AIBU to think Private School isn’t worth the expense?

Depends what you want out of school. If you want your child to fight for attention and resources in a class of 30+ where the system is rigged toward the academically brightest you go right ahead into your local state school.

If you want more for your kids you choose other options.

I went to private school on a scholarship from the age of 11. I got a lot out of it but sadly I don’t think it’s worth what it costs these days.

I was planning my finances so that I could send my child private for secondary but I’ve decided to send him to state school for now and put the money into savings. I’ll keep private school as an option if he’s struggling but if he does all right then I’ll have enough put by for his uni fees AND a decent house deposit when the time comes. I think that will actually give him more of an advantage than a private education will now.

If you have good state schools in your area it merits serious consideration of whether it’s worth it.

For me it’s a no brainer because the two secondary schools in our area are dire. One of them had not one single child achieve any highers last year, the other managed to get 5% of kids a pass in 3 highers but also had a child strangled almost to death in the cafeteria by a peer. My son would be eaten alive in either.

It buys you confidence. My experience: I went to a state school in a leafy suburb in London. I had an incredible education - (90s) - had fantastic extra circular activities (drama, arts, pottery, lanaguages - Russian as example took an extra gcse), music (we had our own music house), huge playing fields and rugby fields, loads of foreign exchanges and trips abroad. I loved studying so for loads out it. The key thing that made a difference to a kid from a working class background like me, albeit my mothers side are Scandinavian and teachers, ministers etc, was I was able to mix with children and their families from a wide range of backgrounds. I became friends with kids whose dads were on tour as musicians with Guns and Roses (it was the 90s), kids whose parents were well known actors, kids who lived on Richmond Hill, one of UKs wealthiest areas. It wasn’t just mixing with families who were in different wealth brackets, it was also the cultural and class coding / signifiers that I became without realizing it attuned to. It is these invisible, silent, immediate codes, attitudes, and tastes that mixing in different (upper / upper middle) grounds uou in tonenable you to enter worlds of employment and social cicrkes - that really sadly are very exclusive - and it is this subtle class know how that private school buys you, which may not be any use to some in life but it opens doors to higher earning, sowfiicc kinds of jobs in ways if do not have the know how and “codes” often it’s an uphill struggle. I’m not saying it’s a golden pass - it’s not. I’m not agreeing this is right. It is - in England - a sad fact.

My children's state school has a lot of sports and extra curricular activities. It very depends on the school.

I think it totally depends on your child and their needs. I am also in Bristol and agree that there are lots of excellent state options now, contrary to outdated opinions. I have worked as SLT in some of these schools. Teaching is often better in state - the qualifications are the same but quite frankly, in my experience, you have to work harder in state schools/academies so this weeds out many of the weaker teachers. I continue to work in the education sector. HOWEVER I also question whether my children - who are very sporty and thrive in extra curricular settings - wouldn’t be better supported by a private option. I also believe private schools avoid the need to be an exam factory from year 7 - they get to be children for longer.

Some people can't take responsibility for their own bitterness and jealousy so they attack anyone on here who admits the ability to afford finer things in life. It's very common on this forum.

OP this is so dependent on quality of schools in your area and specific needs of your child.
My children are at the state school and I'm generally very pleased with it but large classes can be huge disadvantage. One of my children is absolutely fine. Other one struggles to focus and absorb information when there is so much distraction.

Despite being very bright, he is not fulfilling his potential and I have to spend more time at home with him, going over the subjects.
Bigger classes also make teachers more stressed and less able to offer individual attention.

I haven't always had an impression that teachers know my children well, despite their best intentions. On contrary, friends who have daughter in private school say the teachers really "get her" and know how to motivate her. And if there is anything they are not happy with, they can always raise it with the school, knowing the issue will be promptly resolved.

Obviously the main disadvantage of private education is the cost. If you work, you also need to consider the cost of wraparound care and longer holidays.

We did both, started with independent schools and moved on to the excellent local state primary. I would say there is maybe more learning in the state school, but their behaviour has definitely changed. They’re shyer, their manners are poorer and less confident in general. For this reason we’re moving them to independent secondaries after sitting the 11+.

It’s very odd!! I think they thought they would be able to afford it for the other one but then had a third child and their business hasn’t done super well. So now it’s difficult to pull the eldest out.

Are they running a social experiment? Seems very unfair. 2 against 1 if the assisted dying law is passed would worry me 😆

It’s a deliberately ambiguous post. OP wants people to read between the lines - is it about soft skills and networking or just pure snobbery- then reveal their own prejudice in their reply.

No two schools are the same, all children are different and not all families have the same outlook.

I have used both state and private education for my DC. The main advantage of private education is significantly better student behaviour. In the state sector, too much time is wasted on crowd control. Private schools are not obliged to deal with the utter crap that state school teachers have to put up with.
This means that the educational experience in private schools is far more pleasant. Also less time lost to crowd control = more time to learn.

I think it's horses for courses. DD goes to private because she was really badly let down at state primary. For her particular needs, mainly stemming from ADHD, we felt that she would be more nurtured. She's very bright so if she weren't ND we'd have been confident that she would have done well anywhere, but her self-confidence had been trashed and I wanted her somewhere where she wouldn't be constantly put down or ignored and didn't feel that could happen in the state options where we are.
But I think for many, it probably isn't worth it really.

I get that. We will also prioritise secondary school.
We live close to two failing secondary schools with lots of behavioural problems and two excellent private schools 15mins away. moving closer to the catchment area of a good state secondary would cost us more than private school ironically. And we don’t really want to move.

No I said “IF you can afford it”
I understand not everyone can! Clearly OP can otherwise she wouldn’t ask

I think that everyone has different priorities. Not many people can afford it, but if you can without sacrificing too much I tend to agree.

Having said that, we can afford it, but I don't want my 8 year old to have to travel 45 mins on a bus each way and not get home until 5:30 each night. For us the travel time is a a big sacrifice at the moment and for primary school my main concern is that they are happy, stress free and make lots of local friends. Our school is Good though, not brilliant but good enough and within walking distance. For senior school I'm prepared to make more sacrifices.

Posts like that infuriate me. It suggests that people who don't use private are choosing to prioritize other things rather than recognising that even if they sacrificed food and a roof they still couldn't afford it. Mine are in private and I'm in massive debt but it's after their MH was on the floor, EBSA and various other unmet needs. I'm v lucky to have a good credit rating and generous parents.

A friend of mine has spent her career in a number of different primaries, all in deprived areas and has had this as a weekly occurrence minimum in all of them. She has special training on how to safely restrain children, how to release the jaw of a child whose teeth are clamped around her arm or hand. It is not remotely "unheard of".

This thread will go backwards and forwards ad infinitum as there are so many schools in both sectors.

But, I would say, very generally, that private schools do have a lot more support (look at the staff:pupil ratios), more enrichment available and an easier (not necessarily better) learning environment. If pupils struggle in busy chaotic environments then the private option is probably better.

It is also true that private schools, on average, have teachers with stronger subject knowledge, as they pay up for them (I was one!). But that doesn’t mean better teaching necessarily, but it is maybe a plus for the very strong, especially at A levels.

The upside of state is the shorter days for parents who want to do what is slightly condescendingly called state + (which I suspect some private school parents think is the equivalent of flying premium economy). Another way of looking at that is called parents who who want to, in old fashioned terms, parent. That is help with homework, facilitate out of school hobbies etc. Both my children have a main interest out of school at a higher level than would be available even in the top public schools, and they can do it earlier in the day and still get prep done.

In addition, I do think that if you can manage in the slightly more chaotic and less supportive atmosphere of a state school, it does build genuine resilience, which is not the same as two days of walking in DofE or Trips week.The biggest lie private schools tell is that their pupils are resilient. Of course there are some, some people are naturally resilient and parenting plays a big part too. But, if you are overly supported and not allowed to fail and learn, you won’t build resilience.

No - i was replying to the last part of your post.

I don't believe that if you have a bright child they will always do well at any school.

You don't believe that's true? That even in schools Ofsted has ranked as poor in some way, some children' don't achieve top grades? Why would that be the case? There are literally thousands of children in schools that are ranked as shit. Children living in areas ranked at the top/bottom of every kind of social indice going. And some of them get top grades. And some of them get good grades. And some get average grades. And some do really badly. But as a teacher in an independent school, I can tell you that every year there are children who do badly in their exams, who miss their target grades by a mile, who don't even nearly begin to reach their potential. And those are schools with entrance exams and young people with every kind of advantage that exists in life.

If you think that private schools somehow magically get children the top grades, you are sadly very much mistaken. I would suggest, unscientifically researched, that the average private school will add a grade and for some, that will be the difference between pass and fail. But for many, that's just the difference between 8 and 9. Private schools can't somehow improve on natural ability but smaller class sizes, uninterrupted lessons and a desire to achieve can add a little value on top of what the state schools might have got. It's not going to take a grade 3 child to a grade 8.

And yes, whilst A levels are different to GCSEs, the same principle applies. Private schools dont' have to take children who are unlikely to get above a grade E at A level into their midst. And whilst many do, again there is only so much value that can be added to natural ability. There are some incredibly bright kids in the state sector - some are let down, but the majority achieve the grades that match their potential and go on to go universities and have excellent career prospects. To suggest anything different, assumes that state schools teachers are somehow inadequate. I am the same - very average - teacher in an independent as I was in state - the difference is the lack of distraction and the desire to achieve that exists in the vast majority of the young people I work with. The vast majority of young people in the state sector also want to achieve and the majority do, despite the distractions and general shannanigans that sometimes goes on. The majority, however, do hit their target grades because they've got teachers behind them that are pulling out every bloody finger they have to ensure that happens.

You're not better as a parent by sending your kids to private school. You know that, right? You're just fortunate enough to be able to pay the fees. Plenty of hard working, high-achieving people out there simply can't afford it (because high-achieving isn't all about the ££££) or make a choice to spend their money differently.

I don't think most private school parents have so much money that they can afford private school fees without thinking about it (clearly, some do).

The calculation is more likely to whether your child gets days out (including enriching ones), chance to do more expensive extra curricular, any holiday at all, their own room or has to share, or, as in our case, whether the money would be better saved and given to them to support them as a young adult (e.g. university support, house deposit, further study or training).