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.

Our village primary is definitely affected by pupil premium! One child in the whole school receives it. We have SO many children with special educational needs, including many with autism. That should be what determines the funding.

We are constantly asked for money. The kids are going on a bug hunt next week; we’ve been asked to fund the coach.

There is a split on this thread between:

a) people who think private schools are not 'fair'
b) people who think there is no difference between private and state

Both groups cannot be right.

In terms of extra money in our very poor area the pupil premium gets used to try to fund the gap in achievement and the social issues that are quite high in our area.
Also in our school there is a high proportion of Sen (including my own child) and the funding for those children is inadequate.

They can both be right because provision and social conditions vary so widely across the country.
Personally I'm in the 'it's not fair' camp across the board though!

Yura yes, we are keeping fingers crossed! both made it into our first choice of primary, so so far so good, and there are two outstanding secondaries, we have a preference for one of the two, but either would be absolutely fine, if they don't get in we will of course have to reconsider our strategy, we have homeschooled in the past, and might go back to that if needed! we travel a lot for work and might need to do that anyway for some periods!

4point2fleet it's a little more complicated than that, there is no difference when you control for parental background, that means that children from equally wealthy families don't do better in private, what is unfair is the difference in wealth, which has a real impact on educational outcomes.

The other difference that is relevant is parental support and involvement, which clearly cuts across social classes, so kids from less wealthy families who have very supportive and involved parents can still do very well.

The state school system though is not capable of compensating for either extreme poverty or lack of parental support unfortunately, so some kids fall though the cracks and others have a harder road to successful education then they may otherwise have had even if they make it eventually. So what we still do not have is equal educational opportunities for all children.

I do think there’s some naivety on this thread from people saying “my child will go to the local school”.

Just be aware at school selection time you’re putting a preference, not a true choice and it won’t always be a given you get your preference.

I find it very interesting on threads like this that the people who morally object to private schools, obviously have very good options for state schools.

The local state school I went to was awful, lots of drugs, smoking etc, someone even got stabbed in the toilets! I was so badly bullied that my parents pulled me out and sent me to private school. I am grateful everyday that they sacrificed so much to get me out of that environment.

I would send my children to a state school unless the options were awful. It's great to have a moral high ground when you can afford to live in a better area with better options for schooling.

Both groups cannot be right.

Actually, they can. You can disagree with the principle of private education on the grounds that it is not fair for people to be able to buy educational advantage, without ever actually looking into whether that advantage is real or just perceived (by those who pay for it as well as those who are opposed to it).

My dad would probably fall into that category - I doubt that he has ever set foot in a private school in his life because he is passionately opposed to the concept. I am also opposed to it in theory but if I'm honest would have been willing to compromise on my principles in order to give my dd the best possible start, if I had felt that the private options were better than the state options. They weren't, so (luckily for me) I didn't have to compromise. However, I was very clear that I would have bought that additional advantage for dd if it had been available, and that it would have been fundamentally unfair on those children whose parents couldn't afford to do that. I don't feel great about that fact, but I guess dd was ultimately more important to me than the principle.

The other aspect that your point seems to be missing is that not all private schools and not all state schools are created equal. Where we live, the state primary far outshines the private options, and people only really go for private at that level if they can't get into the great state school. At secondary, it's a bit more complicated, and depends on what you would prioritise, but there still isn't much to choose between them.

In a different area, the state offering might be very poor, while the private options are excellent. Or vice versa. So it comes down to my original point that it depends on individual schools and individual children. The thing that is inherently unfair about private education is not that private schools are necessarily better than state schools in every case - they are not! - but rather that the parents who can afford to pay for private have more choices available to them than those who cannot.

Of course, the state system is also fundamentally unfair because wealthier parents (like me) can afford to buy our way into the catchment areas for the best state schools while smugly telling everyone that we don't believe in the unfairness of private education. Once again, many families do not have that option.

Dayman x post.

Where we live the results are same /worse than state school.

We looked at one for ds and didn't like it at all, it was too 'naice'! Not culturally diverse enough for us either (live in London)

We could, in all honesty quite easily. I just think it’s poor value for money and I’d rather spend/save/gift the money elsewhere.

IF there was a problem I might be swayed by the behaviour management they offer - no disruptive children are tolerated.

Otherwise it’s a self entitled bubble that I don’t wish for

I find it very interesting on threads like this that the people who morally object to private schools, obviously have very good options for state schools.

Not in our case. Average at best. But I recognised the innate advantages we could give our kids (we are graduates and can pay for the 'extras' line music lessons etc). And our DC are bright. They didn't need the extra leg up. And we're opposed to the unfairness of paying.
But their comp? Def not good!

Do you feel that you make the comp better by dint of your children attending? (This is the argument I personally can never see the reality of!)

And our DC are bright. They didn't need the extra leg up

Not everyone choose for this “leg up”. Certainly not at primary level.

I haven’t read the full thread but our DCs are at the local school. Both DH and I were educated at expensive boarding schools. We didn’t do this for our DC because:

1. I am a lawyer in a good firm. Around 3/4 of the lawyers were state educated. Stating the obvious, you can get a good job with an ordinary education.

2. The local private schools are OK. None are amazing - the decision might have been harder if they were. Boarding was out (who does this in 2018?!)

3. The local school is pretty good. Not amazing but that’s ok. If the school had been dire, we would have gone private.

4. I have a DS who is big for his age and I didn’t want him to play rugby. All the local private schools would make him play rugby.

5. My DC benefit from us having disposable income. It’s relaxed. School fees stressed my parents. We are free of that commitment. We’ve been on two foreign holidays and one UK one this year. I’ve been abroad with friends and DH and I will go on a city break before Christmas. That would not be possible for us with school fees.

I was next to an outstanding state school, what else ? I believe in public schooling for at least the primary level. What goes on at home is far more important than what goes on at school at the primary level, for the secondary this is a whole other story. And uni fees. ( I do not believe in debt). I have more than one, it's also about fairness.

Private didn't work for me...horrid experience. More than happy to send dd to state.

Its 2 camps - the 'do what's best for our child' v 'do what's best for society' - every child deserves a good education .

AlexaShutUp

How much difference it makes depends on the child. The small class sizes are making a huge difference for DS2. They would have made little or no difference at all for DS1, who did really well at the local primary through to year 6.

The smaller school environment, class sizes, facilities and opportunities at private secondary are, I think, making a big difference for DS1 as compared to the state secondary he would have attended, although clearly we’ll never know for absolutely sure.

We don't think it's value for money. On viewing all the schools, the private school was marginally better than the state, but marginally, certainly not £100 per day better!

Also, like a few other people have said, some of the parents/children there are very entitled/arrogant, characteristics I vehemently dislike.

Private schools are marketed by some of the wonderful adults they produce - confident, engaging people; but at the other end of the scale is someone rocking in a corner, the pressure hasn't worked for them.

thereallifesaffy so, if your children were really struggling in that environment, being exposed to drugs, weapons and gang violence (which is true of some schools not too far from where I live) you would keep happily sending them there without looking at other options within your price bracket?

I've answered the OP's question. We could have afforded it but didn't for the reasons stated. The school was meh, there were drugs.
Knives I dunno. There are drugs everywhere. Kids need to learn to chose their friends wisely. There will
Always be a majority of good kids
In a school and it's a life skill, seeking them out.
And the reason so many awful state schools are awful is that over anxious parents ship their
naice children out of them so they become ghettoised.
I'm not attacking anyone's choices just stating why I made mine. As the OP asked

We can afford it, especially as I get a 50% discount but we don't use it as our DC are still eyfs and kS1.

1. I like them going to a local school and all their friends living within a mile radius. It's really nice for them to be part of that community and easier for me re play dates and parties.
2. they are both quite outgoing and thrive in a busy class with lots of children.
3. the state school has better outdoor facilities than the junior department of my school. It's newer, they have their own big forest school and larger playgrounds. My private junior is in an old Victorian house where the classrooms are small and the playground is limited in size.
4. year 1 at my school has under 10 kids. It's not enough for changing friendships that happen a lot with younger kids.
5. I am an interested and engaged parent and I do a lot at home to supplement their (excellent) teaching at school. They don't need masses more attention at their age.
6. I would like to support the local school. The more bums they have on seats the more funding they get- and they need it.
7. I use some of the money I may have spent on private school fees to make donations to her state school to use as they see fit in terms of resources and teaching tools.

I may yet use a private school for secondary but right now I don't feel it's value for money

“sollyfromsurrey
LethalWhite your DH may be a teacher but quite frankly he is talking nonsense. There are great teachers in both state and private and to suggest that the ones in private are lazy and sub par is just insulting and rude and quite, quite incorrect. Almost all the teachers my sons had held PhDs or at least a masters degree in their field. They were passionate about their subject and worked hours beyond their contracted hours to help students. They were frequently in attendance at weekend sports and cultural outings and were inspiring and damn good teachers. They chose to work in private because they wanted to work with disciplined students in small classes. The pay us generally better in private so frankly, the schools can employ only the best. You sound ridiculously bigoted against people with money and frankly if your husband is a state school teacher, contrary to what you suggest, unless you are a corporate lawyer you wouldn't be able to afford a top private senior school.”

I love how you try and use “you couldn’t afford it ANYWAY” as an insult.
You merely serve to prove the point.
Now shut up and count your money. On your own.