DH and I don't agree on secondary school

[WillowSummerSloth]

Our eldest son is in year 5 and we have been considering secondary schools. However we have different preferences and we're not sure how to resolve it. There's no arguing, just a difference of opinion.
I prefer the private school- the curriculum is broad, the sports offered are amazing, the behaviours is great. But there's the huge financial burden as we have 3 kids and we'd definitely have to make cut backs or work more.
DH feels the local secondary school is good enough. They're strict with behaviour although there are still incidents of fighting and the lessons we observed felt like there was low level disruption in some classes. However DH thinks we can supplement their education with tutoring and after school activities.
For context we earm £170k and have £110k in savings specifically for education (gifted by parents for school fees)
Please can anyone advise?? There's no right or wrong I know but I'm chewing this over constantly. I feel the private school would definitely give a better experience but it comes at a cost. Also DH worked so hard for so long and really isn't keen to take on more work. I could work more as currently only do 3.5 days but I also do all the life and child admin which is hefty!

Also need to be mindful that Corbyn Hood intends to steal all private schools should they win the election

Without any doubt I would save it for uni.
My uni course was pretty much dominated by private school kids (small intake for the course of about 13). They were v confident and stuck together but did no better and in some cases so much worse than me and the other state kids (three of us).
Dd is now at uni and the financial side is stressful - minimal loan and top ups for accommodation, books, travel etc.

I think generally good private schools give more opportunities to just try different activities out with your friends without it being a big deal. Even sometimes to be led into doing something like acting or sport that would be completely outside the DC’s comfort zone but will add to their wider experiences, mental and physical health and autonomy. With that grows the confidence to be braver and happier about taking up opportunities later in life including more stressful situations.

Anything outside school necessarily involves parents and their scrutiny and becomes a commitment. From these threads parents seem to be more and more driven by targets for their DCs including in outside ‘leisure’ activities.

Mixing with people outside school is really important though for perspective on school cliques when socially things are n’t working out.
Or sometime for access to higher level training for a gifted sportsman or musician.

Although OP the most important factor for a DC will be time with happy parents so if the financial side makes that difficult there has to be a very strong reason to choose private.

sendsummer I think you phrased that perfectly, and that's exactly what we're experiencing. DS is trying all sorts of things we never thought he'd be interested in, and all the clubs very much encourage newcomers to just have a go. Form tutors take a real interest in what each child is doing, they come and watch their plays and performances after school and in the evenings, and it's lovely to watch how supportive and kind the extra curricular staff are - the kids look like they're thoroughly enjoying themselves. I know that state school staff can and do do the same, but it's just so much harder with less time and more pupils.

I think generally good private schools give more opportunities to just try different activities out with your friends without it being a big deal.

Interestingly (based on comparison with DC's state school versus niece's private school) we've found the opposite. Yes, there are more clubs in total at the private school, but by the time you get further up the school, a lot of them are "competitive" rather than for enjoyment.

For example, DC's school orchestra will pretty much take anyone who can hold an instrument (they have children who started learning this term), whereas you have to be grade 3 standard for private school orchestra; DC's school have lots of "for fun" sports clubs whereas the private school sports clubs are only for DC in school teams.

I think this a point in favour of choosing the school, and not generalising by sector.

I think once again it comes down to the ethos of the school , my children are at an independent which has a fairly broad intake and is known locally for the breadth of its extra curricular. It also gets very good academic results and value added.

I don’t recognise Redskys description , it’s all
About ‘have a go here’ and even at sixth form there are people just joining in with new activities that they haven’t tried before. Orchestras and ensembles start at beginner level upwards and there are selective choirs but also non selective anyone can join types .

One of ds friends ended up with major part in a drama production after being encouraged to come along rather than just wait in the library for his bus ! Never been in a play , never tried , never thought it would be for him !

“We are used to 3 holidays at least per year/ skiing / weekend breaks etc”

That’s a lot to sacrifice for extra curricular lacrosse, or whatever the ‘amazing ‘ ex-curricular opportunities the private school offers.

I went to private school, my Dc to a state comprehensive, and they are zooming ahead. And as a Pp said, in our circle of friends with families we have known since NCT days, or Reception, they are all getting comparable A level results and heading for the same Unis. It is the 3 who went to the comp throughout who have started at Oxbridge.

By the way this ‘Unis favour state school’ thing is very glibly bandied about. Contextual offers are very tightly defined and do not include children from averagely performing comps and families in averagely comfortable neighbourhoods.

Redsky I think that reflects in a given private secondary school clustering of talent and ambition (whether driven by parents or DCs) for certain activities like music or popular sports. If you get lots of grade 8 instrumentalists it is not surprising that the main school orchestra is full of them, ditto for schools. Indeed it may be a reason for choosing that school or the opportunity of more advanced repertoire for a talented child. However a good private school provides lots of other opportunities in those activities and a wider spread of other ones.

As elevendollarbills state school provision by necessity has to depend on good will of teachers or what the sixth formers can contribute to the younger years.

meant ‘ditto for main sports teams’

Granted DD (11) is at a school (State) with a Performing Arts specialism but they have 6 Choirs, Drama Clubs, a Lamda Club (with specialist outside Tutor), a Creative Writing Club, a Song Writing Club, dance studio and a host of dance clubs, recording studio and on site theatre. There is also specialist tuition for Singing & a whole range of musical instruments. Outside the Arts, Clubs range from an Equestrian Club through to Amnesty International. I appreciate all of the above aren’t the norm for every single State school but really extra curricular activities can be as wide and varied in the State sector.

BubblesBuddy I have now attended 4 admissions talks at Oxford and Cambridge and all have been emphatic: they are interested in grades, grades, grades and the results of their aptitude tests. At interview they are interested in depth and breadth of engagement with the subject and approach / thinking style. They were all emphatic that they do not care about any non-subject related extra curricular, or the personal statement, except as a conversation starter at interview.

Do you honestly think an Astro-physics don cares two hoots about the rowing team? And will sacrifice a place for an undergraduate in their world leading research department because if their ability in badminton or fencing?

I spend a bit of my working life in an Oxford College. It just doesn’t happen.

@Blouseandskirt I am not disputing you are right , but it is nevertheless surprising when time and again people who are high achievers sports wise or drama wise turn out to be at Oxbridge. I suppose it is just that if you are a high achiever in one field you are likely to be a high achiever in another. Or maybe early success in your chosen field gives you more confidence.

@madeyemoodysmum, with respect, Labour are as yet to announce their manifesto. Ending the charitable status of Private Schools came up at the Conference but in terms of actual real Election pledges, this hasn’t been included. What has are reducing Class sizes and ending University fees - both good things surely? A lot of nonsense & scare mongering is drummed up in the press about Labour and in particular Jeremy Corbyn. Let’s stick to the actual facts.

Achievement breeds achievement. If you have the tools (intelligence, creativity, determination, work ethic, curiosity) to succeed in one field you will tend to apply them to both academic and extracurricular pursuits. And of course they feed on each other, which is why the current state school squeeze on the creative arts is so damaging. But categorically, Oxbridge care exclusively about academic attainment. (In a past life I did admissions interviews at both unis).

Caring about skiing holidays at the expense of your kids education seems odd me. The sacrifices you'd have to made don't seem huge to be honest.

A little bit spurious this link between hobbies, interests & intelligence. Any idiot can have a hobby. Achieving academically has little correlation in achieving greatness in the Sports or Arts. Conversely, the hobbies and interests of some exceptionally intelligent person I would suspect have little bearing on their desirability as a candidate, for example, my ridiculously bright cousin (who achieved a 1st in Maths from St Andrews and has a PHD and now gets paid a small fortune to do something incomprehensible in coding) whose interests lie solely in excessive gaming, death metal and beer.

I have 4 at private school. The loacal schools are pretty good, but not great. These were our decision points

A good education is the most valuable thing you can give your child and one of the very few things that cant be taken from them

Most private schools have the ability to pick and choose which children they want in their classrooms. It means that they are able to build classes of children with similar abilities. Eg supportive of average learners, pushing the brightest, differentiated learning for sn and learning differences. State schools just take the kids they get and the teachers have to somehow make it work no matter what the disparity. This usually means the quiet ones get ignored as the teachers are focussed on managing the behaviour of the disruptive ones

We wanted our children pushed to fit their abilities, the private schools have much smaller class sizes, that means the teachers are able to get to know each child and adjust their style/explanations/expectations slightly differently for each child

Children need time to be children. If they do a full day at school and come home and have to start with tutoring and extra activities to fill the gap, what was the point of school? Is it just a waste of time then, or just good for socialising? Children need to be able to come home from school and rest and recharge and do things that they want to/find fun.

Our local schools have ok facilities, but the private schools offer so many things for the children to try. This means that a child might find they really like something that you would never have guessed because they were able to try it out at school (for minimal extra cost and hassle to the parent as well). Our DS 3 decided to try the sax at school, they let him play the school instrument and it turns out he loves it. We would never in a thousand years have thought he would be musical as he is dyspraxic with speech issues. It was a case of the school seeing him so clearly and suggesting something that would challenge him, it did and he loves it. DD was picked up as being good at maths, the teachers started letting her move right into the extra challenge activities in class and she is now being assessed to move up to the next class for maths classes (again something they can manage in a private school as they have more flexibility)

If there was a good private school as an option for my dc, I would always go that route.

When you tour the schools, try asking about differentiated instruction, how they handle disruptive kids, if they take kids with significant sn and learning differences. Ask about teacher tenure and the school endowment, ask if they support their teachers in furthering their own educations.

“State schools just take the kids they get and the teachers have to somehow make it work no matter what the disparity. This usually means the quiet ones get ignored as the teachers are focussed on managing the behaviour of the disruptive ones”.

With respect, all 4 of yours are at Private school. My DDs State school (like most) stream, in DDs school based on SATS. A quiet child in the top stream (and there are 4 possible streams at DDs school) is as likely to be as challenged and uninterrupted in terms of behaviour as in a Private school. DD is only Year 7 but is in the top streams and has seen little bad behaviour, any of which gets stamped on quickly by the strict detention system.

I completely agree with streaming kids, and if the school is able to do it, its a good solution (except for the very bright kids who have learning differences etc) I know I havent watched one of my children go through State school, but I have many friends that do and also have friends that teach in both sectors. I wasnt meaning my points to be a blanket view on every private and State school, its just the ones that were relevant to our situation and choices.

OP we're a few years ahead of you, with a bigger annual income/savings pot, and we had the same dilemma. Obviously our experience is personal to us, but I thought I'd chip in as we were in the same boat (me wanting private, DH saying state).

We went state, despite offers from some of the most best public schools, because our local state is excellent and because I couldn't see that the advantages of public school were worth what would be a considerable outlay to us. I appreciate if you've loads of money, it wouldn't be a sacrifice, but it would have been to us.

I am so glad we did what we did. We are financially comfortable, and DC are happy. We do organise a tutor in one subject, which costs £40 a week (central London) and DC gets themselves there on the bus, so all I have to do is put £40 into an envelope and put it in their school bag once a week. No drama.

DC have really nice, educated, well-mannered friends (we went to public schools, as did lots of the parents of children at the state school), from a very broad range of backgrounds, which I love. Some parents are lawyers, some work in high street shops, some don't work.

When I compare DS's writing and spelling and reading ability to his cousin of the same age who has gone to super smart private schools, our state-educated DS is way above (so satisfying).

I think private school guarantees you friends from a certain social level, and to those with new money that is probably a big lure.

The opportunity to do loads of things eg try the sax, is also going to be better at public schools.

But honestly I am so so glad we went down the state route, and thank god that we did.

Is "good enough" really good enough for your children? Personally, state or independent, I would want the best school for my child. And yes, that usually means different schools for different children.

We looked at the local private options but chose to go with a state comprehensive instead. I'm so glad we did. Some of dd's primary school friends ended up in one of the private schools (supposedly the "best" in our area) and I genuinely can't see what the added value is. Would have been a complete waste of money as far as I can see.

"State schools just take the kids they get and the teachers have to somehow make it work no matter what the disparity. This usually means the quiet ones get ignored as the teachers are focussed on managing the behaviour of the disruptive ones"

What an outrageously generalised and dismissive statement.

Fine, you foudn private school was right for your kids, and can afford to pay for it, but please don't make sweeping statements about a sector you have little contemporary experience of.

And as for extra tutoring to 'fill the gap' - I can assure you that the state schools I have had contact with cover the full curriculum and at the pace right for children in different 'sets'. None of my DC or friend's DC have had or needed extra tutoring, and have achieved top results.

Some sweeping statements from both camps on here. Private school pupils struggle once they move on to 6th form or uni? Not where my daughter was concerned; she out performed most of her state grammar friends and has hit the ground running at uni, whereas she has found a lot of her course peers struggled with the transition from school to more independent study. Her school ethos was very much towards independent learning and initiative, certainly not a spoon fed approach! We are now deliberating state grammar versus independent for our next child, and where state options are concerned, it really does depend on where you live. Our grammars are good, but they are quite crowded and under funded, and a lot of the brightest kids in our child’s prep, including some who have sat and passed 11+, are looking for good independents instead.