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.

I would have sent my kids to private school if they had needed to go but I really disapprove of them. They end up disadvantaging other children who aren't lucky enough to have wealthy parents.

I found the following an interesting finding. BBC article -Independent school students gain extra time for exams One in five students in independent schools received extra time to complete GCSE and A-level exams last year.
The proportion was significantly higher than those who received the special measure in state schools where the figure is fewer than one in eight.

I presume the kids in the state system that don't get extra help are further disadvantaged because of this.

I have heard some of the most ridiculous scare-mongering about state schools among people who want to justify their decision to send their children to private schools. I also know a lot of people who have had very expensive educations and yet are very poorly educated and a bit spoilt, and many erudite folk who went to comprehensives.
But equally I know a lot of families for whom private education has resulted in lovely, bright, engaged, well-rounded, pro-social adolescents who will no doubt turn into wonderful adults. Horses for courses innit.

All schools are different, all kids are different. You are quite right. What is right for your child will depend on lots of factors. That's why it's wrong for some people to say state is best and scoff at private schools, just as it's wrong for others to say private is best and to scoff at state schools. In some places, state schools are crap, in others they're better than private alternatives. The only way is to do your research, be realistic about your child, and follow your gut instincts based on your research, not political dogma.

I would have sent my kids to private school if they had needed to go but I really disapprove of them.
If you really disapprove of them then why even consider them?

”If you really disapprove of them then why even consider them?”

There’s a balance between disapproving of the concept and existence of private schools and prioritising the individual needs of one’s own child.

I am against the concept as being inherently unequal and unfair, however my children are hugely benefiting from attending a private school as I’ve mentioned above, as compared to the state local equivalents. In this particular area and with these specific children. With different local provision and/or different individual needs we may have made a different decision.

I could have stuck with the state system for both and upheld my principles, or I could have compromised my principles to do what’s best for my children. I chose the latter- they are my principles, not my children’s principles and if anyone is going to ‘suffer’ for my principles it’s fine if it’s me, it’s not fine if my principles negatively impact my children. That feels a bit self-indulgent in some ways.

I’m fully aware some people may consider me a hypocrite, that’s fine, I fully accept that. My 25-year-old childless self would have been horrified!

@flowery I chose the latter- they are my principles, not my children’s principles and if anyone is going to ‘suffer’ for my principles it’s fine if it’s me, it’s not fine if my principles negatively impact my children. That feels a bit self-indulgent in some ways I agree with that.

This is the exact but I don't agree with tbh. If you think your principles are the right ones it'd ridiculously dramatic to talk about"political dogma" and "suffering". I find that whole line of argument quite offensive. It's state school, not the workhouse.

I was an estate kid. Went to a grammar. 90% of the kids were working class/ estate kids. Somehow we managed not to destroy the equipment, or buildings, get a good education and go on to F..E. And university. Sounds like we were an anomaly then. Or maybe ‘estate’ kids are just kids who’s parents can’t afford to live outside social housing.

”It's state school, not the workhouse.”

Indeed. That’s why I put suffer in inverted commas. Of course that word is over dramatic, and of course they wouldn’t actually suffer. But the well-known phrase refers to ‘suffering’ for one’s principles, so that’s why I used that terminology. I thought the use of inverted commas would make that obvious.

Clearly what I mean is that if I think my children will do significantly better and be happier at this particular private school than at the relevant state schools they would otherwise attend, it would be in some ways self-indulgent of me to deny them that and send them somewhere they won’t do as well and will be less happy just because of my personal principles.

Well I disagree. I've heard that argument a lot and I don't like it. Principles are not some personal whim like choice of paint colour. They are deeply held values that shape our view of the world, by which we try to live our lives and which we hope to pass on to our children. I do not consider any of that to be self indulgent and i resent the argument that it is. Putting one's children first doesn't always mean they have to have every privilege laid at their door. Presumably you don't encourage them to act in a self interested way in other areas of your life? Each to their own really - if you want to go down the private route that's up to you but don't pretend there wasn't another legitimate choice available to you and people that make it are awful people.

Saying you don't believe in the private system because its against your principles and then sending your kids to one is complete tosh.

Are you Diane Abbott by any chance? You want to have the best of both worlds and state you don't believe in private schools per se. Are you going to demonstrate against them, stop them taking over your area etc once your children are finished there I wonder?

I have heard everything now!

Why are people so smug about their 'values' just because they send their children to state schools?

There are loads of segregational choices we all make in society - where to live, who to hang out with, what we and our DC do in their spare time, where we shop, what we wear, using the car not public transport etc.

Why are people so vocal about integrated schooling but not integrated housing? I ask this every time a thread like this comes up and no one answers.

“I was an estate kid. Went to a grammar. 90% of the kids were working class/ estate kids. Somehow we managed not to destroy the equipment, or buildings, get a good education and go on to F..E. And university. Sounds like we were an anomaly then. Or maybe ‘estate’ kids are just kids who’s parents can’t afford to live outside social housing.”

You were an anomaly.. Not because you didn’t destroy the equipment or the building - that’s just the usual hideous Mumsnet prejudiced narrative. But because your grammar school was 90% working class/estate kids. Grammar schools have always been mostly populated by the middle classes.

“Why are people so vocal about integrated schooling but not integrated housing? I ask this every time a thread like this comes up and no one answers.”

Happy to answer if you explain what you mean.

"Well I disagree. I've heard that argument a lot and I don't like it. Principles are not some personal whim like choice of paint colour. They are deeply held values that shape our view of the world, by which we try to live our lives and which we hope to pass on to our children. I do not consider any of that to be self indulgent and i resent the argument that it is."
Ok. I don't see it as an 'argument'. I'm just being honest about what I've done and why I've done it. You may have chosen differently, that's fine, up to you. I'm not making an argument, that's just my opinion and how I feel.

"Putting one's children first doesn't always mean they have to have every privilege laid at their door." No it doesn't, you are right. I never said they have to have every privilege laid at their door . I choose to give them this particular privilege though.

"Presumably you don't encourage them to act in a self interested way in other areas of your life?" Nope. But they're not acting in a self-interested way by attending the school I'm sending them to. I'm acting in their interests. Most parents do lots of things in their children's interests which aren't necessarily their own preference. This is one of those things we're choosing to do.

"don't pretend there wasn't another legitimate choice available to you and people that make it are awful people."

When did I 'pretend' either of those things? Point to me where I said the state options locally weren't a legitimate choice, or where I said people who choose state are awful people. Don't put words in my mouth thank you. Apart from anything else it completely undermines any point you wish to make!

BertrandRussell - not in Northern Ireland they’re not. We don’t have the same obsession with class that the English seem to have. The grammar school system still exists and kids from ALL backgrounds go to grammars.

"Saying you don't believe in the private system because its against your principles and then sending your kids to one is complete tosh." How is it "tosh"? It's a fact.

"Are you Diane Abbott by any chance? You want to have the best of both worlds and state you don't believe in private schools per se. Are you going to demonstrate against them, stop them taking over your area etc once your children are finished there I wonder?"

No idea why they would "take over the area", but if that weird idea became likely then yes I would do what I could to stop it. I also don't understand how this is me wanting the best of both worlds. If the state options were better locally/meeting my children's needs, they would go there. But there isn't the best of both worlds available here unfortunately, so that's not what's happening.

I fully accept that what I'm doing many people would consider to be hypocritical. That's fine by me, I fully accept that, and as I've said before, my younger childless self would entirely agree with you and be equally horrified. My principles seem to have reduced in strength when it comes to my own children. I am sad about that in a way, but that's the way it is.

I'm not more vocal about my values than anyone else. I am answering on a thread about private school what I think about private school. And disagreeing with the argument that acting in accordance with ones values is self indulgent. That's quite a narrow point btw. I don't expect everyone to act in accordance with their values all the time - we are human and not perfect. I don't expect everyone to hold the same values of me. So I can adopt a live and let live approach to a certain extent, but that particular line irks me to the point where I want to state that I disagree.

And in relation to your housing point yes I agree everyone should have decent housing. I'm not sure that's directly analogous though. Decent housing could be rented or state provided or privately owned or rented.

flowery

I'm a hypocrite, mine goes to a school that my principles were against.
I'm the biggest hypocrite going, but my child is happy and thriving, so I'll take that
I'm sure a lot more principled against private school would change their minds if offered a free place and the school was a perfect fit for their child.
it's easy to stick to your principles if they are never challenged.

”acting in accordance with ones values is self indulgent.”

I simply said that for me, in our very specific circumstances, it would feel a bit self-indulgent. You can’t “disagree” that I would feel a bit self-indulgent, you can only say you would not feel that. Which is fine. Great.

I assume your points about housing and being vocal are aimed at someone else.

• could afford it now but worried about future financial commitment
• potential need for me to work more and not be at home for the kids after school as much
• excellent state secondary near us and don’t think it’s necessarily worth it for primary
• child (currently yr 6) that is quite confident and self motivated so will hopefully be ok anywhere
• lots of academic pressure at our most local private option, very high rates of self harm, eating disorders etc (friend is school nurse there and thinks it’s too pressured)
• personal experience of going off to private secondary away from all friends, then having friends far away instead of local due to catchment area. Want my dc to have easier transition and local friends

Appreciate that if any/some of those factors were different we might go private, especially if:

• we could easily afford it
• our local state option was poor
• we felt our dc was not suited to the state option and there was a particular private school that was just right for them

Sorry I forgot to put at the top of my post:
We are going state instead of private because....

@BertrandRussell Thank you. What I meant (not clearly expressed) was that people seem furious about the injustice of children not having equal education and are proud to say they'd never give their child an unfair head start by putting them through private school, but they don't seem at all bothered by the unfair head start their children have by living in warm, spacious clean homes in safe areas, and don't insist we all live in run down estates with lethal cladding on them. Why? Why is one so vital to parity but the other isn't? It comes across as double standards to me, but it's so widespread, I think I'm missing something obvious.

Sorry, I've realised my example on housing sounds like I'm assuming all state schools are the equivalent of run down estates in lethal cladding. I don't. So, to even out the analogy, people never say: so many children don't have gardens. I'd never buy a house with a garden, it's unfair access to fresh air and nature. We should all just use parks and recreation grounds. They don't say: we can afford this spacious house but so many people can't so we'll squash into a terrace to even the odds.
Why? And why argue that the local comp is a fair equaliser when we all know it isn't, because typically, the leafy middle class kids get put into the top sets and the FSM pupils in the lower sets. Poverty skews chances wherever your children are educated.

I have to agree with OneStep tbh and also ask - is it any less hypocritical for families to pay up to live in particular school catchment areas than it is to pay school fees? We all make choices and make the best of the circumstances available to us. As I said earlier in the thread, if we lived in an area with great state options, then no doubt that’s where our kids would be, but we don’t, do they’re not. In this part of London the difference in opportunities and results between a good or outstanding state secondary and the private sector is massive. I don’t know anyone with the means to pay school fees who has put their DC in state to make a point of principle. Nobody at all (unless they went through the rigmarole of trying to send their DC to the super selective grammars like Tiffin out in Kingston, but that’s a particular exam and a particular process).