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.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

Years ago when I was doing promo for one of my books, I did an interview for a magazine.

I thought it had gone well until I saw the article with the headline something along the lines of Super Mom GetAHaircutCarl discusses juggling a writing career with an Alpha Family.

I almost died of shame. It's so not me!

[SparklyShinyThings]

Surely most pick the school that best suits the child and will give them the best possible outcomes in life. That could be state or private.

However you say your DH would like them to go private, do his wishes not count? He granted yours to not work leaving him to be the sole earner so if this means a lot to him surely you would consider working to help him now. You surley don't plan to never not work again anyway do you?

[minifingerz]

"Surely most pick the school that best suits the child and will give them the best possible outcomes in life. That could be state or private"

Why do very wealthy people usually choose private then? Especially if their children are very bright?

What makes private schools 'better suited' for rich, clever kids?

And conversely, why do the poorest and least well supported children appear to be clustered into the least popular, most poorly resourced schools?

Parental choice of school to suit the child is an absolute myth for most people without resources and without children academically selective schools are interested in.

[minifingerz]

"The wealth and education of parents cannot be cancelled out in a free society."

Yes we all know that.

So why are we as a culture compounding the problem by choosing to spend so little per head on schooling the children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds?

You either believe in equality of opportunity for children or you don't.

If private schools are charging 13K to educate a child and are not making huge profits then clearly that's how much it costs to give a child an optimal education. On what planet then is it tolerable that the spend per head on state educated children is 6K per annum?

We should ditch trident and spend the money on levelling out the educational playing field. And bloody stop private schools having charitable status when all they do is compound inequality.

[Madinche1sea]

Minifingers - I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you but the fact is that some people can afford to make choices so they will. Others may move into catchment areas for particular schools. Some have access to good schools in the grounds of faith.

No it's not fair, but nor is it likely to change any time soon.

[minifingerz]

"In this sense, it's more diverse than a state secondary in an affluent suburban or rural area"

But not diverse in the ways which count - namely that no poor, low or average achieving child will EVER appear on the rolls of any private school, (unless they have SN - a tiny number of these dc's get their fees paid by the state).

Private schools are there for rich/and/or clever children. The majority of children are not well off nor high achieving. In particular private schools slam their doors firmly in the face of those kids from poor families who are lacking support at home - these kids are 100% excluded and yet these are the children who would most benefit from the wrap around ethos, small class sizes and positive peer influence of private schools.

It makes me laugh when people try to argue that a school is somehow 'diverse' because it offers bursaries to very clever children from hugely supportive, usually graduate families who just happen to be on low incomes. Little Dipti Patel with her incredible work ethic and grade 6 flute would graduate top of her school if she went to the comp down the road. Is this REALLY good use of charity? To spend money on a child who is already succeeding hugely in education?

The day private schools start offering free places to little K'Shawn who's on the bottom table for maths and literacy and whose mum has never read anything more challenging than the back of a cereal packet is the day I change my mind about the justification for private schools' charitable status and claims to being diverse.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

mini quite simply, people (mostly educated in state comprehensives) would not wish to pay the level of taxes needed to give us the most expensive state education system.

They wouldn't vote for it.

But actually, we could make some improvements in state education for little spend; but that would require very different mindsets. Some of the things which make the independent sector successful are less about cash and more about ideology.

[Bobochic]

minifingerz - it is perfectly tolerable on planet Earth (including planet UK) for a state not to spend more than it can afford on the education of its DC.

[justgivemeamo]

"Yes. It was said in a conversation about fees. I said well good job we have good state schools etc. Then was suggested I go back to work to pay the fees. Blunt as that!"

YOUR FAMILY SAID THIS or in laws?

In laws will sometimes find ways to pick at the woman for whatever reason.

You need to have firm standard stock response.

" Thank you for your thoughts but after careful consideration we feel at the moment me being there for the children is the best way forward. Therefore we will be using the excellent state schools near us"

repeat. If they go on, just say " look I understand your point of view that you feel its best to go private, however I feel its best to look after my DC myself at this time, that's my priority and I really don't want to hear more about it"

[Maybebabybee]

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

I don't know what the solution is. But private schools make me very uncomfortable.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

Increasing expenditure in education would of course be a good thing. But it needs to be exceptionally well directed.

During the Blair administration we had a record level of tax take and a record spend on education. We also saw social mobility fall to its worse level since the war.

[Bobochic]

It has always been thus. Some DC are born into families with more assets than others.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

maybe well many posters on this thread (and others) do not believe the education is superior...

Certainly the (eye wateringly expensive) education my DC get would send many a MNer running for the hills. They would hate it for their DC.

[GetAHaircutCarl]

Even if it were free.

[dontrustcharisma]

GETAHAIRCUT not the sixth form college is an active choice in my area as many private schools lose their A level students to it as it offers a wide range of options that they cant match

[Madinche1sea]

Mini - I agree with what you're saying if you're talking about the primary sector.

I don't know about the rest of the UK, but in London, independent senior schools are far from nurturing "bubbles". Increasingly, these schools do not pretend to be anything other than academically selective. In the most selective schools, something like 1,300 children will sit for 120 places at 11 plus each year - so obviously these schools are out of reach for most applicants, regardless of family income. I don't know of any independent senior school in London where the odds of being offered a place are any less than 1 in 4. It's why so many families move out.

Though I do agree with you that those children from higher income families may have been better prepared for the entrance exams, it is far from the case that a child can simply walk in because their parents can pay the fees!

[Bobochic]

Maybe - our DC have all gone to summer camp, year in, year out. DD went to summer camp in the US for several weeks when she was 7. This (a) cost a lot of money (b) was highly educational. Do you think it intolerable that some DC get that kind of opportunity while others don't?

[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.

[Maybebabybee]

bobo

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

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.