Private schools, times a changing?

[ChocolateFrog]

Those saying it's not worth it went or experienced a very good state school.

I went to a ste state school a world away from a private school.

After school I went to Sandhurst where the intake was probably roughly 50:50 private and state schooled but the state bit included a significant proportion of Welbexians. There was only a couple of us from stty comprehensives there and it opened my eyes to what I'd missed out on.

The learning curve was steep. What it did make me realise is that Eton/Harrow/Oxford/Cambridge pupils were not generally anymore intelligent than us they just had a confidence and arrogance that comes with the territory.

There was a hell of a lot of etiquette stuff that went right over my head.

If I could afford it I'd definitely send my kids to private school, even though they let a few more of the cleverer plebs into the good universities these days.

[chip*]

okgo said:

All of the above are cheaper than nursery 5 days a week. That’s the world we live in. Bonkers.

Not really a fair comparison!!!
Nursery are generally open for 51 weeks a year compared to approx 34 weeks for a private school. Plus, the longer operating hours (7.30-6.30 for my nursery) compared to the school hours (8. 30 - 3.00).

[brickwall]

okgo said:

Yep.

I think likely be out of London by that point kind you. Of those primary’s I think Alleyns and Thomas’s selective. Others not so much.

They’re all selective (Dulwich Prep and St Pauls Juniors certainly very much so). They have insane exit stats that they like to protect.

The schools are quite good at nudging weaker kids out as they progress through (eg recommending transfer to secondary at 11 rather than 13 to secure best outcome) - however this still represents <10% of a year.

By and large if you’re in at age 6 then you are pretty much guaranteed entry to a decent public school at 11/13….just a question of which one and whether the kid wins a scholarship.

But whilst the primaries/preps are very selective, with entry at age 4 or 5 there’s not much last minute tutoring can do to help get in…it’s all on the parents from age <1 (and how fundamentally clever the kids are).

[dukeboy749r]

ChocolateFrog said:

Those saying it's not worth it went or experienced a very good state school.

I went to a ste state school a world away from a private school.

After school I went to Sandhurst where the intake was probably roughly 50:50 private and state schooled but the state bit included a significant proportion of Welbexians. There was only a couple of us from stty comprehensives there and it opened my eyes to what I'd missed out on.

The learning curve was steep. What it did make me realise is that Eton/Harrow/Oxford/Cambridge pupils were not generally anymore intelligent than us they just had a confidence and arrogance that comes with the territory.

There was a hell of a lot of etiquette stuff that went right over my head.

If I could afford it I'd definitely send my kids to private school, even though they let a few more of the cleverer plebs into the good universities these days.

We send our son to a private (or is it public school, at senior level?).

Both my wife and I went to comprehensive schools. We sent our daughter to private school before she passed her 11+.

The facilities on offer, the smaller class sizes and just the whole atmosphere - just make for a pleasant learning environment.

It isn’t about trying to be better than anyone else, but is about giving our children the best educational environment, for them.

[okgo]

brickwall said:

They’re all selective (Dulwich Prep and St Pauls Juniors certainly very much so). They have insane exit stats that they like to protect.

The schools are quite good at nudging weaker kids out as they progress through (eg recommending transfer to secondary at 11 rather than 13 to secure best outcome) - however this still represents <10% of a year.

By and large if you’re in at age 6 then you are pretty much guaranteed entry to a decent public school at 11/13….just a question of which one and whether the kid wins a scholarship.

But whilst the primaries/preps are very selective, with entry at age 4 or 5 there’s not much last minute tutoring can do to help get in…it’s all on the parents from age <1 (and how fundamentally clever the kids are).

Ah yes, I meant Eaton House was not, as far as I can see I have a spot there if required. But yes to the others, I think Barnes is a little far though, impossible to get to without cycling there really.

I think we'd be aiming at 4/5 rather than 6 if we do it - but take your point, I've read a fair bit about that intake and it seems it is a bit of mystery as to what the criteria is, obviously given a 4 year old can only do so much! As you can imagine nappy valley/mumsnet is awash with stories etc.

[Taita]

ChocolateFrog said:

Those saying it's not worth it went or experienced a very good state school.

I went to a ste state school a world away from a private school.

After school I went to Sandhurst where the intake was probably roughly 50:50 private and state schooled but the state bit included a significant proportion of Welbexians. There was only a couple of us from stty comprehensives there and it opened my eyes to what I'd missed out on.

The learning curve was steep. What it did make me realise is that Eton/Harrow/Oxford/Cambridge pupils were not generally anymore intelligent than us they just had a confidence and arrogance that comes with the territory.

There was a hell of a lot of etiquette stuff that went right over my head.

If I could afford it I'd definitely send my kids to private school, even though they let a few more of the cleverer plebs into the good universities these days.

I agree with this entirely - there was a high number of privately educated guys on my intake, although a decent (35%-40 AIUI) from state schools.

I was one of 3 non-graduates in my starting intake of 260+. Interesting times

[mikeiow]

WhiskyDisco said:

Some posters on here have said that they will be spending inheritance to put their kids through schoool. I would back this idea up - ONLY think about sending kids to private school if you have at least 100k tucked away for each child. If your child is bright, and your local state school is outstanding then save your money and stress and just send them there. For less bright children, send them to private school - but don't expect them to be transformed - they will just get more out of the peripheral activities and hopefully they will make the most of the chance.

Curious. We certainly didn’t have 200k tucked away for our two, even if I had a reasonably paying tech role!

TL/DR:
DYOR, view your child with a critical eye (are they anxious/sporty/academic), consider the sacrifices you might need to make, VISIT THE SCHOOLS….. and make your decision based on that.
The biggest thing the huge £££ spend should do is give them more opportunity and confidence. What they do with that will be up to them.
If you live in a small area where class sizes are decent (20’ish), perhaps the local comprehensive will do them just fine: use the funds for extra curricular stuff.

DETAIL:
We both went to state schools. Moved to a nice area with what looked like a nice primary school down the road.
Went for a visit the year before #1 child was due to start. #2 toddled along with us. The Head explained tables in the corridor as being reserved for those who were doing well (eh? you mean the classrooms aren’t big enough!)…and showed us a tiny library area (in more of another corridor). #2 picked a book up to look at whilst he was talking, and he pretty well snapped at her to put it back
That was the precise moment we decided to investigate alternatives….& yes, perhaps we had left that rather late in the day.

Visited 3 main local independents, & settled on the one that we felt had the broadest range (between sport and academic). Separate boys and girls, but linked together. It was about 11 easy miles away (jeez, that is a lot of mileage)…..ours took the entrance exam and was in….& the years flashed by in a blur.
All kinds of parents there: a small number clearly loaded, plenty like us bumbling from year to year on the fees, some using grandparents inheritance to fund it, & a few rolling along with knackered motors who clearly scrimped and saved. It takes all sorts.
We made some good friends, which frankly has broadened our circle too.

Fact is that the vast majority of parents there, since they were paying £££, wanted their kids to do well, & that makes the difference in my eyes. Oh, & a Head who would be talking with you, then spot a child & have a joke with them, not snap their head off for something….a world of difference to the local Comp here.

My main criticism of the school is that they focussed a bit on the real achievers (the child who could play fluent piano at an age where our offspring plinked at the guitar or piano was always going to be Head Boy!). #1 wasn’t very sporty, but became a decent swimmer because they had the facilities.
That said, when he had a ski trip mooted for 18 months out (none of us ski), we decided to all learn ahead of it so he wasn’t ‘the beginner’. Well, we have skied ever since with some of those school friends, he did a black run on that first school trip and was in ‘the top group’. Both ours are very competent black run skiers now: we, learning the wrong side of 40, are less confident, more aware of our frailty so mostly live on reds and blues! Bloody Covid has stopped all that for now!

To keep them both a bit grounded, we go ours involved in Scouting. Also because (as someone posted above), with kids coming from a wider catchment, it can be harder for them to make good friends at school.
A nice area, so no exposure to real tough or neglected kids, but got them set with a decent community ethos: both did bronze/silver/gold DofE (one visit to the Palace for award!). Plenty of life experiences there for them. I helped run Explorers (get involved, someone said….34 kids at one stage!), & now help facilitate Gold DofE for our County.

Finally….we are very proud of how they are turning out, now early 20s. Both very confident, able to talk to all levels of people. They have school friends for life. Both got First Class degrees (not Oxbridge - again, school hothoused the select ones they felt were candidates, but both decent Unis), one awaiting a Masters result now (& applying for specialist roles in his field of expertise), the other doing well in a multinational. We love them both, our work here is done

[dukeboy749r]

My unit sent me on a POC for three months to Beconsfield.

Eye-opening. I failed RCB, (with a come back again in 18 months), as the same unit had me finish the POC course, return to my unit for 2 months, do COP selection, take three days at RCB with no preliminary build-up or briefing.

I did think at the time that the lad before me, during our interview stage, got 45 mins, whereas I got 10., had somewhat of an ‘in’.

Turns out his daddy was a major general.

It feels as though today’s officer cadre is slightly more egalitarian.

[anonymous-user]

Baldchap said:

I went to a boys only grammar school. We were the number one state school in the UK when I did my GCSEs and A Levels. We used to laugh at the nearby private school because every single one of the pupils there failed the entry test for our school before paying.

I don't know if the standards of state schools have declined, but I come across quite a lot of youngsters who were privately educated and in almost every case I wonder where the money went.

If you can get into the Eton old boys club, that's undoubtedly a different matter, but for 'normal' private education, it's a big spend to end up working in a bar...

Exactly my experience . ( I think our school was near the top in the county rather than country, but nearby public school part is correct ).
My son went to a state comprehensive, but two if his cousins of the same age went to a highly rated public school. They all went to top universities and 3-5 years after graduating are all in good jobs in finance, law and engineering earning very good salaries .

[brickwall]

okgo said:

brickwall said:

They’re all selective (Dulwich Prep and St Pauls Juniors certainly very much so). They have insane exit stats that they like to protect.

The schools are quite good at nudging weaker kids out as they progress through (eg recommending transfer to secondary at 11 rather than 13 to secure best outcome) - however this still represents <10% of a year.

By and large if you’re in at age 6 then you are pretty much guaranteed entry to a decent public school at 11/13….just a question of which one and whether the kid wins a scholarship.

But whilst the primaries/preps are very selective, with entry at age 4 or 5 there’s not much last minute tutoring can do to help get in…it’s all on the parents from age <1 (and how fundamentally clever the kids are).

Ah yes, I meant Eaton House was not, as far as I can see I have a spot there if required. But yes to the others, I think Barnes is a little far though, impossible to get to without cycling there really.

I think we'd be aiming at 4/5 rather than 6 if we do it - but take your point, I've read a fair bit about that intake and it seems it is a bit of mystery as to what the criteria is, obviously given a 4 year old can only do so much! As you can imagine nappy valley/mumsnet is awash with stories etc.

I mean there’s no much you can do is there? (Or at least that you wouldn’t be doing anyway)
- Read to and with your kids. A lot.
- Play puzzle games. Recognise lots of different shapes.
- Indulge their interests

I’m sure Munsnet says you need to have them practicing piano 5 hours a day and make sure they’ve got grade 8 before age 6

[okgo]

Yep.

It's interesting hearing how different it is outside of London, which I suppose talks to the stats (25% of all of the fee paying school kids in the UK are in London), and how it is negative in some ways, but quite positive in another. I think the negatives are the competition for places (I just about registered in time for Thomas's for example, my son is 16.5 months old...), the fact that all of the kids at such schools likely have a tutor outside of school making competition even more tough, and obviously there will be an untold amount of pushy parents as there is in any vaguely wealthy enclave, I should think I won't fit in given I don't work in finance

But on the positive side there's a large number to choose from, all within a couple of miles, so any friendships forged would be local most likely. The competition among the schools likely means that they have to stay on top of their game with facilities and care (the new Thomas's senior school looks like an impressive thing) which can only be a good thing for kids.

[anonymous-user]

okgo said:

Yep.
the new Thomas's senior school looks like an impressive thing) which can only be a good thing for kids.

A word on this. When we looked at secondaries, and I am sure it has got worse since, the impression was that they they were vying with each other to make the school increasingly like a resort. The thinking seems to be that loaded parents will not want their offspring in anything but the best “hard” environment, or perhaps that loaded parents will want to relive schooling vicariously through their children.

It’s relatively easy to spend money on the hard product of education and as said upthread by many that part of it is something fee paying schools have always delivered. But by the end of our kids’ secondary education, given their reports to me of poor teachers and the turnover of staff, I was left wondering whether in some schools - even ones at the top of the tree - the eye is taken off the soft product of teaching quality because the hard product is easier to improve and impresses more overtly.

[okgo]

BlackWidow13 said:

A word on this. When we looked at secondaries, and I am sure it has got worse since, the impression was that they they were vying with each other to make the school increasingly like a resort. The thinking seems to be that loaded parents will not want their offspring in anything but the best “hard” environment, or perhaps that loaded parents will want to relive schooling vicariously through their children.

It’s relatively easy to spend money on the hard product of education and as said upthread by many that part of it is something fee paying schools have always delivered. But by the end of our kids’ secondary education, given their reports to me of poor teachers and the turnover of staff, I was left wondering whether in some schools - even ones at the top of the tree - the eye is taken off the soft product of teaching quality because the hard product is easier to improve and impresses more overtly.

Makes good sense. I suppose recognizing the difference between the foundations/charities/commercial entities in the case of Thomas's is possibly telling and must have a significant impact in the the decision making of the schools in every area.

[GT3Manthey]

okgo said:

I seem to remember there was a thread run on here maybe a year or so back that talked a little about schools and there were some interesting viewpoints on the matter, I am in a fortunate position to be able to pay for school but the more I read the more I wonder whether it is really worth it..

I was reading again recently about the school in East London - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/oxford-cambridg... - that had got more people into Oxbridge than Eton, and have also since been looking at various school websites etc that have all sorts of financial help and what not for those coming from state primaries and the like. Going as far even to have people visiting the more deprived schools to spread the word that if you're smart enough, then we will pay for your schooling here, that sort of message.

It got me thinking, are the times changing somewhat on paid for schools and actually top universities (which after all is arguably one of the key 'purposes' of paying for school to that point) are looking to have a much more diverse intake of people than ever before and possibly even targeting those from more humble backgrounds than the usual suspects?

For those that have sent their kids to a fee paying school, would you do it again based on the potential shift I mention? And for those that went themselves, if you have kids, or when your kids are of that age, will you look to send them?

Late to the party on this but interesting topic as we privately educated our two kids for senior school not juniors.

For juniors we had them attend an after school group tutor whilst going to a local church school which had a good reputation and record.

My son ( eldest child) needed more focus so it was suggested we sent him private which we did .
He seemed to make more progress once at senior school although I can’t say he was ever academic but I’d say it certainly helped him in other ways .

Our daughter was always focussed at the same junior school so I’d argue she’d have done just as well attending senior state school but couldn’t then do one without the other .

My take is many go private from junior age hoping their kids will make grammar but with so few places the child has to be super smart so what do you do then once the child has been used to the comforts of private education .

If we did it all again I might be more inclined to go state schools all the way and instead use the saved moneys as deposits for their first home .

Not sure there is a ‘ one size fits all ‘ answer tbh

[FamousPheasant]

Sending our daughter to private school is just about the only thing my wife and I argue about! Having been privately educated from secondary school, with the help of grandparents, I long held view that it was worth it, as wasn't convinced I would have ended up where I am now. I had many fantastic teachers and there were countless extra curricular activities (from sailing, to debating, to young enterprise to a remote control car club!) that most people took advantage of. During my time I did a trip to Russia and walked the GR20 in Corsica but there were also trips to Malawi, Cuba, Iceland and so on - which when I think about it was pretty amazing.

That said, since entering the world of oil and gas engineering, my opinion on the matter has certainly softened. Most of my university peers and work contacts went through the state system to no clear detriment. Equally when I look at my school friends, their career outcomes - while generally positive are not unanimously so. Though almost all have pretty good "soft skills".

My wife, on the other hand, left school after GCSEs ( which at least in my school was just about unheard of), went on to college and then got a degree in nursing. She has friends that left after GSCE level and set-up their own businesses or took up trades. This kind of route at my private school was not even discussed and the traditional uni route being the path for +95% of my school year. The uni path worked for me but I get the feeling the state system (based on my tiny bubble of experience) is better suited to providing different options for different kids. If I was considering private I would be very interested to see if the private schools discuss alternatives to uni.

On the basis we expect zero support from our parent on the matter I think we will end up putting our daughter through the state system. We are looking to move next year and local schooling will be a top priority. Because I was funded through private school by my grandparents the idea of moving to better state schooling was never really possible for me. The idea of being on the hook for 100K for each child with only my wife and I able to pay for it makes me uneasy. If we had the money sat in the bank before they started I would feel differently, but then I also can't help but think that we can use that money to support them in other ways throughout their life and give them some of the opportunities I had at school.

[Cheburator mk2]

brickwall said:

okgo said:

brickwall said:

They’re all selective (Dulwich Prep and St Pauls Juniors certainly very much so). They have insane exit stats that they like to protect.

The schools are quite good at nudging weaker kids out as they progress through (eg recommending transfer to secondary at 11 rather than 13 to secure best outcome) - however this still represents <10% of a year.

By and large if you’re in at age 6 then you are pretty much guaranteed entry to a decent public school at 11/13….just a question of which one and whether the kid wins a scholarship.

But whilst the primaries/preps are very selective, with entry at age 4 or 5 there’s not much last minute tutoring can do to help get in…it’s all on the parents from age <1 (and how fundamentally clever the kids are).

Ah yes, I meant Eaton House was not, as far as I can see I have a spot there if required. But yes to the others, I think Barnes is a little far though, impossible to get to without cycling there really.

I think we'd be aiming at 4/5 rather than 6 if we do it - but take your point, I've read a fair bit about that intake and it seems it is a bit of mystery as to what the criteria is, obviously given a 4 year old can only do so much! As you can imagine nappy valley/mumsnet is awash with stories etc.

I mean there’s no much you can do is there? (Or at least that you wouldn’t be doing anyway)
- Read to and with your kids. A lot.
- Play puzzle games. Recognise lots of different shapes.
- Indulge their interests

I’m sure Munsnet says you need to have them practicing piano 5 hours a day and make sure they’ve got grade 8 before age 6

Also late to the party...

First generation immigrant - arrived in this country 27yrs ago to do my A-levels in a Top boarding school north of the border on a scholarship. I know it's a grand sweeping statement, but personally I found the overall standard of 2ndary education in Britain to be attrocious, regardless whether private or state. I haven't changed my mind... The crazy idea that you stop learning the sciences at the age of 16 and then you concentrate on 3 subjects is just stupid. Granted, not everyone is academically minded, but there is no vocational option either...

Did private school make a difference to me - of course it did. The opportunites that I had, the friends I made, the quality of teaching for sure would not have been available at Broughton High School which was across the road. The name of my school even now opens some doors...

Now down to okgo's specific "problems" - both my daughter and son are at Alleyn's. Having been through the system, there is no way I would sent them to a state school, no matter how good the academic results are. Because academic results are only part of the puzzle. It is a self-reinforcing stereotype, but being surrounded by like minded driven peers, from various backgronds, can only be a good thing in my book. Having the supportive teaching/extra curricular environment is far more likely to spur you on to develop yourself as a person v.s being left to your own devices.

Last but not least - going back to my original point about the sttiness of narrow educational scope, which also ties with entry into elite universities. There is another option, which we would most certainly follow when the time is right - the IB. That would mean a change of school, but you have to play the system...

[mikeiow]

Cheburator mk2 said:

Last but not least - going back to my original point about the sttiness of narrow educational scope, which also ties with entry into elite universities. There is another option, which we would most certainly follow when the time is right - the IB. That would mean a change of school, but you have to play the system...

Just on the "elite universities' thing.

Times, they are a changin', as Bob once told us.
Much like the way the Korean and Tesla brands are shaking up the motor industry, many smaller, "less respected" (eg, outside Russell Group) Uni's have some areas they are excelling at.

Cambridge Uni were a customer of ours, & I spoke with someone who'd been working there about their business studies courses (daughter was considering her options). His take was that it was very old fashioned, & she'd be better off elsewhere!

Sure, there will always be some degree of Eton Old School Boys Network about some things....but once some experience at work us under their belt, it is just "yes, I got a First" that will be heard rather then where it came from. Indeed, some post Oxbridge folk I know are.....a little odd, perhaps less adaptable humans, in my experience!

[Cheburator mk2]

mikeiow said:

Just on the "elite universities' thing.

Times, they are a changin', as Bob once told us.
Much like the way the Korean and Tesla brands are shaking up the motor industry, many smaller, "less respected" (eg, outside Russell Group) Uni's have some areas they are excelling at.

Cambridge Uni were a customer of ours, & I spoke with someone who'd been working there about their business studies courses (daughter was considering her options). His take was that it was very old fashioned, & she'd be better off elsewhere!

Sure, there will always be some degree of Eton Old School Boys Network about some things....but once some experience at work us under their belt, it is just "yes, I got a First" that will be heard rather then where it came from. Indeed, some post Oxbridge folk I know are.....a little odd, perhaps less adaptable humans, in my experience!

Most definitely agree with you here.

Have had the same experience at work too. Some take to it like ducks to water, others need somebody to tie their shoe laces and constantly supervise them.

We like the IB option in particular as it opens the doors to the US and Europe. My wife is a product of the US educational system - both secondary and University, while my brother graduated from an elite German university. I went to a well known Factory for Investment Bankers in London, so I think as a family we are well aware of the limitations of the view "Oxbridge/Russel or bust!", hence approaching the subject with an open mind...

Edited by Cheburator mk2 on Wednesday 27th October 12:52

[ClaphamGT3]

okgo said:

Yes. Registered for Thomas’s (Clapham as it’s closer) and have noted Dulwich Prep and Alleyns (JAGS jnr is girls I think?). Also registered at Eaton House which is the absolute closest. Barnes is a bit too far IMO. Not sure how wild I am on single sex education though.

Secondary wise I think possibly will be out of London by that point but maybe not, should have bought a house in Dulwich but I placed the annoyance of the st trains too highly

Obviously all of those secondary’s are for people who are not thick. So time will tell.

All of the above are cheaper than nursery 5 days a week. That’s the world we live in. Bonkers.

Don't discount Broomwood Hall/Northcote Lodge (now owned by the same company as Eaton House The Manor). The Claphamettes went to Broomwood and had a great grounding.

Finton House is also well regarded and Hornsby House has a great reputation (and seems to be a lot less stuffy & socially conservative than the other Consortium schools)

[AstonZagato]

I sent all of mine through private schools and I was well aware of the bias against private schools at Oxbridge (and I know for a fact it is very real). I would do it again. They each had particular reasons why they would not have thrived in a less focused state system with larger class sizes.

The cheat is to privately educate them until 6th form and then transfer them to the local sixth form college.