How do you decide between private school or state school?

[Hecegoza]

I'm so torn... There's a lovely prep school, relatively close (15 min drive) and it only has 123 students - from age 1-11. I'd want mine to start at Pre-Reception.

It's very family-like and has great pastoral care (which I think is more important than results, for sure).

It's reasonable price - it's £21 a morning session for Pre-Reception and then £2,900 each term up to Year 6. That includes lunch/swimming, etc.

Then there's an 'Outstanding' state school which is walking distance, it's a lovely newly built building. Then friends he met at school would most likely be in his village too... So that's a bonus, and most likely to go to the same secondary.

I'm struggling to decide if your kids go private, why is that? If state, why did you pick that? I feel they both have good benefits!

We couldn't afford childcare for two - DH gave up his job instead, we were definitely better off.

DH and I were both state educated and he has worked in private schools for 16 years.

Tbh if we could afford it, we would have gone down that route, but you have to consider not just the fees (which were massively discounted for staff at the last school he worked at), but all the extras they would need to fit in - clothes, gadgets, school trips, extracurricular activities.

If all of that is not a problem and the school is genuinely the best fit for your child, then great.

I think if you're planning on state a secondary however, and your state school is as good as you say it might well be the better option.

Also don't underestimate the benefits of starting primary with nursery friends.

My DD went to a private nursery in a different catchment area as it was enough route to my work. She had a best friend a little posse of about 8 others she hung around with. They went to their catchment school, but we opted to send DD to the one nearest our home.

7 years later her primary school friendships have always been quite inconsistent, and her best friend is still the one she had a nursery. I do sometimes wonder if she'd have had a more solid group of friends if she'd gone to the other primary tbh.

123 children over that age range? I'd be concerned about its financial viability. My own old school closed with half a terms notice last autumn. It was lucky to survive the half a term. Small private schools are closing at a rate of knots. Check out its roll numbers with the ISI. If they've been falling year on year be concerned.

We are sending DC state, at least for primary. I want them to walk to school, have local friends, be part of their local community, have a greater number of children to mix with. We could afford private if we wanted to and DH and I were privately educated so we have no moral issue with private education.

Finally I have no desire to send them anywhere 'exclusive' for their own sake and my own. Imagine the parents!

Take the chip of your shoulder and join the real world!

Some of us give up a lot to be able to afford to send our kids private! Then there are those who get a full bursary and there's the children of the school teachers who pay next to nothing for their kids education. Yes it's unfair!

It's also unfair that you make sweeping assumptions that everyone who goes private is rich, pompous and snobby! Foreign holidays! Well that would be nice but we holiday in Britain, in a caravan.

We all have different priorities and some of us think a private education is worth the sacrifice. Just out of interest I've just googled the price of cigarettes - £10 for 20 and so many people think that's worth it. At least if you spend it on education you generally get a good return on your money!

Op

Don't necessarily be put off by small number of pupils. I started a thread last year regarding the size of classes/ number of children in the school We eventually chose for dd.

I was told it wasn't viable with those numbers and would surely close.

It's been there for over 150 years and currently thriving.

It's not always the case.

"Just out of interest I've just googled the price of cigarettes - £10 for 20 and so many people think that's worth it. "

No they don't - they're addicted and that's why they smoke.

Most people can't afford private schools regardless of whether they smoke or have holidays, and as you say 'that's unfair'.

So why are you defending the system? Could it be because your children benefit from this unfairness?

And it would be easier to defend bursaries if they went to the children who would benefit most from private schools: those children who are failing in the state sector and who need more individual input from teachers, which tends to be forthcoming in private schools because of smaller class sizes and less disruption. There are many children who NEED the support available in private schools because they are struggling at school and have little or no support at home.

These children are never offered bursaries. The private sector wants nothing to do with these children.

And offering reduced fees to children of teachers - what better way to attract the best staff away from the schools which need them most?

I was a state secondary teacher and used private prep because of the wrap around care. I could drop ds off for breakfast at 0730, and go on to my school, and then pick him up at 1900, after he'd been fed and done his prep, and I'd ploughed through marking/taught after school 4 nights a week, etc etc.

We've chosen private from September for DD. I didn't think I would, as DH and I are both state educated and did 'just fine' - university degrees and so on. Though I would say I could have achieved more at a private school. I was never pushed at school, as I was always going to get good enough grades - and the teachers had a lot of other stuff to deal with.

Our local school is in turmoil. On it's way to becoming an academy, teachers leaving in droves. Results nosediving and behaviour not well managed (according to the neighbours, one of whom is moving the kids out this year). Unfortunately, where we live, the other schools are wildly oversubscribed, so we could easily end up with an offer for a school miles and miles away. They didn't let us look around, as I still lived overseas on their only open day. Most of the clubs and extra-curricular activities are restricted to Y4 and above, and the uniform is optional.

The school we've chosen has smallish classes (14-18/year) and a good teacher/TA:pupil ratio. They do a lot more sport and music, and their wraparound care is exactly what we need. The language curriculum starts in reception and is the language that DD already knows a little of. The family who owns the school have broad teaching experience and communicate regularly with families. It's the right call for us at this point in time.

Money all it fucking is money.

What I don't understand is why the parents of the children who provide 'little or no support at home' are never judged on these threads

Mainly because a lot of these parents also didn't have any support either and therefore don't realise that they aren't doing what they are supposed to or aren't things that would help their child. And they are unlikely to be the ones on parenting forums picking up tips on child rearing.

This is why more investment in parenting and support for deprived families from day 1 and more involvement with getting parents into nurseries to see what activities they could be doing at home, trying to get parents of primary children to engage and come along to meetings about what their children are doing and how they can support it. Some parents never attend parents nights at all for example.

Some of the most deprived children are going home to an empty house - and sometimes prefer that to having a drunk or drugged parent or "carer" there.

A friend who is a deputy head had to go and collect a child from home who was desperate to participate in a class activity (on a Saturday) at the school fair. She had to stop off at the shops on the way to the fair to buy footwear for the child. That's how some children live. Having Mummy or daddy go over their school work is way down the line after wanting a hot dinner and clean clothes.

But maybe if Mummy or daddy stopped smoking they too could go to private school on a bursary.

Maybe all poor people should be sterilised at 14?

They don't know they are not great parents, they didn't necessarily plan to have children, they thought they'd stay babies for ever, maybe they aren't that bright. who knows? It's really not that simple to sort out societal problems, but the fact is that the children exist and despite it all will probably love their parents despite a lot of benign neglect. Where are all these magic families going to come from to foster all these kids and apart from all that, think how much that would cost compared to keeping the children in their own homes. Are you happy to pay more tax?

Horrible generalisation? We were talking about families who couldn't afford private schooling and how the families from poor backgrounds are the ones that could best benefit and in my post I was talking about children from deprived backgrounds - then you came in and said to remove them all from their families and were blaming the parents for magically not being able to parent. Ime a lot of these children are loved they are just being raised the same way their parents were as they don't necessarily know any different. But lets not bother trying to change anything lets just take the children away and then what? do you not think they will just have more?

We do have a culture of soft-peddling bad parenting, though, don't we Magnum? I know I feel pretty sad and frustrated at the examples I see every day.

What I don't understand is why the parents of the children who provide 'little or no support at home' are never judged on these threads

I agree - demonised for wanting the best for your dc.

Easier to ignore them, its getting into tricky water to critise them. Especially as the gap between rich and poor has widened and that happened largely under a long long Labour government.

Charley at the end of the day, surely part of any schools job is to inspire its pupils.

In terms of education It shouldn't matter whether the parents are educated or interested in it, the school should be able to inspire, stretch and teach the child.

Some of the most deprived children are going home to an empty house - and sometimes prefer that to having a drunk or drugged parent or "carer" there.

^^ but your expecting them to go to parenting courses?

The 'sacrifice' argument really grinds my gears. As if we all gave up cappucinos and lipstick we could all afford private education.

FGS if you can afford private school after making 'sacrifices', that's one hell of a lot of luxuries in the first place.

The cost of one private school place is more than my entire annual income. Any suggestions for what I can sacrifice?

I agree ice cream. It's middle class snobbery at its best. If only people would realise that if they just cut back on things they too could be as good as you

It's up there with that other great one about personal choices and hard work or lack of being the only thing responsible for someone's fortunes. Displays an ignorance
And lack of intelligence so breathtaking it can only go to show that some people's success is based on bought privilege or good luck.

But you just keep pretending it's merit, if it suits your little head to do so.

Bloody hell, this thread has got ridiculous

If you have the money and you don't want to send your kids private - then don't.

If you have the money and do want to send them private - then do.

If you don't have the money and you want to send them private - look at funding, maybe cutting back, sponsorship etc. Go fund me. Sell your house and live on a canal barge.

If you don't have the money and you don't want to send them - that's fine.