State or private for secondary?

[CandyCrush77]

I am sure this has been done to death but am having a bit of a dilemma as to what to do for secondary for DSs who are currently 8 and 6. The local state secondary is not good and so we are looking at either moving house into the catchment area of a good secondary (there are two excellent secondaries about 10-15 minutes away) or going private. We are in London and, thanks to stamp duty, it will cost around 100k to move and buy an equivalent or slightly smaller house in catchment. I had therefore decided we may as well go private but not really keen on the whole ethos of private school and, while we should be able to manage (just) it will be a stretch financially. I think I would go for private if they would definitely be getting a better education but I am not sure the private schools they will get into will be much better than the excellent state options. Interested in hearing from others who have been through this and what they decided.

Forest have had a generous scholarship pot for donkey's years, but they still trail waaaaay behind Bancrofts (their local competition). They are a fairly big school and the more places you have to fill the harder it is to be "picky." I also think they haven't been very good about knowing who to offer scholarships to.

That said, historically, they have "punched above their weight" in terms of getting children into medical schools and oxbridge considering their exam results/league table status. Meanwhile, Bancrofts get fewer DC into oxbridge/medical school than they should given the glittering GCSE/A-level results.

Both Forest and Bancrofts have/will have new heads, btw.

Hi there,

I am at the opposite end of the country but, as a parent of very bright children, I am an advocate of the best education I can get. My DD1 went to private from reception to year 2. We are now at state (Y3 & R). The difference is massive but it isn't because of money, it is because of a lack of imagination and constrictions set by the education authority. I have to say, it is so frustrating as a family to adjust from private to state and there has been very little support for DD as she has had to adapt. Thankfully we are keeping up her level by homeschooling as she has been educated 2 levels above her state peers.

We worked twice as hard to fund her education and had no holidays in the 3 years she went but it was 100% worth it. We are currently trying to get back on track so we can send our children back. The whole system works for us and is far more flexible than state. We get so much more support as parents at private school and it makes working so much easier.

That said, if you can find a really really good state school, I'd go with that. I'd rather not pay for education - I don't think I've met a parent who would...... Although, lots of parents do spend more money having their children supported with their education in terms of after school clubs and tutors. Quite a few have said that after all the extra running about, lost wages due to dropping off at 9 and picking up at 3.30 and the cost of after school clubs (either at school or off site), they haven't actually saved compared to paying for private. You're also talking about a £100k moving bill too...... Well, I'd rather earn 40% more, not move and use that saving to pay for private...... I compared my financial outgoings with my SILs and I was earning 40% more and had more me time because DD was being educated and entertained from 8am to 6pm 5 days a week.....

I think you are right, Naughtyb0y. The top privates are hugely over-subscribed. There are new prep schools opening all over the place but it costs a phenomenal amount of money to open a new senior school. Therefore middling schools which were always fallback schools are now getting applications from very bright children and the academic results are rising steadily. In my borough 25% of children are privately educated and as a result a number of SW parents are now looking at schools in North Surrey - Epsom College, Reeds, Notre Dame, St John's, etc.

Sometimes the turnaround is very fast, CandyCrush. North Bridge might doing very well in three or four years time.

When making a choice I would be wary of being swayed by league tables. They mostly reflect how the selective the intake is and how ruthless they are at weeding out after prep, pre and post GCSE. Many children are being tutored to keep up at some of these schools.

If you move house, you will worry about Sod's Law - would it not be just your luck when they hire a new, wrong Head or Ofsted rates it Requires Improvement out of the blue and turmoil rips it apart with staff leaving in droves etc... Or the catchment shrinks that year and you had not moved quite near enough. Something bad like that could happen - even a 10% chance is scary.

My guess is that for at least one of your kids you would succeed in either getting a place at a great state school (say partially selective or perhaps even have a go at QE in Barnet?) or a great independent. For the other one NBH may also work out OK. (Moving for 6th form could be the plan in that case).

There is a lot of "option value" in not moving and instead waiting until you see all application outcomes before you write a big cheque. During that process, you will also learn a lot about schools and how well they suit (or not) your kids. What you thought or preferred when he was 8 or 9 may not be the same at 11. Choice has value.

Otherwise, although NBH (Hampstead/Rosslyn Hill) has its issues (especially turnover), we will definitely apply there for DD2 who is 9 - but hoping she will also get an offer somewhere better, like DD1 did.

We (also) really don't want to move, and are not happy with local state secondaries - but will watch them carefully and may change our mind. We also went for state primary and love the multicultural and social mix. But DD1 (who is at a good but not superselective independent secondary) now has great, positive, hardworking friends/peers; so I would not worry much about ethos. And as we hoped, their attitude is rubbing off on her. That culture is very different from what we perceive and hear about at our poor-to-mediocre local state secondaries)

Stamp duty would feel like a huge waste, it really is money down the drain which you don't get back. BTW, I highly recommend a large offset mortgage (with lots of "slack") to help sleep well at night if paying fees.

Final point: With bright kids, you should look primarily at % A+ at GCSE rather than % A-C. (A-C becomes meaningless for all good private schools - with all at 100 or 99 it tells you nothing, and some state schools focus a bit too much on getting Cs). And when comparing state school results, look at the stats for high and mid achievers, not just the headline figure.

Good luck!

Thanks again all, this is amazingly helpful! And good point NWGirls re checking % of As etc. Agree that stamp duty is a total waste and hate the idea of moving somewhere worse just for the sake of getting into a school when there is no certainty that we will! It feels a bit of a falsity as well. Wonder what happens during year 6 of primary when everyone asks where DCs are going. Bit weird to admit you are moving or have moved house to get into a school although I'm sure lots of others do it. Definitely going to keep an eye on the state schools we could apply to as well as selective to see how they pan out over the next few years although I have to say I am veering strongly towards private for all the reasons everyone has outlined above.

NWgirls, you are absolutely right to concentrate on the A/A*s.

CandyCrush, you would be amazed at the number of people in North or NW London who rent for a year close to an outstanding state school. They don't move, they rent within about 100 yards. This is offset by their renting out their own property. It's no hardship - if they live in a £1.5m house, they just rent something similar.

Traalaa, I'm not certain why you think my quoting my friend about the effect of the increased number of children on Pupil Premium is offensive. She has noticed a big difference in behaviour/bullying in the five years since her eldest child started at the school. It has got much worse. This is a Christian school (I'm not saying which denomination) and had good reputation. My friend used to go on and on about how wonderful it was, but the intake has changed and is bringing the school down.

CandyCrush a PP has touched on this but it is worth comparing subject choices available at GCSE and A level between the different schools for this year and next. I think that will become even more of a distinction between state and private in the next few years. The trend is already apparent in excellent state schools that I know (not in your area), funding is now restricting what they can offer outside the mainstream GCSE/ A level subjects including choice of languages or quality of resources for music, DT, drama etc. I would be worried about the effect of this narrowing of the academic curriculum and perspective, it puts a lot more onus on parents to supplement outside school. It is a factor that would push me towards private now (as well as extracurricular opportunities ) should I be choosing for a reasonably academic DC and would not have been so much of a consideration a few years ago.

Cleo, problems with bullying, etc are usually down to school leadership and core values. Schools in v.deprived areas, with some v.troubled kids don't have those problems. One v.close to where I live is lauded for not having such problems. It makes me more than a bit queasy when you intimate that the reason for the increased in bullying/ bad behaviour at that school is due to PP kids. That does seem to be what you're saying. 'The intake has changed and is bringing the school down.'

btw Cleo, I'm not saying some schools don't have those problems or denying what happened to your friend's son. That's really sad and must have been very difficult for her. What I'm trying to say is the reason isn't that the kids are from poorer backgrounds. Kids often need help and that's what the PP money is for, but a good school puts support in place for kids who need it. Most kids don't any extra support. They just need a good school to thrive in. My friend's just moved her boy from a school in a nice middle class to one in a much more deprived area. Her son's far happier, simply because it's a kinder, better run school and he feels safe there. Each school's different, but it's not the background of the kids that dictates how good they are.

The secondary education thread is full of references to private schools where bullying is rife. Bullying happens in all schools. It is how the school deals with it that counts.

Traalaa: Can I just reiterate that I was quoting my friend. She made that comment because she has seen the difference over the five years from her eldest starting to the youngest starting and having to be removed. The school in question has an excellent reputation for pastoral care and for dealing with bullying effectively but boys of 11/12 who were making threats of a violent sexual should have been expelled, not given a detention.

Just going back to one of your earlier comments about your friend's DD attempting suicide, I agree that bullying can happen in private schools too. It is one of the reasons why I would never send DD to one of the super-selective girls' schools - private or grammar - even if she could have passed the exams. I think those schools are very pressurised and peer pressure can be enormous. I also think that you can get more bitchiness in some girls' schools, although obviously not all of them are like that.

Sorry - violent sexual nature ...

Hi Cleo, re renting a house in catchment for an outstanding state school. I understood that this was risky in that the LA could challenge that the rented property is not your main residence on the basis that you still own your other property, even if it's rented out on a long let. I have heard of other people doing this who even called the LA to check it was ok, but I would feel a bit uncomfortable doing this. What is the LA challenges it and you lose the place?

CandyCrush, I don't know that I would recommend it!!! All I do know from various estate agents in the Muswell Hill area is that a large number of parents do it and therefore a lot of rental properties become available in October as soon as the children have joined their new schools. They are all trying to get into Fortismere. Sometimes they live only half a mile away from the house they are renting!

Cleo, yes from all I've heard, I think some (not all) all girls' schools can be a nest of vipers and best to give those a swerve. Blimey, I agree with you on something!

LOL

My understanding is that more and more LAs are clamping down on people who rent near a good school and own another ("real home") property - this is likely explicitly against the rules in some (many?) areas and "only" unethical in other places.

Other people cheating is not a good excuse. And some of the rental demand referred to earlier will have been people who did not own another property, in which case there is no problem.

Hi NWgirls, I checked the policy and it does not explicitly mention this, just that you must apply from your main residence, not your temporary one. If you rent for a year beforehand and your other house is rented on a long let then arguably it is your main home. Not sure how they would disprove this. If we did sell up and move to the area then I think we would indeed want to rent first anyway just to be sure we got a place before spending 100k moving.

If you do decide to sell up and move, CandyCrush, you'll need a fallback plan in case they don't get in. You could do the 11+ as well, but remember if you are offered a private school place and want to take it up you will have to pay the deposit before you get the state school offer. However, that will be between £2,500 and £5,000 in all likelihood, and that pales into insignificance if he gets into the top state school and you won't be paying fees.

I really wouldn't rent next door to a good school. Whatever you think about the morality of doing so (and personally I think it is definitely dubious), it's v v risky. It's very easy for the council to look at your council tax records or GP surgery, see you own a house a mile up the road and count that as your main residence.

I do know dozens of people who've done it and none have been found out. However, councils are getting more vigilant. Camden for example has a fraudulent applications hotline and says this: 'We will not accept a temporary address if you still have a property that was previously used as a home address, nor will we accept a temporary address used solely or mainly to obtain a school place. You may be asked to supply additional information to explain why you are not able to use your permanent address.'

I think the way people view it has changed too. It used to be seen as quite acceptable and parents were very open about it. Now that councils are referring to it as fraud and encouraging people to shop those doing it, it's become unacceptable. Kind of like drink driving.

Naughtyboy, in answer to your question re central. Yes a bit like threads such as this one! It seems to me that it's such a clearly excellent school that it's no need of MN-ification. Your boy is as you say really happy there and has lots of friends .

ps you don't have to pay the deposit for a private school place before the first round offers - most coincide their acceptance date with the 1March (or whenever it is).

Also beware the introduction of fair banding and lottery systems!

These would of course give all London schools a level playing field, promote equality of opportunity and remove the entrenched advantage of those able to spend £££s on moving house to get into "the best" schools.

Thanks all. Yes, I agree Coffeecup. I just don't feel quite right in doing and and would really worry throughout that the place would be withdraw if we ever moved back. Not sure I want to live with that handing over us. However, as you say, it seems that loads of people DO do it which is pretty unfair and I would doubt the council have the resources to investigate that thoroughly. Someone I know did this and called the LA (Barnet) who said that if their house was rented on a long let then this was fine, it would not be deemed to be their main residence. They had to provide copies of tenancy agreements but that was it. Do you think it's worth checking with the LA?