to ask if you can afford a 'private' school in the UK but have chosen to send your child/children to a state school why?

[Foreverexhausted]

My three year old DD has just started a nursery attached to a fee paying school. I chose the nursery because it is by far the best nursery in the area but unfortunately we can't afford to send her to the school itself as fees are £15k per year per child and we have two children.

We have friends who could afford private schooling but their children are in state schools and then others who can't afford it but are just scraping by because they like the status of children attending a private school.

@BertrandRussell - I am quoting the number of posters who stated that they dcs attend outstanding state schools! Also , I'm sure a parent who can afford private education would not select a poor performing state school over a good private school mainly on principles.

Not me Cherry! I specifically described ours as at best average. You can scoff and not believe me but we simply think private education has a corrosive effect on society. And we had faith that our children would be ok. And they were. And that's what the OP wanted to know. She asked why people like me who could afford to do otherwise sent their kids to state schools.
You're dead right we could afford music lessons etc (they didn't ever need extra tuition bc they are, frankly amazing ☺️). But to me that just serves to emphasise how sending to private school is a double advantage... you can already give your child the extras and then you pile an extra advantage on.
We're not sackcloth and ashes people - we have fun and spend money. But not on schooling!

I'm with saffy

I'm with saffy too

So single advantage is fine, not double advantage.

How about private school parents giving back to society in the form of the tax payers money saved on their child's place in a state school. Private school parents pay double tax - once on their income and twice via the school fees.

State school parents who can afford private school fees are depriving other state school parents who cannot afford it. Just another way of looking at it.

Oh for god's sake blueshoes. Trying to suggest those at the high end of the economically unbalanced seesaw that is our ridiculously unequal society are doing those at the bottom a favour by opting out of the essential services that make up society and sequestering themselves and their children on an island of privilege is ... Well, tone deaf is the kindest thing I could say about it.

@thereallifesaffy you're clearly missing my point . I completely understand that you do not want to send your kids to private school - each to their own really . What I don't get is how it equates to not giving your dcs an unfair advantage when you're clearing going to use your large disposable income on enriching their lives with educative experiences that some kids in their schools wouldn't most probably have access to?

Also , I work with a large percentage of private educated people and some are very entitled, obnoxious and selfish. Others are some of the most humble and caring people I've worked with . I don't actually have an issue with people sharing their opinions or experiences it's the sweeping generalisations I can't tolerate.

In principle I'm with Saffy but when reality hits for our dc then I'm not sure what we will do. Our 4 dc all went to the same state primary. The elder two are now at state grammar schools, although we are out of area for both. Our only local secondary is poor, in special measures in fact. Attainment is low and whilst that in itself is not a problem the culture of "it's not cool to learn" really is. My dc3 struggles slightly academically. He is well behaved but easily distracted and easily led. He is able enough to get by without huge concerns but he doesn't shine and he doesn't demand attention. He will get lost in a school which is short on resource and high on behavioral issues. I recently toured the school and I was really impressed with what they are trying to do. However, their biggest challenge is lack of parental support and whilst I would like to help change that I can't do so to the detriment of my son's education. Ultimately I think we will send him to private school where he has access to smaller class sizes and sports where he has the opportunity shine rather than be average (football is the only really sport at the local secondary).

cherry the difference has already been explained. Her taking her kids to a gallery in Rome or getting them piano lessons or whatever isn't taking anything away from anyone else. Putting money into a parallel system which has a detrimental impact on the state system by coopting most of the best teachers and many of the brightest pupils is taking something away from others. It's not so much about the unfair advantage as it is about the social harm it does .

you're clearing going to use your large disposable income on enriching their lives with educative experiences that some kids in their schools wouldn't most probably have access to?

I agree. Saffy is able to pay for her dc to have music lessons. Music education has been cut back in many state schools so her children are unfairly advantaged compared to many children who would love to learn an instrument but whose parents can’t afford it.

Putting money into a parallel system which has a detrimental impact on the state system by coopting most of the best teachers

But we’re often told that teaching is in fact no better in the private sector. It can’t be simultaneously co-opting the best teachers, but also no advantage in terms of teaching.

The education system does need an overhaul. And first has to be issues surrounding admittance.

Exactly Dontbestupid. People only want what is best and will do whatever they can given their own child and circumstances. Judgement either way is wrong.

Cherry. I'm not missing any point. Mine (waaaay down thread) is a wider one - that taking bright kids out of the state system sucks it dry, makes schools already on the edge go over it, takes good teachers away. And is unfair.
I've met some jolly lovely privately educated people too, Along with the boors and Tim Nice But Dims. Likewise from state schools.
But to kid anyone that sending a child to a private school is doing the state system a favour. Well. I've heard it all now!
And I'm only answering the OP's question. She wanted replies from state school
Parents who were at ease with their decisions.

cherry the difference has already been explained. Her taking her kids to a gallery in Rome or getting them piano lessons or whatever isn't taking anything away from anyone else. Putting money into a parallel system which has a detrimental impact on the state system by coopting most of the best teachers and many of the brightest pupils is taking something away from others. It's not so much about the unfair advantage as it is about the social harm it does .

I disagree with this. So many people have said that state school teachers are better. Private schools are not stealing the best. As a private school parent, I am paying to NOT have to agitate for better conditions for my children. I will not miraculously be one of those sorts of parents that you think would benefit a state school just because their children are there. I would probably look abroad.

It is unfair but it is life as in so many things. Just like it is unfair saffy can afford to enrich her children's lives with holidays rather than wasting it on school fees. I am the mug paying school fees for your and saffy's dcs' advantage when I should be going on lavish holidays instead. That is my choice but I am not berating saffy.

by coopting most of the best teachers and many of the brightest pupils
Really? I’m always reading on mn now the teachers in private schools wouldn’t last five minutes in a state school and anyway the state school teachers are better.

Putting money into a parallel system which has a detrimental impact on the state system by coopting most of the best teachers and many of the brightest pupils is taking something away from others. It's not so much about the unfair advantage as it is about the social harm it does .

Coopting some of the best teachers ?? Surely these teachers have a choice ? TThere's a close friend of mine who's a state school teacher who told me that out of principle she wouldn't work in a private school. I don't think that the private school Is to blame here . It's the state's responsibility to ensure that teachers are paid a decent salary and that the curriculum is enriched in order to educate the next generation.

Private education is similar to any luxurious product available in our economy. It's a want which is available to those who can afford it and those who deem it valuable to their life !! A bit like a top of the range Range Rover !

Our reasons, as i have said upthread, are not moral ones - they are simply that given the local offer, I don't want to buy what the private schools have to offer at the price they sell it at (or in some cases, at all).

I think what is corrosive about the state / private divide is the PERCEPTION that private school education is better. So the public perception is that someone who is privately educated is better educated, cleverer, more confident - and that their school was better than the state alternative.

This perception is not, in many cases, borne out by reality. However, the BELIEF that private schools are better, translated into privately-educated children's perception that they as individuals are better, and to the public at large that they are better, is corrosive.

It was summed up to me by a privately-educated young relative of DH's, who told my DS - and absolutely believed - 'My mummy and daddy love me more than yours love you, because they pay for me to go to a private school'.

People only want what is best and will do whatever they can given their own child and circumstances.

However, I do think that there is a difference in how people define 'best' - there are those who define it very narrowly as 'best for their child', and those who take into account to different degrees, or have as a priority, 'best balances the needs of their own child and that of society as a whole'.

that taking bright kids out of the state system sucks it dry, makes schools already on the edge go over it, takes good teachers away. And is unfair.
This a hundred times over. This is what has happened to our local choice. Kids who are bright get sent to the grammars, parents who can afford go privately and others who can't afford private would rather send their children on a bus for 30 minutes to the other nearest state school which isn't doing badly. It has left a void where the school doesn't have a supportive parent body nor a good record of teacher retention. The drop in roll has resulted in funding shortages in an school which desperately needs investment. It is a vicious circle and a total failure of our education system.

I also think it depends on your social circle and its norms.

DH's young relative goes to a private school mainly because it is unknown, in their parents' social circle, to use state schools, and thus for them, not only is their knowledge of state schools poor, but choosing a state school would be a HUGE statement.

DH and move in a social circle where it is relatively normal to choose state when able to afford private, or choose comprehensive when selective is an option, so we not only have others with similar experiences and dilemmas to test ideas against, but are also not making any kind of 'unusual statement' with our choice of state comprehensive.

@cantkeepawayforever I completely agree with you re* I think what is corrosive about the state / private divide is the PERCEPTION that private school education is better. So the public perception is that someone who is privately educated is better educated, cleverer, more confident - and that their school was better than the state alternative.*

The same can be said for state schools. So many factors have an effect on output.

Cherry, you mean the perception that the 'best' state schools are the ones with the best raw results ...despite the fact that they represent poor progress from high starting points ... and the 'worst' are those with deprived intakes from the 'wrong' part of town, despite the fantastic progress and education some of those schools provide?

I agree.

I am very flattered that state school parents think either me or my dc will make a difference just because they attend the school.

Assuming there were no private schools - because they have somehow been banned on principle due to perpetuating pernicious social harm and fostering educational apartheid - if my dcs were being failed by the school academically, I would pay for tutors. If my dcs were not in the right environment, I would move them to another (state) school. I doubt I'd want to engage with the headteacher or teachers as I am a full time working parent, who'd rather work to pay school fees than do this malarky.

So grammar schools are perceived as 'better' because 'they get better results'... completely failing to see that those high results are a factor of intake, not the quality of the school....

blueshoes - you illustrate a point I made earlier in the thread in relation to extra-curricular activities very neatly: private schools do suit parents who wish to 'buy a package': everything under one roof and everything taken care of to an adequate standard.

That doesn't make private schools better, in the way that Tesco or Sainsbury's is not better than my local butcher and baker and greengrocer. It does make them more convenient for busy working parents - and if that was all busy working parents claimed for them, that would be fine.