To ask what's so great about private school

[ExtraPineappleExtraHam]

So my friend was privately educated, and so was her partner. They put their school aged children in a very prestigious private school but then had to take them out and move in with her parents. I don't quite know what happened but I think they overstretches themselves financially.
Now her two children are happily settled into the local state school but she still insists that she will be moving them back to private school in the future. My question is why would you decide to do this if you can't really afford to?
I was state school educated from a single parent family and went to a terrible primary school, but I have great memories. My friend and I actually do the same job, we are both admin assistants on a few quid more than minimum wage. I don't think that her private education has actually benefited her at all.
I tried to ask her what exactly she felt that a private education gave you that a state education didn't. She used the example of writers visiting the school, inspiring children to write and improve literacy. I have a creative writing degree, nothing would have prevented me from writing stories, it's all I've ever wanted to do since I learnt to write. My best friend has a 2:1 degree in Literature from Oxford, she also went to a state school in a 'deprived area' and was raised by a single mum.
I honestly don't understand what a private education gets you apart from possibly helping you to make contacts. It's certainly not more important than trying to buy your own home, in my eyes.
Fully expecting to get flamed.

However much people pretend and make excuses, the primary reason for sending a child to private school is snobbery.

Such a stupid comment. Do you say the same about people who choose a high performing state school (invariably in a posh area) or people who choose to live in nicer areas? Snobbery might well be a factor for some people but to assume it's the primary factor for most is clearly absurd when there are many tangible reasons (better results, smaller class sizes, better facilities etc) that people might choose a private school.

@BloodyDisgrace, there are likely fewer social problems at private schools but pupils with troubled lives aren't necessarily less prevalent, sadly. Very different experience but not completely without exposure to things.

My girls school was pretty non religious, we had prayers and hymns in assembly and 2 church services a year but this seems to be on par with a lot of state schools round my way that don't have an overt religious ethos but do have prayers in assembly/broad christian basis. That model seems to be standard for day schools. Some public schools or higher reaching private schools are more overtly religious though. I latterly attended a school that started out as a foundation for clergy children and still maintains places for them. There's a lot of compulsory chapel attendance - high Anglican, natch- and a fairly strong tradition of some pupils joining the clergy. I chose to go there though, the school openly state this on their publicity and people who don't like it go elsewhere to less religious schools.

Remember that some older public schools may have had their foundation in more religious times and with religion playing a part. They will stay true to this ethos. A lot of pupils and their families support the church at school but aren't necessarily exceptionally religious. It's part of school life. I find RC schools have faith playing a more dominant part in school life overall than cofe schools though, barring places that are attached to an Anglican Cathedral, say. Also, this is my experience, not the definitive word on church schools in the UK.

private schools are not the way to do it

So what is your suggestion, for people like me who live in an ethnically diverse and socially deprived area, with too few school spaces locally such that being allocated to the closest school, which is in special measures with metal detectors on the door, is highly likely?

I can either stay in my diverse and interesting area, send DS private so he gets a reasonable education, and keep him going to sports clubs etc so he mixed with a wide range of people.

Or I can move out to somewhere like Kent, and take advantage of the state grammar system (which is itself skewed towards MC kids, let’s not forget), knowing that DS is unlikely to meet another BAME person living in Tenterden.

Most people move out of London once their. children reach school age, specifically to access better schools in naicer suburban areas. I really don’t see why staying put and going private is any worse.

Nobody with any choice sends their kids to a failing school. MC parents have choices, and take them. Everyone should have the choice, but as I can’t unilaterally install a Labour government and start properly funding our schools/engage unengaged and disruptive parents in their own children’s schooling, I am going to look out for my own kid thanks.

Sorry, “most people” should be “most people I know”, obviously not everyone is able to move out.

So Jones, an average ability but well behaved child should be lumped with the 'thuggish chavvy' children?

I’ve said this before, but it still puzzles me. As nearly all “failing” schools are in areas of significant social deprivation, how come so many mumsnetters with the money to go private live in their catchments?

@fullofjellybeans - I actually do not agree with that. i.e. "However much people pretend and make excuses, the primary reason for sending a child to private school is snobbery." - Some may . As I have said often , if and only one / you can square sending a child to private school - there can be very different reasons. My son's school was brilliant at Spld . which he had ) - also academic but he had "stuff" to deal with . It worked out well. Now as I have said before has he better exam results than others who came from different schools ? - No. Were his cohort at university from a different set of schools ? - yes.

DS was a very small child / baby in the Blair Education Education Education era. Once it came to school we took a choice. I loved that, but once it came to DS's school - really - nothing changed. It has now btw. 20 years on it is a different school - not the same choice.

@BertrandRussell - a small point - if a significant proportion send their children to private school then the other schools can suffer from that. & in some very mixed places there are those who will happy pay fees Chicken and Egg - I get that . But leafy comps are marvellous I am sure - there are other places where divisions are more divisive. Have you ever seen that play with Rob Brydon - I did not - I wish I had but here www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34197048 It is is a (IMHO) a thought provoking play - have only read and seen things about it - I wish I had seen it

Bertrand I know you live in London, so I know you are aware that there are plenty of estates and tower blocks next door to more expensive roads.

I live just off Coldharbour Lane. The local estates are genuinely rough. But a couple of hundred metres away are fairly nice Victorian terraces. Not Kensington and Chelsea standard, not Dulwich, but definitely middle class.

Private school would be a huge stretch for us. We’re in a two bedroom flat, it’s basically either school fees or move to a three bedroom flat so my kids don’t have to share a room, we couldn’t afford to do both. And we would probably still need grandparent help. Neither of us have City salaries. But I value education enough (and am concerned enough about standards at the local school) that it is a serious dilemma.

"But private schools are not the way to do it. Apart from anything else, private education means that the movers and shakers have no incentive at all to address the issues within state education."

Bollocks. Private parents are paying twice! There is no moral obligation for those parents who are willing to pay twice to fix the state system. Most that I know would have or do live in catchment for a thriving "outstanding" state school. Sending their kid private freed up a place at an excellent state school. They were never going to send their kid to a failing school. Not in a month of Sunday's. So is the PTO missing one more engaged mum at the already thriving school? Nope. Assuming that because someone goes private they don't care about the state system is bollocks too. I sure as hell would have liked a state place for my kid but I wasn't going to sacrifice his well being and I sent him where he would thrive with an engaged SEN team.

Should the state system be funded at a MUCH higher rate? Absolutely. And I'd be first in line to pay higher taxes for it. But sacrificing my kid wasn't going to change that one single bit. People can work to change the system while not sacrificing their own kid. They aren't mutually exclusive.

@Bertrand, whilst we may have very different takes on education, that question genuinely puzzles me, too.

My simple guess would be that in some areas, affluence and deprivation do sit fairly cheek by jowl. Depending on boundaries and catchments the same state schools will be open to all. People who choose not to use them for whatever reason (for example not wanting little Hugo to mix with the kids from the estate) will find a way not to and demographics skew. This then affects the reputation of the school and people choosing to go there. It becomes self perpetuating. That's probably a very simplistic guess on my part though but one state school near to me seems to be stuck in a cycle a bit like this whereas the other local schools are full, the faiths and grammars are oversubscribed and the local privates having waiting lists. No one seems willing to take a chance on this school.

As nearly all “failing” schools are in areas of significant social deprivation

Are they? I think some schools in "naice" areas can get a bit complacent and don't do well on the value added scores. And there are plenty of high performing schools in London with a what might be considered a difficult intake whether that's because of poverty or not speaking English as a first language.

@dshathawaygivesmefannygallops I can think of instances when an expensive education has been wasted. I think private education is worth doing if you can afford it. Personally if I'd not bought a house due to school fees, or was still paying off school fees debt on a child now in their 30s who was in a low paid job, I would question whether I'd done the right thing. If money was no object then I would pay for private education. When you can't just water the magic money tree at the bottom of the garden, the you have to consider whether you'd be better putting that money towards a deposit on a house for your child, or helping them buy a business, or maybe just having a nicer lifestyle and using private tutors/ paying for extra curricular activities.

“Bertrand I know you live in London, so I know you are aware that there are plenty of estates and tower blocks next door to more expensive roads.”
I don’t live in London- but I do know that. That might explain some of it, I agree. I think there is also a difference of opinion about what constitutes a failing, dire or shit school. (All recognised OFSTED categories, of course.)

“I think some schools in "naice" areas can get a bit complacent and don't do well on the value added scores”
Does that mean “failing”?

I also think Price Harry is not a reasonable example - he is an "outlier" Yes, given his qualifications he may ( probably) not have been given that school place - but then would Prince Charles been given a degree from Cambridge. Different debate from most normal ( i.e. not in direct line to the throne ) people. I think most people realise that PC nor PH got that place through merit. Nor indeed probably William - but I was not on the admissions committee.

@HairyToity, I suppose it depends what you wanted out of the school and class as successful in some respects. I don't do anything dazzling but my parents say it's money well spent, their criteria were happiness and that I'd be literate at junior level, happiness and on a suitable academic level for secondary. I've still done better than I would have done at some local schools, and better than quite a few people in my year.

I do agree with your home ownership example though. Any child of mind that didn't appreciate or I felt was wasting the opportunity against me owning a home say, I'd pull them out.

@BertrandRussell - forget "failing" Ofsted - a very good friend of mine applied for a job at a local school when Ds was young. She complimented them on small class sizes - It was because of truancy. I won't name the school because they are now very very very much better - but at that time - I was not minded to send my son there ( given - admittedly - a paid choice) Other opinions were given from people ( including a teacher at the school ) - I had a choice & I took it.

For me it’s about wanting exams to be the by product and not the purpose of the education. I don’t want my children doing SATs and I want them to be able to explore education at its broadest with drama , music etc. The extra hours of teaching mean that they are able to go ‘ off piste’ to explore things which are not necessarily on the exam curriculum. It also means that their teachers know them well , so often on here to read of teachers who see a child for one lesson a fortnight. IMO schools have become, by economic necessity, too large children are no longer individuals and teachers spend a lot of time on crowd control. No one worries as well if children have a small label on their shoe etc etc The children , a third of whom receive financial support to be st the school, respect each other and the teachers and the staff treat them with respect as well.
I am very well aware that we are lucky to be able to afford to pay but I wish the state sector could divide the same .

A very interesting thread. I teach in a large inner city outstanding comp.

We do not have a 'naice' leafy suburban setting and above average PP, however, our exam results are best in the area. Few behaviour issues. Children who come from private primary schools through to children in care.

However funding cuts have meant: larger class sizes, cuts in staffing and subject areas, more focus on academic and less on extra-curricular. I see these as the main benefits of a private education.

For me though I love working with such a diverse range of kids. One of my form group in year 11 has a particularly awful home life - and he is on track to get decent qualifications.

Alright, if Harry wasn't Prince Harry perhaps he wouldn't have been at Eton. But I'm saying that if the only detail changed is his lack of title, still a moneyed family etc, he'd probably have gone to a decent public school, have done alright but not dazzled academically, and he would have gone on to do perfectly well, but not be outstanding amongst his cohort. I picked him as an example people might have heard of, that's all.

Bertrand - I'd question the assertion of all failing schools benign areas of high deprivation...eg a secondary school in NW3 with 'Needs Improvement' in every category. Average house price in NW3 is £1.5m....average household income £52k. So not an area of 'high deprivation' but still what might be considered a 'failing' school.

*being, not benign!

“I'd question the assertion of all failing schools benign areas of high deprivation...”

I didn’t say “all”

Oooh @DSHathaway - yes I see your point . it depends what you call a decent public school. For those which require an examination , I am not sure even "moneyed" gets you in. It is simply the entrance requirements ( and yes selective so that is a different debate - just getting through the exams etc ) Other paid for schools then yes I agree with you possibly money would get you in ( Ie can pay fees) Those which value their entrance exams & reputation - so I am thinking of the likes of St Paul's , Westminster , Winchester , there are others, other posters will bung up and say , of course there are but I suppose you get my drift

But Even if not "Prince" I am pretty sure there are a fair few schools which Harry ( sans title ) or others cannot get get in to . At my son's school a person offered a huge amount of money for a facility. They (school) said no. They value their reputation before money.

Where I do agree with you @DSHathaway is is that a boy could go to a decent private school if fees paid etc. & could do quite well. But won't necessarily give said person a massive leg up to e.g. university or further stage ( compared to a to a decent state school & / or support. )