more only children in private schools?

[ulhuilay8947r]

Been reading MN for a few years and when people talk about sending their kids private (and especially how do parents afford to) - the reply is often - it's ok if you only have one child. Does that mean that private schools have a lot more only children? Around me people seem to have two or three kids so was wondering whether private schools are a bit different

Yes I have one of my dc’s at private school and the ratio of children who are only children is far higher there than the state school he used to attend.

Yes, in my experience there's a disproportionate number of only children at my DS's private school. Most families either seem to have one child or four, not many of the 2.4 variety!

Not in my experience. 3 out of 19 kids in my my son’s were only kids. 3 families had 3 kids, 13 had two; all siblings in private.

Out of DD’s entire year group of just over 30 children, only 4 families (including ours) have an only child. The vast majority have 2/3 kids.

I went to a private school for a few years and the vast majority of children in my class had siblings. Not sure you can generalise really. I can see why it would be more affordable if you only have one though!

Yes, we do private and about half the class is only children. It’s a combination of it being cheaper with one child and perhaps also, a huge amount of grief usually comes with only being able to have one child, and spending £££££££ to make that child happier does help with the grief, somehow.

Not sure on exact numbers but I haven't noticed this at my school, seems a mix. There are still plenty of siblings - some have 4 or 5! No idea how they afford it.

I don’t know if this is your particular experience (in which case fair enough) but I’d be cautious about generalising about parents of only children experiencing huge amounts of grief. They might be perfectly happy with one!

Yes I can assure you there are plenty of parents who are very happy with their one child. Quitting while you are ahead is a good move in my view.

I would imagine it is mainly to do with money, it's obvious it costs less to send one than two/three etc, even with sibling discounts.

I want an only child which is why I am even considering private school. If I wanted two, it would be out of the question!

I’d say it’s about 50:50 only children versus siblings at DD’s school. A lot of parents are on the older side and I know several that have said they did IVF, so equally it could be fertility that could be the deciding factor.

And of course not everyone wants more than 1! Which then means you can afford the fees. I don’t know how many do it the other way around and deliberately stick at 1 when they’d really like 2, just so they can privately educate.

I only ever wanted 1 child, we hit the jackpot with DD and never ever felt the need for 2. It is comments like yours that really frustrate me, 1 child was a choice for us. Why does society think that 2 children should be the norm 🙄?

I'd say the reason is almost entirely financial. There must be many people who could just about afford to educate one child privately, but not have the funds available for more than that. It wouldn't be fair to send one child to private school and the other(s) to state school, would it? I know someone whose dd went to private primary school but when an unexpected sibling came along, she took her out of there and sent her to state school in Y2.

No grief whatsoever in my case. I only wanted one child. I had one child and he went to private school.

The above comment about grief is frankly bizarre, and must be insulting to women who wanted 3 but only had 2, or even those who lost a child. Very odd

Well it's a lot cheaper
To send one than x2 x3 etc

When our kids went to private school in London I would say about a third of the kids were only kids. We then moved up north and there it was only 2 or 3 only kids in each of their classes, so it might depend more on area than private vs state. Private school is also much cheaper up north in general.

That's quite an assumption you've made there. Many people (me included), are more than happy to have no more than 1 child.

We educate privately, and I've noticed not only a disproportionate amount of only children, also a disproportionate amount of children with parents who are no longer together where the non resident parent pays the fees. I don't think there's any mystery to it, it's simply an affordability issue.

There are also plenty of people, who would have loved more than one child, me included.

Dd is at private school now. As she’s older and I don’t see the parents, idk about most of her classmates. Out of her friends, several have siblings. Some parents are rather wealthy.

I'd say so or big gaps between children, so only at the school for a year or 2 together.

DCs school seems to buck the trend though, 3 kids in his class of 15 are only children.

I find it offensive that people assume that parents with one child must be suffering huge amounts of grief. I have one child because I wanted one child. He is very happy, we are very happy and he goes to private school because I can easily afford it and it's a fantastic school, simple as that!

We chose to have one child and he was privately educated from aged 4. Definitely couldn't have afforded to send two or more to independent school.

In DS's initial class of 14, five were only children and many of the rest had several siblings.

Someone I know educated her two DC privately till they were 12, then made the decision to send her DD to state school whilst her DS remained at private school.

DS is in a class of 20 at a well-known London prep

There is one only child in his class, 3 are one of 3 and the rest have 1 sibling

not sure about other classes though, we might be an outlier