To send my child to private school at age 4?

[confusedaboutworkingandparenting]

Wise Mumsnetters, please talk to me about private school in the UK. Or public school? What is the difference? As you have probably gathered already, DH and I went to comprehensive schools and have no experience of education options in London or the independent school system in the UK. Other children is unlikely to be a factor here so we could probably afford to pay for one to go, although of course it would involve some sacrifices. We have some good private schools nearby to us and none of the "local" state primary schools are actually that convenient, so all options involve a bit of a trek. So talk to me about private school? Is it worth it? Is it really that different to state school? When is the best time to send them? If you could afford it, would you do it? And why? And will I inadvertently turn my beloved child into a posh tw*t?! Also the holidays are so long! What do you do with them then! Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences and wisdom.

The fact you don’t feel sad about all children not getting a fair crack at a good education speaks volumes about your core values.

i don’t feel sad about not thinking that private school parents have some nebulous moral duty to support state schools even if it meant putting their own children at a disadvantage, no.

Perfectly comfortable with both this and my core values. The issues with them seem to be yours.

Just to be super pedantic, you are increasingly getting a choice of Gaelic medium school too. Both Edinburgh and Glasgow have Gaelic medium high schools, for example.

I think you are directing your anger at the wrong person here.
The average class in a state school has 30 children - so 30 sets of parents. Are they all unable to speak up for themselves? PP has pointed out they have encountered lots of children from influential families in state schools whose parents believe that state is the way to educate. Why are they not being attacked for their lack of support towards fellow parents?

Most of all, the fault lies at the government's door. If state schools were appropriately funded, far fewer would feel the need to consider private education. This is where the ultimate problem lies. Pitting private school parents as nasty is just another way of them achieving the divide and conquer whilst deflecting the attention from their spectacular failures

Yes, this is true - but again, you would go to your local Gaelic school, and they are non selective. And often, they are attached to the local non denominational school anyway.

We considered Gaelic medium for my daughter from nursery level, but ultimately I wasn’t happy by her going in a mini bus herself aged 3, due to the car seat situation. Unfortunate as there are many benefits!

You might find your own self serving values fine and be happy to install the same values into your children.

Large parts of society think that this is incredibly selfish behaviour.

Okay 🤷🏻‍♀️

Have you finished now?

My kids are flourishing in state, but if I had the money they'd be in private school in seconds. The only downside is some privately educated kids have no idea about the other 90% of society and they need to break out of the private school bubble, but do it if you can.

*CherLloydbyCherLloyd · Today 13:23
The fact you don’t feel sad about all children not getting a fair crack at a good education speaks volumes about your core values

All children should have a fair crack at a good education.

If you closed down private schools tomorrow it wouldn’t mean more children would have a fair crack though would it?

It would just mean more children get a not very good education.

But the richer parents would get a lot of tutoring in anyway.

The idea is that the formerly privately educating parents would scream at the government to change schools for the better and find them, but in practice that takes generations to work.

Disadvantaged children should be getting top quality free private style nearly one to one education and good nutrition from age 2 too as a start. When is this ever mentioned?

Then there are the ideologies to contend with ( nothing to do with money) such as using a fountain pen and hand writing is elitist; learning Shakespeare is not de-colonising enough etc

@CherLloydbyCherLloyd , are you telling me that you give a significant share of your income - enough that you actually have to go without things that you don’t need, but would make life easier - to children’s charities? Are you working full time, perhaps even an extra job, regardless of what is best for your family or your health, in order to donate to these charities?

Because whilst altruism is a good thing to do, there also comes a point where it is a bit stupid. Not sending my child to the best school for them would have a marginal, if any, positive impact on the other children there. It would have the biggest impact on my own child and I won’t ever apologise for putting them first. Any parent who doesn’t put their own child before others is barking mad, to be honest.

Any parent who doesn’t put their own child before others is barking mad, to be honest.

I find this quite ironic in the context of the current teachers’ strikes - I know no teacher who doesn’t often put the needs of the children in their school above the needs of their own children.

So they never take their own children on days out or have family holidays? That money is given to the school or charity?

They live in the cheapest house possible, with the money they’ve saved donated elsewhere?

Christmas and birthdays are shunned in favour of charitable giving?

I’m obviously being a bit facetious there but a lot of this ‘well, of course I would sacrifice this and that for my children to enable all children to access a good education’ doesn’t stack up.

That previous poster was actually me.

And the influential parents who send their kids to state schools ARE the ones speaking up for other children. They are the ones who join the PTA, who are involved in fundraisers, who contact the local papers to raise local issues, and so on.

And obviously it’s the governments faults. But by opting out of the state system, they are letting the government get away with it, and also by paying into private schools, they are furthering the wealth of the wealthy business owners who run the private schools - who are in the back pocket of our inept government.

Future, it’s interesting that all of your examples are around money.

Where teachers put the needs of their pupils above those of their own children is time and brain space and attention - no, I can’t play, I’m planning for child X; no, I’m not really ‘present’, I’m worrying about child Y; no, I’ve got to be late home tonight / will miss your concert/ will put you in childcare until late because I’m trying to meet the needs of my class and I have meetings with parents and specialists; no, we’re not going to place A, we’re going to place B because I need to do the pre-visit for a school trip; no, I can’t read with you because I have 96 books to mark for tomorrow….

it’s interesting that all of your examples are around money.

Because private schools are about money, or more specifically, what money can buy. People who have a dogmatic view that is against private schools, regardless of individual circumstance or need, are against them because the argument generally amounts to not wanting money to be able to buy advantages in life over and above those who do not have it.

A teacher telling their own child ‘not now, I am marking’ doesn’t really have anything to do with that particular argument.

Presumably they’re doing those things because they want to continue getting paid in order to support said children. Same as many are striking for better pay.

Either way, I’m not sure placing your own child as a lesser priority is unquestionably something that should be aspired to.

The original point made was that only mad people didn’t always put their own children first (no condition made about ‘in terms of how money is spent).

Teachers don’t always put the needs of their own children first.

Presumably they’re doing those things because they want to continue getting paid in order to support said children.

No. Worrying about the safety of a child in your class overnight, spending hours seeking out resources to support a child with SEN, multiple meetings with parents and agencies to try to resolve issues - none of these are ‘the core job’ of the teacher, but are done because teachers as a group care about the children they teach.

The 96 books are, but they would be done at slightly less unsocial hours if all of those ‘above and beyond’ factors weren’t involved.

I would agree that neglecting your own children / family because of the needs of others - probably common across caring professions such as nurses in addition to teachers - is not unquestionably a good thing.

What do you think should be done about it, while the demands are there and the working conditions and decimation of other services mean there are few options?

I’m a teacher working up to double the hours I am paid for in order to give my pupils (in a state school) the best access to education I possibly can; meaning my own daughter often misses out, yes. I also volunteer in a charity for disadvantaged children for one evening a week, plus several days during school holidays.

Id rather be barking mad than selfish but I guess we can all have our own values - one of mine is equity.

No, by opting out of the state system, I am simply giving my children the education they need. I still support state schools, write to my MP regarding the shocking conditions and support teachers striking. But I will not do things to the detriment of my children's education.

Contrary to MN opinion, all private schools are not super wealthy schools where children gain contacts that make them a MP/CEO. The overwhelming majority are simply there to provide a good education and these are the ones that are affordable to the professionals rather than ultra rich. My children attend a small, local prep school that has a focus on holistic care. The fees are a tiny fraction of the likes of Harrow/Eton/Westminster/Winchester. There are no huge funds going into a wealthy business owner (just about manage to keep the school running) and fellow parents tend to be educated professionals such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, owners of small local businesses.

Levelling up is the government's responsibility. I most certainly support it and believe all children should be given a good chance but its a bit much to expect parents not to put their own children first.

In Scotland, a teacher is employed for 35 hours per week and nobody can stop paying you for doing any less than that. Yet here we are, doing significantly more than that, to benefit the children in our classes, at the detriment of our own children.

Yes, you do nice things for the benefit of others. So do I. So do most people.

But that is very different to doing things that would put your own child at a disadvantage, or make them less happy than they could be.

If I had the money I definitely would. Unfortunately not an option for us but I can completely understand why people do

I think pp have already covered most things but I would say that sending your child at 4 vs older if you can afford it has its advantages - the 4+ is a lot less pressurised than 7+ or 11+!