AIBU to not want to work my arse off to educate my kids privately

[MoonStar07]

Basically ALL our family DH's and my are educating their kids privately. All paid by the DHs of the family who are sole earners but big earners. Think partners in top firms and consultants. We're not my husband has a good job but is mid career. I doubt by the time our first DC is 7 we can afford private school. I'm a SAHM me and DH got lucky and bought in a very good area during the last recession. We have 3 outstanding primary schools and an outstanding Secondary Acadamy. think it's 80% A-C at GCSE. Now I've been 'told' by a close family member that it's probably worth me putting both my kids in full time childcare and going back to work. Yes I earned a good whack and if I went back we could pay private school fees. Just to pay school fees. I worry my kids will miss out they literally will be the only ones NoT private school educated in our whole family. But we can't afford it unless I work and well I don't see the point we've got bloody good schools! In a bloody good area! Am I AIBU not wanting to go back to work? Should I work to pay the fees? Arghh it's sending me mad.

[albertcampionscat]

In your circumstances you'd be daft to go private.

[Dozer]

I think the key Q is whether or not OP and/or her H both want to WoH: she is making it about education when there are many more factors to consider. Career options, financial security/independence, long term earnings and employability.

OP you say you'd feel guilty if DC2 had less time with you at home than DC1. It's not at all unusual for the youngest DC to have less time with a SAHP than older sibling(s). Treating DC fairly and equally doesn't mean every single thing needs to be the same. I had mat leave then a year home with DC1 as a preschooler when on mat leave for DC2, and was working when DC2 was a toddler/preschooler, BUT with DC1 I was unwell during mat leave and wasn't with DC2, and we had far better childcare for DC2.

[EssentialHummus]

I think there's also something cultural at play in the semi-automatic decision to send DC private among those who can afford it.

We were recently considering relocating to the Netherlands, so I looked into the school system there. From what I can see, private schools are a rarity - even the royal family send their children to a type of local state school. Moreover, the government introduced partial funding for independent schools and as a result, most independent schools are at least partly funded by the state, and far more accessible.

Here there are centuries of entrenched thinking around education and the expectation unless this is just Hampstead that you sign the child up for prep shortly after birth. And of course, his life will be worthless if he doesn't make Westminster. His life will be worthless if he doesn't make Oxford. His life will be worthless if he doesn't make the City. Etc..

[Madinche1sea]

Sorry to state the obvious, but the parents with more than one child in independent schools are probably also paying 45% income tax, (unless there's some trust fund, bursary or similar).

[Maybebabybee]

We can afford to but don't.

[AppleSetsSail]

Don't the least able and poorest children deserve as much, if not more educational investment as the richest and most able?

If you're talking about tax money (as opposed to all money, including the parents') - of course. I think the point being made here is that it's not going to improve social mobility.

[Maybebabybee]

I'm not saying there is but that still doesn't make it ok!

I personally would prefer a system where everyone pays higher taxes for things the whole of society can benefit from but I think I'm in a minority there.

[littlepeas]

I came across this article when we were trying to decide whether or not to move our dc to a private school. I think the writer neatly sums up the reasons that most people who can afford to send their dc to private schools, even if they struggle with the principles of social inequality, etc.

www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11924357/I-hate-the-idea-of-private-schools-but-still-send-my-kids-to-one.html

[Bobochic]

It's an arbitrary distinction and it's all fundamentally silly. The range and depth of human experience is such that we cannot ever possibly reach a situation where all DC get equal exposure to everything and we retain all skills and knowledge in society (and hopefully build on them).

[GetAHaircutCarl]

In any event, I didn't get a sense that the OP gave two hoots about inequality of provision, social mobility etc.

For her the decision for and against private school was an economic one ie they can't afford it withut her working and she doesn't want to work.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

maybe I didn't say you begrudged private school. I said I didn't begrudge your good fortune in having well educated, supported parents.

My point is simply that the line between using social/cultural capital and real(economic) capital is an arbitrary one.

[Bobochic]

Maybe - you don't have the solution because there isn't one!

[Maybebabybee]

bobo

As I said I don't have the solution! I just said it doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't.

Haircut

I don't 'begrudge' anyone anything. So defensive! Unfortunately you can't ever say anything negative about the private school system without people saying you're bitter. I assure you I'm not.

I'm allowed my opinion. My opinion is that private schools massively contribute to social inequality. I don't know what to do about it. But it's how I feel.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

But we know from unarguable fact that this is not true in general.

[OhhBetty]

I don't buy into private schools. I went to state school and got into a good uni because I worked my arse off the last few months (I'd previously been slacking) and had a pt job. I went to uni with people from some of the best private schools. It hasn't got them further in the workplace either.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

It is what's being said mini. It's what is always said on these threads.

Middle class, well educated people telling other middle class well educated people that they can use their skills/background/knowledge to ensure that their DC get a much better educational outcome than other DC.

Those DC are no more deserving of their parents middle class-ness than my DC are of my £££.

Yet to use the former is perfectly acceptable (in fact crucial), but to use the later is reprehensible. It's a completely false logic, surely?

[minifingerz]

"I find it odd that it's seemingly okay to pass on certain advantages to your DC (which is what this thread is about, no?) until they involve finance.

Such an arbitrary line to draw"

No - that's not what is being said.

The point I'm making is that as a society - should we tolerate and actually support through our system of taxation, an education system which utterly undermines any concept of equality of opportunity for children?

Do you not feel that we should be aiming towards creating a more level playing field by working towards equalising the spend per head across both sectors even if it means changing spending priorities in other areas of the economy and increasing taxation?

Don't the least able and poorest children deserve as much, if not more educational investment as the richest and most able?

[Bobochic]

Indeed, Carl. I'm not sure why it's acceptable to pass on advantages in kind (eg teaching your DC a language/sport/instrument you master) but not pay someone else to do so. It is much fairer if everyone is allowed to access skills outside their family rather than being restricted to the skills their family masters. Societies cannot progress unless skills acquisition is traded in the ways goods are traded.

[AppleSetsSail]

Yes but pretty intolerable that some children get a superior education to others purely based on the fact their parents earn more.

The logical outcome of reproductive freedom.

There's little evidence to support that government spending actually improves social mobility. Unfortunately, quite separate from poor parents who we know can do very, very well by their children's education, there's little that can be done in within reason to offset the effects of apathetic parenting.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

I find it odd that it's seemingly okay to pass on certain advantages to your DC (which is what this thread is about, no?) until they involve finance.

Such an arbitrary line to draw.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

Well maybe you had many advantages over me.

I went to a poor school but unfortunately did not have educated parents (both left school at 15). They were supportive in that they didn't expect me to leave school, but could offer no practical support.

Is that fair? Of course not. But do I begrudge your good fortune? Not a bit of it.

[Bobochic]

Maybe - so you think parents should be restricted from offering their DC educational opportunities that other parents cannot offer? Should I have been restricted from giving my DC a (paid for) bilingual education?

[GetAHaircutCarl]

Fair dos. don't.

As a community you need to fight to keep it that good. The cuts to sixth form education are brutal. Lobby your MP!

[Maybebabybee]

bobo

I think most inequalities in society are intolerable. So broadly speaking - yes.

[Maybebabybee]

I'm not convinced it's always superior no. I do anecdotally know kids it hasn't worked out at all for.

I went to a failing inner city London state school. I came out with 11 GCSEs, 4 good A levels, have a first from a RG uni and an MA. This was down to the fact I come from an educated family who are themselves interested in education, but I also had a few excellent teachers in my on-paper "crap" school. Might I have done slightly better at private school? Possibly. Might my own DS do better at private school? Possibly. But morally I couldn't justify sending him.