If you had the chance to put your Dc in private school, would you?

We did have that opportunity but sent dd to a state school instead.

I didn't think any of the local private schools were worth it for a kid like dd who was likely to thrive anywhere. She's a young adult now and I'm very glad that we made the decision that we did.

I don't really agree with private education. However, I would have absolutely prioritised dd's needs over and above my political principles if I had felt that it was in dd's best interests. I appreciate that makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but I would have put her needs first no matter what, so I make no judgement of those who choose that option.

If dd had been academically average, lacking in confidence or short on self motivation, I might have considered the private options more carefully. I think there are some children for whom private schools can really add value. But dd wasn't one of them and I knew she would thrive wherever she went. And she did.

If the school suited my child then yes, I definitely would.

Just reading through all the comments, it’s interesting that some people put so much emphasis on exam results. I got straight As and A*s at a mediocre comp but that doesn’t mean I think state schools are automatically the right choice for every child (I absolutely hated school despite doing well academically).

I mean extra curricular, outside of lesson time. By basic sports teams I mean a school team for a handful of popular sports. Football, netball, maybe a couple of others. Music as a class, specific instrument lessons for those who want it from a visiting teacher who comes once a week/fortnightly. It wouldn’t even cross my mind to expect school to provide anything beyond that. My brother was talented and passionate about music, he had extra lessons and clubs outside of school which were a damn sight cheaper than sending him private, plus he then had other additional social groups to mix with outside of school. My husband was sporty, he played for local grassroots teams as well as the school team, as do my friends sporty children. I’ve just never realised people saw school as a one stop shop til I read this thread.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting state schools are music and sport free zones.

I really don’t understand what you mean. Music and sport are part of the national curriculum. Therefore all schools should be providing them. What do you mean regarding ‘basic sports teams’? Why would I arrange sports lessons outside of school when the school should be providing them?

In fact, my DD's (comprehensive) school has a chamber choir, ukelele band, orchestra and scratch choir. My son goes to a grammar and they additionally have a swing band.

All the state schools near us offer music GCSE and a fair few offer GCSE PE too.

Not beyond the basic school sports teams and music lessons from a visiting teacher. I’d previously thought most people were happy with that and those who wanted more would tend to arrange it themselves outside of school, until I read this thread.

Since when have schools- state or private not been expected to provide these things?! Have you no experience of schools?

Yes, I would. I feel so sorry for the parents that were just about managing the fees and now can't because of the VAT changes.

I could never afford it. I know hand on heart I would if I could.

But state schools should be providing music, art and sport... However, with diminished budgets and time, these are the first to be cut.

There is a reason why such a large % of top sports athletes are former private school children.

Both state and private schools are heterogeneous. Some people have instances of private schools that they didn’t like and didn’t think were value for money. I don’t doubt it.

My own DC’s London day schools were very organised, very aspirational. The teachers often did not have teaching qualifications, but did have Oxbridge or advanced degrees in their subjects. The other children were very bright, and the parents were by and large high earning professionals. So an ethos of aspiration and graft, not inheritance.

This suited us and our children. Other families might have wanted something more nurturing or something that would prepare their DC for a different social milieu. As far as I am concerned, they should crack on as they see fit. The beauty of being able to pay, is that you have more choice to get what you believe will be best for your DC. If you are lucky enough to have a free state option which is a great fit, so much the better.

I am just sad that variety and real choice in the state sector is being eroded. I think DC get the best results when their parents are allowed to guide choices that align with their family’s values. I have very little interest in controlling the way other people’s children are raised beyond ensuring some minimum standards. Raising my own is consuming enough, and I wouldn’t presume to know enough about everyone else’s best interests to dictate to them.

Two genuine questions - not to be taken as an attack, it’s genuine interest.

1. Those who say they would use private schools because of music, sport etc - why is the expectation now that school should be providing hobbies?
2. If you were financially stretching yourself for these schools and your child had no interest in these activities, would you pull them out as it’s not worth the cost?

Sorry, I misunderstood but I think you said something along the lines of if you needed to you would have (I can’t find the post I am referring fo)

Yes I think theoretically we might have done.

But in our (fairly rural) area there isn't much movement between schools, most kids go to the same primary school, then most go on to the catchment secondary school together.

The other schools in the town where DD went to school are not terrible (not outstanding either, all of them are much of a muchness getting average results really) so she'd have probably gone to one of them had she not got her catchment (which she nearly didn't because we're so far out and there were loads of siblings that year). But as I say, the priority for her was to go with her friends and to be eligible for school transport.

I don't really care whether or not people send their kids to private school but I do think they're mad if they can't really afford it and are sacrificing other stuff to pay for it. I honestly think helping your child avoid sky high private rents will help them more than larger playing fields, however I do get that some parents feel that their kids with SEN wouldn't cope with large state schools. Having said that, DD's school had a reputation for being brilliant for those children.

I think we could have afforded private school had we really wanted to (with a change of career and lifestyle, different house etc), but we chose not to as we live in a grammar area and the grammars are better and closer than the local private schools.

Repeated post (edited)

No. As I have excellent ofsted schools on my doorstep. DS left with mostly 9’s at GCSE and 3 A star at A level, now at top uni. DD is 17, got all 9’s in GCSE’s and is applying to Oxford in the Autumn. Both self driven, modest, and kind. Not sure what private school would have given them really, and certainly not for the cost of it. Ex’s brothers have both paid private and on GCSE day last year one said ‘and for free’.

Yes we have, our extremely quiet very academically bright eldest was already reading competently before she started school and would would have disappeared in the local state primarys who made it very clear they didn't have the resources to academically stretch her on the open days we went to. She has thrived in the small class sizes, loads of sports, specialist teachers, fantastic teachers, good class behaviour, great pastoral support.

We'll do the same for our other children.

We chose not too because this assumes all private schools are best and suit the child automatically, so I would not automotically go with anything just because the name 'private' is added to it

Depends what you mean by "worth it". I don't give a toss about Oxbridge but I wanted my kids to be at a school where they weren't bullied and overwhelmed, that was calm and small and focused overall on pastoral care. They do send about 95% of their sixth form to uni, including Oxbridge but there are plenty of other reasons to choose private if your state offering is poor.

As ever on this thread, what is missing is a real acknowledgement that there is a far wider gap between different state schools and the good states and decent privates. The best comp in my area is on a par with the private my kids attend but I can't get a mortgage for the catchment. With my parents help I can afford the fees and got them out of our local school where they developed EBSA due to unmet needs.

Do you really think that's likely?

I have 5 daughters who attend 3 private school and i find in my small sample the opposite to be true, parents are incredibly invested in their children's education. The monitoring, if anything, is too much.

Paying for a service, in my experience, does not attract a majority of complacent parents who do not even know which teacher they have for swimming lessons. In any of our children's schools this would leak out and would fill the parents WhatsApp group with posts of outrage. Not much is without dissection. I'm sure the same is on state schools, current schooling is very well monitored by parents.

Of course they are, do you apply sweeping generalisations to other demographics? Why stop at education. What about eye colour? Blue eyed people also so so so much nicer than people with brown eyes? Im sure people born in the 1990s are so much nicer than those born in the 1980s...oh and people born in Kent are much nicer than those born in Essex.

Only nasty divisive judgemental people would make such a comment, so by default you must have attended a private school?

Yes I would - for the broader curriculum, smaller class sizes, music, sport, facilities and better access to the teachers for updates year round. Better food, trips and a general positive learning environment.

But - be careful. Paid for doesn’t equal good. A local indy may not be very high quality at all.

I think the ones worth it now are decent feeder preps and top public schools. That’s what I’d pay for, but not a local day school unless it produces a decent number of Oxbridge entrants each year.

Judging by Mn, ‘private school parents’ do not differ in any way from the rest of the population, other than in a few entrenched and irrational beliefs such as ‘bullying doesn’t happen in private schools’, ‘teaching is better in private schools’. So one imagines theyre just as likely to be ‘silly’, or to be dreadful, uncommunicative parents, as anyone else.

Of course you have and obviously the parents are blissfully unaware. If only parents thought to speak to their children...silly private school parents.