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.

Three teachers here have said that they actively do things for other children that make their own children less happy, through having much less of their time and attention than they should have. I think you are choosing to ignore this, partly because it has no ‘monetary value’ .

Some of the posters moaning about the special needs kids in the classes. Wow! Clearly speaking from a place of snobbery and privilege that you were blessed with kids without SEN. Where do you all expect for these kids to go then? You do realise that going to a special school is not an option for all SEN kids right? Not all kids are granted EHCP. Some kids with autism and ADHD are actually academically on par with their piers and going to a special school wouldn't be withholding them from the education that they deserve. Instead of looking at it that SEN kids are inconvenience, maybe be mad with the government for lack of funding for more teaching assistants in the class room!

It’s not being ignored at all, but it isn’t the same thing as what is being discussed. Someone doing something in the line of paid work for someone else is not the same as making an active choice to disadvantage their child in the name of a tenuous benefit to unknown children.

If someone actually tells me they could live in a detached house in Leafy Suburb and actively choose to live on Council Rise because Council Rise has anti social behaviour and their family are good for the demographics, fair enough. But I suspect no one does!

I appreciate that you’re having to find increasingly extreme examples to make your point.

I agree that it is hard to draw a hard line when someone’s paid work - as a teacher, a paediatric nurse, a children’s social worker - involves children. By definition, they will often be putting other people’s children first, and it is hard to say when that is genuinely job related and when above and beyond.

Perhaps the initial statement that only mad people don’t put their own children first might need a little modification, rather than deciding how others interpret that bald statement is ‘wrong’?

Quite.

The parlous state of state education in this country is a tragedy and it makes me angry. But I have never followed the logic that says I have actively disadvantaged other children by removing my child from state education.

I have chosen to spend money on increasing the odds that my child will get a good education, partly because my child found her state primary overwhelming and difficult and also because the state secondaries in my area are generally not of great quality and I'm not prepared to gamble on them if I don't need to. I'm not sure what purpose is served by my sending an anxious child into a difficult and resource-stretched educational environment when I can afford not to out of some misplaced sense of solidarity. I am not removing resources from other children by sending my child private.

I understand the broader principle that in a truly equitable society all children should get access to a high-quality education. But it is not an equitable society and the reality is that if private schools were abolished overnight wealthy and affluent parents would simply find other ways to try to tilt the playing field in their kids' favour.

Your child only has a certain number of years in education. Using that time to focus on ideological gestures which will have no impact at all either on government policy or on other children and could have a detrimental effect on your child is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

It isn’t an extreme example, it’s exactly what people are demanding those who privately educate their children do. Put them somewhere they’d be worse off in order to benefit the greater good. Most people - saint like as they may proclaim to be - don’t do that. It’s only when deciding what other people should do with their money that they are this generous!

CherLloydbyCherLloyd · Today 14:15

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+

What about schools like the GDST schools and other city centre equivalents. These are not run by business owners in the back pocket if our inept government.

I mention those because I happen to know more about them, but there are
many similar where the fees are kept as low as possible and all ploughed back into the school, and buildings and facilities and bursaries.

Mine were the opposite of thriving in state, so I abandoned my admittedly flaky principles because I do not require them to fix this society's problems through being miserable and we were all having an awful time. Funnily enough, I know a teacher who quit because it was having an awful effect on her own child due to her hours.

Schools need reform, the SEN situation is diabolical amongst many other things.

I have not demanded that the parents of privately educated children do anything - I would say it would be important for them to remain aware of the issues affecting state schools, but I have not said anything else on this thread.

I am simply challenging the statement that only mad peopke do not put their own children first. You are conflating my posts with those of others, and ascribing views to me that I have not given and do not jold.

They definitely give your child an advantage. People complain that it’s unfair (which it is), but the answer, surely, is to bring state schools up to the same level. If we abolished them, the country wouldn’t be helped. On the contrary. In a way, private schools benefit the economy. The pupil’s are not educated at the state’s expense, which leaves more money for the state sector. And they provide children with a first class education.

If you think that’s something to aspire to then knock yourself out I guess. You get to make your own choices, as others are free to make different ones.

And they provide children with a first class education.

Some do. Some don’t. Some do for some children but not others.

Sector comparisons are meaningless. Is Eton better than a comprehensive in Skelmersdale? Yes. Is St Obscure’s tiny dame school better than the neighbouring modern primary with an Outstanding Ofsted from last week? Much less clear cut.

They asked for specific examples of voluntary work, we provided, now that’s “just doing nice things for other people which everyone does” - yet can provide no examples of how they benefit the poors 😂

Sector comparisons are meaningless. Is Eton better than a comprehensive in Skelmersdale? Yes. Is St Obscure’s tiny dame school better than the neighbouring modern primary with an Outstanding Ofsted from last week? Much less clear cut.

This, basically.

I practice what I preach. We could afford to privately educate. We choose not to because we believe it is immoral. My daughter may well get better grades in a private school - I don’t know. However, I do know that she will not grow up surrounded by privilege in her state school. I do know she will be around people from all different walks of life in her state school, just like she will when she leaves school. I do know kids in her class will have SEN, and she will learn to be kind and adapt to accommodate them.

Also kids who go to private schools are significantly more likely to have addictions than the poors who go to the state schools, so if that’s a risk you want to take then you do you I guess.

@CherLloydbyCherLloyd the distinction is something that actually impedes in a significant and detrimental way on your own life for marginal benefit for another.

So giving up your time for voluntary work is commendable but it isn’t quite the same thing. The housing example does work on this, even though someone didn’t like it, because if different areas had a mix of people - from those living on the margins of society to the very affluent - social problems wouldn’t be as problematic as they are in some areas. And I think we all feel really sorry for the majority of nice people living there, but not many of us will choose to live in high crime and anti social areas given a choice.

It isn’t the same as voluntary work or going over and above at work. They are commendable things to do and they might temporarily take you away from your own children and family but they really aren’t comparable to purposefully sending your child to a poor school or living in an area plagued with social problems.

But the person specifically asked me what voluntary work I did to improve things for children, then when I explained, they changed the goalposts.

I live in a working class area - we live in an ex council flat, although admittedly it’s in a moderately nice area. However, the school my daughter goes to is predominantly a deprived school. It’s the same school I went to, and my friends are all working in professional settings (lawyers, accountants, doctors, dentists and teachers)

We get it. You prioritize your ideology above all because that makes you feel good about yourself. The same way that people who prioritize their children feel good about doing so, presumably.

Whether your child will thank you to it as an adult remains to be seen. Same goes for all parents in regards to the decisions they make on behalf of their children.

anyway, OP wasn’t asking for a debate on whether private schools are ‘moral’ or not, she was asking at what age it is best to put her child into one. Hopefully she has her answer.

@CherLloydbyCherLloyd

We could afford to privately educate. We choose not to because we believe it is immoral. My daughter may well get better grades in a private school - I don’t know. However, I do know that she will not grow up surrounded by privilege in her state school. I do know she will be around people from all different walks of life in her state school, just like she will when she leaves school. I do know kids in her class will have SEN, and she will learn to be kind and adapt to accommodate them.

I just want to unpick this a bit because emotionally I know where you're coming from but in practice I just don't think it makes sense.

The idea of "privilege" is an difficult idea. Of course there's an element of privilege in being able to afford private school in the first place and at the extreme it can be a hothouse of extreme privilege and a place parents go to exclude children who are not PLU. But I think you're generalising grotesquely about this.

My daughter goes to private school and most of her closest friends there are second generation immigrants who have come from families who are relentlessly focused on education as a way to advance financially and socially. They feel, rightly or wrongly, that their kids get one shot at succeeding in British society and they are willing to spend what money they have (which isn't much more than most) on achieving that. You may find this a depressing perspective but you can't blame them for feeling like that.

I don't see it black and white terms like that (maybe because I am white and have come from a MC background). I am conscious that it's very possible to succeed at state school with certain advantages and a strong work ethic. But I think you are glossing over the huge variation in the reasons why people choose to go private. It's much more complicated and nuanced than simply rich people choosing to surround their kids with other rich people's kids.

The idea of "all different walks of life" is one that doesn't necessarily stand up for me either. There is a huge variety of children in the private system, ranging from braying, red-trousered hoorays at the Eton/Charterhouse extreme to the children of very ordinary families who spend every last penny they have putting their kids through school at more normal independent schools.

The argument that a state school offers access to "all walks of life" and is therefore automatically a good thing is also a bit disingenuous. It usually offers more ethnic diversity and it is certainly likely to expose children to higher levels of dysfunction, more disruption in school and more bad behaviour. Having higher levels of SEN at school definitely increases variety of behaviours. Is it an unadulterated good for their education? I'm not sure.

From a practical perspective, the parents who believe state education offers a more "rounded" or "diverse" approach may actually be deliberately disadvantaging their children by exposing them to a disorganised and chaotic environment which doesn't support their needs. Again, it's obviously not always the case that state schools are disorganised. But the argument that "all walks of life are there" and therefore the children are likely to be more rounded doesn't really stack up in my view. It simply means in a lot of cases that children who want to succeed have to fight harder to do so against a background of endless disruption.

Again, there's a huge amount of nuance and every case is different. But I just think this argument that private schools are simply about "privilege" is a bit specious.

I’m sure she will. Private school uniforms are generally an abomination and I’m sure she will thank me for not subjecting her to that, and from saving her from being three times more likely to have addiction issues.

And of course the morals of private schools should play into your decision as to whether to send your child to one. It everyone is devoid of morals, fortunately. Maybe they teach you morals at state school? Who knows.

I think the point that’s being made is that most people do put themselves and their own families first, and that’s a good thing. Putting your own children first doesn’t make you selfish and doesn’t mean you don’t do anything for other children or in wider society.

I work three days a week. I may go up to five in the future - ironically, if we do opt to privately educate ours! - but right now three days works for us. If I worked five, I’d pay more in tax generating more money for schools and the NHS, and I’d have more disposable income to give to charity if I so wished. I don’t think there is a person in the land who would say not choosing to do that now is ‘selfish.’ It’s simply me doing what works for me and for my children.

If we opt for private schools, that’s for similar reasons. From a societal point of view, I don’t doubt things would be more ‘equal’ if everyone had to go to the same schools, but it would a) mean that the affluent would opt to live and attend the schools in particular areas and b) have an effect a bit like a deflating balloon - if you put fifteen well motivated students in a classroom with fifteen demotivated and poorly behaved students, the fifteen well motivated ones don’t raise the attainment of the poorly motivated ones. That’s why MC parents overwhelmingly opt for private school, or, if that’s out of reach, grammar,
church or move to affluent areas.

There are some schools that are very mixed, but they often set by ability, and it’s disingenuous to claim that ability sets aren’t like a mini 11 plus system in themselves.I’m not convinced there is an answer to this. I do know I want the right to choose the education I want for my children.

You can’t actually speak for her though, although I’m not sure you’d be open to hearing anything that contradicts your worldview.

I personally do thank my parents for sending me to private school, which I shockingly emerged from sans drug addiction and/or alcoholism. One of the things I learned there is that ‘someone not having the same morals as me’, is not synonymous with ‘having no morals’. You may find it an interesting concept to familiarize yourself with.

And of course the morals of private schools should play into your decision as to whether to send your child to one

Isn’t this the heart of the issue?

You absolutely have the right to make that decision for your child. Parents can decide whether their child attends school at all, in what area, whether to opt for religion or not, spurious reasons like uniform - these all form part of the decision making process.

If private schools don’t sit comfortably with you morally I can understand that and would never say someone should educate their child privately. I only ask they don’t try to impose their choices on me!

And of course the morals of private schools should play into your decision as to whether to send your child to on

But again, you're making a lot of blanket assumptions here, including a) that there's something inherently immoral about paying for education and b) that all private schools have the same moral "code".

It just isn't as simple as you're making it.

Also kids who go to private schools are significantly more likely to have addictions than the poors who go to the state schools

@CherLloydbyCherLloyd please do provide some evidence to back this up. If you can’t, then don’t go presenting anecdotal observations as facts