To want to give my children a private education?

[NobodyKnowsTiddlyPom]

Really need some input to try and persuade my husband!
My three are all quite bright academically and they are all pretty good with music too. Youngest (9) is very sporty as well.

We’ve recently applied for scholarships and bursaries at a local private school and my husband is still very much on the fence about it all.

The two girls (13, 12) have been offered a total of 70% and 75% discount with scholarships and bursaries and the youngest has been offered a total of 55%

I know that my eldest would do well in state school regardless but I think the younger two would absolutely flourish with the smaller class sizes and the sporting facilities on offer.

My husband thinks we’d be better off putting the £15-£20k per year in our pension pots. I’m not currently working but I’m looking for a full time job from September. I’m a teacher so my salary would cover the fees and my mother in law has also offered to contribute £3-£4K a year towards it. His salary is plenty for us to live on comfortably.

DH would like us to sit down with a list of pros and cons for them to attend this school and I’m hoping that mumsnet can help with a list of pros!

@MsTSwift

I have noticed zero difference in manners or social skills thinking about it in the many private / state young teens I know and give lifts to. If anything the state kids I know are more confident and polite but the parents all confident professional types themselves I think that’s where it comes from rather than school.

And personality, I think. I swear that my dd was just born confident!

So many generalisations on this thread. Academic success will be a combination of child, school and parents and it doesn’t always tally with professional success or happiness. The smaller class sizes and impressive facilities provide a head start for the private sector, but I know so many who shared my private education who haven’t achieved much given the significant advantages they had. You need to think what you’re hoping to gain for your DC by making this big sacrifice. On your expected gross household income of £130k if you start work, you’re bringing home £92k max. I don’t think that’s enough to comfortably cover the reduced fees, which a) always increase and b) there are so many extras. You could instead spend £10k a year on tutors and activities to bolster the education of your bright children and find an au pair or similar to help with activities/drop offs.

There were 60 girls in my year group (3 classes of 20). We had the best of everything from a schooling perspective. Probably 5 from the year group (including myself) have risen to the top of our respective fields. It’s baffling and I wonder if any of the parents ponder their decision to spend so much on education. My sister, cousin and both SILs, as well as of my both best friends all underperformed their potential despite having these opportunities (2 have quite significant MH issues caused by bullying and 1 now struggles to pay for private fees for her own kids, making massive sacrifices to do so).

My own grades were fine, as I didn’t need to spend much time studying to get A/Bs, which everyone seemed happy with. Instead I chaired the debate team, captained the house sports teams and became head girl. In my case, the confidence grown from having so many opportunities was more important than grades (and got me into a great uni and then sought after grad programme). I lived in an area with dire state schools, but it sounds like that isn’t the case where you are.

@GardenWander I generally agree with you but would slightly take issue with two things. One is about extras - it's just not the case that there are always loads of extras at private schools. We find there are hardly any - no expense on clubs (all included) or lunch (all included), most uniform available secondhand, and trips very much optional (and plenty of local state schools have three grand sports tours to the Bahamas too). Private schools vary hugely in additional costs.

Secondly, the point about eventual 'achievement' is fair, but I think that many (most?) parents don't have that as the basis for their decision. These threads always seem to end up the same, with loads of state parents saying 'a bright child will get the same grades/uni/job at any school', and loads of indie parents saying 'but that's not why we chose a private school'.

I 100% agree with your point that the OP needs to decide what she wants to achieve by sending her DC private. That's the key question.

I would agree with pp on extras not having to be that high, but specifically about tutors.

I don’t think they’re necessary. Or at least don’t get into cycle of using them to keep up.

Yes, huge discount offered so is a no brainer in my view. I also agree that private school parents have lots of different reasons to pick private schools. It is nothing to do with buying them a better chance to earn a lot of money. For some it is religious reasons eg Catholic boarding school or Muslim school or whatever. For others it is single sex (we chose single sex for our children which is harder to find in the state system). For us a very personal reason at primary level is the family's connections to classical music - their father is an organist and I sing every day etc so we wanted somewhere with a very high standard of music including church music in parts of children aged 7 which is easier to find in some private schools than most state primaries.

Other parents need wrap around care as they work full time and the private provision and longer school days can be useful for that. etc etc

I’m not sure why the issue of tutors keeps coming up in this thread. None of my children need tutors for curriculum subjects. They are more than capable of the work they are set but the environment at secondary isn’t ideal with the lesson disruption.
I’m also not necessarily wanting private for the grades - more for the additional extra- curricula opportunities and subjects they’d like to do that state school doesn’t offer (eldest really wants to do classics, for example). Yes, we can do these activities after school ourselves but when we are both working full time, dinner needs cooking and the house needs cleaning and there just aren’t enough hours in the day to be ferrying three children to all corners of the county to different clubs. We spend lots of time together as a family doing walking, family movie or game night every Saturday etc. We also like to cook together. So there’s plenty we do together that’s actually enjoyable. Hundreds of separate car journeys a month to get to activities doesn’t count as quality family time to me.

Interesting thread. In common with many parents, we did move house to get our kids into a good state school, so clearly I have no moral objections to private education- there are worse things to spend money on. Our eldest then decided to do A levels in the private sector (his choice and we paid), our other children chose differently. All are doing well. Upshot is that the the decision is quite nuanced and outcomes will be much more determined by parental support and aspirations and the quality of school public or private. I cannot agree that children are any better behaved or able to talk better as a result of a private education. I have seen privately educated children behave badly as I have state educated children and in the best state schools I have seen some very confident pupils indeed. To state the obvious, if you move to the best state school then you do get to retain more cash which given financial circumstances can be used to support children at University or provide for tutors if these are required.

Agree with every word Brain. We ensured our house was in catchment for an excellent single sex state so are in no position to judge private school parents. But the naivety displayed by some that going private (any private) is “better” than all state schools is ridiculous and in some cases borderline offensive. Dh and I both state educated one of us Oxbridge and we are both solicitors so we would have to be really persuaded the huge outlay would be “worth it” and for our family - well frankly it wasn’t.

I think if you are very sporty or musical then it is worth it. Otherwise it is a lot of effort for parents to ensure their dcs get a good experience.

Also if you, as parents, like the social side of things. The local private school has a parents’ choir, balls, etc etc. I was rather envious of their quiz and cocktail night until I saw it was £180 a ticket . In the right school connections can be made. My friend sent her dcs to a private school in London and although they didn’t excel academically, they kept going on marvellous holidays courtesy of their friends’ parents.

I come from a long line of fairly academic people but not networkers , thereby ensuring that we stay in our brainy but poor lane!

Like anything there are good and bad - good state, bad private, good private and bad state.
We wanted DT’s to go to the outstanding local state primary but they don’t teach in our two mother tongues and it was important that DT’s maintained their languages as well as learn English. The local private schools were also not multi lingual and the majority single sex which we don’t agree with. We finally decided on a London international school which had the language offerings, co-ed but not as local as we would have liked. The additional advantage was what DT’s learnt from the up to 40 nationalities who attended the school.

I think if you are very sporty or musical then it is worth it.

I never understand it when people say this. Surely, if your kids are really talented in one of these fields, then they will end up doing their activities out of school anyway? National Youth Orchestra, for example, or elite youth development squad for their sport etc?

My dd does performing arts, and there are quite a lot of private school kids in the shows that she does because they have all outgrown what their schools can offer, whether state or private. When they get to a certain age and level, they just want something more professional than even the best school can offer?

I do see that the extracurricular activities on offer in private schools are generally better than what is on offer in most state schools, especially at secondary level, and I absolutely see the attraction of that for parents who don't want the hassle of organising stuff outside of school. However, I had assumed that - by secondary level at least - these were catering mainly for the kids pursuing these activities as hobbies rather than those who are really talented/serious about them? I don't mean to devalue the hobby aspect at all - my dd has only ever been interested in performing arts as a hobby, and I'm totally sold on the value of that - I just think that the kids who are really talented in these areas will have their sights set well beyond school, no matter how good the provision is?

Especially for sports, where kids will be aiming to compete at national/international level? Music, I can understand a bit more, especially e.g. a school with a strong choral tradition etc.

I am comparing my dd’s school, where the music teacher cannot read music with the school dd goes to to take exams (or did!) which made our jaws drop, with the famous visiting musician thrown in for good measure.

Incidentally there was a very rude woman there casting aspersions on dd’s uniform (ie a sweatshirt) “How very practical “ tinkly laugh and praising her highly talented dd to the skies. A little bird told me afterwards that Mrs Obnoxious’s dd only achieved a pass in the piano exam (dd a distinction - hee hee).

I don't think any private school parents on the thread has said all private schools are all better than state schools. It varies. Some people who could afford to pay don't and some do. I have been happy with my choices to pay fees and the reasons for that will differ from what someone else decides. I did enjoy a good parents' choir to sing Bach and Handel etc but there are lots of out of school ways to do that as an adult. A nice physical building, lakes, champagne on the lawns and parents like I am is not a bad thing but the posh comps and academic grammars have those kinds of things to some extent too.

Every parent's reasons are different. All children differ too. Eg one of my sons joined just about nothing once he turned 13 (whatever school he would have been in he would have been in no groups etc). It is just how he is and he has done fine in a private school.

It's always parents of (supposedly) bright kids who post this kind of stuff. You never, ever get someone from the 70% of kids who will not make the grammar school/private school grade (there are precious few non-selective private schools) who say "Do you know what, my child is better off at a comp/non-selective school, she/he isn't Einstein"

Scenes you never see

@IrmaFayLear that's a good point about wider activities. I have no interest in balls or cocktails or networking, but our school does have things like a parent choir and numerous cheap or free concerts, exhibitions, visiting speakers etc which are generally really good. If you don't live near a big town, these kinds of opportunities might not be easily found elsewhere locally.

As for the point about extra curricular activities, I rather agree with the poster above - the children who get most out of these are maybe those who are keen but not super talented, who love the opportunity to get involved in lots of sport/music/drama/clubs but don't have ambitions to pursue these to a seriously high level.

rice there are lots of private schools for the not so bright. Most parents trying for schools at 11 plus will have a list of at least 6 schools starting from hardest to get into down to everyone gets in even Tim Nice but Dim.

My dcs just did fine at a comprehensive school, but I must admit the extra-curriculars were woeful. Ds was a chess fiend at primary school, nurtured by the head. Ds was doing well in official competitions and enjoyed it. He didn't wish to pursue it manically, as the other kids - and most of all their parents - completely put you off. However, he wanted to carry on playing but at the comp he went to there was no chess club. There weren't any clubs, really. New teachers would start ones occasionally, but they would peter out after half a term.

Although I went to what is now termed a superselective grammar school, and there were zilch activities there too. Unless you were a beefy hockey player that is...

I agree it Isn't a straightforward argument. I grew up in Kent and took the 11+ in 1971. I went to a very nice girls private school from 7-11 and like many of my contemporaries went to the grammar school. There were lots of families where the children who got into the grammar school went there and brothers and/or sisters who didn't went to the private schools. The big difference then was the quality of careers advice. The grammars focused on teaching and nursing for the vast majority who even from the grammars didn't then go to university and it was a bank or secretarial course for everyone else. The independents were a little more clued up I seem to recall, and pushed things like land management, chartered surveying, and allied medical services like physiotherapy or optician. I switched again to independent for 6th form and found the overall environment much more curious and inquiring and open than my narrow, all girls grammar school.

Our DC grew up in London and went to London independents which even in the early 2000's were pretty selective. DS moved at 8 and I recall 6 places were offered out of the 19 applicants. Had we been outside London There would have been viable options. When we made our decisions the very competitive grammar was dismissed by us because then it's excellence was science based and ours were natural linguists.

Our decisions are on the whole formed by our personal experiences and they are different for all of us. Our decision to send ours to private schools was fundamentally based on the strength of the curriculum. However we would not have taken that decision had there been any question about affordability until the end of 6th form. Had that not been the case we'd have moved from London. The children's schools facilitated staying in London.

Birthday552.... I really admire your post and your eloquence. Yes, I find many of the attitudes on the thread deeply saddening, as it sounds more like some people are raising perfect little model producers and consumers, rather than human beings. Plus, the lack of care around inequalities and the shocking impact they can have on lives is clearly lost on many. In fact, as one post stated “ life is unfair and unequal”. As if that is in any way an answer to anything. Yet, it is a very common attitude. We wonder why we are seeing such a huge issue with mental health in our young ( not only our young, I know). The reason lies within the type of individualistic, meritocratic society shaped by largely a set of sleazy, incompetent and greedy former Eton school boys. Who don’t give a toss for human life. Its called Neoliberalism. Private education is a tool which keeps the wheels of this highly sick system turning. So, it actually DOES matter which route you choose.

Not generalising much @mariabwebster? Having just implied all Old Etonians are one particular type, presumably you would never deign to criticise somebody equally bigoted who commented that all teenagers from the local comp were unruly chavs . I just detest the self imposed moral high ground of the left.

And you have every right to !

RosesAndHellebores..... but why does what I think have to be reduced to “ self-imposed moral high ground of the left”??
Ive been working in mental health with teens for 26 years! Both, in the NHS, in schools... private and state.... so, I have witnessed first hand what is going on with the political landscape and how it impacts ALL education.
You don’t like my views.... I don’t care!!!!
But I’m not generalising!

But @mariabwebster that's a massive over-simplification. Many of the more affluent and materialistic people I know chose not to put their children in private education - but far from being for altruistic reasons, this was because they would rather spend the money on houses, cars, holidays, lifestyle and inheritance, and because we have good state schools in this area into whose catchments they could afford to move. The parents I'm thinking of are far, far more interested in material things than me, who chose a private education but don't really give a stuff about 'lifestyle'. To demonise private schools and blame our materialistic society on a tiny minority of old Etonians is a massive, massive oversimplification that let's other forms of materialism off the hook.