Private school vs quality of life

[VeryTiredMummyOf2]

ok so heres the deal. DD has just been accepted at a pre -prep. (State primaries are not v good, have looked around them and was not impressed.)
We can afford it, just, would mean I can't work 2 days a week. however DH is now saying he's unsure about it all:(
His argument is that 10k a year would give us as a family a decent quality of life, if and when DD 2 goes you are looking at 20k a year.
My thoughts are that you are investing in your children's future, I never went to a private school, but worked hard. I just want them to have a better life than i did. This so frustrating.
AIBU? Do I need to get a grip and get on with it.
Help?

It's something we're thinking about too (I went private, DH state grammar). TBH for primary school the most important influence on your child's education is YOU. You'd be far better off sending your child to the best state school you can manage, and spending money on education-related extras like music and language lessons, trips to museums, etc. And saving the rest for private secondary.

So, don, by 'best state school' do you mean best ofsted and high results? Like the school I actively avoided? Genuine question btw. Is that what everyone on here means when they say good or best state school?

I certainly have never felt like I'm wasting my money even with the absolute knowledge that they'd achieve just as well academically in the state sector.

It may cost more to move to an area with better schools but you can get most of that money back if you sell your house at a later date, you won't get a refund from the private school fees.

"The thought of sending any reasonably intelligent child into a situation where they will be mostly ignored by the teachers, (because they're too busy with children who need a lot of help), with no playing field to expend energy on, and an apathetic parental force who won't help in any way fills me with dread. And it's disingenuous to pretend that only academic considerations are important with a very young impressionable child."

I think that's a salutary post. I get intensely irritated when people say things like, "If your child is bright and happy and well-supported at home, then they will be fine wherever they go." In my experience, that is absolutely not true and if they are being sent every day into an environment where the quality of teaching is poor, the physical environment is filthy or in a state of poor repair, where the other children are apathetic or (worse) aggressive, then actually your child will not be fine. Not only will they not be fine academically but you are condemning them to have a miserable life for the next several years.

When I say best it is short for "best school for your child".
When I was looking for primary schools I had two Ofsted Outstanding I could have lived near, I rejected one and loved the other. But I also don't think friends who sent their kids to the other school, or other schools in the area made huge mistakes, it depends on their family and their child (even with the localish secondary that was briefly in "special measures"is actually a fab school, they just got one thing badly wrong according to Ofsted).

Oh BTW OP lots of fairly wealth to very wealthy parents choose to send their kids to my kids school. I have even known one Mum withdraw her DD at the last minute from a highly selective top performing girls school (she'd even bought the Uniform) because she got a place at DCs school.
So go and look and see what the schools are really like, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Yes, I agree with the 'best for your child' attitude. It's just that so many posts talk of moving closer to 'good' schools and I think a lot of the time they mean schools that achieve highly.

I have taught in 2 outstanding graded primaries. One really was very good but the other was dull and uninspiring yet hugely oversubscribed due to its high sats results. I would never have sent my child there. However, even the really lovely one could not compete what a good independent primary can offer in terms of class sizes, facilities and enrichment experiences.

I agree with the best school for your child. Before my DD1 started school I thought that our goal would be state plus tutor later then private secondary. When applying for state primary I looked at all the schools in my area, Ofsted reports spoke to parents who had children at the school etc.. She ended up at a "outstanding" state primary so we were hopeful. how wrong was I......

In the reception she was bullied and hit. We complained to the school and complained to the LEA etc..
In Y1 she has still been hit and pushed about. She was a bright, happy little girl who loves to learn. Now she doesn't want to go to school some days we have to drag her or let her stay at home.
There are no free places in any other primary schools in my area according to the Council.
Since September last year we were on the waiting for 3 of our local pre-prep/prep schools ( all with entrance exams she passed after lots of extra work at home ) luckily after Easter she will be moving to our first choice prep school which is a feeder for a top secondary school. And DD2 will also go to this school.

My advice is if you can afford it do it but be realistic that the school is good its not just the name. Add up the cost of everything- music classes, dance, drama, sports, trips and uniforms which can be anything up to £2K a year for some schools.
if all is ok then go for it. (we are all counting down the days until she leaves!)

I have experience of both state and indie.

I think, if you are going to go for the 'safer' option now of state primary and saving funds for senior school, you'll need to look very closely now at the selection criteria for those schools. You will need to weigh up how selective the ones you are interested in are, and think very carefully about the provision of a state primary for this route. Many primaries do not have the resources to 'prep' pupils for independent/selective 11+ and you would almost certainly need to find a respected and trusted tutor to begin work quite early on. This is a very stressful solution in itself, imo. Tutoring can be a something of a racket. Your children will have done their day at school and then have to go through the rounds of extra coaching sessions, adding to their stress and your worry about whether they will pass etc. If you know you can afford private, without having to live in absolute penury, I think you would always be wondering "what if ..." if you go for a state primary you do not have 100% confidence in.

There is also the issue of wraparound care, as someone has already mentioned above. In preps, this is often very convenient and part of your fees, with older children staying for prep after school, and may well make is much easier for you to work than it would be with a primary with limited spaces available (which has been my experience).

hackmum I think the much loved 'a bright child will do well anywhere' is only spouted bu the breathtakingly arrogant or absurdly complacent.

It belongs ion the same box as 'I look beautiful no matter what I wear.' or 'whatever happens I know my husbnd would never leave me.'

DS is in yr 1 at a private pre-prep - we are lucky that DH teaches at the same school so we get a staff discount.
Just to say that you shouldn't assume that any decision you make is irrevocable - throughout reception and yr 1 several children have arrived having left state schools for various reasons. Places do come up due to expat families, relocations etc ... maybe try the state school and if it doesn't work you can contact the indie school.

Agree Wordfactory. The work ethic of a classroom has immense ramifications, even to the very brightest of pupils.

Peer pressure/approval/impact becomes greater and greater as the DC get older.
Even the most strong headed DC can feel out on a limb if their behaviour doesn't chime with the norm of the cohort.

'I have absolute confidence that my DC will not be influenced by others' is another statement that should be consigned to the box of arrogance and complacancy.

Have 3 children at private secondary. One child still at state primary.
I think if you have an average child, state primary if fine. If you have either a SN child or a GT child, maybe prep would be a better option, but give the state primary a go first I think. To pay for 3 from 11+ it costs us in London 60K a year
(approx) by the time we have paid for lunches, uniforms and transport.
We are higher rate tax payers so we have to earn 120k a year just to pay for the school fees! ( I can't believe it myself really) no wonder my car is 13 years old, and my house is falling apart, also we work 6 days a week. The 3 at private school are doing really well, seem happy and well adjusted ( probably would have been the same at state , but don't know) Just have to cough up for uni now

You see, Chickydoo, I would disagree with an average child being fine in state primary. They are the ones most likely to be given less attention, to not be prioritised over those with SN (the provision of which can be excellent in state schools). And as for the GT - they need mentoring and the space to learn on a daily basis, not just as a weekly add-on slot if they are lucky.

OP - our solution with DS1 is to go for state until Yr 5, then switch to independent, when preparation for senior schools starts in earnest. Perhaps that might be the better solution for you? The prep he is going to takes quite a few pupils from the state sector in this year, I believe. (DS2 in Yr 2 and DD in Reception will be joining also, but with them all in the same place I will be able to work to afford it.)

I also disagree with the idea that an 'average' child would be fine in a state primary. I'm not saying they wouldn't be fine just that across the spectrum, I think theyre the one who benefit most from being in the independent sector. 3 of my 4 kids are in school. DS1 is bright, DD1 is what would be considered G&T, DD2 is what would be considered 'average' academically. In terms of achievemnt and self asteem I think DD2 benefits most from her environment. The older two would almost certainly achieve wherever they went to school.

Likewise, if any of my children turned out to have SEN then I would almost certainly opt for state education because I think a good school with good sen provision will always do it better and have better access to LA facilities.

I think all the generalisations are a bit daft; it comes down to the individual school & individual child & a range of unpredictable things (like social dynamics in the child's year group). I've heard glowing reviews & at least one horror story about each and every school around here (state or private).

I often think you can put together a nice supplementary package for your kids if you have a bit of spare money, that gives them a brilliant education whilst allowing them to benefit from going to a (hopefully reasonable) local primary school and all the benefits having local friends brings. With that kind of money you can buy music lessons on a couple of instruments, a lot of PGL and Outward Bound type stuff, language school summer camps, riding lessons, ski trips and cruises to interesting places, and Kumon if you like that sort of thing. After all that you would still only be forking out 20% of the cost of private education.

Surely in the long run it would be cheaper to move to an area that has state schools (primary and secondary) that you consider to be good. My eldest started at a primary that was not considered desirable and he absolutely loved it and did very well academically and socially. We have now moved and he goes to a primary that is considered outstanding and he is still doing well academically and socially. I think primaries are generally good but I'm not sure about secondaries. I wouldn't want to waste our money when there are so many other things to pay for such as university education.

yorkpud the cost of tertiary education is indeed a consideration. If paying school fess would preclude one being able to help out DC later, then that may be a factor to think of.

Although, having looked at the figures, I do believe that even if one has the money to give ones DC, it is worth them taking out the loans for fees than paying them directly. The rates are so good and the timescales so long, the cash is far better off in your hands. Even if you need to pay them off early ebcause your DC earn the threshold income quickly, the cash would still be better off in your pocket for the duration of the degree. You could bang it in an ISA.

I'd give the primary a go if i were you and then work the hours you would need if she were in private school - save the money and see how it works. My DD is doing well in primary but it's all down to your individual experience. Some people at her school rave about it and others cant stand it. TBH I am not sure it all matters - question for me would be whether I would look back on that vast expense in 20 years and consider it a good way to spend money. Many of my friends went to private school and havent achieved any more than myself who went to good state schools.But I guess it depends on your reason for doing it.

It is entirely up to you - many people put themselves into huge debt to cover school fees becasue they believe it is a worthwhile investment in their children's future and if you can afford to do it and want to then don't let anyone tell you it's a bad investment - it's your choice. However I would warn you - don't ever expect your DC to be grateful for 'what you gave up for them'.
I was educated in the private sector with a lot of financial help from grandparents and was one of the less well off - we had a caravan and took it away at easter, stayed with grandparents in the summer - had a 'tiny' house no expensive holidays didn't go on the ski trips and so on. I felt it was unfair - I didn't understand it was because my parents had to pay a lot for my education - was a boarder as well so I didn't like it at all.I went to a very posh 6th form which must have been extortionate , I at least enjoyed it although felt very academically inferior, I did well enough and didn't expect to be as rich as the others there nor minded as much. Many of my school contemporaries now run high profile city companies, multinationals and are high powered lawyers all of whom command high salaries - me I'm a teacher. My Dad told me recently that money they spent on my education was wasted because I could have done what I've done in any system - they chose to educate me privately I never asked them to - it was their choice and I didn't sign up to be something more brilliant because of it - so remember that these sacrifces you choose to make are your choices and don't expect to be thanked or have something extra special in return and don't make your DC feel bad for not fulfilling your expectations that you hoped for.

If you are unsure about comfortably affording fees, uniform, trips, etc, then in your shoes I would use the state system and support your child as much as possible with extracurricular activities.

I sent my children to an independent 6th form, state school up to 16. This way I was able to save for university, a lump sum for their first homes and I've just paid for DD1s wedding. If you were to ask DD if I should have spent that cash on a private education from prep school on, she would tell you that she would rather have the cash. How you spend your money is up to you but I think I got the balance about right for my children.

For our DC , we have 3, I'm sure if I had the cash I would consider private - I have spent hours number crunching to see if we realistically can with all sorts of extra help, me working in the school etc, but very fortunately DS has just got into a good secondary school and I like the idea that some of the money we would have found to spend on an education can now be spent on doing some of the things I didn't get to do when I was a child - and I would love to take the DC to places like Egypt - maybe one day we might now - there would be no chance of a camping holiday in Bognor if we'd gone private - and i think my DC might just enjoy and remember the holidays more fondly .