Thanks mungo. When discussing the whole topic with work colleagues, I do usually end up saying that I could never say never and there may be things that happen that would make me change course so i completely understand where you're coming from.

Must be very frustrating if the school are not listening to your concerns. I am a gov at a tooting school and they are v focused on every child making progress which is very clearly tracked with levels. I'm sure you've probably had these chats already but, if not, (i think but teachers on here will no doubt know more) every child should be making at least 2 sub-levels of progress a year, ideally more, and everyone should be clear (incl the child) on what needs to be achieved to get to the next level. If you feel your son is bright and should be getting level 5s in Y6, you can work backwards to see how much progress would be needed each term.

I like how transparent this system is - appeals to my data side - but I'm sure it has its drawbacks too.

Mungomuffit: why do you feel that Wandsworth secondary schools aren't good enough? We have a good few outstanding schools and those that need to be improved are receiving help to do that (eg Elliot and Battersea Park). Of course they don't get as many As as a selective school for obvious reasons.

For what it's worth, I have very few concerns that my kids can not excel at a state school and that includes on the academic/leading to high paid jobs if that's what suits them! Apart from anything else, parents and upbringing remains the biggest factor in how well people do at school. I think you are doing our local state secondaries a bit of a disservice by writing them off as you do above so was wondering why you feel yhat way?

But it is a very stressful topic and round here people so seem to get extremely worked up. Perhaps you would consider me to be naive but (in the interests of full disclosure) as a privately educated (for secondary) Oxford graduate who works in finance, I feel comfortable that my kids will receive more opportunities than me through our excellent state schools. I realise it's a v personal thing though...

It's a free world and state education is available to all whatever their background, academic ability, SEN, mother tongue etc. (unlike private education) and so people are free to do what they want in terms of using the state education for their own purposes. However for those of us who do passionately believe in state education it is very frustrating when people send their child to a state school for a few years and then pull them out to go private. Let's face it, if it wasn't a fantastic state school they probably wouldn't even dream of sending them there in the first place. As the previous poster said those places are taken in place of someone who may have every intention of their child going all the way through state school and they miss out on those first few years of bonding/making friends etc. Of course it happens the other way around as well - we have had children from private school coming to our state school.

Thank you breakfastattiffanies, that's exactly what I was trying to say. If you are going to send your child to a private school for whatever reason, then stick to it and do it straight away. Do not steal a place at a state school from a child who needs it for year 1 and 2.
Both Honeywell and Belleville have parents taking up a coveted place at reception only to take their children out when they are 8. Those unable to afford private education (or rejecting it out of principle or in order to keep their children grounded) lose out.

I think what proudworkingmum is trying to say is that those who decide to take their kids out of state primary schools at age 8 to send them to private (assuming this was always their plan from day 1) are therefore 'affecting' those parents who aren't able to get their child in from reception at their 'local'/chosen' school and who have every intention to keep their child through state education throughout primary school.

I have no idea of the numbers one is talking about moving from state to private at age 8 (year 3?) - I suspect that varies from different state school.
Are these figures published?

@proud working mum - that is ridiculous! Are you seriously saying if you can afford to go private, you should? That is exactly why so many state schools in this country are failing - because so many of the very motivated hard working parents go down the private route rather than supporting their local school. Do you really think our outstanding local primary schools would be as outstanding if everyone who could afford private schools left? And also people who can afford private schools probably earn decent salaries and therefore pay a lot of tax so why on earth should they not get what they pay for and go to their local school?
@Sabinemum One word of caveat on the "state to eight" plan is that it is really hard to get places. Many kids at private schools which only go to 11 move at 8+ to schools that go up to 13 to keep options open for secondary schools (as many private secondary schools don't start until 13, or also take children at 13), also some of the prep schools offer an easier path into their senior school which can also mean people move their kids to them at 8, so yes, your state school educated child will compete at 8+ with children who are coming from private schools where they are being prepared for the 8+ exam. It is not easy to get a place at 8. On a recent 8+ assessment day, I would say 80-90% of the kids there were from private schools. Good luck!

Going back to the ortiginal topic: the question alone makes me really angry. Do any of you realise that you are effectively stealing a place in a good state primary from a child who needs it?
If you are able to afford a private school then do pay from the start and don't take a place from another -often more able andf less pampered/ tutored- child!!! This happens all the time in the outstanding state schools between the commons and it's a very anoying selfish and anti-social behaviour.

Many thanks all for your enlighting contributions. I realised just after I posted that it is indeed in Y3 and or Y4 or 5 that children sit the 7+ exam. I have a few more questions though... (if I may go back to the subject).
- First of all, are there kids moving from private to private henceforth making those places even harder to get? Or is it mostly state school pupils who will take up the extra 10-20 Y3 places in private schools?
I'd be interested to hearfrom people whose children made the move from state to private either at 7 (Y3) or later at 11 (in Y7).
- How much tutoring did they need and when did you start lessons with a tutor?
- Did you find that there was a big gap in the level of your child/ren and privately educated children or was it more a question of not having covered the same subject in the same order so actual knowledge over capabilities?
- Did you get the private school you wanted?
Many thanks in advance!

Wow Livegreen! That is a lot of research you have pulled together.

I don't disagree that London schools are improving, but London state comprehensives do not compare with London independent secondary schools both on terms of grades and number of places gained at top universities.

On this link you can see the top 100 state schools vs top 100 independent schools. There are barely any London schools on the state schools list yet many that are local to us on the independent school list. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 94994.html

I am not anti-state schools at all, just want to provide the best that I can afford to for my kids, and like most parents I imagine, want to provide them with the same or better than I had.

I don't really see how sending them to a nurturing prep school is not letting them enjoy their childhood, my limited experience of the UK education system is that kids in comprehensive schools often have to grow up faster than those in bubble-like independent schools.

Anyway, my post was not to slag-off state schools, just to say that I don't understand the shock-horror attitude of people wanting to pay for their kids education.

@abbevillemummy

Why do you think majority of London Secondary Schools aren't great. This is the attitude that scares people to unnecessarily fork out thousands on education that they do not need to. Try researching the topic and.....

London state schools have undergone a "startling turnaround and are now the best in England" according to a study by the Financial Times newspaper.

The FT analysed 3.5 million children's exam results for the six years to 2011.

In 2011 London pupils did better in five GCSEs including maths and English than pupils from any other region.

FT education correspondent Chris Cook said that when the figures were adjusted to account for poverty London's performance was even stronger.

Analysis of the data from the National Pupil Database showed that results improved during the six-year period. In 2004 London's exam results were just fourth best out of nine English regions.

Performance Gap

During the period the performance gap between richer and poorer pupils narrowed in London - a change that was not mirrored elsewhere in England, suggests the analysis.

The FT says that by 2011 pupils in some of the poorest areas of the capital were outperforming children in more affluent areas.

For example the FT says: "A London child can expect to achieve one better grade in three subjects than a similar child from a similar neighbourhood in the south-eastern counties".

At their most extreme the figures suggest a child from the top-performing borough, Westminster, would outperform a similar child from a similar neighbourhood in Hull by two grades in every subject.

Commenting on the findings, Chris Husbands, director of London University's Institute of Education said the improvement in London results made the capital "not only the national but in many ways the international school success story in the last 10 years."

Professor Husbands also praised the targeted interventions that had helped improve teaching and management in many London schools.

The FT also quotes Lord Adonis, a former schools minister under Labour: "For 15 years London has been the pathfinder for school reform."

Lord Adonis particularly praised the Teach First scheme which encourages top graduates into teaching and which began in the capital. He also said the academy programme and the London Challenge which ran for eight years until 2011 were effective in turning around poorly-performing schools.

A DfE spokeswoman said: "London's schools have made great strides in recent years and should be congratulated on their improvement.

"Great leadership, high-quality teaching, the success of academies and strong partnerships, where strong schools support weaker ones, have driven this progress in London. We would like all schools across England to match this success, raising standards for all our children."

Add to this the fact that state school pupils outperform those from private schools at Oxbridge (recent report from Sutton Trust confirms this happens at all Russell Group Universities).

OECD report says children from similar backgrounds perform equally well at private and state schools in the UK.

Do not panic people - relax and let your children enjoy their childhood.

I don't really understand the outrage?

We are in London. And due to the sheer density of the population and the lack of state funding, inner-city state secondary schools in London by and large aren't great. Of course, if that's your only option, and you are bright, hard-working, come from a home that values education etc etc then you can do well where ever you to go school, but it will probably be a harder road to travel.

By paying for prep-school, one would hope that getting into an independent secondary will be that little bit easier. By paying for an independent secondary, one would hope that getting into a white or red brick uni will be that little bit easier. That's all. Its not a desperate situation.

ahhhh this sort of attitude just makes me crazy!!!!

I'm trying to reply in a measured way, but really?!

MM "You don't have your future pulled out from under your feet if your parents decide on the state system, like you seem to do here." I guess I need to cut you some slack as your'e not from the UK but really, OMG you are frigging kidding me!!!!! What an attitude.

Does everyone in london really think that if a child goes to state school they can't do well in life?!!! Please!!!!

Chin up mungomuffit!

I went to state schools all the way through (including one that was so unpopular it was shut down two years after I left). I never had any private tutoring either but I still managed to get a place at Oxford and then a career in law.

It all seems to get amplified in London but remember nationwide the vast majority are state educated.

I would say it's not that common in all state schools and when it does happen, it's quite disruptive for the schools that are left with dwindling numbers upper years. Schools miss out on a lot of funding when children leave so it's not great really when they take children in in reception only to do a couple of years then leave. Oversubscribed state schools have a real problem and quite rightly feel a bit annoyed about the whole idea, especially when siblings of kids who have left in year 3 start in reception, and will obviously leave when they get to that stage too. Don't always assume that all state primaries aren't good enough.

Oh and I'm state educated and don't feel as if my future was pulled out from under my feet. I feel that I have had a very successful life so far - but then I guess it all depends on your definition of success (I didn't get a "top uni" degree or go into a top profession).