Did you go private at age 11 - if so, what were your thoughts and motivation ?

[3point14]

Though a few years away, I am considering a private school for my daughter at age 11, when she finishes her junior school.

I am by no means settled on the choice but I wonder if some would like to share their experiences and thoughts either way.

I'm reading this with interest as it's always been my assumption we'll do this. And yet I'm finding the whole experience of state primary to be so rewarding for both my children and us (and as a corollary seeing how damaging socially and environmentally that all our neighbours go private), that I'm beginning to doubt whether I should.
I agree with Still18 that going private is a form of very expensive insurance against future regret. If our local secondaries were truly comprehensive, then I'd send my children without hesitation. Unfortunately they're not in that anyone with the money goes private and anyone with nous wangles their way into a selective school (musical ability, faith, one of the super selective old grammars). As a consequence the local comprehensives are more like old secondary moderns.
I hate myself for considering privates and feel ashamed of my gutlessness and hypocrisy. I don't know whether the fact that we've gone to state primary makes us better or worse.

polly we can only deal with life as it is, not how we would wish it to be.

We sent DS1 private last year. To be honest it wasn't planned as such. I would have been happy for him to go to the local high school (just received outstanding Ofsted) but we had got to a point that we could afford it and DH's older children had attended this school, so we went to look around.

DS1 loved it. He's a bright boy but a bit lazy and was never really pushed at primary school, plus always a bit of an outsider in friendship groups. I was still a bit worried about him going on to secondary without any friends but he is a friendly, happy boy and has made loads of new friends. The fresh start was good for him.

Haven't and couldn't- but a friend did and it is not that unusual.

If your political principles aren't very strong, I would make it about individual schools and whether you think this particular school would support your individual ds to do the best he can. And factor in what you could do educationally with the spare money.

Not everybody I know who has done this has got better results out of their dcs than their friends who left dcs in the state sector, but that is not a sign that the private school was wasted: you don't know how well that dc would have done if left in the state sector.

I would say both my friend and I are happy with our choices: dd is having a good educational experience that suits her in the state sector and my friend's ds is having a good educational experience in the private sector, and because our financial circumstances are different we both have a little spare money for books and travelling and trips to the theatre.

What evidence is there that comprehensives don't cater for the top end? My children are at a large comp. By GCSE year every subject is setted and at the top end they do triple science and additional maths. Plenty of support for Oxbridge candidates too.

Same here, RiversideMum. Top end definitely catered for.

My evidence of primary school is that they are brilliant at catering for top end (and bottom and middle, I don't know how they do it since I can't even cater for my three children). My worry about my local comprehensive is that it doesn't get that top end in proportionate numbers because of twats people like me putting our children elsewhere and creating a vicious cycle. A truly comprehensive school will be just as good at dealing with top end as any private or grammar.
As an aside how annoying are those Sunday Times 'Best schools' tables? They're not best, just best results. Wonder how people would react if there were 'best hospital tables' in which all the top hospitals were allowed to select only the healthiest patients and then crow about how much better they were at keeping people alive than those hospitals that took everyone.

My worry about my local comprehensive is that it doesn't get that top end in proportionate numbers because of twats people like me putting our children elsewhere and creating a vicious cycle.

Exactly - give them the twats people like you, and they will get 'top end' out of them. Don't, and they can't.

I'm not prepared to say what type of school my children attend(ed), but we have friends throughout the country and experience, some second-hand, of quite a range of schools. That experience suggests that "top" schools are those that manage to attract intelligent pupils and parents able to support that education. The league tables will give you information on how good the school is at achieving that but doesn't help with what the school will achieve for your child(ren).

In general private schools send more pupils to Oxbridge, if that is what you want for your child. They are also much better if you might want your child educated abroad. There are state schools that are excellent at supporting their brightest pupils but it's harder to identify them because the excellent results for the brightest are diluted in league tables.

When we looked for schools we looked for a high standard of discipline and behaviour. We looked at the numbers leaving at 6th form level for other schools and the numbers going on to leading universities in comparison to their intake. We also looked at the atmosphere of the school and the way pupils and teachers interacted. We talked to parents whenever we could, especially if their child(ren) had just left the school and to the children.

Some children thrive in any environment, if your own child is one of them private schooling can be a waste.

I'm not convinced that state schools are good at getting the best out of the really top end. By this I mean those whose IQ puts them in 1 of 500 or 1 of 1000. I once met a home ed group all the children (boys) were in this catagory; voluntarily reading degree level chemistry books at 5 yrs etc most had dropped out of state ed. some had been advised by their head teachers to take them away and home ed. them.I accept these are in a small minority but I just dont see how the state sector can cater for these type of children

You're absolutely right Elaine, but when you're the only twat/person doing this in isolation (and as aside, you can afford an alternative relatively easily), it's can be hard in practice. Especially in opposition to their father ie my husband. Not that his word goes, but if I've any doubts and he doesn't then it's easy to see which way we go.
Not defending what I may do in the future, as in Diane Abbott's words, I think it's pretty indefensible.

Truly gifted children (with Chemistry books at 5 yrs old) seem to be a minority in the state education because:
1- They disguise themselves to avoid bullying or they are so bored they end up giving up trying.
2- Their parents will do anything to get them a good education if they can: they go private, grammar school, home education or leave the country.

Ha pastoral, by saying that these chemistry degree taking five-year-olds are in a 'minority in state education', are you saying they're in a sizeable majority in private schools? I must have gone to a very rubbish private school, as there were none at mine...
Have lovely vision of a reception class full of children with lab googles on and mixing bubbling potions in test tubes.

Actually it will depend on the private school; there are some private schools that celebrate children who are interested in more advanced subjects. The highly able children in a reception class are encouraged to play like everyone else. However when it comes to teaching the 3Rs and other basics they avoid subjecting the gifted child to repetition. (my ds2 was dealt with this way and the school told me not to tell the other parents, no one ever noticed in the school).
Not all private schools do that of course especially at a younger age however there is a far better selection of senior schools where these needs can be met.

I am not saying that they are not a minority, I am just saying that the parents will avoid the state education at any cost. I know a lot of parents who are choosing to home ed because they the state ed experience was very damaging to their children. Catering for an IQ of 115/120 is not like catering for an IQ of 140 and above.

Well I don't massively want my girls to take Chemistry at 5. I just want them to be happy, and be stretched, and be normal, and go to school with the people they live near, and do their best. if I wanted them to be precocious science nerds who didn't know how to interact with normal children I'd home ed or send them private.

As long as you're wealthy, yes!

awaits posts about old cars, no holidays, tradesman's vans and bursaries

No, to be honest I only really added private school so as not to look to vehemently anti-home ed - although 'not normal financially' would not be an environment I'd choose either!

Ignorance is a bless for some!

ElaineReese it seems to me that your very against lots of people those with money; who are wierd, those who educate thier children privately, those who choose home ed.a harmless group who obviously have their childrens best interests at heart I'm sure your anti Steiner and anti specialised schools e.g. ballet music schools as well. But you talk frequently about the importance of living in your local communirty. But this local community cannot be exactly like you or have your views and values so I struggle to understand how you intergrate with them.