Private School Worth It?

It just depends on the child.

We have two mediocre comps to choose from and one non-selective independent.

The oldest child hated the social teenage scene big comp and being miserable all day suppressed his learning. He asked to change schools. He loves his little indy because he can be himself, and his attainment and love of learning are soaring. He is a happy kid. Sure, he could have trudged through and overcome but I like my happy kid.

Our other son is very able academically. He is a lad. He wants to bum around the big comp and play football. He achieves just fine, isn't challenged at all, and is a happy kid.

I'm glad we can settle them both where they feel they fit.

No experience of private primary but just thought I’d chip in with what we have found in our very local experience of private and state. I never thought I would send my kids to a private school but then I never expected that they would benefit from it. I was a motivated, organised, self disciplined, enthusiastic child who did well in the state system. If you have kids like this then of course you will think private education is a waste of money and/or morally suspect. Good for you.

We have put 3 DC who are bright but have dyslexic/ASD/ADD difficulties (in different combinations) through two good comps. They were always going to get 5 GCSEs A-C and it’s become increasingly difficult to get them support. The schools’ support staff has been slashed.

The DC really suffered in all sorts of ways. Did fine on paper but were more unhappy than they needed to be. Lots of stress and some school refusal. Utterly miserable.

DC4 at local private. Having much better experience than their siblings. If they get the same GCSEs as they would have got at comp, that’s fine by me.

We have been able to cut down on the extra curricular stuff and stop tutoring. We have more family time as they do so much at school.

The stuff that is better IMHO includes:

Quieter classes - easier to concentrate (DC had to work in corridor at primary due to noise being so distracting/aversive)

More sport - DC not into team sport but does exercise 3 times a week. School has elite sport but the not sporty types get to do loads of exercise and there is a huge choice of activities. DC is fit and active.

Better healthcare - DC goes to nurse who will assess and treat (eg ibuprofen and strepsil) and send back to class if OK. Bliss. Less school and work missed.

Better food with quieter lunch times. Staff eat in canteen so all much calmer and DC always gets a good meal.

excellent singing music/art/drama which DC loves. Proper choral singing 3 times a week. (My other DC did music up to grade 8 and diploma level but where we live it was hard to find serious singing).

Better resources - small things can make a big difference, for example, a maths textbook in school and another to leave at home. Great for kids with organisational issues.

Offering assessment - phone call from school “Can we assess DC for dyslexia?” That’s a first for us.

stateschoolparent

The conclusion of the Statistics Canada study you referred to was actually "At age 15, private high school students scored significantly higher than did public high school students on reading, mathematics, and science assessments, and by age 23, had higher levels of educational attainment. However, the students who attended private high schools were more likely to have socio-economic characteristics positively associated with academic success, and to have school peers with university-educated parents. .... Two factors consistently accounted for the differences in academic outcomes between public and private sector students: socio-economic characteristics and peers." (my emphasis)

In their decomposition of the size of the various effects driving the differential results, socio-economic factors were more significant than peer effects, but peer effects still accounted for ~25% of the difference in most metrics. Few state schools in the UK will provide a similar peer group to independent schools - certainly very few comprehensives.

Both the OECD/PISA analysis and this Statistics Canada study conclude that there is little difference between public and private school outcomes once you account for the socio-economic position of students and of their peer groups. That conclusion can support the idea that the quality of teaching and resources in private schools doesn't confer many advantages over state schools. However, it cannot support the idea that private school attendance per se does not confer advantages over state school attendance because the difference in socio-economic characteristics of the peer group is effectively intrinsic to the school.

Lookingforspace. It is very sad that the school you are talking about has become so super selective ! Even as recently as 10 years ago girls who would have been in the top 30% of the ability range would have got in.

The school is a victim of its own success and of the limited availability of grammar places globally .

On a positive note because of the school and limited number of availabilities of entry to the other girls/boys grammars round the corner, Trafford effectively operates an 'oxymoron' of an education system. This being able to offer fully comprehensives schools in a wholly selective authority !

I notice the newly 'majority' Labour coalition in Trafford did not make any negative statements about grammar schools.

If I remember rightly, Trafford is not known for its Comp schools ...
are those primary schools feeding into Comp schools ?
Selective State schools will, of course select - and wealth is a proxy for ability to jump through hoops.

In non selective areas are the distortions as extreme ?

@TalkinPeece, LEA % is 13%! We are in Trafford which is Greater Manchester. GM is made up of 10 smaller LAs. GM as a whole is 22% compared to national ave of 18%. Manchester itself is 32%, Salford is 27% and Tameside 23%. Trafford and Stockport are much lower at 13&14%.

Thank you, LookingforSpace, for your honest and thought-provoking posts. You've hit the nail on the head. It's the children without motivated / interested parents, or who are on the bread-line that fall between cracks. I'm not sure how this will ever be fixed. As someone once said; if you don't fight for your children, no-one else will. Sadly, that seems to be true.

We had the choice between a move close to an outstanding comprehensive with fabulous facilities but a massive increase in commuting costs, stamp duty, less time with the children; so chose to stay put and send both DC private instead. Probably would have cost the same overall, the only thing we lost by staying is the moral high ground 😉.

The state primary schools closest to me are listed as 0%, 0.4% and 1.4% FSMs! How can anyone argue that state schools are not selecting via house price.
What is the FSM percentage for the LEA....
if the schools are in kilter with it, they are not selecting per se

A small number of state schools have a tiny number of genuinely disadvantaged low achieving children when compared to the number of these children at a national or county level. But almost ALL non selective state schools will have a representative number of these children who live in catchment.

I don’t think it’s as small a number as you think. There are primary schools up and down the country with 1% or less FSM and secondaries with

stateschoolparent

one study looking at a sample of middle-class kids at inner-city comps found they "performed brilliantly", and 15% of them went to Oxbridge.

Looked up this study, and it refers to only 68 young people, chosen who knows how (not described in the paper), with 10 more girls than boys. The study is "qualitative", so does not pretend to be representative of any sort of population in the way that a properly constructed quantitative piece of research would be. (To be fair, the inappropriate citing of it by Owen Jones in a context it was not intended for is typical of the Guardian's often ignorant and biased approach to educational research.)

As for research from other countries, there is too much difference in the systems for their results to be applicable here. I am not claiming, by the way, that class is not the major predictor of educational success - but that's not the same as saying that the quality of the school someone attends has no effect on their educational achievements and on the quality of their education as a whole.

Private schools vary in quality, just as state schools do. It's possible that the sector as a whole does no better than the state sector as a whole - but none of the studies you have cited demonstrates that, for the reasons I and other posters have given. But the most important point is, for individual parents making choices for their children, the quality of the whole sector is irrelevant - what matters are the specific (limited) choices they have in front of them.

stateschoolparent

Thank you for your very civil responses. It is refreshing to be able to have a discussion on this forum rather than a screed. I am familiar with most of the studies you referred to and will attempt to address them one by one as time permits. I note that all your references compare public and private schools; I would be grateful if you could provide any that compare comprehensive and selective schools.

Since you specified 2011 for the OECD/PISA analysis, I will assume you are referring to the short handout and not the underlying 2009 PISA report.

The OECD and PISA's primary concern and metrics deal with the performance of entire educational systems, not individual students. Their primary conclusion was indeed "Countries with a larger share of private schools do not perform better in PISA." Their other headline was "Students who attend private schools tend to perform significantly better in the PISA assessments than students who attend public schools; but students in public schools in a similar socio-economic context as private schools tend to do equally well." (my emphasis) I suspect the difference in our interpretations of the latter conclusion is the importance and interpretation we attach to the caveat around it.

For example, "... after taking into account the socio-economic backgrounds of the students who attend these schools, and the related material and instructional advantages that accrue to the schools, the small performance difference between public and private school students that remains is associated with higher levels of autonomy over curricula and resources among private schools." But autonomy is an intrinsic difference between the state and independent schools in the UK!

Or, "... public schools with comparable student populations offer the same advantages, even if the average public school, with a more diverse student body, generally does not." But there are few state schools in the UK with socio-economically comparable student populations to independent schools!

"The bottom line: Private schools – and public schools with student populations from socio-economically advantaged backgrounds – benefit the individual students who attend them; but there is no evidence to suggest that private schools help to raise the level of performance of the school system, as a whole." (again, my emphasis)

For these reasons, I don't regard that this analysis supports the notion that independent schools add zero value over state schools in the UK.

Hard to say whether private is worth it - no one can know what the alternative would have been.

I do think though that private parents are paying for more than just grades so I'm not sure what the relevance of all those studies is. It seems totally logical to me that a child with straight As from an average comp might be naturally more gifted and more motivated than someone achieving the same grades with the benefit of the best education money can buy. Might be. I suspect many of these figures are also skewed by highly selective grammar schools that count as 'state'.

Equality of opportunity is a good concept but far from apparent in the State sector which after all educates the vast majority of children. I think it is easy to pin the blame on private schools but it seems to me there is a lot more going on then that.

I think people have an exaggerated idea of the connections and access to jobs you get from private schools in concrete terms - at least in professional jobs. Although I'm sure it happens. I think it's more about cultural expectations and access to ideas.

“! How can anyone argue that state schools are not selecting via house price”

Not sure anyone is.

Only it’s not an argument which you can use to justify the existence of private svhools as a ‘good thing’.

They’re both shit.

But private schools are shittier.

A small number of state schools have a tiny number of genuinely disadvantaged low achieving children when compared to the number of these children at a national or county level. But almost ALL non selective state schools will have a representative number of these children who live in catchment.

To contrast: 100% of private schools entirely exclude low achieving poor children - the ones most in need of the small classes, individual attention and wrap around pastoral support that private schools boast that they offer.

In other words there is a whole cohort of children who are entirely excluded from every single private school in the country (with the exception of children in private special schools with an EHCP).

And don’t get me started on the private school near me that sells itself to parents on the basis of how successful it is at getting its pupils into super selective grammars. 😳

Disgraceful.

Kettlepotblack - I do agree with you, though, that state schools are able to offer less and less due to chronic underfunding and inappropriate interference by this government in particular. This does not impact so much on those who can afford to plug the gaps, but it seriously penalises those who can't afford to make up for any deficits and who thus miss out altogether. For these people, private school is not worth it, it is simply out of the question, along with the music lessons, sports clubs, theatre groups, dance lessons, extra tuition, etc, etc.

Kettlepotblack - of course outdoor space is necessary. However, there is a difference between facilities for cricket, tennis, netball and football, for example, and having a rifle range, boating lake and fencing teacher. As for music lessons - I am 100% certain they are cheaper outside the schools from the same teachers, as music is a big part of my family's life and was of my childhood. Money saved on private school fees was very happily spent on music lessons, bands, choirs and orchestras, and lots of subsidised travel and courses via county orchestras and choirs. To have spent that money on school fees might, ironically, have meant less of what I enjoyed and more watching other people enjoying it instead of me... I have known families cripple themselves financially to access schools which provide amazing facilities for their children, most of which went unused, especially all the "extras" - at the expense of their own retirement savings and health. It may be fine to shrug it all off when you are very wealthy, but it doesn't look so great when the self-same people now live very diminished lives in very poor health and their children don't visit them (and you happen to know the available state schools provided an excellent education, so were not the sort of schools that most parents would avoid if they could). Still, their choice. Still reminds me of buying a top of the range car you don't need and don't make full use of, though!!!

User 149 there have been numerous studies into private schools over the years over the years in the UK and overseas. For example:

In 2011, the OECD analysed the results from PISA and found that while students who attend private schools tend to perform better than students who attend public ones, this was primarily because these students tend to come from higher socio-economic status families. It concluded that “students in public schools in a similar socio-economic context as private schools tend to do equally well” and that “there is no evidence to suggest that private schools help to raise the level of performance of the school system, as a whole.”

In 2014, a very large survey in the US by two researchers from the University of Illinois (contained in a well known book called The Public[i.e. state] School Advantage) also concluded that the higher scores found at U.S. private schools occur largely because their students tend to come from privileged backgrounds, and once those backgrounds are taken into account, state schools perform at least as well and often better than private ones.

After that survey the Canadian government’s national statistical agency Statistics Canada reported that the same trend also applied to Canadian schools. Looking at over 7,000 students from close to 1,200 schools across Canada, it found that those who attended private schools had better academic outcomes, but that this was primarily because “students who attended private high schools were more likely to have socio-economic characteristics positively associated with academic success and to have school peers with university-educated parents. There was little evidence that the success of these students was the result of attending schools with better resources or higher quality instruction.”

I seem to recall that there was a UK study of middle class children at rough inner city comps a while ago that found a surprising percentage of them (15%) got into Oxbridge although I don’t know whether this was because of contextual offers (i.e. where they are compared by Oxford/Cambridge with other pupils in their schools) . I couldn’t find the study but it is also referred to in the below article from the Guardian a few years ago.

GUARDIAN ARTICLE
Comprehensive education tends to get scapegoated for all the ills of society, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by today's intervention by Richard Walden, the chairman of the Independent Schools Association. This champion of the privately educated – and Britain's new moral arbiter – suggests that state education is responsible for the country "turning out too many amoral children".
The cynic will look around the cabinet table and query whether private schools are all equipping their students "with the moral compass they need for life", as he puts it.
But his phraseology taps into a long-established fear shared by some of the parents of the 7% of British children sent to private schools. Many of them splash out on their children's education to keep them away from those they regard as less desirable children of other parents. Comps are the domain of feral kids with flickknives on a ceaseless war against anybody who wants to learn, or so the myth goes.
It's a shame, because children from well-off backgrounds who do go to comps thrive: one study looking at a sample of middle-class kids at inner-city comps found they "performed brilliantly", and 15% of them went to Oxbridge. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), there is little difference in the performance of state schools and private schools when you take into account the child's background. "Much of the advantage that comes from private schooling is confirmed by the social-economic context, not necessarily in value added," as the OECD put it.
That said, there are some sensible points in Walden's speech at the ISA conference, even if his focus on "traditional" values (whatever they mean in practice) is a distraction. He says there is a lack of extracurricular activities in state schools, and the relentless obsession with exams and league tables was damaging students' wellbeing. He's right: schools shouldn't be factory farms, where children are driven from exam to exam, and where the curriculum is narrow and taught unimaginatively. Education should be geared to ensure our schools build well-rounded children. Michael Gove's "neo-Victorian" approach to education will not achieve that. Our children are among the most over-examined in the western world, and yet it is not reflected in our results.
Indeed, what politicians really need to address is the fact British children lag other countries in wellbeing; that there is an 18-month gap in vocabulary between affluent and poor 5-year-olds, requiring far more resources for early-years education; that poverty, poor diet, and low-quality and overcrowded housing all damage children's ability to thrive academically as well as socially.
We should learn from the success of the London Challenge, which encouraged collaborative working with London schools. Instead, we have a relentless, obsessive tinkering with structures, not least the resource-hogging failure that are free schools. As ever, it's our children who suffer.

And I know the figures from the comprehensive reflect the fact that they take children from out of area due to so many local children either using the grammars or paying fees.

My daughter is at the grammar school and our FSM is a shocking 1.4%! But then our comp is only 5%.

The state primary schools closest to me are listed as 0%, 0.4% and 1.4% FSMs! How can anyone argue that state schools are not selecting via house price.

roundabout, you would laugh at one of my sons then. At prep school his teacher said he might be cleve rbut as he had never spoken in class he might as well have been doing a correspondence course and he has never been a "joiner". I couldn't even persuade them on to the school ski trip. Then there was the school polo team - no, nothing, just a very happy not joining in just about anything boy and I was more than happy with that too - every child is different.

Also there is choice - some private schools are cheaper and have fewer facilities and clubs and parents do choose accordingly.

My childrenb's father teaches music and I do a lot. I have never seen private instrumental teachers in 20 years charging more for lessons in school than out of school actually although of course it could happen. In our schools the teacher invoices the pupil's parents so there is not any kind of mark up either and if the child wants extra lessons in holidays I have never seen price differences although on a free market people can charge what they like.

Roundabout town - aren't they called 'opportunities'? Why is this 'unnecessary'? Many of those things will be extra cost, not included within the cost. And yes, sporting facilities could include outdoor space, which could be used in a number of ways, that IS, in my view, part of the learning environment generally and yes you pay for that, I suspect many parents know this and deem it worth it.

It's sad that these things are now seen as 'extras' and 'unnecessary ' because they have been cut from state schools. It's these schools that now have the minimum - so for many parents is about what state schools now DONT have, rather than what Private schools do have.

Astronotus - what makes you think I was specifically addressing you? As for unnecessary features of top private schools - the huge array of sporting opportunities and facilities if your child does not happen to be sporty, the inflated extra cost of musical instrument lessons (the same teachers teach outside lessons to private students for less), the myriad of things on offer your child does not partake in. It's lovely to know they are there, on offer, to experience others using them, to see what can be done, to know you could join in if you gave up something else or had the ability, but for a lot of it, you are really just paying to know it is there and to have it all under one roof. Obviously there are cheaper private schools, but I was specifically not referring to those. And if you have huge wealth, why not? Otherwise - why??? It's an astronomically expensive way of trying to ensure you have all bases covered for your child's advancement and education and somewhat putting all your eggs in one basket if you are not hugely wealthy.

What are the 'unnecessary features' of a private school?

roundaboutthetown. You comment "As for those who witter on about prioritising education and therefore being willing to live in poverty so their children can go to the best private schools - more fool you."

Er, I never said I was living in poverty. I was making the point that many parents use their wealth differently, in the case I stated, buying a house in the catchment of a state grammar school and tutoring their DC to get in. Free education with a little outlay. You could say they have better financial management of their affairs!

You also said "(private education) makes some people feel good about themselves to know they are there - which is fine if easily afforded, but looks a bit foolish to outsiders who do not share your obsession with unnecessary features."

In our case I would say that a few of those unnecessary features are qualified teachers, textbooks, a million other paper resources, a sports field that has not been sold off by the local council and classes of less than 35. Remember I did say I had experienced other state options. Perhaps we were just unlucky. Or perhaps we were experiencing the effect of extremely tight budgets.

TalkinPeece

Theresa May October 2016 "We also have to recognise that in this country we have selection, but it is selection by house price and ability to pay."

roundaboutthetown - You can only get marked differences in intake in more metropolitan areas or areas with a selective system, surely?

You may be right about the situation in rural areas. But <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105224826/www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/rural-urban-analysis/comparing-rural-and-urban-areas-of-england-and-wales.html#tab-Rural-and-urban-populations-in-2011" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ONS classifies 81.5% of the UK population as living in urban areas so it's still a rather big issue.