What’s more important primary or secondary education?

[MissTS]

We can only afford to pay for our child to do private education for either primary OR secondary school, not both.

I was wondering what people think is more important and why?

i appreciate many of you may think private is completely unnecessary but that’s not what’s being asked!

TIA

Do you always go berserk for no apparent reason? And this observation is factual

You clearly have no idea what is the difference between the grammar and private schools and it is like comparing pear and oranges. Totally opposite spectrum of schools. The only thing they have together is 11+ exam though slightly different. Apart from that - nothing

@TheGoldenGate "I think that people make mistake assuming that in grammar schools ( selective) is like in selective private."
Some are. Some aren't. Depends on the individual schools,

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Yes, I’m mindful it also depends what the state schools around us are like. There is one exceptional secondary state near me (but not super close) and two decent primary schools. The issue with both of course is that they are massively over subscribed and I’ve been warned this is going to be even worse now with the VAT on public schools. Also all the good primary schools near us are religious schools and they reserve the first 50% of places for religious students. We know several people who’ve pretended to be religious in order to secure a spot but as we didn’t feel comfortable doing this we’re unsure if we’ll get in based on proximity. I guess I preferred the idea of secondary private but we may have to do primary if child doesn’t get into a decent one as I really don’t want to send them to one of the bad ones that are closer to us.

None exist. There are no grammar schools comparable to private institutions; they occupy entirely different ends of the spectrum. The key distinction lies in funding: grammar schools are underfunded, receiving less money per pupil than even comprehensive schools, while private schools benefit from substantial financial support from parents. This disparity results in significant differences in teaching quality and expectations. Achievement in grammar schools is largely driven by the initiative of students and their parents, often yielding impressive results despite mediocre teachers and limited resources. In contrast, private schools depend on exceptional educators and do not face shortages of materials or staff.
Ambitious parents think that the superselection at a 11+ exam determines the same experience as in private. The truth is totally different because of ££££££.

Well it happened to me, ‘74, no prep, not as clever as some, bullied too, moved from private primary to comprehensive, that was merging 2 grammar schools and 1 secondary modern together too.
i went to a better secondary school, in a different county( about 5 miles away) much happier, parents couldn’t afford private then

There is one exceptional secondary state near me (but not super close) and two decent primary schools.

Check the catchment of the secondary school and if it is on your street. Take into account that there will be lower population of kids and the catchment will be probably larger. Calculate wraparound care cost at primary vs private

You make an excellent point about resources. And then Oxford will come along and judge your gcse results in the context of the cohort within which they were taken meaning that you will need to get higher results than the children at the vast majority of independent schools schools to appear to be above average! Which is either quite mad (and they aren't as clever as they think they are) or deliberate bias against grammar schools.

There are however two big advantages of grammar schools

• Cohort. Teenagers are massively influenced by one another. Generally at a grammar they are a hard working bunch, less behaviour issues and will be a good influence on your child academically. Peer support when revising, interesting class discussions etc.

• Teachers. Lots of teachers are attracted to teaching well behaved, academically able students so there are less recruitment issues finding subject specialists. Teachers are less stressed meaning more relaxed interactions with students and less chance of a draconian behavior system

In contrast, private schools depend on exceptional educators and do not face shortages of materials or staff.

I agree private schools are better resourced, however there are exceptional educators everywhere. This comes across like private schools have the best teachers, which isn't true. Private schools generally have supportive parents who are interested in education, hence paying.

I'd love to see P8 for private schools.

however there are exceptional educators everywhere.

The private school lure them with better salaries

They really don't. Many aren't part of the TPS anymore either.

DD just started at independent, selective secondary after going to a state primary school.

Our state secondaries are shockingly bad but the primaries generally OK.

She's very bright and already flourishing in her new school which is a relief as I'd been worried she'd be behind the prep school kids.

Socially she's much better off at her new school too as there are a lot more kids like her (nerdy, quieter etc) so I think it'll make for an easier teen experience.

Teachers are more attracted bto paycheck than option of working in underfunded grammar with limited resources. I have in the family a retired teacher who worked in grammar as well as comprehensives and private.

As for cohort, selective private have a equally selective cohort

My point is not that grammar are bad but private and grammar are hugely different because of money £

I just wanted to pick up on a point made in this post. Superselective generally means there is no catchment. You may want to move to make the journey easier, but it's my understanding that a superselective school takes the children with the very highest 11 plus scores and doesn't take account of distance from the school. Or at least that was the case in my grammar area.

I don't think they are quite as different as you make out. I know of plenty of teachers who morally wouldn't teach in a private, yet would in a grammar.

A quick look at the TES would tell you the pay isn't much different. Lots of the private schools aren't willing to share the pay, putting people off applying.

Sorry@TheGoldenGate, you really are very wrong. But you are obviously viewing all private schools through rose tinted spectacles and all state schools through whatever the opposite of rose tinted spectacles is that there's no point discussing this further.

@Hercisback1

know of plenty of teachers who morally wouldn't teach in a private, yet would in a grammar.

Do they consider teaching in private schools immoral? 😄
Let's be realistic, if anything keeps them in state school is the state pension and the fact that it isn't easy to get a job in the private school. Also, there are huge expectations from the teachers in private schools.

Superselective generally means there is no catchment. @AlwaysFreezing

Private schools never have catchment- superselective or not.

Most of grammar school (selective) have catchment. There are some that don't of course, but still most of them do.

Private and Grammer are very very different.
Grammer is for the top set of kids who just want to buckle down and crack on. Is free and an entrance test is needed.
Private if for the parents who can afford to send kids to a nicer/better staffed/less child to teacher ratio school and that covers all abilities.

In answer to OPS Q - I would save for secondary- that’s where is counts. If you can get them into a Grammer then even better - put the money towards Uni.

Absolute nonsense. Don't let me start to dwell on the disadvantages of private education as the list is long.
Please understand that I was not saying that grammar is bad and and private is the Holly Grail.

I am trying to explain to parents that seem to believe that Grammar school is similar to selective private. No it is not. Grammar schools are underfunded. They receive less money per pupil than comprehensive. Grammar schools are good for independent, stable mentally kids who don't mind that they will be not a top of the class because geniuses also attend Grammar. Private schools( including superselective) have other problems and underfunding is not one of them, the children are in private more guided and have soft landing. But I can dwell on the topics of treating the kids of the donors in a " different way", often bribery, access to drugs and so on.

Two totally different systems

Plenty of teachers consider private education morally questionable and won't teach in one.

The "huge expectations" are unlikely to be worse than state schools considering the huge workload of state school teachers.

I think you have an out dated view based on old evidence.

Private education aside for a moment, I've felt (especially since having my second who has special needs) that primary school needs to be a nurturing environment, somewhere safe where children can build their confidence, and that educational attainment is much less important especially as children develop at different rates, but if you give them confidence you are building them to have the ability to learn.

Then secondary is where we want the school to be more aspirational and really push. This is the combination we achieved with our kids (having to drive our youngest quite far out to a rural primary to achieve it) and it's worked very well, this is entirely state. So to translate that to private, I likely wouldn't bother with primary, I would seek out a primary whose culture I liked, and then find a high performing secondary.

@TheGoldenGate "Do they consider teaching in private schools immoral? 😄
Let's be realistic, if anything keeps them in state school is the state pension and the fact that it isn't easy to get a job in the private school. Also, there are huge expectations from the teachers in private schools."

What an incredibly offensive post.

What constitutes moral ambiguity in this context? Basing on this it seems there exists a sentiment suggesting that employment in the public sector is inherently virtuous, while work in private organisations is viewed as ethically questionable.

I do not wish to undermine the challenges faced by state school teachers; their roles are undeniably demanding. However, in private institutions, educators must navigate a complex dynamic where they are expected to be both nurturing and results-oriented. This dual expectation can complicate their ability to address behavioral issues among pupils, particularly when there is a concern about pleasing the parents who are essentially their clients- bullying issues, pleasing both sjdes Consequently, private school teachers may find themselves compelled to sweep under the carpet, overlook certain issues In contrast, teachers in public schools do not face this same predicament, allowing them to engage with their responsibilities more directly.

You are too easly offended. I have both feet on the ground and I am not easly caught up the "sacrifice and mission" fables. I know that state pension is very attractive and private schools offer better salaries but the pension plan is not that appealing in most of them

@TheGoldenGate I didn't say I was offended. I said you were offensive. A significant difference.

However, in private institutions, educators must navigate a complex dynamic where they are expected to be both nurturing and results-oriented. This dual expectation can complicate their ability to address behavioral issues among pupils, particularly when there is a concern about pleasing the parents who are essentially their clients- bullying issues, pleasing both sjdes Consequently, private school teachers may find themselves compelled to sweep under the carpet, overlook certain issues In contrast, teachers in public schools do not face this same predicament, allowing them to engage with their responsibilities more directly.

Tell me you don't work in the state system without telling me.