local private schools aren't very selective and not particularly academic. We're not talking Westminster, we're talking about 'Tim nice but dim type schools.'

I do understand that some secondary schools might not offer triple science, classics, latin or whatever your dh is looking for, but many do. (many of our local state schools offer IntBac, something that some private people are after).

Grammar schools won't offer a different curriculum to a comprehensive school - they've just selected their children at 11. And a comprehensive will stream.

As for reasons that state school children might not get into Oxbridge; sometimes its lack of family experience and a bit of self-unselection (Oxbridge is too posh for me etc.)

However, if your dd has parents who are Oxbridge experienced, it won't appear threatening. I remember thinking that - since my parents had gone to Cambridge - you obviously don't have to be that bright!

But, look round your local secondary schools and ask questions like - do you offer three sciences at GCSE, how many people go on to Oxbridge etc.

And your dh may be pleasantly surprised by the parents at your local primary; our dds go to a school that is considered 'rough' and is nowhere near Ofsted outstanding but many of the parents are foreigners doing pHds at the local University. To the white middleclasses around us they look 'foreign' but when you get to know them you discover they are molecular biologists etc.

Anyway, we're sticking with our mixed up state education and at 18 - if our dds desire and are able enough - it would be lovely if they followed in their parents/grandparents/aunts footsteps and went to Cambridge. If they don't, I shall envy the fact that they're somewhere else not having to work as hard as we did!

It really does depend on the area.

The prep we use for ds1 is very different to the ofsted outstanding primary across the road.

"Grammar schools won't offer a different curriculum to a comprehensive school - they've just selected their children at 11. And a comprehensive will stream."

I don't think you are right. Grammar schools do offer a different curriculum to comprehensive schools, and they certainly stream.

Bonsoir state grammar schools must follow the same national curriculum that comprehensives follow.

Grammar schools around here offer a very restricted curriculum compared to comprhensives in other parts of the country.

Not all grammar schools stream - mine didn't, with the exception of maths. It was what you would describe as a good, old fashioned education, though, relying on the motivation, intelligence and good behaviour of the pupils to enable classes of 30 plus to be educated to a high standard (and get into Oxbridge). It didn't suit the bright children who found traditional methods boring, though, and the less academic girls struggled, as less academic subjects were frowned upon or not even offered. There is a difference between being very bright and being very academic, after all. I loved my grammar school, because I love learning for the sake of learning. I have several friends who have rather mixed feelings about their education and the extent to which it provided them with any useful skills for adult life.

I still cannot believe your dh would write off a school he has never seen. I entirely agree with him that OFSTED ratings mean little - an outstanding rating normally has a closer relationship with the social class of the parents than the quality of the education provided - but a visit to a school to look around and talking to existing parents and children means a lot. If nothing else, it may set your mind at rest that sending your dd to the private school is the right move. And if you are both just too busy to organise any extra-curricular activities for your dd outside of school hours, then maybe the private school would be better, as they can organise that sort of thing (eg music lessons, orchestras, extra sporting activities, etc) for you. I still think your dd would be missing out on village life, though. And having mixed with an awful lot of solely privately educated people at Oxford, I think there is a lot to be said for a few years in the state sector, if only to enable you to gain an awareness of the fact that you are not a better person to have been educated privately, even if, in some instances, you may be luckier.

Hello Penth.
Your post rang a real chord with me.
When DH and I were looking for the DTs I was convinced I would send them state.
I sounded like some of the posters here, who, frankly, are not remotely bothered about your siuation but can be found on all state/private threads saying only negative things about independent education.
Plus ca change.

Anyhooooo...DH and I went round the local primary and that was me done. Actually, I consider myself a home educator who uses school as a resource, much like the library or the internet, so who cared if it wasn't perfect.

Then nursery suggested we look at the local prep. I din't even want to bother. Bright kids do well where ever blah blah blah.
But we went.

And wowzers. What a difference. I couldn't believe it. It was everyhting I thought a school should be.

So that's where my kids go to school.

Would they have done as well if they'd gone to the locl primary? Very probably. Does that matter? Absolutely not.

And, yes, I still consider myself a home educator.

Sorry Litchick if I was one of the 'anti-private school' brigade; thought I was quite considered this time!

But I'm sure it depends on where you live; it's just that the private schools around us have such 'wet' teachers and they are very expensive. And I can't understand why you would pay to have lessons from teachers who can't control their class.

I would also consider myself a home educator - school is where you go to socialise, get some space from younger siblings and take advantage of the resources that are available. (And find out how other people live). Saying all that, you get some great teachers too.

Bonsoir, you are incorrect about grammar schools following a different curriculum to a comprehensive; they all have to follow the Nat. Curric.

You may see that comprehensives offer all sorts of diplomas, btecs, etc. but the top sets will be sitting GCSEs in traditional subjects.

(I do know something about education having come from a long line of teachers who have swapped between the private and state sector and with a teaching dh.)

To the OP - you have to go where you are both comfortable otherwise the one who is not persuaded will always find fault with the school.