If you dc is at a private school, do you genuinely think…

"I aM in loNDoN"

DD would probably say she’s happy at school (private) despite it not because of it as it is pretty strict and she dances to her own tune a bit and often gets told off.
On the other hand she has great friends, access to loads of sport (including Saturdays so it keeps her out of trouble mainly!) and a calm learning environment. So she may dislike the strictness but she probably benefits from it more overall than she realises.
At the same school DS is a real rule-abider and likes routine so for him the strictness is not an issue. I would say he also likes school for different reasons to DD. He is quite academic but can be lazy so for him being pushed is a good thing.
I do worry they can be a bit spoon-fed at private and the days are pretty long - but overall I would say it has worked well and mine are both happy there.

@Bunnycat101 - I find this so strange that you don’t have several options! I am in London and we get choice, single sex comp, single sex grammar, all girls Catholic comp, various co-ed options, co-ed grammar etc. Even within the comps, massive differences in how they set/some pretty much stream in most subjects. What you don’t want is mixed ability across the board in a deprived comp because so much teaching time is lost to low level disruption. But you can have an equally deprived fully streamed comp where the higher achievers are fine and prioritised, because the school is so desperate to keep attracting at least some high achievers.

My totally average state primary kid did bang average in her SATS, was in 3rd sets at her state secondary. Moved her to a shiny private in year 9 and she's just got 2 x A star and A in her A levels and an A in her EPQ. Friends of hers who were in top sets at state got BBB and AAB. So to me that's value for money, noone will ever be able to take those grades away from her.

@Newbutoldfather you are making a massive assumption that the wealthy displaced families would gladly hand over tens of thousands. They do it for private schools because it's their Alma mater, or a long standing family connection. Even leaving aside the huge legal barriers to dismantling the private sector, the people you're counting on to prop up the State sector would be so massively pissed off it's the last thing they'd do. All that would happen is you'd have enclaves of private wealth, around X school and THAT school might very quickly resemble a private but would be totally inaccessible to anyone who couldn't afford the catchment so you have the same inequality.

These wealthy parents are simply not going to send their kids to a huge comp surrounded by a sink estate with associated problems and pour money into it. They're just not. And why should they? It's not their job. By all means bring in more aggressive taxation to all in the top whatever % of earnings and use that across the sector but imagining that individual donors are going to pay for a new classroom block in a state school is unrealistic and actually really depressing....are we now at a point where, like food banks, our government is just giving up and expecting charities or benefactors to do their job?

We’re having a dilemma about value of private versus state and keep going round in circles about what’s best.

we’re at a lovely state primary and my eldest has been very unhappy at times due to the behaviour of a lot of the boys- at worst end aggression but also lots of low level disruption, talking over the girls etc. she’d absolutely love an all girls school as things stand.

What I’m balancing is selective all girls schools with all the shiny facilities but tight family finances and pressure to continue working stressful jobs versus fairly gritty mixed comp, being able to do luxury holidays, all the activities she’d want and a financial buffer- probably being able to give substantial house deposits etc. I'm really torn over what option would make everyone happier.

@notbelieved ,

‘this always makes me laugh. It’s almost as if people believe ‘the rich’ would just give the state school the money they would have spent on fees. Or like ‘the rich’ magically have some kind of magical powers that would increase school budgets and work general miracles,’

It is partially true though.

Plenty give lots of additional money to the private schools, above and beyond fees. That would certainly be available to any state school they chose for their child.

It is true, though, that short of bussing, it wouldn’t help schools in deprived areas directly.

But it is also true that having some of the richest and most influential totally disinterested (and, for the majority, uninterested) in state schooling in this country is not a good thing.

I don’t think it would either be desirable or possible to ban private schooling but to pretend this wouldn’t have a positive effect on the state sector is disingenuous.

@notbelieved exactly. And the social engineering thing obviously wouldn't happen..it would be carnage as you say. But unless you break the link between geographical catchment and wealth you will never have all schools being equally good, safe learning environments. Even if you could replicate exactly all other aspects, a school full of well cared for, well parented, aspirational and respectful kids is going to do better than a school full of kids struggling with myriad social problems. Tinkering about with school policy will do nothing to address this and no government has the balls to say it, let alone address it.

Unless you were prepared to socially engineer school populations to be a completely random mix of demographics with a transport system to support it, abolishing private would to zip to magically improve state schools

can you imagine it? Utter carnage as parents get their kids to school on the opposite side of town to where they live. Very bad for the environment.

If all kids had to go to state school, state schools would be a hell of a lot better as the rich couldn't opt out

this always makes me laugh. It’s almost as if people believe ‘the rich’ would just give the state school the money they would have spent on fees. Or like ‘the rich’ magically have some kind of magical powers that would increase school budgets and work general miracles,

All that will happen is that ‘the rich’ have more money to spend on extra curricula activities, holidays and all kinds of enrichment activities which secure their children’s grades and by default, futures. They will still use their contacts, nepotism will still exist etc etc etc. More rich people in state schools will make zero difference to most children’s outcomes.

If all kids had to go to state school, state schools would be a hell of a lot better as the rich couldn't opt out.

Of course they could opt out. They could choose to move abroad for example (as many are currently doing).

Also, there are “working class” children in private schools. It’s not unusual for 20% to be on means tested bursaries.

Your last paragraph is oft repeated nonsense. Not sure who you classify as "the rich" but most well of people already do exactly as you say...they move into the catchment of a great school with a half a million pound plus mortgage. That school is a great school because the kids that go there largely come from educated, motivated parents and homes so it's a self perpetuating cycle. If you were able to abolish private schools you'd simply increase this effect. Unless you were prepared to socially engineer school populations to be a completely random mix of demographics with a transport system to support it, abolishing private would to zip to magically improve state schools.

The biggest barrier to school improvement/ environment is the behaviour and disaffection of the children. Not money, staff ratios or facilities. Those things would of course make big differences but if the pupils through the door are coming from hugely disadvantaged, or violent, or abusive homes then learning won't happen. "The rich" will not send their kids to a school in that kind of catchment unless forced too which I can't see anyone voting for.

Bedales was amazing for my dyslexic son and he loved it. He’s now at a great drama school. Well worth it. He couldn’t succeed otherwise and it wore him down.

• If you genuinely believe that spending earned income on school fees over other luxuries demonstrates any sort of superiority, you know little about class politics yourself.

FYI the children who go to prep school with mine are all working or middle class with two parents working (usually both full time). We are ethnic minority immigrants who chose the school because they guaranteed care from 7.30am to 6pm - something no state school here offers. I am yet to come across a single person who believes their child is superior just because they pay fees*

The argument that going to private school doesn't tell kids that they are 'better' than others is nonsense.

If parents didn't think it was better they wouldn't pay for it! Kids pick up on this - they're not stupid.

And the idea that any kids in private school are working class is also nonsense.

It is perpetuating inequality. If all kids had to go to state school, state schools would be a hell of a lot better as the rich couldn't opt out.

How or why is being an "elite sport person" somehow shorthand for the pinnacle of ambition anyway? It's not a life I would wish for my children, having seen a couple of friends do it.

Likewise going to university abroad

Some of the most successful people I know either didn't go to university or went to very mediocre (by MN standards) UK universities. That's if we are measuring success by wealth of course.

Yeah. To be fair there only two top athletes and three doing undergrad abroad, but lots of people I know have kids at Oxbridge.or medical school and Russell Group is pretty standard. My social circle is generally very well-educated but ranges in income from living on disability benefits to senior professional married to someone with a much less well-paid job. The couples where both are high earners don't have kids. The people I know who are surgeons/barristers/very senior academics/cyber security consultants and so on all send their kids to state schools, but now I come to think about it, I met quite a lot of them through school/children's activities, so that's not really a representative sample.

the older children of friends have mostly done extremely well, going to top universities in the UK and abroad, playing sport at an elite level etc

That's not usual where I live. You might get the odd elite sportsperson at a state 6th form but it's really unusual. Ditto "top universities abroad".

Just shows how different state education is in different parts/demographics.

No, the state schools around me are great. I think some people are vocal because they've had a bad experience with a particular state school, but it's also similar to how people who home educate their children talk about schools including private schools as terrible places - if you put time and money into doing something, your need to believe it's worth it, so you are invested in your choice being the best one.

I heard terrible things about state schools when DC1 was a baby, and I was fully prepared to home educate her or to live off DH's salary and spend all my earnings on school fees. But then I went to have a look at my nearest primary school, just so that I could say I'd looked, and it was amazing. The staff were incredibly well qualified, and let their previous careers or outside interest add to their teaching - some worked part time in the school in order to free up time for their own music/art etc. Staff retention was very high. There was a wealth of lunchtime and after-school activities. The parents came from many countries and many backgrounds, from refugees and long term unemployed to senior professionals who had been educated at top public schools and were looking for an alternative for their children. There was a huge sense of community and support and inclusion with lots of opportunities for parents to get involved. SEN support was excellent.

The secondary schools are less nurturing, but are also excellent schools. My children are still in their school years, but the older children of friends have mostly done extremely well, going to top universities in the UK and abroad, playing sport at an elite level etc.

There are areas where I think the schools could improve. I'm not impressed with the language teaching at the DC's schools, but I don't know if that is specific to their school, to state schools or to English schools in general.

Of the local independent schools, there are several I wouldn't touch with a bargepole, a couple that are great schools and a couple that are objectively good but would would be a bad fit for my children. And the same goes for the state schools. For DD, one of the private schools might have given her a slightly better school experience for years 7-11, but the state options were better than the independent ones for early years, primary and sixth form, and the independent school certainly weren't £20,000 a year better than state. DS is the sort of child who would do well anywhere, and is thriving at his comprehensive.

My city does have atypically good state schools, so I'm not experienced in the worst short of state schools, and I absolutely believe that private schools can be the best choice for some families. But I find on Mumsnet that people talk on threads like this about the horrors of state schools, but when I look for threads about which local private schools to choose, they are full of stories of bullying, safeguarding failures, incompetent management and failure to meet the needs of SEND pupils.

DD had a tough time with MH issues in sixth form at a private school. Part of that was tied up with a toxic friendship group with lots of peer-pressure to be high achievers. But the two subjects she enjoyed most at A-level are not offered by any state school nearby. For students who enjoy their studies (!), subject choice is a big thing, and that could go either way between state and private.

It really depends on the school. My DD attends state secondary school (a girls comp) and it's excellent. She prefers it to primary school. She has some friends who went to different state schools in the area and they love their schools too.

In fact, up and down the country my.family and friends send their kids to state schools and only heard of one bad school.

Ok, so how about you respond to what that poster just said..she made excellent points about how some (more than anyone wants to admit to) use private at a huge stretch to save their kid's mental health and are having that seriously threatened by the VAT move, especially in the way it has been brought in mid year, with no gradations or nuance. The fact that ALL ought to have access to that kind of support is not questioned but this move will not solve that not make the slightest difference to it. What she says could absolutely be true at both primary and secondary by the way. In the end, after 9 pages, all that is obvious is that no anecdata can answer the OPs question. It's different options suit different kids and until this is recognised and the wide range of options are made universally available, we ought not to making it punitively difficult for parents to put their kids in the best provision for their needs IF that means private. It may not. But if it does, that shouldn't be a hanging offence or an invitation to vitriolic spite as is often seen on here.

Op does not mention either primary or secondary in any of her posts - she is considering private over state in general.

Your situation is very different from OP who is looking at primary schools. State primary schools are usually entirely adequate for a good primary education.

Secondary schooling is a completely different beast.

I have twins - both went to state primary and were very happy. Both went to (different) state highs in year 7 and they are now in year 13. My daughter literally fell apart in year 7 - later diagnosed with Sen and we moved her to private (small classes) so she could cope at school. My son, also later diagnose with Sen, has thrived at his state school.

Do you think I wanted to pay thousands of pounds a year so I could get my daughter an education? We are renting I would have preferred to save it for a house.

All parents must know all kids are different - I think the world agrees that parents know their own kids better than anyone. So I don’t get why when it comes to the private school debate people say keep or send your kids to the local state school mine are ok so your’s will be too.

I wish my daughter had of being thriving in the state school system like her twin brother - you can’t imagine how much I wish that. And it’s not even about the money we would have saved - it’s because it would mean if my daughter had of been thriving in the state school system it would mean she doesn’t have the complex mental health issues she has now despite being in a private school.

People have this perception that private schools have amazing facilities or whatever. My daughter’s private school’s building is appalling, they use temporary classrooms on the field - it’s not much of a field so the kids walk to community gym twice a week. There are barely any clubs of which my daughter does zero as she gets sensory overload and can’t even catch bus home as too tiring for her and I pick her up.

BUT the teachers at this school are lovely and patient with her needs and it’s well loved by parents of Sen kids. We didn’t think she was even going to finish school at one point and now she technically has predicted grades good enough for Russell group universities if she wants to go - but THE most important thing is she has been coping with school and after five years of blackness I can start to see some of the happiness she has as a child in primary.

We won’t be affected much by this tax as our son’s education is free and our daughters eduction will have two terms left when it comes in - but if this tax was in when we first moved our daughter I don’t think we could have afforded to move her. So I feel painfully upset about parents with younger kids with sen needs who are now facing this burden.

And this is about the time people say so how about the kids like your child who can’t cope in school, but their parents can’t afford the move to private school. Well I feel desperately sad about these kids too - and I think we should all be paying more tax as a community to improve schools. Once my daughter finishes school this academic year our private school vat tax stops. It should continue as an overall tax increase for everyone. But in addition to this - private school parents are not the reason government schools are underfunded - we are saving tax payers money by not accessing government school places.

And tell me you know of a decent parent who sees their child struggling in the government school system and has the funds to move them to small class sizes - but chooses not to because of ideology that in theory the government should be helping them. We don’t own a £2m house like Starmer - we put our daughter’s education first because we felt we had to.

Were there only 12 children in the entire year group?

We moved DC from private prep to state primary.
found that the class size was getting too small - 12 children - not much room for making new friends.
state primary has 20 per class, 3 form entry, so not as small or nurtering, but the facilities are much nicer.