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.

Something that is a good on an individual level can also be a bad on a societal level.

Exactly this.

Has there been any study done on the implications of private schools having charitable status removed and charging VAT?

I feel instinctively I should be in favour of that policy, but would it actually have the desired effect? Or would there be so much of an increased burden on an already-crowded state system that it would actually be worse overall, and the additional tax income not be worthwhile?

Sorry, meant to reply specifically to a couple of points:

you are determined to prove that private schools are poor options and corrosive rather an accepting that it's down to Individual needs!

No, I am saying that private schools, however good for an individual's needs, are corrosive at a societal level - and we can either say that is OK because what matters is the good of each individual, or not OK, because what matters is the effect on society as a whole.

I am also entirely prepared for parents to say that they choose to pay for the convenience of all-in-one education, but less prepared for them to say that education is necessarily better because it is all in one.

At nursery age, parents who paid for all day nursery didn't say their nursery was 'better' than the local sessional pre-school, but that they needed to longer hours so paid for nursery. The same is often true for schools.

then others who can't afford it but are just scraping by because they like the status of children attending a private school.

You lost me here OP.

Can’t - no I didn’t know that it just makes me depressed and sad that children are being compromised by left wing ideology - when most of the left wing in parliament pay for their children or do it by stealth.
Why should not each child be helped to achieve their best that’s one of the reasons I choose private to fully help my son to achieve his potential.
I fully endorse more of the children in care being put into boarding schools their outcome is better and the cost short and longvterm is less

I am also finding the undermining of state school users views just because their state schools are good - as the large majority, after all, are - very odd.

Why is it not valid to oppose private schools if you send your child to one of the 89% of schools that are Good or Outstanding, and only valid if your child is in one of the 11% which are not?

The idea that only 'leafy' schools are good is odd as well - are all of those 89% in 'leafy' areas? Is England really THAT leafy??

I am also entirely prepared for parents to say that they choose to pay for the convenience of all-in-one education, but less prepared for them to say that education is necessarily better because it is all in one

Do you get to decide which reason is acceptable?

I’m very clear, I use the word experience rather than education because I believe that is what we paid for. And I don’t believe that could have been replicated in a state school.

Parsley, if the 11+ tested what children are taught - ie it tested children on the National Curriculum - the dichotomy, of course, wouldn't arise. It is the fact that the 11+ insists on testing things not in the National curriculum, such as verbal and non-verbal reasoning, that creates the problem.

Jacues, I ask the question as I asked blue - cannot be replicated in state school alone, or cannot be replicated in state school + community-based extra-curricular activities?

i would also ask, since you were very explicit in your post - do you believe it cannot be replicated in the state school you were allocated, or in any state school?

Case in point Cant, NVR/VR was taught as standard in my daughters school from the start of KS2.

They could offer that because they weren’t hampered by having to adhere to a rigid curriculum

It is not really putting your money principles where your mouth is if your child is in a good state school who you can in any case afford to supplement with extras. How convenient. Different circumstance from parents who have to go to the private sector to get a good education.

For me it was the ability of the school to be spontaneous because of not needing to stick to a curriculum. So yes, the benefit of that ad hoc experience couldn’t be replicated in a state school.

And yes, still couldn’t be replicated in a state school plus activities

Jacques, they are taught in a local private from very early on - because their selling point (how they keep afloat) is taking a very high proportion of places in local state grammars, for which they prepare very explicitly throughout primary.

Is that right?

There are other things beyond education and extras which a private schooling provides which are intangibles. It might rile some on this thread to dwell too much on these intangibles.

So if my children were in one of the 11% of schools which are not Good or above, then my points would be entirely acceptable, but not because I happen to live in the catchment of one of the nearly 9 out of 10 schools which do reach that standard? Why?

Is that right?

How can I possibly comment other than in direct anecdote from the school DD was at?

But no, we’re not in a Grammar area. There is a grammar out of catchment which we took a punt on and got in. 50% of DD’s class went back - by choice - into the state system with all but DD at comps

Blue, are those intangibles 'real', or are they in fact created by the perception I discussed earlier?

If everyone tells you you are wonderful, because you are at a school that your parents pay for, you are likely to be confident, for example....

However, if you come from the type of family that pays for education, then you are also likely to be confident. So is it the school, or the family, which creates those intangibles?

I meant, Jacques, is it morally right that parents buy access to state grammars through private primaries which explicitly teach to that test for 7 years? Is the grammar school selecting the most able children if that happens?

cantkeep I believe those intangibles are real. It is obvious on a school trip whether the children are from a state or private school from the behaviour of the children alone. The expectations are different and drilled in from a young age across the board.

School or family background?

Also - from experience - it depends HUGELY on the private school in question

I meant, Jacques, is it morally right that parents buy access to state grammars through private primaries which explicitly teach to that test for 7 years? Is the grammar school selecting the most able children if that happens

Depends on the admittance criteria surely...

Aren’t parents who buy tutors specifically for the 11+ buying an advantage over families that can’t afford that?

School plays a big part. There are poorly behaved children at my ds' all boys' school for various reasons. But they are carefully and consistently managed. They are required to do public speaking frequently. My ds is not a natural and took elocution classes.