To think it is NOT OK to only send one DC to private school

I have 3 DC.
the first at private school with a scholarship and bursary.
the second at a very good state school. He didn’t get into the private school and didn’t really want to go (not as academic). There are private schools where he would’ve got in (lower academic standards) but he wasn’t bothered.
the older child is happy at his private school and understands there’s no extra money for school ski trips etc
the second child loves the school ski trip and is happy he gets to go.
neither child expects a fair share of money because it’s impossible to evaluate if fees are taken into account. But the older one understands he must sacrifice trips.

youngest is still at primary school. No idea what he wants to do for secondary.

I agree it would be unfair. Massive possibility for resentment. Send both to state and spend the money equally on extracurricular opportunities and university imho. Or spend it on relocating to the catchment of a great state school.

Oxbridge will not necessarily serve your kids well. I say that as someone who has been to both. A good school will though.

What do you mean by private?

Small independent which suits one child (maybe with super pastoral support) and another going to an outstanding state school or grammar?
Sending one to one of the big famous public schools which has huge grounds and facilities and the other to s state school is a significantly different situation.
But personally I would always aim to give DS the same opportunities. One may go to a better selective grammar than the other but both will get the same support the 11+. Both will get offered clubs but not necessarily the same ones.

Still addresses the many people who are saying they'd not send one child ( for whatever reason) if they couldn't send the others

no but its not right to make that decision on principle even before child 2 is born.

I would just have one child if it's important that your child goes to a private school at the secondary stage. Send them to a good local primary school before this. Private education is expensive. Also when you have a child depending on their personality, abilities, intelligence and what they are like socially you can see what type of school would suit them.

One family I know have kids and they planned for them to go boarding school at secondary age. Child one bright in school, sociable, out going and they went to boarding school. They liked it here, made plenty of friends and got good results for a prestigious university degree.
Child 2 then was diagnosed on the autism spectrum after several years of various signs that they were not nuro typical. This child would not have coped in a boarding school and they did not want to go. They went to a local good secondary school but the parents spent money on helping them with grinds and developing the interests they had. This child thrived in the local secondary school and was happy moving away to university.

Maybe don’t have another child if that’s his view?

I could understand sending a child who really struggled to private school to try to get them through exams etc whilst keeping one who was bright enough to do well anywhere in state. It would cause resentment but I’d get it. I wouldn’t get it the other way around!

I would start them in a state primary and see how it goes. If one then needs private because they're finding it difficult in the state system, then make the decision. There is no way I could send one kid to private and one to state without any really good cause. People send kids to private schools for all sorts of reasons - I have friends who have sent their kids because of SEN, bullying in the local comp etc - but the vast majority send kids because it can give them a leg up for all the reasons stated on this thread. I don't know how anyone can sleep well knowing that they have given one of their kids this opportunity from the outset and not the other.

On a side note, my kids have been through the state system in 'needs improving' to 'outstanding' schools but always with good progress 8. Both have done really well, one in a highly ranked uni and the other with an offer to Cambridge. Generally speaking, I've seen no big difference in academic attainment between my kids in state and my other kids in academic private schools. The biggest predictors I've seen are results in SATS in primary school and then the kid having a stable, supportive home life.

But that isn't the issue here. OP is purely coming from a financial point of view. They don't think they can afford to privately educate two children.

It sounds like your dh would be happier with one dc.

My mum was sent to a local grammar. Her brothers - one younger, one older - both went to private boarding schools. She was as academically gifted as they were. She never understood why. Generously, maybe my grandparents realised her personality was not conducive to a happy life at boarding school (v insecure), but it was most probably sexism. Her brothers went on to have massively successful careers and she was a v late bloomer. It has made me determined never to do the same to my children.

He's being ridiculous. If you can't afford to do something for all your kids, then you don't do it for any.
How does he think dc2 would feel? And how would he justify this to them?

Hmmm. One child had a scholarship to a Private prep school. The brother at the same age they took the entrance exam couldn't read Why would you deny one child sn opportunity simply be cause the other isn't capable of it?

Also with state schools you are completely rolling the dice. Maybe your kids got lucky and there were no highly disruptive children in the same class with your kids. But thas all it is -- luck. If there were any such children then the state school would have very little ability to actually do anything about it (particularly if they had "SEN"), since expulsion/discipline/etc is mostly impossible in the state sector.

In contrast, private schools tend to be quite pro-active about getting rid of pupils who are disruptive and negatively impacting everyone else. Thats another thing that comes with the direct accountability.

I have a dd15 in private school. She has AuDHD so private gave her what she needed.

If I had a sporty, NT kid I would have sent them to the local state school.

My neighbours had one in private and one in state because one is dyslexic and SEN provision in state near me is shite.

My point is you pick the right school for the child, so no I don't think sending one and not the other is bad necessarily.

Its not the same at all though, because independent schools are directly answerable to parents and have very direct incentives to ensure that all children are receiving a high standard of education (otherwise parents will stop paying fees).

State schools have no direct incentives to care about parents (or indeed, most children). Thats why they are perfectly fine with ignoring half the kids in the class and focusing only on a small number, because if parents withdraw their kids then who cares really?

Turns out when you have direct accountability, there an incentive for good performance. Thats Econ 101

(I saw "direct" accountability because state schools obviously have very very indirect accountability through OFTED, but that very different to being accountable to the actual parents/children in the school)

Saying all state schools are like that is like saying all private schools are perfect. The reality is that most state and private are somewhere in between

The state school my kids went to, one is still there the behaviour overall is fine. Not perfect and there’s too much answering back and low level rudeness but there’s absolutely no violence or throwing things whatsoever at any times.

The teaching varies from fine to truly outstanding and 60% of GCSE results are 7-9, kids getting at least 5 GCSE’s at 5-9 is about 85%with a good 25% of the year group getting a straight run of 8-9

other state schools will be similar and some will be dire. Same with private.

And yes I would stop at one child to be able to privately educate, 100%.

But I would never have 2 and only privately educate one. That’s madness.

WTAF have I just read.

If you only have one child, and you want to effectively spend every penny on that one child, then surely you stop at one child?

Its funny in threads like this how half the posters are coping with the "private schools arent necessarily better" nonsense jjust because they cant afford it.

In contrast, literally every thread on mumsnet about state schools (particulalry those where teachers are posting) makes clear that the state sector is completely broken with huge class sizes, hordes of badly behaved kids disrupting classes, misguided inclusion policies with SEN kids without support having regular meltdown in classes, the impossibility of expelling kids no matter what levels of violence/bullying they engage in, teachers basically ignoring all the kids in the class except the ones at the bottom, etc etc.

Of course private is a lot better lol

I agree, unless it is very obvious one would benefit much more. I've friends with 3, 2 went private and 1 didn't ... first two were 'brain boxes'.

I read an article in the Times from someone in their 30s whose sibling had the chance they didn't. It fractured the family. I'd only do it if one child had a scholarship that covered most of the cost and you were topping up, if one had finished school, then you came into money or possibly if one was SEN and needed a specialist school you couldn't get on the state. To choose one child over another would be awful.
My family all went private and it served us well, but occasionally, I look up my year group in my house and a fair few have done very little with the opportunity.