To think my child is likely to have more opportunities throughout life if I send them to probs to school?

Parents generally prefer their own children, and will prioritise them over others, yes.

Basically then, if it’s not available to everyone is should be available to no one, and that parents should basically prioritise ‘equality’ over providing what they can to the children they’re actually responsible for? I’m certainly glad my parents didn’t have this mindset.

How far does this equality go? Should no parent encourage reading because not every child has parents that do? What about after schools clubs and summer clubs? Hobbies? Music lessons?

No it skits just wanting to get ahead

It's also just wanting your child to achieve what they are capable of because that tends to make happier healthier people

A bright child who is neglected at a state school because they meet the minimum standard turns into an unhappy and disruptive child very quickly

The current state system is failing - the system - not individual teachers and schools

Because you don’t want everyone to be equal. You want your child to have the edge. The private school system only exists because of the desire for preferential treatment.

I would say the nature of the child and the family environment have way more influence than school. Also you can't put all state or private school in the same bag as they are all unique and suit some children better than others. Look at your local options and your finances. Good luck!

I only know three people who went to private school. All are unpleasant in their views on other people re race, poverty, benefits etc. Is this because of private school or wealth in general?
I think if private schools were banned we would soon see huge improvement in education for everyone because those with money and power would insist upon it if their little darlings had to attend the local comp.

I’m a private school parent. It’s not “all that”. At all. Why do we send our kids there? We think it’s better than the local state alternative in terms of resources and facilities and we don’t really notice the money. But I wouldn’t sacrifice much for it, if you see what I mean? I’d far rather use that money to give my kids extra curricular opportunities on top of state provision than pay for private and have to cut those out. And I’m convinced that that’s what makes the most difference to what you’re talking about.

True!

Yes, it’s a bit like the breastfeeding and better outcomes stats. Hard to control for associated economic and educational aspects.

And while I agree with you to an extent (DH and I are both from poor families with low literacy rates, parents all left school by 13, his older siblings by 15 — first to go to university in both cases), I think it’s hard for children from affluent families to have the same sense of urgency. There was no money or help to go to university, at home, or support at school. I knew that if I wanted to get to university I was going to have to win a series of scholarships, do all the applications etc myself. One particular entrance scholarship (for my local university) I was almost the only non-private school student sitting it (we were all wearing school uniforms) and I still won one.

It’s hard for DS, who has grown up in comfortable circumstances with parents with multiple postgrad degrees, to feel he doesn’t have to fight for every chance.

Why is it presented as ’artificially inflated’ at a private school, and as an indictment of private schooling, of rather than ‘children are disadvantaged a schools that fail to properly support them’?

Isn’t supporting children to achieve their full potential supposed to be desirable? On one hand it seems people want their children to have the same opportunities as private school children, while at the same time presenting those opportunities as a negative.

What is it that’s actually wanted? Educational support, or the educational hunger games?

There’s no right answer to this other than do your research, know your child and understand your own financial circumstances.

Yes people can do well at any school - that's kind of like saying a person of colour can do well in any industry - they can but the odds are stacked so they have to be better and have more luck

Not all areas have good state schools

On average it's easier for a good child to succeed at a private school - if you take a cohort of similar academic ability aged 11 by the time they are 25 there is a clear difference in academic achievements - it's a bit less than the gap at age 18 as the chance of a private educated child failing to thrive at university is higher than the state child but still quite marked

This to me is a sign that we are failing our children

Meh - I don't think private school is necessary if you have good state schools. I know people who went to state schools who have massively overachieved and are wildly successful, and some from private schools how now work in really normal jobs with average salaries. If they're clever, determined and good at what they do they should thrive wherever.

@RawBloomers

If anyone sends their kids to "Eaton" they're being scammed!

It's really going to be about what your state options are like and only you know that.

I am very happy with my children's state primary - it's not an Ofsted outstanding or in a highly affluent area (it's about 50% pupil premium) - but it's very nurturing, very outdoorsy and the teachers so far have been adept at differentiating within the class.

I don't think it would be worth sending them to private. I will think about it again for secondary. Our local state secondary is pretty good though and sends a good proportion to Oxbridge and RG universities every year, for a non selective school. So I don't necessarily expect to go private then either but will look at the options

The opportunities come because they have parents who are affluent, have the right friends, possibly are pushy, pay for tutoring, and more importantly they expect their children to achieve therefore from young prioritise education. You don't need to be in private education to see this either, my kids were state educated but grew up in a family and surrounded by other people all with at least a bachelors degree if not PhDs and so had the internal expectation that studying and learning was normal, university was the path you took, I didn't have to tell them, it was just their world. Both have Russell group university degrees and will have masters in due course their choice.

It's not my background by the way, both myself and my ex were first in family to attend university but my kids were brought up in a different world due to circumstances we were in due to said degrees

It’d depend on the private school. Some are highly selective - others will take just about anyone whose parents can pay the fees. A good state school would IMO beat the latter hands down.

Plus of course not everybody by any means from even highly academic independent schools will go on to excel in later life.

Engaged in a real life experiment with this as I have one at a well rated comp and about to send the other to a less academic private.

Am I wasting my money? Possibly. The comp is supposed to be amazing, outstanding ofsted etc. It's massive and cramped. There is zero communication with parents, no meaningful response to any concerns. There's a harsh zero tolerance behaviour policy but still a fair amount of disruption. I have already hired tutors in several core subjects and it seems that many of my child's friends also have tutors. It's been really hard to find anyone available to tutor who is any good and I am spending a fair amount. It also means extra time and work for my child after school. My child doesn't want to leave though as happy with friends.

I have questioned why on earth I would pay a fortune to send my other child to a school with similar results. I suppose I am hoping that they as an individual will be happier and do better. Bit of a gamble though. Only doing it because I can afford to.

But no one was talking about ‘super selective’ schools, just private ones. Which vary enormously in their academic rigour. Mostly they’re pumping resources into average children to artificially inflate those children’s chances. If all children had identical educational opportunities, they’d be left by the wayside.

I don’t agree. I think the ‘brutal truth’ is that parents who use private schools do so in the knowledge that, while a clever, self-motivated child will be fine anywhere, their very average child wouldn’t succeed without the extra resources of a private school.

I disagree. I would love to see a very average child sit the 7+ and try to get into a super selective school.

Not sure we are disagreeing?

Agreed

I don’t agree. I think the ‘brutal truth’ is that parents who use private schools do so in the knowledge that, while a clever, self-motivated child will be fine anywhere, their very average child wouldn’t succeed without the extra resources of a private school.

Going to a private school doesn’t stop being bullied as some have mentioned

99% of private school round my way won’t take SEN kids at all.

I say if you can afford it go for it but if you’ve to scrimp don’t as it'll be miserable for you.

Yes, to answer your question. Private schools (a decent one) will offer brilliant and numerous opportunities to your child/ren now, and potentially in the future. If it’s financially viable there’s not much question about it.

That’s a brutal truth and that is why it gets so much vitriol on here. As a PP said ‘This will go the way of all private school thread with nasty vitriol aimed at privately educated children being arrogant, small minded, snobs who "buy" better grades than they deserve’..

Although I see this thread is a few days old and it’s been perfectly civil, which is surprising but nice to see.

Yes I agree with that. It’s the belief that you are as good as anyone else and have the nerve and the confidence to put yourself forward.

Nowadays there is a concerted effort by many employers to be inclusive so they are school and university blind anyway so the “connections” upside likely to be less key.