To feel jealous of friends/family able to educate their kids privately

[NewDay10]

Just that really. I know IABU to feel this way. I could go back to work and pay school fees and educate my kids privately. We've chosen for me to be a SAHM. I've just been looking at Facebook and can't believe how many of my friends educate their kids at prep level privately. Also I don't know how they afford it?! E.g. One couple both are teachers (state school) but still educate their kids privately. I'm feeling bitter. IABU and need to be happy as it really is a first world problem. We have great state schools here. I also know this debate has been done so many times on MN! So sorry to the veterans!

Bit of an aside but I completely agree with raisedbyguineapigs. There is no point being envious of other people when you've made different choices.

I occasionally get sarky comments from people that I'm 'lucky' to have a good salary and pension. Ironically this is usually from graduate women of my age group (50 ish) who work part time or are very 'under-employed, doing low pressure jobs.

No, it's not luck, it's because we took a financial hit when our kids were tiny and I worked for several years for no financial gain whatsoever when we had children in nursery. Ive never had a break of more than just maternity leave which has enabled me to get to where I am now. It's not that I'm cleverer than the people who make these comments- just that They've made other choices.

OP- if private school really matters to you, then get a job and pay school fees. It won't make your children any cleverer though, and TBH a supportive home background plus bright child should enable them to achieve their potential. As someone else pointed out, when you take pupils entering university with equal grades, state educated students do better overall. There's no genuine long term value in paying for inflated grades through your child being hot housed. So consider carefully your reasons for thinking private must be better.

What is missing is the social cachet...but you can't have it both ways, OP.

Munstermonchgirl I would recognise the sacrifice there but I'd still probably blurt out something like 'luck' because it's a set of fortunate circumstances, that doesn't mean that you didn't work hard and deserve it but I earn peanuts and that is not because I'm stupid or lazy. I made some bad choices and cornered myself so I would see women like you as lucky! Please don't be offended by that. Doesn't mean that I don't see the sacrifice. Or try to be grateful for the aspects of my life that were pluses, to a degree.

You can still do really well at a state school. There's absolutely no reason that clever kids who are in a comprehensive can't get the top grades, and even beat kids in private education. It does take more of a work ethic and more commitment, though - not least from you as a parent.

ItShouldHaveBeenJess, My sister worked as a matron in a private boarding school, and many of the teachers there did not have QTS (BEd, PGCE) - and yet these qualifications are essential if you want to work in a state school. I know it's not the main issue here, but does anyone know why?

I think this is because the private schools are less well regulated than state schools - they play it as 'being free to pick the best teachers' but really it means they don't have to be properly qualified. Hence why you get some shockingly bad private schools. And some completely mad private school teachers.

The other reason people sometimes give is 'connections' in later life - but that will only apply really if you're going to billion-pound-a-term public schools e.g. Cheltenham Ladies, not local 10k a term ones.

Get a part time job and spend the cash on learning to eat in nice restaurants, riding lessons, skiing holidays and trips to the Louvre if you want them to fit in with the private school kids at uni. Considerably cheaper and more fun.

If I had the money I wouldn't send my DC to private school. Everyone I know who privately educates their kids protests too much. All shitting themselves that they are wasting their money. It's not better than state.

ParadiseCity that statement is very sweeping. Those sorts of comments are often made by people living in an area that has good or outstanding secondary schools. Private is most definitely not always better but equally some/a lot are better than state. It's very individual to specific families/children and I believe it's very narrow minded to make comments such as yours. This thread is not a state very private thread anyway, the OP is asking a very specific question!

"Give me the child until he is 7 and I will show you the man" Prep and pre-prep private education is not that expensive, the fees go up a lot as they get past 11. It is really good value, the groups are small, they have an emphasis on manners and good behaviour and instil discipline about homework etc. Our two sons went to a good prep school up to age 11. it did not actually cost me that much as I worked very long hours then and the availability of breakfast and tea with the boarders and after school activities for very little extra costs saved expensive child minding expense. They had a great education and then both went on to grammar school, getting better A level grades than their old class mates who stayed in the independent sector. DS1 went to Oxford and DS2 is at a good Russell group uni in his final year. Neither of them have ever required prompting or nagging about doing homework or assignments, it was hardwired in during their prep school years. If you can afford anything then I really believe the first few years are the most important.

RaisedByGuineaPigs- you're username is brilliant and hilarious!

In what way am I choosing not to give her an excellent education? Is that actually what people who pay for education think? That I am choosing to hobble her chances?!

She may attend an excellent state school. I said that public schools are almost always better. People can of course get into wonderful schools: usually through living in a good catchment area and you made it clear how successful you and yours are*. I said some can't afford school fees and some make a choice not to pay them. The facts are though that children who attend public schools are more likely to have more successful careers.

Are you already planning a holiday 7 years in the future? Ah, I see, you're one of those with a "universally liked" child**

I deliberately didn't set out to be controversial but yes, I believe public schools almost always offer the best education. My children are 4th gen. public schooled and I'm the head of a quite famous school.

*good public schools may have taught you not to be vulgar

**people actually say that?

"I deliberately didn't set out to be controversial but yes, I believe public schools almost always offer the best education"

Yes, public schools entrench privilege and perpetuate inequality in society in a fairly well proven way.

Astonishingly there are plenty of people on mumsnet who still think this state of affairs is morally acceptable.

Lame post. You could afford it you just can't be arsed to to work to pay for it!

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/05/top-state-school-pupils-get-better-degrees-than-those-from-private-schools

Why would I have no evidence?

Your point about what students do on leaving university isn't something that could be solved by paying for private school pre-18. The worst thing comps do is not recommend the right 'facilitating' A levels; this then restricts choice (and sensible parents in the state sector read this and help their children make the right choices!):

russellgroup.ac.uk/for-students/school-and-college-in-the-uk/subject-choices-at-school-and-college/

I don't believe that social networking (a major reason students with mediocre degrees from good unis have good careers) is something you can pay for, per se, even if you go to private school. I think recognizing people as 'your type' is a lot more subtle. A lot of my students who are really not so bright get internships/jobs through their parents' contacts but whether they all go on to illustrious careers, I'm not convinced any more (the really brilliant ones educated in state and private do pretty well). I wouldn't pay for that type of social contact though, I haven't needed it to do fairly well career-wise myself, nor have my close friends who all earn much more than me.

If I suddenly could pay to send my children to the best local private school in our city, I wouldn't do it, it's just not our type of thing. I know someone whose child went there last year at secondary, did a term and hated it, moved to a good state school. It's just not one of those amazing private schools, it's a bog standard private school, so I would definitely not waste the money! I can understand it if you get the chance for a really first-class education.

@minifingerz

Which state of affairs? There is no such thing as an absolutely fair society, unless you're actually talking about communism.

At least I (and other fee-paying parents) have the courage of our convictions as opposed to playing the catchment area game where people pretend to be morally superior yet have effectively bought their children a better education than the majority of other children. The poster with the chip on their shoulder and a big salary has clearly bought their child an education (for want of a better word) when they mention their flashy holidays etc.

"There is no such thing as an absolutely fair society, unless you're actually talking about communism"

I knew someone would come out with some guff about communism.

Maybe we could start with an acknowledgement that the spend per head at private schools - the private schools that most conservative MP's send their children to, is more than double the spend per head than is given to educate a child in a state school. Obviously MP's of all parties who send their children private do so because they believe that this level of spending is necessary to secure a good education for a child. And yet they expect state schools to do the same with usually less than half that level of spending per child.

So perhaps as a society we should agree on a level of spending per child which gives all children an equal chance of success at least as far as their formal education goes (there is less we can do about their home environment).

We could have an 'education tax' to help fund this.

Because surely EVERYONE feels all children deserve an equal opportunity in relation to formal schooling?

Many politicians are a good example of what's wrong with a private education

Aib

I have long made a case on mumsnet that fair banding and lottery systems should be used to reduce issues surrounding house prices in catchments for popular schools. In many areas this is now happening, including at the school my children attend.

In any case high performing schools in expensive catchments still admit poor and low achieving children. The highest performing non- selective schools in the U.K. are mostly in London. Even the most oversubscribed of these schools will have low achievers and many many children on FSM.

Your dc's school on the other hand might as well pin a sign outside saying "poor low achieving children 100% absent from this school" as would EVERY OTHER MAINSTREAM PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THE UK.

Your child's education will be markedly different from my dc's education in that one respect: that they will never come into contact with socially disadvantaged children. Your children are effectively being raised in a privileged ghetto, which is no doubt how you like it. Sadly it's children like yours who have no experience or meaningful contact with the full range of human beings who make up our society, who go on to take up positions of power and influence in business, the arts, science and government. Probably this makes a big contribution to a state of affairs where 'the poor will always be with us'. Well yes they will, because those people best placed to change this have no real understanding of how they live or how to help them out from the bottom of the pile.

Privilege perpetuates privilege and inequality. Private education plays a big part in this social phenomena.

It's very easy to disparage other' choices when one can afford to live somewhere with excellent schools. The comprehensive schools where you live may use banding, and glittery, but that is patently not the case in the majority of English authorities.
State maintained schools in London receive far more funding than those outside London, I cannot imagine how they're all so improved and doing so well. Schools in areas such as Hull, IoW, Poole are not nearly so lucky.

My children attend fee-paying schools, but they live in a very mixed urban area, they attend activities and clubs alongside children of neighbours that are not attending independent schools, they are involved in their local community. Some people choose to raise their children in isolation from society, but many do not.

'glittery' was meant the be 'lottery'!
Might be an improvement...

As a SAHM whose children are privately educated (but have had many go through the state system) I would like to say that I don't actually think that my children will get higher results - that's not why I sent them in the first place. However, I do believe that the experience the children have is, in general, 'better'. Not just a little better either, but significantly.

One of mine currently in a private senior says that she'd choose her current school any day, just for the sheer adventure that each day presents. She's in year 11 and has been attending since year 7. She was, incidentally very happy at her state primary school. My younger child is in prep school and is exceptionally happy. I can see having experienced both, the differences - in some areas are more subtle but in most it's vast.

This doesn't mean that I ever look down on or see state education as 'repellent' though. It just means it suits us. I've had my children attend lovely state schools in the past.

OP - I do understand your feelings though and I think YANBU. I can't see why others have taken exception to your post, telling you to work. I see that if you worked you'd rue not staying at home. I understand your feelings though totally, you're very happy being SAHM but you can't help feeling jealous of those who have children privately educated.

YANBU IMO.

For what it's worth, if I had to choose, I think I'd choose the SAHM but then I'd home educate, definitely.

Could you consider that perhaps?

Go back to work then!

What a confusing post. Or do you mean that you want to be able to be a SAHM AND earn a large salary as well?? Wouldn't we all!

I would love to be a SAHM but to have the life that we have we both need to work full time.
Grass is always greener etc.

I don't think it is private school that gives the advantage, it is the wealth/affluence that allows the private schooling that is the main issue.

However I do think the status of going to X school is something that stays a positive attribute for life, in the same way growing up in a rough inner city housing estate will also follow you around.

I dunno. I feel sad that my dds arnt going to the independent liberal school that I did which was wonderful but I feel fortunate that they attend a wonderful primary in a nice area and are as protected from social problems as I could hope for. Dd1 is excelling and I feel her teachers each year have known her very well. I feel lucky and fortunate though I would give them my school in a heartbeat