Not to send my children to private school even though I can afford it

[AdamRyan]

I believe in comprehensive education and think children should all be educated together, to improve social mobility and prevent a "brain drain" where less privileged children go to some schools, and more privileged go to others.
Am I in the minority and being naive?

YANBU - comprehensive schools are the way to go
YABU - I'd send my children private if I could

I think this is one of the most nuanced & honest posts I’ve seen about private v state schooling on Mumsnet.

@Thepeopleversuswork is the type of environment I mean by when I say other schools will feel different to the comp we use

Money can't buy intelligence, but it can buy a school where the teachers are paid a fair wage for their work so don't need to strike for fair wages, and where all posts are filled and you don't have bright kids needing to basically teach themselves their whole GCSE using a syllabus printout, textbooks and the internet because every lesson is a "cover" lesson as there is no actual teacher in that subject available. That certainly teaches resourcefulness that will be helpful to those who survive the ordeal but I am sure a lot of state educated kids put in that situation will sink rather than swim.

I will always vote for a party whose policies will make such a standard of education a priority for every student, and am happy to pay more tax to make it a reality, but while the rest of the country is still voting for the bastards who want to sink state education into ruination I will certainly get my own DC into the life raft. Yes I care about the rest of the kids but I can't do anything about their plight while it's the democratic will of the people to have this bunch of clowns in charge.

Yep, it’s not just about grades, but the whole school experience and being able to enjoy that. Of course it isn’t guaranteed that a kid will enjoy private school etc (insert obligatory qualifying statements here), but it’s understandable why parents would think they would, and why that in itself justifies the costs.

I agree in principle but the truth is that I selfishly (?) want the best for my children. We are in a very fortunate position where my parents have offered to pay for any private education we choose for our children. We'll be compromising by sending the kids to a state primary but private secondary.

That's what I had and I feel it was the best of both worlds.

The reason why there are so many mixed views on comprehensive schools on this thread is because schools vary hugely, mostly based on those that attend

Some will have hugely invested parents who pay in other ways, others will have dis engaged parents and students

There’s too much difference to generalise

My 2 nearest secondary schools are both in special measures. People slate private schools while paying over the odds to ensure they are in catchment for an excellent school. It's only another form of selection. Not all state schools are equal

@Thepeopleversuswork you sum it up perfectly. I had the misfortune to go to an utterly awful inner city (Bristol) secondary school - it was ranked in the bottom 10% in the country when I took my GCSE’s (late 90s), was put in special measures following an awful OFSTED while I was sitting those exams and ultimately closed down a few years later.

I’ve been lucky in that I knew what career path I wanted to take and have achieved a good level of success despite not going to university, but part of me wonders what I could have achieved in a more supportive and enriching environment. Don’t get me wrong, I had some fantastic teachers, but they couldn’t make up for the bad ones (the English teacher who threw chairs at pupils or the science teacher who openly talked about girls being rubbish at his subject, etc) or for the general attitude of the majority of students and their parents.

Long story short, I don’t want my children in the same situation. Our local state secondary schools are “ok”, nothing special and there are no grammars in our area.

We are lucky to live in an area with a handful of good independent schools and they are very much on our radar. We’re fortunate that we earn enough to have been able to put money away over the years so that we will be able to put both of our children through the independent sector, but as I say we are very lucky to be in that position. We’re still a few years away from our eldest moving up to secondary, and who knows perhaps the local schools will improve massively, in which case I look forward to blowing their school fees on some bloody good holidays!

Private school have good alumni networks

@CaveMum

Yes this exactly. There are kids who are determined and focused and will thrive in almost any environment. But the majority of kids at that age are still finding themselves, vulnerable and easily led. Cohort and peer influence are such a huge huge thing and it takes a very strong-minded kid not to allow that to determine the way they see education.

It's not really about money or demographics either (although it would be naive to think these don't play a part). It's about the way the family sees the role of education in their lives. I couldn't care less if my DD hangs around with wealthy or poor kids but I don't want her to spend all her time with kids who think education is a joke, a waste of time or something to be got out of the way.

I remember having a conversation with the mum of one of her former primary classmates in Year 6 when we were choosing schools, which was a real "penny drop" moment. This is a woman I'd got on quite well with, clearly a devoted and capable mother and I had thought was pretty sensible and grounded but she said she was actively discouraging her child from applying to one of the better local comprehensives because "it placed too much influence on the arts and drama". She said to me: "Who wants their kid growing up thinking they could waste their life doing something like art or drama? I want my daughters to learn practical life skills which they can use to raise their own families?"

I immediately thought: "no thanks very much". I'll take a school which pushes kids to the limits of their creativity and encourages them to try stuff, even if its unrealistic, over one which discourages this in favour of safe mediocrity. If that makes me a snob or a pretentious over-reacher or a helicopter parent, so be it.

It's a mindset thing. It's the difference between thinking its important to try hard stuff even if you fail and thinking you should avoid trying hard stuff because you will probably fail. Of course not everyone is lucky enough to be able to afford to make that choice. But why, if you have the money, would you actively avoid the choice which allows your kids to try to achieve at their limits? Doesn't make sense to me.

So beautifully put.
Couldn't agree more.

@Hoppinggreen my DD went to a famous Cotswold boarding school with many members of the GB Lacrosse Team. She hated it, 'egg and spoon' they called it!
She didn't like the school much either (bullies). However they did get her SEN diagnosis right after getting nowhere in the state system. I will always be grateful for that and I can't wait to tell them when she gets her PhD.

I’d also add to the comments about private/independent schools not being very diverse, that’s a sweeping generalisation based, most likely, around the perception that all private schools are like Eton - very white and very upper-middle/upper class.

The 2 independent schools we’ve looked at in our area so far have been incredibly culturally diverse, more so than the local state schools which ARE overwhelmingly white with only a small number of ethnic minorities/other nationalities.

Indeed. We have many international boarders at our school with an abundance of languages and other cultural ideas that is quite eye opening for our domestic students. Where we are is not naturally diverse so they get more exposure to "other", including those from war zones than they would at the comp.

I would also add that actually, there was more diversity at my private school than there was at my university course - which was mostly full of white women.

I assume that people saying private schools are not diverse mean that they are not economically diverse, which is obviously true.

This is also what people mean when they say they want their kids to be in a peer group where the parents “value education” - ie because they are literally paying for it.

I disagree. At the vast majority of private schools you will have some super wealthy who can pay for 3/4 kids to all go on the annual ski trip every year and some who are from single income households just getting by and making big sacrifices to keep them there. It may not go right down to the bottom of the scale but to say there is no diversity in economic status is just wrong.

@Embarra55ed

This is also what people mean when they say they want their kids to be in a peer group where the parents “value education” - ie because they are literally paying for it.

Yes indeed. And I'm the first to admit it's really shit that many many parents who value education aren't able to afford to pay for it.

But the output of this is that it weeds out the vast majority of the parents who couldn't give a shit about education. Unless money is no object you aren't going to pay upwards of £15k a year for something you don't value.

Unfair system for sure but at the sharp end it's a pretty failsafe way of weeding out the parents who think education is a waste of time. Which is rubbish for the kids of those parents, obviously. I wish it wasn't like this but having my daughter educated around kids whose parents can't be arsed is too big a gamble for me in the name of being egalitarian.

It is not the case that comprehensives 'allow children to mix with a diverse range of people.' Any comprehensive is only as diverse as its catchment area - socio-economically, culturally and ethnically. This stands to reason. A comprehensive in a posh part of Surrey is going to be very different demographic to a comprehensive in rural Shropshire and very different to a comprehensive in Lewisham. I don't know why virtue-seeking posters persist with this 'diversity' trope. Have they ever visited an independent school in London, for instance? They would have a shock.

So we have gone to an outstanding state primary and will go private for secondary. The gap between our primary and preps wasn’t large enough for me to be prepared to pay the difference and have the financial pressure for their entire education but there is a gap and anyone who says there isn’t is kidding themselves.

At secondary the choice is some of the best private schools in the country versus mediocre states where you can’t study two languages etc. The difference is just vast. I’d be more likely to pick the state option if they set but our local secondary only sets for maths and languages. I can’t see that approach working for my bright children so I will do anything I can financially to avoid that school for them.

around the perception that all private schools are like Eton - very white and very upper-middle/upper class.

Eton may be upper middle/upper class but there are boys there from all over the world and from many different ethnicities.

Stealth boast, you do you, this doesn't need an AIBU.

And my DH went to public school and is the polar opposite of a snob...

I don't think it's necessarily a stealth boast. Certainly in some social circles the parent who isn't obsessing about getting their DC into the best indies but is happy with the state offer might get a few little comments that might make them wonder if they ABU to stand by their convictions and they might well come to MN to seek reassurance that it's ok to stick with state.

It's the narrative that one's kids are extra special and wouldn't suit a 'big urban comprehensive', that gets me - all kids would suit smaller classes but it doesn't mean you can't get an education without them